I am really mixed on this one: rawstory.com/trump-in-jail/

On the one hand seeing Trump in jail would please me greatly. On the other I'm left asking how a judge has the right to restrain free speech at all. saying someone should "rot in hell" outside of court and having that land you in jail seems like a huge violation.

@freemo

Idk it seems like the whole point of having a court system is the first place is to prevent parties from being pressured to withdraw, drop the dispute, with public letter writing campaigns

Just STFU. When it’s over you can tell everyone how you’re poor now and your life is ruined. That’s free speech.

@jenny_wu Threatening people is illegal with or without a court order. If he said "this man should be murdered" then I would agree with you. But "he should rot in hell", no thats not even a threat.

@freemo @jenny_wu Taken very literally, "X should be murdered" is not a threat: it's simply a statement about a world you'd prefer to live in. Obviously that approach makes no sense, because then well-understood codes speech becomes a way to skirt around any laws prohibiting threats.

If one tries to include various coded threats, then the statement itself is not enough to detemine whether it's a threat: the whole point of coded speech is to make it easy to read for intended recipients and hard to convincingly convey to others, so it relies on lots of context.

@robryk

We already have rules and standards for this. A call to violence is illegal and must meet the following criteria:

(1) the advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action, and (2) is likely to incite or produce such action.

@jenny_wu

@freemo @robryk @jenny_wu IDK. I think if you say “all Jews must die”, you’re supporting violence. The difference between supporting violence that is not imminent and supporting violence that is happening or has already happened is negligible, IMHO

@realcaseyrollins @jenny_wu @freemo @robryk Vocally supporting violence is protected by the first amendment. Committing or inciting violence is not.

@LouisIngenthron @realcaseyrollins @freemo @robryk

Narrow place-and-time restrictions. Wishing that the complainant would be murdered and burn in hell is a given, really. That cathartic speech can wait until after the lawyers are paid.

It says “Congress shall make no law” but the judiciary can impose reasonable restrictions with proceedings in motion.

@jenny_wu @realcaseyrollins @freemo @robryk Of course they can, but restricting a defendant from voicing an opinion is generally an unreasonable restriction. Restricting him from intimidating witnesses, otoh, is reasonable.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Qoto Mastodon

QOTO: Question Others to Teach Ourselves
An inclusive, Academic Freedom, instance
All cultures welcome.
Hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.