HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » LIES ARE NOT PROTECTED SP...

Fri Aug 19, 2022, 10:06 PM

LIES ARE NOT PROTECTED SPEECH

So lets put it this way....

If we all sue Fox Intertainment News, Trump and his Trumpers.... they would loose!

Their Lies have caused our Capitol to be attacked and people died!

They spread fear with their Lies...

The government can also

Arrest them!


Its just like yelling fire in a movie theater....

They instead send fear to those to bear arms.......


"Ohio (1969), the Supreme Court of the United States held that in order to lose First Amendment protection as incitement, speech must be ďdirected to inciting or producing†imminent lawless action†and is likely to incite or produce such action "

22 replies, 1973 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 22 replies Author Time Post
Reply LIES ARE NOT PROTECTED SPEECH (Original post)
Smackdown2019 Aug 2022 OP
brooklynite Aug 2022 #1
Smackdown2019 Aug 2022 #8
brooklynite Aug 2022 #9
Smackdown2019 Aug 2022 #12
brooklynite Aug 2022 #13
onenote Aug 2022 #11
PhoenixRisingAgain Aug 2022 #15
drray23 Aug 2022 #2
kentuck Aug 2022 #3
KPN Aug 2022 #17
NYC Liberal Aug 2022 #4
madinmaryland Aug 2022 #6
elleng Aug 2022 #7
madinmaryland Aug 2022 #10
NYC Liberal Aug 2022 #16
sarisataka Aug 2022 #5
UTUSN Aug 2022 #14
OMGWTF Aug 2022 #18
Kaleva Aug 2022 #19
Sympthsical Aug 2022 #20
alphafemale Aug 2022 #21
Celerity Aug 2022 #22

Response to Smackdown2019 (Original post)

Fri Aug 19, 2022, 10:16 PM

1. You're a lawyer?

Please share the Statute under which you can successfully sue them and under which the Government can arrest them.

(Answer: you canít and they canít)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #1)

Fri Aug 19, 2022, 10:56 PM

8. Brandenburg v. Ohio

Clarence Brandenburg, a†Ku Klux Klan was charged with advocating violence under Ohio's†criminal syndicalism†statute for his participation in the rally and for the speech he made in 1964.

He also announced plans for a march on Congress to take place on the†Fourth of July.


Sounds familiar?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Smackdown2019 (Reply #8)

Fri Aug 19, 2022, 10:59 PM

9. Name a statement by Fox that SPECIFICALLY advocated violence

Getting the audience angry at someone doesn't meet the Brandenburg standard.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #9)

Fri Aug 19, 2022, 11:05 PM

12. I have seen clips of their commentators

That have said outlandish statesments of falsehoods that has caused these wackos to take arms against the United States .... i dont watch Fox..... but, i am sure there are clips that show the lie of the stolen election rhetoric....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Smackdown2019 (Reply #12)

Fri Aug 19, 2022, 11:12 PM

13. And "falsehoods" is not equivalent to "advocating violence"

If you read the rest of the thread, nobody agrees with your assertions. Perhaps that says something?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Smackdown2019 (Reply #8)

Fri Aug 19, 2022, 11:02 PM

11. Have you read the case you just cited?

Because the law under which Brandenburg was charged was found to be unconstitutional in that case, making it an odd case for you to rely on.

Presumably, your citation of the case answers the question of whether you are a lawyer for us (and that answer it would appear, is no).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #1)

Fri Aug 19, 2022, 11:31 PM

15. Are you sure?

 

After all, he did clearly state that if they were sued...they would loose!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Smackdown2019 (Original post)

Fri Aug 19, 2022, 10:21 PM

2. Lies are absolutely protected speech

Unless you are under oath being interviewed by law enforcement or in a court of law, you are perfectly allowed to lie. People are free to try to sue you for defamation too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to drray23 (Reply #2)

Fri Aug 19, 2022, 10:34 PM

3. Unfortunately, that is true.

Who is to police what is the "truth" and what is not?

The only place to challenge the lies is in the arena of public opinion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to drray23 (Reply #2)

Sat Aug 20, 2022, 12:36 AM

17. I hear you. But there is a difference between being

actively protected and protected because it (a category of speech) is/are explicitly not protected. Lies broadcast by influential agents are an example to which this could be applied. Iím not 100% sure a class action lawsuit could not be successful against media intentionally broadcasting lies or misinformation in service of a specific goal that results in harm, injury or damages.

Iím not an attorney, but Iím not convinced that lies are protected free speech when the result is harm. I believe there are legal minds who could make a convincing case ó at least in lower courts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Smackdown2019 (Original post)

Fri Aug 19, 2022, 10:35 PM

4. Lies are protected and so is yelling fire in a crowded theater.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC Liberal (Reply #4)

Fri Aug 19, 2022, 10:42 PM

6. Uhh? Yelling movie in a crowded firehouse is ok, but yelling fire in a crowded movie house is not.

Is that legal in NYC?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madinmaryland (Reply #6)

Fri Aug 19, 2022, 10:52 PM

7. HEY MAD!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Reply #7)

Fri Aug 19, 2022, 10:59 PM

10. Hey Ellen! I was in Ellicott City for a job on Tuesday morning!

Drove out Monday and was back home Tuesday afternoon! 1000 miles in two days.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madinmaryland (Reply #6)

Sat Aug 20, 2022, 12:01 AM

16. Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is legal everywhere in the United States.

Schenck v. United States is the Supreme Court decision where "yelling fire in a crowded theater" came from and the context was justifying the jailing of anti-war protesters.

It was overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio, which significantly limited restrictions on speech. The standard is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Smackdown2019 (Original post)

Fri Aug 19, 2022, 10:38 PM

5. Start with a false premise,

Reach an incorrect conclusion

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Smackdown2019 (Original post)

Fri Aug 19, 2022, 11:29 PM

14. Hah! for the best Subject title!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Smackdown2019 (Original post)

Sat Aug 20, 2022, 12:56 AM

18. Another thing, the Bible is not admissible in a court of law as proof of anything.

Yet, these Nationalist Christians (Nat-Cs for short) want everyone to live under its spell of fantastical stories told by illiterate shepherds. NFW!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Smackdown2019 (Original post)

Sat Aug 20, 2022, 04:00 AM

19. Yelling fire in a theater is protected speech

The 1969 case you cited made it so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Smackdown2019 (Original post)

Sat Aug 20, 2022, 04:38 AM

20. I mean, they are protected speech

So . . .

"Arrest them!"

Ah. The authoritarian portion of the program.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Smackdown2019 (Original post)

Sat Aug 20, 2022, 05:30 AM

21. Maybe you are thinking "libel?"

 

Which is extremely difficult to prove.

Think Hustler magazine vs Falwell.

Lies are absolutely protected. As they must be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Smackdown2019 (Original post)

Sat Aug 20, 2022, 07:30 AM

22. de-rec on so many levels

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread