Jump to content



Photo

Kristalnacht (for Rogerdodger)


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
21 replies to this topic

#1 dwnowhere1

dwnowhere1

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 125 posts

Posted 10 January 2021 - 09:06 PM

 

When anyone is arbitrarily silenced, there is no freedom of speech.

 

 

I just realized you must believe "free speech" is all encompassing.   It is Not.

Using the example of yelling FIRE in a theater.

Let's say you had a young son or daughter who went to the theater to watch a Disney movie.

Let's also say some adult in the theater, just for kicks, wants to see how fast kids can move.

So they yell FIRE.

The kids scramble and in trying to get out, your son or daughter gets trampled and is injured or dies.

Is the adult responsible?    Should that person be allowed to go into another theater and again yell FIRE?

In President Trumps case there is a "cause" (his disregard to tell the truth) and an "effect" (the storming of the Capital by those who believed his false statements.)

Again, like the FIRE case who is responsible?

Now every corporation has the ability to make policy.  If you owned a small restaurant and your patrons would NOT come if people entered without a shirt,

you have the right to say "No Shirt, No Service" and stop one from entering your establishment.

In President Trumps case, a corporation (actually several) made the decision that his speech was impacting or had the potential to impact their business.

Just like the person with  No Shirt, they have the right to keep President Trump from entering (using in this case) their services.

The decision was NOT arbitrary.   It was based on the business assessment of the facts as they see it.

Just like the guy who runs the restaurant.

 

They arrested and locked up Galileo. Who's next?

 

It was actually the Catholic pope who did this because Galileo was going against Catholic dogma of the time.

In fact in this case, if I remember correctly, the Catholic church official position remained that things were Geocentric instead of Heliocentric (per Galileo) until around the 1990's

 

//////////////////////////////////////////////

Mark I Hope You Will Leave These Discussion Up given the circumstances and Giving Everyone a Chance to Air Their Views.

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\


Edited by dwnowhere1, 10 January 2021 - 09:11 PM.


#2 Rogerdodger

Rogerdodger

    Member

  • TT Member*
  • 25,010 posts

Posted 10 January 2021 - 09:31 PM

zipped.gif



#3 slupert

slupert

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 1,686 posts

Posted 11 January 2021 - 08:08 AM

What's important with Twitter is it is considered a storefront, if somebody comes on your property, you have the right to ask them to leave, or discontinue business functions.



#4 fib_1618

fib_1618

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 9,195 posts

Posted 11 January 2021 - 03:33 PM

"We admit that in many places and in ordinary times the defendants in saying all that was said in the circular would have been within their constitutional rights. But the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done. The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting ‘Fire’ in a theater and causing a panic. The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances, and are of such a nature, as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is question of proximity and degree." Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. in the case Schenck v. United States, 1919.

 

Interestingly enough, the case involved the prosecution of Charles Schenck and Elizabeth Baer for distributing leaflets urging people to refuse to comply with the draft. Schenck, the general secretary of the Socialist Party at the time, opposed U.S. involvement in World War I and believed that conscription was akin to slavery.

 

As far as Trump is concerned, I challenge anyone to bring up any video of him promoting a riot at the Capitol. To save you time, you won't find any, otherwise, it would had been plastered all over the weekend news ad nauseam. Just another hear say label by Bolsheviks who don't care one iota about you or your families...only their power to control you, and to that end, to make sure that Donald Trump never darkens their doorstep again in the future.

 

Fib


Better to ignore me than abhor me.

Wise men don't need advice. Fools won't take it. - Benjamin Franklin

Technical Watch Subscriptions



 


#5 Bernie

Bernie

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 391 posts

Posted 11 January 2021 - 06:46 PM

"We admit that in many places and in ordinary times the defendants in saying all that was said in the circular would have been within their constitutional rights. But the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done. The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting ‘Fire’ in a theater and causing a panic. The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances, and are of such a nature, as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is question of proximity and degree." Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. in the case Schenck v. United States, 1919.

 

Interestingly enough, the case involved the prosecution of Charles Schenck and Elizabeth Baer for distributing leaflets urging people to refuse to comply with the draft. Schenck, the general secretary of the Socialist Party at the time, opposed U.S. involvement in World War I and believed that conscription was akin to slavery.

 

As far as Trump is concerned, I challenge anyone to bring up any video of him promoting a riot at the Capitol. To save you time, you won't find any, otherwise, it would had been plastered all over the weekend news ad nauseam. Just another hear say label by Bolsheviks who don't care one iota about you or your families...only their power to control you, and to that end, to make sure that Donald Trump never darkens their doorstep again in the future.

 

Fib

Well said!



#6 kssmibotm

kssmibotm

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 647 posts

Posted 11 January 2021 - 07:46 PM

As far as Trump is concerned, I challenge anyone to bring up any video of him promoting a riot at the Capitol. To save you time, you won't find any, otherwise, it would had been plastered all over the weekend news ad nauseam. Just another hear say label by Bolsheviks who don't care one iota about you or your families...only their power to control you, and to that end, to make sure that Donald Trump never darkens their doorstep again in the future.

 

Fib

 

Wow, Fib. I thought you were one of the more intelligent contributors on TT. You just proved me wrong. The video has been "plastered" all over the MSM news outlets and social media. Sadly, you must live in an alternate universe where 2+2=5.


Edited by kssmibotm, 11 January 2021 - 07:46 PM.


People think the Holy Grail is something looked for but never found. In fact, it is something often found but rarely recognized.

#7 fib_1618

fib_1618

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 9,195 posts

Posted 11 January 2021 - 08:15 PM

 

As far as Trump is concerned, I challenge anyone to bring up any video of him promoting a riot at the Capitol. To save you time, you won't find any, otherwise, it would had been plastered all over the weekend news ad nauseam. Just another hear say label by Bolsheviks who don't care one iota about you or your families...only their power to control you, and to that end, to make sure that Donald Trump never darkens their doorstep again in the future.

 

Fib

 

Wow, Fib. I thought you were one of the more intelligent contributors on TT. You just proved me wrong. The video has been "plastered" all over the MSM news outlets and social media. Sadly, you must live in an alternate universe where 2+2=5.

 

 

Then it should be very easy for you to provide the link to where the President told his supporters to "riot in the Capitol". All I've found is to peacefully protest both before and after the event. 24 hours should be enough time to come up with something...you're being played here if you believe anything from the Politburo that is the main stream, and not so main stream, media.

 

Fib


Edited by fib_1618, 11 January 2021 - 08:16 PM.

Better to ignore me than abhor me.

Wise men don't need advice. Fools won't take it. - Benjamin Franklin

Technical Watch Subscriptions



 


#8 dwnowhere1

dwnowhere1

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 125 posts

Posted 11 January 2021 - 08:28 PM

fib_1618

 

The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting ‘Fire’ in a theater and causing a panic. The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances, and are of such a nature, as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is question of proximity and degree." Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.

I totally agree with this.   In the discussion with Rogerdodger we can take this one step further.  

Let's say the person did NOT yell fire.   However, they stood up and sang the Star Spangled Banner every fifteen minutes while you were trying to watch the movie.

Given the arguments presented that he has a right of free speech then this would be acceptable.   That you bought a ticket, and wanted to see the movie, would be

of no consequence.  His right of free speech would trump (no pun intented) your rights to see the movie.

 

In regard to President Trump the question is, has he made false statements, that people took as true, that resulted in injury to people or property.

Now some may argue his statements are true.  But no evidence has ever been presented that proves those statements true.   In another post, you said "follow the money".  I indicated, if you could "substantiate the money trail" with valid evidence (not NET which no one knows where it originated), I could be swayed to your position.  Like President Trump, no evidence has been forthcoming.  So to a logical person, on the one hand I have Secretaries of State who are Republicans that validated the election,and numerous Federal judges, a number who are Republican and some appointed by President Trump that reject his claims.   Again logic would say that President Trump statements "cannot" be validated and hence, are false.    So just like with trading, if the market is going against you, do you stick with a losing position, or say I'm wrong, and reverse course.


Edited by dwnowhere1, 11 January 2021 - 08:35 PM.


#9 fib_1618

fib_1618

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 9,195 posts

Posted 11 January 2021 - 08:52 PM

fib_1618

 

The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting ‘Fire’ in a theater and causing a panic. The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances, and are of such a nature, as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is question of proximity and degree." Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.

I totally agree with this.   In the discussion with Rogerdodger we can take this one step further.  

Let's say the person did NOT yell fire.   However, they stood up and sang the Star Spangled Banner every fifteen minutes while you were trying to watch the movie.

Given the arguments presented that he has a right of free speech then this would be acceptable.   That you bought a ticket, and wanted to see the movie, would be

of no consequence.  His right of free speech would trump (no pun intented) your rights to see the movie.

 

In regard to President Trump the question is, has he made false statements, that people took as true, that resulted in injury to people or property.

Now some may argue his statements are true.  But no evidence has ever been presented that proves those statements true.   In another post, you said "follow the money".  I indicated, if you could "substantiate the money trail" with valid evidence (not NET which no one knows where it originated), I could be swayed to your position.  Like President Trump, no evidence has been forthcoming.  So to a logical person, on the one hand I have Secretaries of State who are Republicans that validated the election,and numerous Federal judges, a number who are Republican and some appointed by President Trump that reject his claims.   Again logic would say that President Trump statements "cannot" be validated and hence, are false.    So just like with trading, if the market is going against you, do you stick with a losing position, or say I'm wrong, and reverse course.

 

So, I guess, you still haven't done any due diligence in this area. OK.

 

I'm feeling benevolent this evening...the evidence of voter fraud (beside those that were discussed by key Democrats less than 2 years ago), so far, can be found at the following link: https://tinyurl.com/y2bg5tcp

 

Make sure you review the supporting data that's provided in the Dropbox link....this conversation is now closed.

 

Fib


Better to ignore me than abhor me.

Wise men don't need advice. Fools won't take it. - Benjamin Franklin

Technical Watch Subscriptions



 


#10 da_cheif

da_cheif

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 10,264 posts

Posted 11 January 2021 - 09:21 PM

"We admit that in many places and in ordinary times the defendants in saying all that was said in the circular would have been within their constitutional rights. But the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done. The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting ‘Fire’ in a theater and causing a panic. The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances, and are of such a nature, as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is question of proximity and degree." Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. in the case Schenck v. United States, 1919.

 

Interestingly enough, the case involved the prosecution of Charles Schenck and Elizabeth Baer for distributing leaflets urging people to refuse to comply with the draft. Schenck, the general secretary of the Socialist Party at the time, opposed U.S. involvement in World War I and believed that conscription was akin to slavery.

 

As far as Trump is concerned, I challenge anyone to bring up any video of him promoting a riot at the Capitol. To save you time, you won't find any, otherwise, it would had been plastered all over the weekend news ad nauseam. Just another hear say label by Bolsheviks who don't care one iota about you or your families...only their power to control you, and to that end, to make sure that Donald Trump never darkens their doorstep again in the future.

 

Fib

what isnt reported is the timeline......the attack on the capitol occured  while the president was speaking    45minutes walking distance away