🏳️🌈🖖🏽
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.