this post was submitted on 15 Sep 2024
92 points (100.0% liked)

politics

19098 readers
3049 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] newfie@lemmy.ml -1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (3 children)

Name the criminal statute he should be charged with violating.

Agreed that he likely does not have a 1st amendment defense. But you still need a specific criminal statute to charge him with. I am unaware of any that he has likely violated with his xenophobic remarks

Demagoguery that targets a marginalized group is an American tradition. It is unlikely that he committed any crime

[–] Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 2 months ago

Agreed that he likely does not have a 1st amendment defense.

He likely does. Pretty much anything short of directly inciting an immediate panic or imminent lawless action is protected.

[–] cogman@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Ohio could possibly sue him civilly because of the bomb threats that caused them to shut down schools. That's the best I got.

If anyone is hurt over this, then they likely have standing for a civil suit (see Alex Jones).

Criminal it's definitely more tricky. Trump will likely get away with telling his followers to storm the capitol, so I doubt "eating cats and dogs" comes close to the same standard.

Once upon a time, admitting to something like this would have been an impeachable offense. But that's long sailed as something Congress would fairly enforce.

[–] Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 2 months ago

Trump will likely get away with telling his followers to storm the capitol

Because he didn't. He very carefully didn't. And 1A protections are extremely broad and extremely strong. Pretty much anything short of "You guys, go storm the capitol right now and overturn the election!" is going to be protected speech, and he didn't say that. He carefully avoided saying that, intentionally.

What they'll get him on as far as the attack (if anything) will be if he was involved in planning and staging it on the back end - if for example he was coordinating with people who were directly instrumental in shifting it from a protest at the steps of the capitol to an attack on the capitol in the hours, days, or weeks beforehand. Because his speech was definitely 1A protected.

[–] aniki@discuss.tchncs.de -1 points 2 months ago (1 children)
[–] newfie@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 months ago

What are the enumerated elements of that per the statute, and how did Vance violate them?