leibowde84
Veteran Member
But, private organizations like SNL are permitted to use their voice to influence elections. Just look at Fox News and MSNBC.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Trump's threats against the 1st Amendment
- Thread starter leibowde84
- Start date
leibowde84
Veteran Member
SNL has never encouraged violence. If anyone got that impression, they would probably be ignorant to the fact it is a satirical show written and performed by comedians. So, I'm not sure that is pertinent here.
It is important that we are all permitted to make fun of, mock, insult, and criticize our elected officials as much as we want. Do you agree?
Shad
Veteran Member
POTUS is still a citizen thus has 1A rights. There must be a clear order involved not merely Trump trolling people on twitter. When something happens to SNL let me know.
You haven't read much from Trump's twitter account, have you?
Why? Do you think if he started to act like a normal politician it would change anything?
Why? The status quo is old. BS pandering while abuse powers behind the scene. At least Trumps ways there is not filter between the BS and abusing power. Think about it. He is like a Bond villain babbling his plans before Bond escapes.
In years past, I recall government threatening action against
talk radio for the appearance of supporting a candidate.
This could be argued to be an "in kind contribution".
Sure, I assume our elected officials are permitted the same options.
Shad
Veteran Member
Do you extend the same right to citizens that happen to work for government or are they just to be punching bags for the masses?
Well I can't read Trump's mind, so I see it as Trump using SNL to make fun of the Mueller report. However can't prove you are wrong about it being a veiled threat. However couldn't anyone see this type of mocking as a veiled threat?
I suppose I think the benefit of the doubt needs to be applied unless it can be proven otherwise.
For the protestors protection.
I suppose this means law enforcement has admitted they can no longer provide adequate protection in these situations.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
If they are on the job in their official capacity, then yes. Trump has said himself that his twitter account is official presidential communications. So, in this instance, he is "on the job in his official capacity".
Daemon Sophic
Avatar in flux
IMO people in power SHOULD be held to a higher standard, since there are those in their sway who take the leader’s word as law.
e.g. — “Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest!”. - King Henry II, 1170 AD.
Ok, but the only standard they are really held to, other than the laws we are all held to, is elections.
Every few years we have the opportunity to vote out those elected officials that don't meet our standards.
There a lot of personal standards I have that Trump doesn't meet. Doesn't keep folks from putting him in office though.
Trump is what he is, I assume that's who folks that voted for him wanted. If he gets reelected, I'll assume folks wanted four more years of the same, without any regard to my personal standards.
Better description/explanation...(your's is)
Trump be trolling. Trolling is what Trump does. SNL trolls Trump. Maybe people don't like our president to be trolling. I think it best to not feed the trolls, let them feed each other.
Shad
Veteran Member
That is his style. I am surprised anyone is shocked by it by now. Heck even Graham is starting to do it. The amount of trolling may decrease but I think twitter use is here to stay. The only change I can see is separating a personal account from the office thus under control of PR.
Shad
Veteran Member
I wasn't thinking thoroughly.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
Just to make this clear, are you claiming that speech from a government employee, while in their official capacity, is not a government act? If not, when would speech be government speech?
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
if If one dosent want 'protection',
Does that mean free speech doesn't exist outside the zone?
Interesting question. Like like if you attempt to exercise your 1st amendment right in an area not zoned for free speech you could get arrested, detained and charged with trespassing.
I suspect protesting/free speech is not the problem. The problem is protesters can cause a lot of havoc. They can impede events, block traffic, cause injuries, destroy property.
Free speech comes with responsibilities. Abusing that right has caused law enforcement to react accordingly.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
That sounds pretty convenient.
Considering the entirety of our history without ever needing free speech zones, suddenly out of the blue, issues revolving around free speech seems to be a priority now for some reason. Enough now necessitating the need to corral people with issues and views into designated pens.
Shad
Veteran Member
We disagree over what is consider "official capacity"
Something more than Trump's twitter account.