Should OAN be Removed from the Airwaves in Order to Protect Our Democracy?

LV426 said:
I don't understand what is political about the vaccine that you think what Fox News and the rest are doing is simply political opposition?

You would need to explain how the vaccine is political, and who is making it political.
Click to expand...

Fox is political opposition to your views and you see their reporting on the virus as political and want it blocked.

LV426 said:
Free speech has its limits, and spreading misinformation about vaccines and a virus has already led to thousands of needless and pointless deaths.

You think everything is free speech, but it's not.
Click to expand...

Free speech has its limits but spreading misinformation is not included in those limits.

No political leaders are calling for taking TV stations off the air--only extremists who are not familiar with the 1st amendment.
 
Flash said:
Name one.
Click to expand...

How about half a dozen?

Incitement to Imminent Lawless Action
https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/970/incitement-to-imminent-lawless-action


Incitement requires emotional speech that immediately results in violence.
Click to expand...

Which was 1/6 through and through.



Nobody has proven it or even tried to bring criminal charges/investigation.
Click to expand...

What the fuck do you think the impeachment was about?


The Senators were voting on impeachment--it had nothing to do with meeting criminal standards for incitement.
Click to expand...

Except those were the standards every voting Senator used to convict, including the Republicans.


A justification for holding the rally is very different than incitement to riot.
Click to expand...

No, it's the same thing.


An invitation by Drumpf is not an incitement.
Click to expand...

Sure it is...he literally typed "Stop the steal".


You need to do some research on incitement--it is very hard to establish.
Click to expand...

Yes, it usually is. But not in this case.


Even if Drumpf had said "I want you to break into the Capitol and stop the electoral vote count" that would not be proof of incitement.
Click to expand...

Yes it would be because you are literally quoting Trump as inciting the crowd to break the law by breaking into the Capitol. You literally used the inciteful words right there, Flash.

Sloppy work.


Why isn't the Biden Justice Department bringing charges of incitement?
Click to expand...

I don't know, I don't work for the DOJ.


Because there is no basis.
Click to expand...

You sure about that?? You literally gave the basis yourself in this same post.
 
Flash said:
Fox is political opposition to your views
Click to expand...

This isn't about political views, this is about posing a danger to public health by lying about vaccines.


you see their reporting on the virus as political and want it blocked.
Click to expand...

You're the one who said it was political, Flash, not me.


Free speech has its limits but spreading misinformation is not included in those limits.
Click to expand...

When that misinformation is a national security threat, it sure is.


No political leaders are calling for taking TV stations off the air--only extremists who are not familiar with the 1st amendment.
Click to expand...

Right, because they lack the political will, not because it's illegal.
 
LV426 said:
How about half a dozen?
Click to expand...

You can't count the cases that were overturned by later cases. They expanded the right of freedom of expression making it harder to convict for incitement.

"In Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the Court overturned the conviction of Clarence Brandenburg, a member of the Ku Klux Klan who had made inflammatory statements, by insisting that it would only punish advocacy that “is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”

"In Hess v. Indiana (1973), the Court applied Brandenburg and said that before an individual’s speech could fall under the unprotected category of incitement to imminent lawless action, the speech must lead to “imminent disorder.”

LV426 said:
What the fuck do you think the impeachment was about?
Click to expand...

Impeachment is not a criminal proceeding. Even if convicted and removed the official would not be convicted of a crime. He could also be prosecuted for criminal activity in separate judicial proceedings.


LV426 said:
Except those were the standards every voting Senator used to convict, including the Republicans.
Click to expand...

No. Impeachments proceedings do not have to meet any criminal standards. For many it was Trump's overall resistance to the election results and its consequences, not any particular statements. That included the call to the GA secretary of state and making false claims about the election.

LV426 said:
No, it's the same thing.
Click to expand...


No. A rally and protest are legal. Incitement to riot is not.


LV426 said:
Sure it is...he literally typed "Stop the steal". Yes it would be because you are literally quoting Trump as inciting the crowd to break the law by breaking into the Capitol. You literally used the inciteful words right there, Flash.
Click to expand...


You miss the point. That is not the law. You have to prove the crowd would not have attacked the Capitol without Trump's words.

The fact that the crowd traveled there from across the U. S., some communicated and coordinated their efforts, the crowd began advancing when Pence took no action. There is a good argument that the crowd planned this in advance (based on Justice Department indictments) which means it would have happened with or without Trump's presence that day.

So, a person's words mean nothing without proof those words led to the violent actions. Since there have been no attempts to prosecute him, he obviously did not meet the standards for "incitement."









 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top