I personally view liberty as of the highest importance and believe society should maximize it. Liberty isn’t so redundant when you realize there is still slavery and subjugation in the world.

But I do believe it is under threat from a vast variety of forces, from governments to corporations to paranoid busy-bodies on the internet. An unfortunate effect of living in a free society: it’s easy to give up defending human rights and freedom when we’re too busy enjoying them.

Then what events are words the cause of exactly? I know when you’re struggling when you begin to pad your arguments with ridicule.

You’re right. Cancel culture is a huge problem, and it is forging a generation who fear ideas. I just think there are better ways to defend free speech than let the state violate it.

Well then he ought rationally deliberate the opposite, it would be far less problematic. Unless, of course he couldn't, in which case the words would have inevitably caused him to think that way...but since words can't do that apparently, he's free to deliberate whatever he chooses to in response to those words.

If you threatened me with fines for not promoting free speech, using the exact same words as the government, I’d laugh in your face. Same words, different result. How do you square that circle?

Personally I think the government, especially one as censorial as the UK, should not compel universities to promote free speech with the threat of sanction. I believe universities should be able to do what they want. If people need a little safe-space university, where scary ideas are verboten, let them have it.

There are plenty examples there, spanning decades. The point, though, is that I am unable to find many fools among them. And it’s not a question about whether a university ought to give a platform to fools, but weather a university should bend to the pressure of protesters and deny both the rights of a speaker and those who wish to see him.

In the US the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education has a database of “disinvitations”. I’m not aware of any such database in the UK, but I’m sure some examples (such as Flemming Rose and Sir Tim Hunt) are available.

Oh dear, not another one. I'm not going reply to any comment arguing that insisting on free speech implies universities having to entertain flat earthers. It's a disingenuous, and pretty damn stupid argument. In my previous post I suggested you look at the case of Lindsay Shepard. Did you?

You’re right: it is stupid. One would be hard-pressed to find flat-earthers and fools among the growing list of disinvited speakers.

Why would they have any fear? The new rules have only so far been communicated with speech and apparently speech has no effect whatsoever on other people...so if these people fear fines as a result of some speech, that's their problem.

One can listen to a speech and fear what he comes to understand are the intentions of the speaker. This is a rational deliberation, not something forced into the mind by words.

I don’t trust that a “free speech champion” should compel people to advocate for free speech under fear of fine and sanction. That seems to me the opposite of free speech.

You keep making clear you do not understand the US Constitution. Which is perfectly ok if you're not American - even a lot of Americans do not. But you keep posting as if you do.

Unfortunately your capabilities only allow you to make the accusation, but you can never back them up. I can refer to Supreme Court precedent to show why Trump’s words aren’t incitement; you cannot. So if you can ever find some bite behind that bark, let me know.

It would make my life easier if you put a question mark after each of your sentences. Like this?

Anyone else notice that Mitch McConnell's speech, directly after the acquittal, saying that it was undeniable that Trump was responsible for incitement, directly contradicted Trump's own defense?

It also contradicts American law and 1st amendment jurisprudence. But people such as yourself are not concerned with actual law, just political show-trials.

This guy misses Trump so much he's crying about a possible misreport by the NYT that has in fact been updated as new information appeared. Like god damn what a boring loser.

Since you cry at the mere sight of truth, believe things uncritically, and use "like" in the worst fashion, I'm forced to imagine your voice with a high rising terminal.

The House managers used the lie in the memo, and the New York Times spread the misinformation to their readers, but I’m the liar? You’re a useful idiot, Tim.

Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought.

He wasn’t murdered.

“He texted me last night and said, ‘I got pepper-sprayed twice,’ and he was in good shape,” said Ken Sicknick, his brother, as the family drove toward Washington. “Apparently he collapsed in the Capitol and they resuscitated him using CPR.”

https://www.propublica.org/article/officer-brian-sicknick-capitol

That’s quite the claim for someone who was just murdered by a fire-extinguisher.

That he was murdered by someone wielding a fire-extinguisher.

It looks like the lie about Officer Brian Sicknick’s murder is quietly being updated, long after credulous dupes used it as a political football.

UPDATE: New information has emerged regarding the death of the Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick that questions the initial cause of his death provided by officials close to the Capitol Police.

...

Law enforcement officials initially said Mr. Sicknick was struck with a fire extinguisher, but weeks later, police sources and investigators were at odds over whether he was hit. Medical experts have said he did not die of blunt force trauma, according to one law enforcement official.

“He returned to his division office and collapsed,” the Capitol Police said in the statement. “He was taken to a local hospital, where he succumbed to his injuries.”

https://archive.vn/HPUoo

Shoan’s evisceration of the House manager’s lies was amazing to watch, but it’s also useful because this is the sort of manipulation the American media has been getting away with for years.

I watched reporting on the House presentation on both the CBC (Canada’s state run news) and the BBC, but there was zero critical analysis of the House narrative, almost as if they have become the foreign echo-chambers of the liberal media complex. Very disappointing.

Well, I never said that. Trump’s speech, however, is protected.

No, I was speaking of criminally charging someone for incitement to insurrection when his speech is fully protected by the 1st.

They made a deal to move to closing arguments without calling witnesses. Trump’s team threatened to call Pelosi, Harris, and more.

Given their propensity for witch-hunts, I wouldn’t be surprised if they did. But it would be unconstitutional and unjust and would set a dangerous precedent.

That’s not true. At no point did Trump advocate violence, which is a necessary test under the first amendment.

It was never about seeking justice.

Sorry but Trump’s words are protected by the constitution and do not rise to the level of incitement, let alone incitement to insurrection. This is probably why they never went to criminal trial in the first place.

It was a show trial by definition.

The senate acquitted Trump in the Dem’s impeachment show-trial.

Biden aide threatens reporter

During the off-the-record call, Ducklo made derogatory and misogynistic comments, accusing Palmeri of only reporting on his relationship—which, due to the ethics questions that factor into the relationship between a journalist and White House official, falls under the purview of her reporting beat—because she was “jealous” that an unidentified man in the past had “wanted to fuck” McCammond “and not you.” Ducklo also accused Palmeri of being “jealous” of his relationship with McCammond. (Palmeri had no prior relationship or communication with McCammond before calling her to report on the Playbook item, which was a story that she was assigned and had not independently pursued.)

True to form. The Obama administration was the most censorial administration in recent memory, so it’s no wonder the Biden administration is little different.

I expect a whole bunch of outrage over such attacks on the free press, but don’t hold your breath.

Really? I wouldn't have thought so. But you're probably closer to Russia than to Montreal, right? :razz:

Probably true, but I live below the 49th parallel.

I think we have plenty compassion going around. There is no shortage of people publicly signalling their compassion about this or that group. But compassion, as a feeling, is nothing if it isn’t followed by good deeds.

Sorry, I disagree.



It makes you wonder why he didn’t us the USS Comfort and Javits center field hospital to house those patients. I am almost certain he did it because he didn’t want to give Trump credit.

Vaccine rollout in Canada is probably the worst in the developed world. The healthcare system and government is also one of the most overrated.

New York Governor Cuomo hid coronavirus deaths from Trump. They undercounted nursing homes deaths by as much as 50%.

This after his murderous nursing home policy.

“Cuomo issued an order that required nursing homes to accept COVID-19 patients being discharged from hospitals, as long as they were "medically stable," in order to help free up hospital beds for the sickest patients. Under the policy, nursing homes receiving the patients were barred from testing the patients to see if they might still be contagious.”

https://abcnews.go.com/US/cuomos-office-hid-nursing-home-covid-19-data/story?id=75853764

This is anti-Trumpism at its worst.

Swallwell, who has been compromised by Chinese spies, read her tweet as cavalry, not Calvary. They photoshopped her tweet. But no, let’s not get hung up on the house manager’s lies.

Lee, who should know what he said, said it was false. They tried to submit circumstantial CNN reports as evidence instead of witnesses. This is what we get: lies.

Judge, jury and witness. I get to watch as a self-described lawyer dismisses that as if it happens everyday.

You have nothing.

Do you believe it is possible that when a man says “We’re going walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators, and congressmen and women”, he means this and not mean insurrection?

Do you believe it is possible that when a man says “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard”, this is what he intends and expects, and not insurrection?

Not only is it impossible, it takes a sheer act of deceit and self-deception to believe otherwise.

This is why Trump’s opponents and the press refuse to play these quotes in their sound bites, because it cannot be twisted to mean something else. An uncharitable interpretation of someone’s words is evidence of fallacy and personal animus, not of intention or incitement.

But can you incite someone to commit a crime while explicitly telling them to do the opposite? That’s the magical power Trump has.

But yes you are less guilty. “ Advocacy of force or criminal activity does not receive First Amendment protections if (1) the advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action, and (2) is likely to incite or produce such action.”

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/395/444

The specific article of impeachment is “incitement to insurrection”. The problem is, as far as I’m aware, no one has been charged with insurrection. So the question is, how can someone be charged with inciting a crime when that crime has never occurred?

Looks like the the Lincoln Project grifters are finally getting their comeuppance after milking anti-Trumpers for millions. I love when they eat their own.

The Lincoln Project, Facing Multiple Scandals, is Accused by its Own Co-Founder of Likely Criminality

Photoshopped tweet:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=6377&v=6uBSR_BiHeE&feature=youtu.be

Lies about Sen. Mike Lee:

https://www.npr.org/sections/trump-impeachment-trial-live-updates/2021/02/10/966638864/much-ado-about-nothing-house-managers-strike-claim-about-gop-senator-from-record

Video with all exculpatory evidence removed:



Unconstitutional judge:

Article 1 section 3 of the constitution:

"When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside"

Who is presiding?

Trifecta of Roles for Leahy: Witness, Juror and Judge in Trump’s Trial

The Dems have presented doctored videos, photoshopped tweets, and even outright lied about another senator while he sat there in the room. The reason they are impeaching him for this nonsensical crime and not taking him to criminal court is because a real court would toss this nonsense to the wind the second the prosecutors started speaking.

But no, in this trial a democrat can preside over the case, be a witness, and sit on the jury at the same time.

It's all good.

TBH, I was surprised at NOS4A2's response. I stupidly assumed everyone would agree that girl deserved to go to prison.

The man killed himself, committed suicide, but the girlfriend goes to jail for manslaughter. How do you square that circle?