Mainer. Hockey fan with a few "careers". Opinions expressed are mine and not those of any organization.
251 followers 243 following 1,934 posts
view profile on Bluesky
Was he indicted for insurrection? I didn't think he was though the J6 committee did make that recommendation. I forget (and I can't look it up til later) but I think they tried to make lesser charges (conspiracy & obstruction) that may have been more likely to stick...until they were dismissed.
Why would that be a 1A issue in the first place?
And I'm also not sure about the last statement about the legitimacy ofthe court. The way I'd see that going is this: Court (correctly IMO) rules that Trump's commentary did not meet the standard for incitement due to lack of imminence. Afterwards, social media is filled with "CORRUPT COURT!!!' posts
There were never charges filed, so when it comes to incitement, that's not the case. The Court in that situation never got the opportunity, IMO because the charges were extremely unlikely to stick given the narrowness of. the incitement exception in the Brandenburg standard.
A single parent I know could use some help. If you're able to assist, it would be greatly appreciated. www.gofundme.com/f/3dm6bb-hel...
Sure, if you think 5:30 Sunday AM community voices programs "bring that uninformed audience info they were not aware of". I typically don't. Also, as it applied to stations and not shows, having a show with a call-in program. It really wasn't overly effective & by the mid 70s was barely enforced.
Insurrection would have been very, very difficult; this is just incitement and even that's unlikely. He (or maybe his writers/handlers) knew where the line was and were lucky that Trump was able during the speech itself to adhere to it.
...imminent was determined by the Court to mean. The "imminent" lawless action has to take place immediately...not an hour later.
The major reason that incitement would have been a tough charge to get stick on Trump is that incitement requires imminence. Colloquially, people would probably say "it happened an hour later--that's imminent!" and (again colloquially) they'd be right. But legally....
May I ask what you think the Fairness Doctrine did to help with a well-informed citizenry?
John who?
This back to school season, more districts than ever have cell phone bans in place. Teachers and legislators alike say the restrictions help kids focus in class.
The lengths GOP faithful will go to go to pretend that Trump’s got a solid economic plan is refelected in this poll. The good part is that a chunk finally seem to be wavering—a little.
The law is semantics. And they’re right.
The state of civics knowledge in this country is a national crisis. Seriously, so much of the doomer bullshit here comes from people who do not know, at a basic, mechanical, who does the work and where level, how America works.
You don't need to fly on one of them fancy airlines piloted by experts. I'll fly you where you need to go. I've read a lot of internet sites on piloting--did my own research you might say--and I can save you a ton of money. The big airlines just want to rip you off!
Piotr doesn't understand what constitutes slander in the US.
Bull. Shit.
We have forgotten what it's like to hold a child paralyzed with polio or comfort a mom who has lost her child from measles. It wasn’t that many generations ago. And I don‘t want to see us go backward. They protect children. They are our best defense against these terrible illnesses.
Yeah. I’ve read it. You haven’t.
It wasn’t that either.
This wasn’t a conversation. It was me along with others pointing out your bullshit. Bye Felicia.
It’s absolutely what you’re saying.
And what consequences have there ever been for openly lying save for defamation, when applicable?
Red Lion didn’t do anything to mandate truth nor did it punish lies. It just said the FD was narrowly constitutional given the finite resources of the airwaves.
A “fair rebuttal”? That wasn’t guaranteed by the Fairness Doctrine. Rebuttals didn’t even have to be on the same program or given equal time. Often they were part of 5:30 Sunday AM community voices programs.
You better be right, as you have gotten my hopes up! 😂
Too bad, so sad Tottenham.
When was that time when news wasn't legally allowed to lie about politics? I ask because this and many of the like were published in numerous newspapers: founders.archives.gov/documents/Ha...
"We need to govern the media so it behaves the way I want it to behave.....but that isn't trampling on the 1st Amendment."
Thanks!
Imagine what they'd do if they had more power to control the media (which seems to be what is being suggested here)
@badfcctakes.bsky.social
Also, the Fairness Doctrine wouldn't impact Hannity at all. I'd say that's somewhat important to the point.
So the point is that you don't think people should be able to watch Hannity if they want to?
"The Fairness Doctrine needs updating to hold accountable media outlets who lie" is incompatible with "I never said I want the government to define truth", yet we see these statements back to back all the time.
My fave one-liner from any TV sitcom ever! www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFhp...
I do not understand why government officials resign when asked to do something bad. The resignations will no longer be treated by the public like a scandal. It’ll be out of the news within 24 hours. People should stay and force the White House to fire them. Do not make it easy.
Eagerly awaiting her graduation to "unemployed". (I'll do my part)
DAMMIT! Ari beat me to it.
The fact that health care mostly remains tied to full time employment is astounding. Talk about some Gilded Age Montgomery Burns shit in the 21st Century.
Nobody believes that? OK...then where's the action? Perhaps they're waiting until things get REALLY bad (/sarcasm)
We have to listen to Hannity? Never knew that. I haven’t in ages. Will I be fined?
Portraits, like statues, are all about “remembering history” (or so I have been told)….. /s
'Member when gas prices slowly dropped between November and January and MAGA pundits praised "the Trump effect"? Yeah. What happened to that?
Why is archaic dicta in a since-overturned / revised standard being used to justify a legal argument in the first place?
Extremely Alarmed falls where when it comes to the "concern" scale?
Plan B for Dean Cain??
Yeah, Trump, RFK, etc.....
You just quoted a case that the US government used to back up their assertion that locking up socialists for passing out anti-war / anti-draft Flyers was a good thing. If government again had the kind of power what's to stop them from similarly abusing it when it comes to journalists on the air?
The Court should rule only on "can the President criminalize an act with an executive order" to which the answer is no.
This douche is fortunate that people don't hurl garbage at him whenever he's in public.
wtf is this nonsense? He thinks he can understand kid’s “mitochondrial challenges” just by looking at them? This is an insane person.
Seems like a developing shitshow.
I am so…..fucking….tired of the “no biggie; they’re in a better place” rationalization.
To do what you suggest, it would.
This 🤡 again.
This time, Trump isn't bullshitting. He really, truly believes this.
Save this post.
My wife and I have talked about it, and not in a "hey ya know maybe" kind of way. We're both pretty serious if the US continues its current trend.
Jesus Christ. I need to go back to the mountains and unplug again.
More of this please. And GOP members of the legislature: ball is in your court. You can let history judge you as a bunch of appeasing cowards and be remembered similarly to Neville Chamberlain, or......
You guys taking citizenship applications? Canada really needs a retirement visa! 😂
I was up in the mountains the day that was all going on and came back to it: friend on FB mentioned Cracker Barrel. My response: "What stupidity did I miss this time?" Wish I was able to have not found out the answer to that question.
Stupid woke polls. Trump is HUGELY popular. Everyone knows it. The fake news media and their fake math is trying to slander our beloved President. #YeahThatWasSarcasm
theonion.com/former-japan...
Precisely my plan. "Oh, Trump's dead. Meh." That guy doesn't deserve the attention he's certainly going to get when he sheds his mortal coil, but I'm not gonna be part of it.
It's amazing what passes for "issues" in this country today.
Sometimes person A says both things!
I'd never seen a post ratioed 49-0. Now I have (and counting)
Appeasing a tyrant usually works tho', right? It's just this time it backfired. /s
The veteran is living his oath; the cops - and President - are pissing on the Constitution.
Just bought tickets for a game (my schedule and distance from Centre Bell doesn't give me many options for ones I can attend) b/c I think prices will rise greatly as the season progresses. This is gonna be a good, fun, team.
Aw man I sure hope so!
GNR's "Appetite" and "Talking Heads '77" round out my Mt. Rushmore.
On the shortlist for "greatest rock debut album ever"
@badfcctakes.bsky.social
Hopefully, there are no SLAPP laws in your state or your lawsuit may take a serious financial turn for the worse. (I'm not telling you what SLAPP means. Go ahead and look it up on your own)
You haven't been defamed. You've merely been mocked.
Slander is a civil remedy, not a crime.
This is what you said, and it's not accurate.
But none of that has any relation to your claim that the "veto did its damage" and the conclusion that it was highly impactful in creating the wave of RW propaganda machines. What came next happened due to technological advancements. With or without the FD, FoxNews was going to eventually exist.
Rush Limbaugh was crushing the competition in California when the Fairness Doctrine was in effect. Had it remained it would have had no impact in his syndication, nor on cable networks that came later like FoxNews. These RW silos exist because there is a demand for it. Simple as that.
You must really love "community voices" shows aired on local stations at times like 5:30 Sunday AM. That'd be about the only noticeable difference if the Fairness Doctrine was re-instated.
Like the barrels in Donkey Kong, this just never ends.
"Absence of malice" was a noble idea and seemed like a good one at the time to Lincoln, but.....I also think we should have proceeded more along the lines of what Thaddeus Stevens suggested.
...I'll quote Lincoln: "I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretense of loving liberty... where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy" I'd rather go to a country that walks the talk on liberty, but the point remains.
Here's why: the entire raison d'etre for the United States was to protect basic liberties. Many of those are already under fire. So why is same-sex marriage so important? Simple: if we base our laws on "this is the way the God I believe in wants it", we're toast. Should that happen.... 2/3
I've never burned a flag. But if this country ever goes back on the Obergefell decision, I could be so moved. (Honestly if that happens, even though it would not apply to us, my wife and I have already talked about how that would be a big push toward our retiring in some other country). 1/3
This is wildly illegal !!!!!
You see how easy it's been to ignore you, right?
See, this is why I already bought (second hand market) tickets for a game this year, because I think by the time the game I can attend comes up, tickets will be very hard to come by (without giving up both arms and legs). Demidov...and this team...are gonna be a lot of fun this coming season.
Typical "I'll have a strong take because it's easy for me to tell you what to do when I won't be impacted by it at all" douchebag.
But that quote tweet was excellent.
This is quite well said.
