🇳🇱
I am really mixed on this one: https://www.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.
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.
@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.
If a law is what grants the powert to the judiciary then its a violation.
Obviously I do agree with the general consensus here that directly intimidating a witness goes beyond free speech of course. My issue is not with him going to jail for legit threats, in fact I'd **want** that. My issue is that the judge talked about it being legitimate to send him to jail for saying "rot in hell", to me that feels like a violation. Even if we can argue legally it isnt, it should be.
@freemo @LouisIngenthron @realcaseyrollins @robryk
2. The capitalization in the message suggests that Trump wants the prosecutor in hell, preferably immediately, and ideally without leaving God or the prosecutor any choice in the matter.
3. Saying it on Christmas adds another layer of nastiness that reflects poorly on the office of the former President, his family, caregivers, and the professional competence of legal counsel who are duty bound to protect his and their own reputations.
Is it general knowledge that “burn in hell” means “burn in hell expeditiously”?
I don’t think it’s the judiciary branch’s job to keep #Trump from doing things that make him look bad. It’s a free country.
@realcaseyrollins @freemo @LouisIngenthron @robryk
It is not the court’s job to prevent the defendant, of all people, from embarrassing himself or others from feeling ashamed of associating with him. But it is the job of counsel; failing to do so can constitute elder abuse as well as offending our general sense of patriotism and good taste.
The lawyers can wash their hands of the negligence if they said “we tried to have him committed, but the doc said he’s fine!”
That’s not their approach.
@jenny_wu @realcaseyrollins @freemo @robryk No, that's also not the job of lawyer. Their job is to inform him. If he then makes the decision to act like a jackass, that's not the lawyers' fault at all. They're not social workers.
