🏳️🌈🖖🏽
Donald Trump is in court again today, facing a civil trial that could cost him his business empire. Trump, his sons, and his company stand accused of falsely inflating property value prices in order to obtain favorable loans.
🇳🇱
@georgetakei Him loosing everything would make me happy.
I guess its a mental disorder to want evil cruel people to have the level of success they truely deserve.
Ahh right lets make up phrases that in no way resemble anything said and then put quotes around it so I can argue with it and make it look like im arguing with the person I quoted when in reality im just arguing with ghosts my imagination made up....
Carry on.
The reason he's in court is because The Oligarchy doesn't like him. It's been that way since 2016.
Whether you side with him or with them is kind of a personal decision, and who is really in the right or in the wrong is probably something we mere mortals will never know.
But lets not be silly and pretend like all these different court cases are being brought by completely different and unrelated people for entirely different reasons.
I mean sure, the oligarchy doesnt like him and im sure thats making it much worse on him...
But the fact that he is an evil, racist man who lies through his teeth and does illegal things at every turn might have a tiny bit to do with it too.
Did you deduce that from first principles, or did you fall asleep with the TV on and wake up knowing it ?
I have no access to TV or cable... so first principles is the only answer
They and their little "free trade agreements" turned vast swaths of America into an unlivable hell-scape the likes of which are not seen anywhere else in the world. Then you have 9/11, patriot act, and Bush's forever wars and dumping of heroin on the people, in addition to destroying America's credibility in the world by wanton embrace of torture.
I don't know how you measure "evil" but if it's by the amount of human suffering created, 1000 Trumps couldn't even hold a candle to what the Clinton or Bush families have been capable of.
@cjd @freemo @thatguyoverthere @georgetakei eyo. Free trade is good.
Unironically, I stand for it.
Patriot act bad, and I stand against it.
I guess what is meant by free trade...
Some use it to mean no regulation, in other words, your free to manipulate the markets all you want so long as you dont make any laws to enable it...
Others mean free trade as minimally regulated where those regulations are generally limited towards preventing hijacking, manipulation, and control of the market.. For example someone would argue a monopoly forming and being able to price-fix the market would not be free trade, in which case the govt would be expected to step in and address the monopoly.
@freemo @jeff @cjd @thatguyoverthere @georgetakei I believe the latter is a free market. Price choices are business freedom if they choose to sell at said price.
Yea I'd disagree, a completely unregulated market leads to a non-free market where a few large players can dominate the natural equilibrium of prices by engaging in price-fixing.
The people get to decide. And we have quite a few examples of free speech with legal consequences... libel, slander, calls to violence, etc.
I'm not here arguing for absolute free speech, I'm just saying that if the government puts you in a cage for exercising your "freedom", it isn't freedom.
Virtually all freedoms have limitatiosn where it infringes on other freedoms..
You have the freedom to self determination. That doesnt mean you can self-determine you will be a murderer because that infringes on other peoples rights..
Rights with well defined limits are still rights, and still imply freedom. Freedom does not suggest there are no limits to that freedom.
Words Mean Things.
Yes words do mean things, and here my words were choosen carefully.
The limitations on free speech are not direct.. you have the freedom to say the things you say.. but you also hold the risk of the effects.. It is the effects, and your intent around it, not the speech itself. But it effectively limits speech indirectly.
For example if i engage in slander/libel, but there is no actual harm that comes of it, my freedom of speech had no ill effects and i was legal allowed to say the slander/libel I said, since it is only illegal should there be harm caused.
However if harm caused you can be held guilty and sued. However it is not the speech itself that is illegal, but rather the consequences of that speech and knowing engaging to create those consequences.
So yes free speech there is legal, but the consequences are not. That is still freedom of speech, its just not freedom to cause intentional harm through deceit. One freedom ends where another begins.
If you say something and as a result nobody likes you and you don't get invited to parties, that IS a consequence of you exercising your freedom of speech, just as you said in the beginning.
But if you say something and then by some legal mechanism the government attacks you, then you were not exercising your freedom of speech, that freedom does not actually exist.
Civil suits by non-government or quasi-government entities are a big grey area.
> But if you say something and then by some legal mechanism the government attacks you, then you were not exercising your freedom of speech, that freedom does not actually exist.
Yea, no...
If i say "Here is 100$ go murder Bill".. it is absurd in my opinion to say that simply because that speech was necessary to initiate the events that being arrested for hiring a hitman is a violation of free speech.
No, the speech itself isnt illegal, the consequences (known) of that speech is. That doesn't eliminate free speech or make it less free.
In this case the judge asks himself "did you intend for Bill to die?" and if the answer is yes then you committed conspiracy to murder.
These are not limitations on freedom of speech, nor even consequences of exercising free speech, they are *other* acts which are forbidden (conspiracy, fraud, ...) and whether or not you did the act is a question of intent.
> In that case the speech not the crime at all, but is part of the act of committing a crime. The classical example of this is fraud.
Which is exactly what I just argued... freedom of speech is always allowed, its just sometimes the **Consequences** of that speech is illegal.
As I already stated as an example libel/slander makes the consequences of free speech illegal, the speech itself is legal (as in if someone uttered the same speech in a different context it very well may be legal even if it is still a lie about someone, because the actual result of the actions are what matter).
@freemo
My guess would be if some entity denied a post to be made, and then edited that post and made it for them, and they either didnt let the person have the control to take it down, or the post was modified in a way that the modification is directly responsible for some illegal consequences... then I'd expect the person editing and posting the post on the main users behalf wold be guilty.
However if the person still controls taking down their post, or the parts edited cant be seen as significant to effecting the outcome, then I'd expect the original person to be the one found guilty.
That said, I'm not a lawyer so this is just my opinion, not advice.
For example when you need to write or say something in your own defense, the authenticity of the text is paramount. What happens afterwards is irrelevant.
For us being able to read the true temperature of the room over a discussion we must allow people to speak - write uninhibited.
I think this gets lost on people a lot of times.
Well your going beyond legal now, and that is ok... Your arguing we need forums where speech wont be censored... On that I mostly agree. But it doesnt mean people need to be willing to listen to you... so you can always start your own website but I am under no obligation to let you post on mine.
However, you can wait a month, change my post or delete my post.
These concerns are very detailed and specific. One reason people prefer to build their own forums - to protect themselves from underhanded behavior such as that.
When Facebook de-plaformed Trump they did not violate his rights to free speech, and he acted properly - he created Truth Social. The opposite if this was Brandon Straka, who built is campaing on the platform of his political target (Facebook, again) and when Facebook kicked them he was crying (literarly, with tears and shit) about Facebook violating hos Free Speech.
Optics are not important when you look at the absolute concept of Free Speech. There is nothing layers can or should do about Free Speech.
Even if you believe what you say (not fraud), even if you aren't obviously expecting people to carry out a specific action (not conspiracy), speech can STILL be suppressed if it is deemed too likely it is to result in violent / criminal actions.
Another one is espionage (what Julian Assange is likely to be charged with), that is purely speech/press, acting as a news organization. The United States asserts that THAT speech is illegal because the information contained is military secrets.
Even then the speech itself is not illegal, it is the action, or potential actions is illegal.
This is clear because if you say "Everyone should rise up and kill Bob"... that is **only** illegal if it is likely to produce the action of people **immenetely** rising up and killing bill. In other words, a reasonable person must expect that such speech will have a particular illegal outcome.
If, for example, that exact same phrase were uttered to a group where a reasonable person would expect the group would not actually follow the instructions, then there are no legal consequences.
In other words the speech is always legal, it is the consequences, or the **intent** that makes it illegal, not the words themselves.
This is Free Speech not inciting violence, if you are ready to read passed the first two sentences.
I propose that the facts about Islam to be published and authenticated, and those who try to change the facts are charged something, such as "false advertising, fraud", whatever. Find a law or make a new one.
That's it.
I hate Communism. I do not hate Communists, I hate what Communism has done to some people.
I propose that the facts about Communism to be published and authenticated, and those who try to change the facts are charged something, such as "false advertising, fraud", whatever. Find a law or make a new one.
That's it.
> This is Free Speech not inciting violence, if you are ready to read passed the first two sentences.
By the USA legal definition this would probably never be seen as inciting violence.
1) You are not advocating violent imminetntly so doesnt meet this criteria.
2) No reasonable person would expect this phrase to cause those listening to imminently rise up in violence.
Hating on Communism makes you a target - I know, I grew up under Soviet occupation.
Yet archiving the damning historical facts is so important that it worth these risks.
Islam is not tyrannical.. however tyrannical people have often co-opted religion for their end.
Leaving Islam is a death sentence.
Hating on Islam is a death sentence.
Insulting Mohamed is a death sentence.
Could you please describe something really tyrannical?
> Leaving Islam is a death sentence.
> Hating on Islam is a death sentence.
> Insulting Mohamed is a death sentence.
Not because of the religion, because of tyrannical people who use the religion.
There are tones of examples of Tyranny, and its always caused by people... north korea is a fine example if you want one.
https://www.openbible.info/topics/free_speech
Now lets do the Quaran:
Shit. Google is hiding the result, it must be!
I found quite the opposite expiernce. I had switched to duck duck go for a few weeks... constantly wouldnt get good hits. Had to switch back to google a few days ago.
There is not much in the Koran about you speaking to your heart's content. Just the opposite, it teaches you how to lie and how to deceive in the name of God.
Sounds like you never read the quran then. honesty is a central tenant of the religion. Here are quotes from the Quran and Hadith disproving this statement:
"be with those who are ever truthful." -- Quran, 9:119
"truthfulness is certainty and tranquility, whilst lying is doubt and confusion " -- Tirmidhi, 2520
“I enjoin you to be truthful, for truthfulness leads to righteousness and righteousness leads to Paradise. A man may continue to tell the truth and endeavor to be truthful until he is recorded with Allah as a speaker of truth. And beware of lying, for lying leads to wickedness and wickedness leads to Hell. A man may continue to tell lies and endeavor to tell lies until he is recorded with Allah as a liar.” -- Muslim, 2607
The rules change when the Muslim deals with infidels. They are not "protected" by those tenants.
Unlike the teachings of Jesus, the Quaran is bigoted and merciless with ANYONE who is not the servant of Allah.
> Have it occurred to your that the Quran is referring to its own microcosms? It warns against Muslims who are not honest and not righteous Muslims.
Ummm, yea of **course** its talking about how followers of the Quran (Muslims) should be honest... why you expect it dictate that christians have to be honest?
This response doesnt even make sense.
> The rules change when the Muslim deals with infidels. They are not "protected" by those tenants.
Oh so now we are just making stuff up that the Quran says that it never says... None of the quotes about truthfulness even **hint** that the truthfulness only needs to be with other muslims. Thats something you pulled out of your ass to try to change what it actually says to be right.... This move lost you **all** credibility.
> Unlike the teachings of Jesus, the Quaran is bigoted and merciless with ANYONE who is not the servant of Allah.
Responding to evidence by just saying a thing that isnt true and contrary to that evidence isnt going to make it true.
Here are some more quotes from Hadith and the Quran that quite clearly state that non-muslims still need to be treated with love and compassion (implying honesty from above as part of that):
“Allah does not forbid you to deal justly and kindly with those who fought not against you on account of religion and did not drive you out of your homes. Verily, Allah loves those who deal with equity.” -- al-Mumtahanah 60:8
“Whoever kills a mu‘ahid (a non-Muslim living under Muslim rule) will not smell the fragrance of Paradise.” -- al-Bukhari, 2995
An infidel explains the Quaran to another infidel must be also respected greatly.
Remember, the facts about Islam and Communism must come to light. Currently there are plenty of games in town which is going to do just that, what I write here is not part of that.
You proposed that its criminally-minded people who turn the Quaran into something evil.
I say its the Quaran who creates evil men.
I stand by that, I have been standing by that for decades.
> I am not worried about my credibility.
That is quite clear considering your pattern of lying and misinformation rooted in hate.
> Remember, the facts about Islam and Communism must come to light. Currently there are plenty of games in town which is going to do just that, what I write here is not part of that.
Yes they do, and you lying, with no attempt at integrity is very much contrary to that.
> You proposed that its criminally-minded people who turn the Quaran into something evil.
No, I said nothing about criminality.
> I say its the Quaran who creates evil men.
Yes, I know you do, and then try to justify that with a complete ignorance on its content which has easily been disproven by quoting it directly... meanwhile other than you stating hatred have done nothing to successfully advance your argument other than out right lies about what the texts themselves say.
> I stand by that, I have been standing by that for decades.
Yes, it is very clear you have no problem standing by lies no matter how much evidence to disprove them is presented.... yea I get that, thus why you lack credibility at this point.
There is no "legality" to any of this, there is only the uninhibited freedom to make sense when you read or write, send vibes and telepathic signals.
As the great Ron White put it "I had the right to remain silent, but I did not have the ability".