Gilligan!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
- Thread starter Skulnik
- Start date
- Mar 19, 2006
- 38,197
- 371
- 83
- 74
so you're promoting another coup ..read below ya might be in jail soon.
United States free speech exceptions
Exceptions to free speech in the United States refers to categories of speech that are not protected by the First Amendment. According to the Supreme Court of the United States, the U.S. Constitution protects free speech while allowing for limitations on certain categories of speech.[1]
Categories of speech that are given lesser or no protection by the First Amendment (and therefore may be restricted) include obscenity, fraud, child pornography, speech integral to illegal conduct, speech that incites imminent lawless action, speech that violates intellectual property law, true threats, and commercial speech such as advertising.
Along with communicative restrictions, less protection is afforded for uninhibited speech when the government acts as subsidizer or speaker, is an employer, controls education, or regulates the mail, airwaves, legal bar, military, prisons, and immigration.
Incitement
The Supreme Court has held that "advocacy of the use of force" is unprotected when it is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and is "likely to incite or produce such action".[2][3] In Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the Supreme Court unanimously reversed the conviction of a Ku Klux Klan group for "advocating ... violence ... as a means of accomplishing political reform" because their statements at a rally did not express an immediate, or imminent intent, to do violence.[4] This decision overruled Schenck v. United States (1919), which held that a "clear and present danger" could justify a law limiting speech. The primary distinction is that the latter test does not criminalize "mere advocacy".[5]
False statements of fact
In Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974), the Supreme Court decided that there is "no constitutional value in false statements of fact".[11] However, this is not a concrete rule as the Court has struggled with how much of the "speech that matters" can be put at risk in order to punish a falsehood.[12]
The Supreme Court has established a complex framework for determining which types of false statements are unprotected.[13] There are four such areas which the Court has been explicit about. First, false statements of fact that are said with a "sufficiently culpable mental state" can be subject to civil or criminal liability.[14] Second, knowingly making a false statement of fact can sometimes be punished. Libel and slander laws fall under this category. Third, negligently false statements of fact may lead to civil liability in some instances.[15] Lastly, some implicit statements of fact?those that have a "false factual connotation"?can also fall under this exception.[16][17]
There is also a fifth category of analysis. It is possible that some completely false statements could be entirely free from punishment. The Supreme Court held in the landmark case New York Times v. Sullivan (1964) that lies about the government may be protected completely.[18] However, this category is not entirely clear, as the question of whether false historical or medical claims are protected is still disputed.[19]
In addition, false statements made under penalty of perjury are subject to legal sanctions if they are judged to be material.[20
Obscenity [your favorite for attacks on the Obama's]
Under the Miller test (which takes its name from Miller v. California (1973)), speech is unprotected if (1) "the average person, applying contemporary community standards,[21] would find that the [subject or work in question], taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest" and (2) "the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions specifically defined by applicable state law" and (3) "the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value".[22] Some subsidiary components of this rule may permit private possession of obscene materials at one's home.[23] Additionally, the phrase "appeals to the prurient interest" is limited to appeals to a "shameful or morbid interest in sex".[24][25]
The Court has also held that a person may only be punished if he knows the actual "contents of the material".[26] In Smith v. California (1959), the Supreme Court thus gave a defense of "reasonable ignorance" to an obscenity charge. The basis for this exception is that justices have believed that obscenity has a "tendency to exert a corrupting and debasing impact leading to antisocial behavior".[27][28]
Fighting words
A Westboro Baptist Church protest was the subject of an "offensive speech" Supreme Court case in Snyder v. Phelps (2010)
In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942), the Supreme Court held that speech is unprotected if it constitutes "fighting words".[34] Fighting words, as defined by the Court, is speech that "tend
?True threats of violence? that are directed at a person or group of persons that have the intent of placing the target at risk of bodily harm or death are generally unprotected.[38] However, there are several exceptions. For example, the Supreme Court has held that "threats may not be punished if a reasonable person would understand them as obvious hyperbole", he writes.[39][40] Additionally, threats of "social ostracism" and of "politically motivated boycotts" are constitutionally protected.[41]
As controller of the military
With respect to the United States Military, the federal government has extremely broad power to restrict the speech of military officers, even if such a restriction would be invalid with a civilian. The Supreme Court affirmed this principle in the closely determined 5 to 3 decision, Parker v. Levy (1974), when the Court held the military was essentially a "specialized society from civilian society", which necessitated stricter guidelines.[72] Justice William O. Douglas, writing the dissent, argued that ?Uttering one?s belief is sacrosanct under the First Amendment.?[73] Since Parker, there have been few cases to issue more specific limits on the government's control of military expression.
Good, can't wait for DISCOVERY.
opcorn2
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...e5dbe0-5106-11eb-b96e-0e54447b23a1_story.html
Dominion is suing Trump lawyer for $1.3B.
They're bringing it on, Skulnik. :s4:
<iframe width="738" height="415" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/vzheebPuCGU" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>+++++
Do you just sit at home watching the ramblings of mentally ill people all day? See a doctor before someone gets hurt.
Simon Parkes, who was a councillor in Hackney during the 1990s, claims he has had experiences with aliens since birth, and his ?real mother? is a 9-foot green alien with eight fingers, the Northern Echo said. He said his experiences have not hindered his work........
Keep up the good fight, Skul.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Heckler disrupts <a href="https://twitter.com/SenSchumer?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@SenSchumer</a> in Midtown. <a href="https://t.co/WkXwTHPPnI">pic.twitter.com/WkXwTHPPnI</a></p>— Matthew Chayes (@chayesmatthew) <a href="https://twitter.com/chayesmatthew/status/1349062070998888449?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 12, 2021</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
This lunatic is calling for more violence (specifically at the homes of Schumer and Pelosi). WTF is wrong with you people? <iframe scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets/widget_iframe.96fd96193cc66c3e11d4c5e4c7c7ec97.html?origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.madjacksports.com" title="Twitter settings iframe" style="display: none;"></iframe><iframe id="rufous-sandbox" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="true" style="position: absolute; visibility: hidden; display: none; width: 0px; height: 0px; padding: 0px; border: none;" title="Twitter analytics iframe"></iframe>
This is Good Gary, give it a watch. TIA
This is Good Gary, give it a watch. TIA
<iframe width="738" height="415" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/5nvqvvsqJ_s" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>+++++
:0074
This is Good Gary, give it a watch. TIA
<iframe width="738" height="415" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/5nvqvvsqJ_s" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>+++++
:0074
Even if you can get by all of the "I don't know for sure...." or "I think he is..." ramblings of this woman, how do you get past the broken premise? Why would ANTIFA (anti-fascist) join in on an attempt to overturn the results of an election that will eject the fascist from office? The ONLY reason ANTIFA or other Anti-Trump group would have been on site would have been to counter protest or prevent the Trumptards from delaying the Electoral Vote count.
Charlottesville is an example of what would happen if counter-protesters would have been there. They would have fought not joined forces.
- Mar 19, 2006
- 38,197
- 371
- 83
- 74
Con men are only confident when their mark doesn't know when they are being conned.
Well......
[video]https://rumble.com/vcrzrr-january-6th-another-frame-up-rudy-giuliani-ep.-102.html[/video]
Thanks Rudy, but I don't need you to tell me what I saw and heard.
Trial by combat. Rudy Giuliani's explanation to the mob of how they take back their country.
<iframe width="450" height="350" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Ocb-S26BdRA" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
:shrug:
:shrug:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">17 hours to go... <a href="https://t.co/QsxGvrO5ek">pic.twitter.com/QsxGvrO5ek</a></p>— Michael Rowland (@mjrowland68) <a href="https://twitter.com/mjrowland68/status/1351312329254727681?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 18, 2021</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
D.C. Mayor Urges Celebration of Restaurant Week After Lockdown Shutters More than 70 Eateries
3
WASHINGTON, DC - DECEMBER 14: District of Columbia Mayor Muriel Bowser speaks during a news conference about the COVID-19 vaccine at George Washington University Hospital on December 14, 2020 in Washington, DC. U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar and U.S. Surgeon General Jerome Adams observed hospital workers being ?Jacquelyn Martin-Pool/Getty Images
PENNY STARR22 Jan 20215
2:10
Mayor Muriel Bowser (D) announced Friday that Washington, DC, will celebrate Restaurant Week beginning January 25 after months of strict lockdowns and just two days after Joe Biden was inaugurated as president.
@JoeBiden wins and just like that?the virus is gone. Poof!!!!!
? Jake Ell (@jacob_l22) January 22, 2021
Scores of local businesses have been boarded up for months because of sometimes violent Black Lives Matter protests and coronavirus restrictions, resulting in the permanent closure of more than 70 eateries in the District.
Bowser?s announcement included a video featuring Nina Gilchrist, owner of Provost restaurant. Gilchrist is maskless on the sidewalk before telling people to ?mask up? as she does before going inside.
?It?s definitely safe to go out,? Gilchrist says in the video, which also has footage of a Black Lives Matter window dressing.
The DCist reported about the damage done to restaurants and how lockdown orders often did more to harm businesses than protect customers? health:
Alberto, a server at a restaurant in Shaw, is already preparing for winter. Talking on the phone in between shifts, he worries about what will happen to his job when brisk fall evenings turn into bitter cold winter nights (He declined to share his last name or the name of the restaurant where he works to protect his privacy).
For one, he reasons that fewer people will dine at restaurants. Many people are still not comfortable eating indoors despite D.C.?s Phase 2 allowing it. Plus, even with the city offering businesses $6,000 to ?winterize? their outdoor space, the cold may be too much for people.
?People will not be too happy to eat outdoors,? he said, adding that outdoor tents seems counterintuitive. ?If there?s a tent, it?s not really outdoor space anymore,? he said. ?If everyone is covered by that tent, it?s an indoor space.?
Friday marked the first day restaurants could provide inside dining at 25 percent capacity after Bowser shut down indoor service on December 23.
Follow Penny Starr on Twitter or send news tips to pstarr@breitbart.com.
https://www.breitbart.com/2020-elec...fter-lockdown-shutters-more-than-70-eateries/
3
WASHINGTON, DC - DECEMBER 14: District of Columbia Mayor Muriel Bowser speaks during a news conference about the COVID-19 vaccine at George Washington University Hospital on December 14, 2020 in Washington, DC. U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar and U.S. Surgeon General Jerome Adams observed hospital workers being ?Jacquelyn Martin-Pool/Getty Images
PENNY STARR22 Jan 20215
2:10
Mayor Muriel Bowser (D) announced Friday that Washington, DC, will celebrate Restaurant Week beginning January 25 after months of strict lockdowns and just two days after Joe Biden was inaugurated as president.
@JoeBiden wins and just like that?the virus is gone. Poof!!!!!
? Jake Ell (@jacob_l22) January 22, 2021
Scores of local businesses have been boarded up for months because of sometimes violent Black Lives Matter protests and coronavirus restrictions, resulting in the permanent closure of more than 70 eateries in the District.
Bowser?s announcement included a video featuring Nina Gilchrist, owner of Provost restaurant. Gilchrist is maskless on the sidewalk before telling people to ?mask up? as she does before going inside.
?It?s definitely safe to go out,? Gilchrist says in the video, which also has footage of a Black Lives Matter window dressing.
The DCist reported about the damage done to restaurants and how lockdown orders often did more to harm businesses than protect customers? health:
Alberto, a server at a restaurant in Shaw, is already preparing for winter. Talking on the phone in between shifts, he worries about what will happen to his job when brisk fall evenings turn into bitter cold winter nights (He declined to share his last name or the name of the restaurant where he works to protect his privacy).
For one, he reasons that fewer people will dine at restaurants. Many people are still not comfortable eating indoors despite D.C.?s Phase 2 allowing it. Plus, even with the city offering businesses $6,000 to ?winterize? their outdoor space, the cold may be too much for people.
?People will not be too happy to eat outdoors,? he said, adding that outdoor tents seems counterintuitive. ?If there?s a tent, it?s not really outdoor space anymore,? he said. ?If everyone is covered by that tent, it?s an indoor space.?
Friday marked the first day restaurants could provide inside dining at 25 percent capacity after Bowser shut down indoor service on December 23.
Follow Penny Starr on Twitter or send news tips to pstarr@breitbart.com.
https://www.breitbart.com/2020-elec...fter-lockdown-shutters-more-than-70-eateries/
Republicans starting to understand they have to jettison Trump to keep the party relevant.
Not a question of conviction, just a matter of by how big.
opcorn2
Not a question of conviction, just a matter of by how big.
opcorn2 