Donald Trump has an election subversion case against him
When he literally had the election subversively stolen away from him, in public, on video, with over a thousand eyewitnesses submitting sworn affidavits testifying to the election fraud
He's not the perpetrator of election fraud - he's the victim
Some context missing from that headline. He is restricted from "attacking" Jack Smith, his staff, witnesses or court staff. Not just "making public statements".
No. Not at all. I was responding to someone who was saying that "One limit on the First Amendment would beckon another", and was suggesting that gag orders were unconstitutional because of that.
I was pointing out that there were ALREADY limits on freedom of speech. And I listed some of those limitations.
I think the issue is that my comment got lost in the thread, and it's not readily apparent who/what I was responding to.
I should have quoted him in my response, just so no one would have been confused.
My interpretation of this in the ORIGINAL sense is metered thusly: "Even if what is said makes me furious, I will defend his right to speak at all times"...
If we used that interpretation, then child pornography would be legal. Remember above, where I pointed out some of the limitations we have on free speech? Child pornography is one of those limitations.
You understand that freedom of speech also covers things like media, right? Films, photos, texts, etc...?
It's not just about things that are verbally spoken.
So does this mean that you would defend someone's right to publish child pornography, even if it makes you furious?
Possession and distribution of child pornography is far, far different than making statements about a public figure.
Also a very and literally retarded analog.
Reading through your post history, it's interesting that I've noticed a trend; your posts seem to come across as very controversial in very weird ways for someone who is supposedly on our side, and seem to align with new handshakes saying similar things. Usually it's when some "gotcha" thing happens and leftists storm the .wins.
Interestingly, your post actually starts to come across as "if you believe a gag order is unconstitutional, then you would be defending child pornography" and ah ah ah, nope.
Not gonna work. As someone who deeply participated in Pizzagate digs and research, I have a passion for defending kids from such repugnancy.
I'll have to continue to see where your posts lead.
They both concern free speech rights. Just because you disagree with me doesn't mean that pedophiles haven't tried to use Free Speech rights in their defense. They have.
This is exactly one of the reasons we have limitations on free speech.
Let me break it down for you: Child pornography is an illegal act not protected by anything. It is already illegal. There are laws explicitly about it. You aren't given a "gag order" in court to stop spreading child pornography; you are already in deep shit for breaking that law in the first place.
There is no law against exercising free speech and criticism of a public figure working on behalf of the government, which is EXPLICITLY protected speech.
That's the difference.
If you can't figure that out, fuck off because holy shit that's too stupid for words.
What I said was that freedom of speech is not absolute and there are limitations on what can be considered free speech. These are limitations set by the government. Not me.
Child pornography is but one of those limitations. Yes, I understand that this is an illegal activity.
That hasn't stopped people from trying to use freedom of speech (or rather, the thought that freedom of speech should be absolute, with no limitations) to defend their possession or making of child pornography or to try to argue that it should be made legal.
Here's a news flash many people seem to be missing. Not everything that is illegal today was always illegal. Not everything that is illegal today will be illegal tomorrow.
Even child pornography has not always been illegal. When it was first made illegal, guess what one of the main defenses child pornographers used in court? That's right, freedom of speech!
Guess what happened after there were a shit ton of child pornographers using free speech in court as a defense? Well, I've been trying to tell you. Child pornography was put on that list of limitations on free speech.
What does this limitation on free speech mean, practically speaking? For one, it means that no one can use the First Amendment to try to get laws against child pornography changed.
Laws are not permanent nor absolute. Not even laws like child pornography. Right now there is a big argument being made that AI-generated child pornography doesn't count as "real" child pornography because "real children" isn't used in the making. So they're arguing that AI generated child pornography should be legal.
I'm not advocating that AI child pornography be made legal before any idiot jumps to that conclusion. I'm pointing out that laws, even laws about things that are as universally abhorrent like child pornography aren't absolute.
Over 50 years ago, abortion was illegal in most states. Then Roe vs. Wade was passed and it became legal in all states. And then Roe vs Wade was revoked and now it's illegal in many states where it was previously legal.
I'm not arguing in favor (or against) abortion here, before anyone jumps up my ass about that as well. I'm pointing out that what is illegal and what is legal can and does change.
So, take everything I've said above, and I hope you can see why the fact that child ponography is illegal means jack shit when we're talking about it being a recognized limit on what is considered free speech.
Negative-in this fallen world, there is too much evil being called good- morality has suffered much since the Summer of Love and the 'feminist' movement. We truly need to return to a world balanced with Faith in Christ and try to help people to repent of their failings-there are far too many hard hearted people living in their arrogant certainty they are living their one life right while excluding God from their very existance.
Then why are you saying you would go with Voltaire's version of absolute free speech, when pedophiles try to use absolute free speech to defend child pornography?
You're arguing out of both sides of your mouth here. Do you really not see that?
I see a fallen world where lies are truth and the Constitution 'just a bunch of words' I know NOTHING about Voltaires views only that written in the now perverted Constitution where judges can enforce the wicked and jail the rightous- I am 78 years old I remember an America of morality (except for DC) when I could say what is on my mind without getting beaten up. All that in spite of USA Inc. and me being a corporate asset ALL my life. Forget Voltaire he wasn't a founding father of anything but evil..
We are nearing the time for trump to present his evidence. Maybe all that is left is all hope being lost, regardless, it’s very close to the end of this show
God is going to hit that judge in the spirit, they won’t have a choice in this matter as it will be as plain as day. It may also be another judge or case, but he will get that chance soon or already did but it’s not public
Gag orders have been routinely upheld by the Supreme Court. They do not inherently violate someone's First Amendment rights.
But they are considered on a case-by-case basis. If President Trump can make a case on how the gag order violates his First Amendment, then he can ask for a ruling on that.
But Free Speech doesn't mean you can just say whatever you want. I think that many people on this board are under that impression. This is concerning, because of how often we bring up the Constitution here. This is stuff we learned in middle school civics class.
the fact it is a gag order is irrelavent. The justification for it is (no pun intended) trumped up and improperly applied by a bias judge. Focus more on that.
"Yeah.. so we're going to go ahead and revoke you're first amendment rights, because you could really make us look bad. And if the jury ever heard what's really going on, i.e reality, then it may influence them. So you can no longer say anything about what we're doing, or what's happening"
Haha! It's not like we have a high opinion on any of them regardless. It isn't Trump disillusioning the public about the DOJ, court, judge, etc. They managed to do that ALL ON THEIR OWN
Even if they wanted to, what could they really do to stop him from Taka or in other words, threatening them. His motorcade and the teams that protect him are probably 500 deep. They would need an entire federal penitentiary for him and his protection team.
They can fine him as much as they want. But do they really think that matters to him.
You can't put someone running for President under house arrest.
That is not a winning argument. A rally, especially his, is a public forum. (Now maybe a Sniffy Joe rally of ten or few of the 81 million supporters is sufficiently non-public.)
Am I missing something here
Donald Trump has an election subversion case against him
When he literally had the election subversively stolen away from him, in public, on video, with over a thousand eyewitnesses submitting sworn affidavits testifying to the election fraud
He's not the perpetrator of election fraud - he's the victim
Correct.
Some context missing from that headline. He is restricted from "attacking" Jack Smith, his staff, witnesses or court staff. Not just "making public statements".
One limit in the 1st amendment will beckon another and another.
This will be overturned.
Criminal defendants can have their freedom of speech rights curtailed. I think this is a special case because of implications on political campaigning
I think the ruling addresses this. She didn't grant everything the DOJ asked for
Corrupt peeps gonna corrupt.
He's a defendant on release pending a criminal case. Restrictions on defendants are routine.
One restriction already in place he cannot talk to any witnesses without counsel present.
Yeah, limits like slander, harassment, incitement of violence, and child pornography, just to name a few.
Frankly, I'm finding it alarming that so many patriots don't really understand what is and is not allowed under Freedom of Speech.
This is stuff we learned in middle school. At least some of us did.
I'm getting the impression many people here think Freedom of Speech means you can say anything, anywhere.
Yes, in middle school. WE sure did.
It makes me a little concerned you are inferring Trump is committing one of those offenses for which they would need a gag order.
I'm guessing (hope) you didn't mean to, but I'm not sure why you seem to be so open to this seeing as he is only speaking truths.
Someone getting hit with a gag order for speaking truth should not be allowed.
No. Not at all. I was responding to someone who was saying that "One limit on the First Amendment would beckon another", and was suggesting that gag orders were unconstitutional because of that.
I was pointing out that there were ALREADY limits on freedom of speech. And I listed some of those limitations.
I think the issue is that my comment got lost in the thread, and it's not readily apparent who/what I was responding to.
I should have quoted him in my response, just so no one would have been confused.
Just because something is done doesn't make it any less unconstitutional.
Gun control exists and is used in the U.S.; it doesn't make it suddenly Constitutional.
The Supreme Court has upheld those gun control laws, though. And the Supreme Court is who decides what is unconstitutional.
I don't agree with them, but I don't get to decide things like that. Which makes it important who gets to elect SC judges.
Just like I didn't agree with Roe vs Wade. But during the past 50 years, it was constitutional. Now it's not.
Until the laws change, gag orders are not unconstitutional as a whole.
The Supreme Court has actually struck down most gun control laws, and others take time and pressure to even reach SCOTUS.
You know, I'm starting to believe you do.
My interpretation of this in the ORIGINAL sense is metered thusly: "Even if what is said makes me furious, I will defend his right to speak at all times"...
If we used that interpretation, then child pornography would be legal. Remember above, where I pointed out some of the limitations we have on free speech? Child pornography is one of those limitations.
You understand that freedom of speech also covers things like media, right? Films, photos, texts, etc...?
It's not just about things that are verbally spoken.
So does this mean that you would defend someone's right to publish child pornography, even if it makes you furious?
Because that's what it seems here.
Possession and distribution of child pornography is far, far different than making statements about a public figure.
Also a very and literally retarded analog.
Reading through your post history, it's interesting that I've noticed a trend; your posts seem to come across as very controversial in very weird ways for someone who is supposedly on our side, and seem to align with new handshakes saying similar things. Usually it's when some "gotcha" thing happens and leftists storm the .wins.
Interestingly, your post actually starts to come across as "if you believe a gag order is unconstitutional, then you would be defending child pornography" and ah ah ah, nope.
Not gonna work. As someone who deeply participated in Pizzagate digs and research, I have a passion for defending kids from such repugnancy.
I'll have to continue to see where your posts lead.
They both concern free speech rights. Just because you disagree with me doesn't mean that pedophiles haven't tried to use Free Speech rights in their defense. They have.
This is exactly one of the reasons we have limitations on free speech.
So you are actually retarded.
Let me break it down for you: Child pornography is an illegal act not protected by anything. It is already illegal. There are laws explicitly about it. You aren't given a "gag order" in court to stop spreading child pornography; you are already in deep shit for breaking that law in the first place.
There is no law against exercising free speech and criticism of a public figure working on behalf of the government, which is EXPLICITLY protected speech.
That's the difference.
If you can't figure that out, fuck off because holy shit that's too stupid for words.
Freedom of speech doesn't cover criminal activity.
It does cover the rights of a pedophile to publicly preach on about their pedophilia if they wish.
I never said it did.
What I said was that freedom of speech is not absolute and there are limitations on what can be considered free speech. These are limitations set by the government. Not me.
Child pornography is but one of those limitations. Yes, I understand that this is an illegal activity.
That hasn't stopped people from trying to use freedom of speech (or rather, the thought that freedom of speech should be absolute, with no limitations) to defend their possession or making of child pornography or to try to argue that it should be made legal.
Here's a news flash many people seem to be missing. Not everything that is illegal today was always illegal. Not everything that is illegal today will be illegal tomorrow.
Even child pornography has not always been illegal. When it was first made illegal, guess what one of the main defenses child pornographers used in court? That's right, freedom of speech!
Guess what happened after there were a shit ton of child pornographers using free speech in court as a defense? Well, I've been trying to tell you. Child pornography was put on that list of limitations on free speech.
What does this limitation on free speech mean, practically speaking? For one, it means that no one can use the First Amendment to try to get laws against child pornography changed.
Laws are not permanent nor absolute. Not even laws like child pornography. Right now there is a big argument being made that AI-generated child pornography doesn't count as "real" child pornography because "real children" isn't used in the making. So they're arguing that AI generated child pornography should be legal.
I'm not advocating that AI child pornography be made legal before any idiot jumps to that conclusion. I'm pointing out that laws, even laws about things that are as universally abhorrent like child pornography aren't absolute.
Over 50 years ago, abortion was illegal in most states. Then Roe vs. Wade was passed and it became legal in all states. And then Roe vs Wade was revoked and now it's illegal in many states where it was previously legal.
I'm not arguing in favor (or against) abortion here, before anyone jumps up my ass about that as well. I'm pointing out that what is illegal and what is legal can and does change.
So, take everything I've said above, and I hope you can see why the fact that child ponography is illegal means jack shit when we're talking about it being a recognized limit on what is considered free speech.
So we're arguing fundamental constitutional rights vs how the constitution has been perverted by dipshits.
I think that's the disconnect.
Negative-in this fallen world, there is too much evil being called good- morality has suffered much since the Summer of Love and the 'feminist' movement. We truly need to return to a world balanced with Faith in Christ and try to help people to repent of their failings-there are far too many hard hearted people living in their arrogant certainty they are living their one life right while excluding God from their very existance.
Then why are you saying you would go with Voltaire's version of absolute free speech, when pedophiles try to use absolute free speech to defend child pornography?
You're arguing out of both sides of your mouth here. Do you really not see that?
I see a fallen world where lies are truth and the Constitution 'just a bunch of words' I know NOTHING about Voltaires views only that written in the now perverted Constitution where judges can enforce the wicked and jail the rightous- I am 78 years old I remember an America of morality (except for DC) when I could say what is on my mind without getting beaten up. All that in spite of USA Inc. and me being a corporate asset ALL my life. Forget Voltaire he wasn't a founding father of anything but evil..
Look for it to be overturned within 48hrs
Yes, when this group hears "antithesis of democracy" we immediately think freedom of speech.
Lucky for everyone here USA is a REPUBLIC
Exactly. A Banana Republic to be more specific.
Handshake just regurgitating something said here to fit in.
In this case “attacking” = discussing, criticizing or questioning him and his actions
Yeah I'd like to see the language used to define that term. In court they mentioned him calling JS a "thug"
But did he lie?
they cant handle the truth
Everything short of their npc narrative is a “lie” to their standards
We are nearing the time for trump to present his evidence. Maybe all that is left is all hope being lost, regardless, it’s very close to the end of this show
Let's hope that the judge isn't so corrupt that he doesn't allow Trump's evidence into the record.
Do you think that's why it hasn't showed up at any previous court cases?
God is going to hit that judge in the spirit, they won’t have a choice in this matter as it will be as plain as day. It may also be another judge or case, but he will get that chance soon or already did but it’s not public
Lol...how afraid are they??? Panic baby....😅
Not much left to this show after this but the kinetic portion. I'm not looking forward to it, but I will stand before it and do my duty.
Same here. Hunkering down but not out. 🐸
It's afraid.
Not going to hold up, this is a 1st Amendment violation, and it's going to get over turned.
Gag orders have been routinely upheld by the Supreme Court. They do not inherently violate someone's First Amendment rights.
But they are considered on a case-by-case basis. If President Trump can make a case on how the gag order violates his First Amendment, then he can ask for a ruling on that.
But Free Speech doesn't mean you can just say whatever you want. I think that many people on this board are under that impression. This is concerning, because of how often we bring up the Constitution here. This is stuff we learned in middle school civics class.
the fact it is a gag order is irrelavent. The justification for it is (no pun intended) trumped up and improperly applied by a bias judge. Focus more on that.
All you are doing is repeating yourself.
These Deep Stater's aren't afraid of anything, or anyone, when circumventing the rule of law!
Great! Can his spokesperson say it?
If it's determined that they said it on his behalf, no.
This should be the plan. Everyone in his circle but him should be "attacking" these people by the minute, across all socials.
DELUSIONAL LEFTIST RETARD DIVERSITY INCOMPETENCE
The American justice system™
FYI this dirty bitch let Awan go...
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/sentencing-in-house-democratic-it-scandal-lets-imran-awan-off-with-only-a-slap-on-the-wrist
Haha! It's not like we have a high opinion on any of them regardless. It isn't Trump disillusioning the public about the DOJ, court, judge, etc. They managed to do that ALL ON THEIR OWN
Even if they wanted to, what could they really do to stop him from Taka or in other words, threatening them. His motorcade and the teams that protect him are probably 500 deep. They would need an entire federal penitentiary for him and his protection team.
They can fine him as much as they want. But do they really think that matters to him.
You can't put someone running for President under house arrest.
This will be appealed and overturned.
That's okay. We'll do all the talking.
Chick wasn't even born in America. Came as an adult. We really have to get our judicial selection and time serving system figured out.
That is not a winning argument. A rally, especially his, is a public forum. (Now maybe a Sniffy Joe rally of ten or few of the 81 million supporters is sufficiently non-public.)