MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 08, 2020 10:11 am
HooDat wrote: ↑Wed Jul 08, 2020 9:22 am
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 07, 2020 7:17 pm
HooDat wrote: ↑Tue Jul 07, 2020 6:41 pm
I have no understanding of his position on the flag. But there are a lot of people that agree with him. I have known a lot of people who thought/think burning the flag
already is against the law....
On the Hill drama, obviously she was not harmed in any way by Trump's temper tantrum. She said "mean things about him"; he said "mean things about her" and her career took off. Sounds familiar... It is almost like Trump is getting together with all these people and saying - "let's get into a public fight and tie a rocket to your career"....
Well, it was, except SCOTUS already ruled it to be political speech and thus protected. Of course, that was
that SCOTUS, and with another 4 years of appointments?
I understand your view that Trump's attempt did not actually silence Kaep, but it sure as heck was intimidating to many others, right?
Yes, Trump has a 'right' to his own speech, but if we don't recognize the enormous power vested in the Executive and pretend that it's not on the path of 'wrongthink' when POTUS takes a position and riles up 80 million, including the wing nuts, the 'brown shirts'...
Come on MD, you are better than that - I suspect the reason you are making this specific argument is because you don't agree with what Trump was saying. Neither do I. But I will defend to the end his right to say them. It isn't free speech if it isn't free for everyone. As the SCOTUS has ruled - the line is drawn at endangerment. But let's not paint that caveat with too broad a brush or the 1st Amendment becomes pointless.
And specifically to the point of the power of the office - that is the entire point is it not?
Elections have consequences and all that.... (and ftr - I agreed with Obama when he said it)
You are correct that I didn't agree with Trump
![Wink ;)](./images/smilies/icon_e_wink.gif)
, but I don't agree that his speech does not have differential power to intimidate relative to a non-POTUS's speech.
I am not suggesting that Trump has less legal right to to speak. That's a legal matter.
But the discussion was about 'wrongthink' and specifically the attempts to muzzle speech, dissent in specific...with the power of governmental authority behind that effort.
The danger is not the speech, but the authority behind it. I believe
that was the discussion at hand when invoking
1984.
Again, Trump just proposed that flag burning have a 10 year sentence (SCOTUS be damned). Taking a knee?
And in the meantime, his 80 million followers are an enormous hammer...successfully kept Kaep off the field and intimidated scores of others.
Now, that's boomeranging around, but there remains the threat of the nut jobs.
Yes, Trump has a right to speak, but let's not kid ourselves about the differential in power.
And thus responsibility.
And, yes, elections do have consequences.
Elect someone who understands the responsibility that goes with the power.