Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy❤
No. of Recommendations: 11
Two elementary schools in Springfield were evacuated this morning for continued threats. Both local colleges have gone virtual this week due to threats and the city just canceled its annual CultureFest, an event that celebrates diversity, arts, and local culture, because of threats.
Prior to JD Vance and DolOld Trump vilifying Springfield with lies about illegal [they're legal] migrants sent to Springfield [they were not "sent"] who are eating the dogs, eating the cats, eating the pets [none of that is happening], Springfield was a small town that no one outside of it and its surrounding area had ever heard of before.
Well, it ain't often you see a sitting senator -- and his lying republican running mate -- lay siege to a town in his own state to gin up hatred for a situation that does not even exist but here we are.
https://www.whio.com/news/local/two-elementary-sch...https://www.whio.com/news/local/culturefest-cancel...
No. of Recommendations: 4
Two elementary schools in Springfield were evacuated this morning for continued threats. Both local colleges have gone virtual this week due to threats and the city just canceled its annual CultureFest, an event that celebrates diversity, arts, and local culture, because of threats.
Time for a defamation suit? Slander/libel suit? Can a city be a plaintiff in such lawsuits? We're getting into actual damages now for this defamatory/slanderous/libelous speech. Trump won't care if he's the defendant, but Vance might.
Recall election for Vance? Hearings to expel him from the Senate?
The government can't stop free speech, but individuals and groups of individuals can hold people accountable for the damage caused by their speech.
--Peter
No. of Recommendations: 1
Probably more a question for albaby, but if speech results in threats/acts of violence, is it still protected? I'm sure at least some it. But where is the line? I know there are statutes regarding "hate speech", but I question whether that would apply to accusing immigrants of eating pets.
No. of Recommendations: 3
Probably more a question for albaby, but if speech results in threats/acts of violence, is it still protected? I'm sure at least some it. But where is the line? I know there are statutes regarding "hate speech", but I question whether that would apply to accusing immigrants of eating pets.
All good questions. I was going down the civil liability route, since that could be filed right now by anyone in Springfield who has been affected. But there might be criminal liability as well.
--Peter
No. of Recommendations: 5
ptheland: Recall election for Vance?
Nope, unconstitutional.
ptheland: Hearings to expel him from the Senate?
Nope, again.
A senator can be impeached but removal requires a 2/3s majority.
In short: ain't never gonna' happen.
No. of Recommendations: 8
Recall election for Vance? Hearings to expel him from the Senate?-------------
Nope. As mentioned in a prior thread, recall mechanisms are a function of state government only. There is no equivalent process for Congress. The only mechanism for removal is impeachment. The citizens of Ohio are stuck with JD Vance as a Senator until January 1, 2029 unless he resigns or can be impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate. At this point, I think remaining Republicans would close ranks around any of their own in either half of Congress who was impeached, even if they were photographed handing launch codes to Putin and holding a giant check made out for $1,000,000.00.
I do think there is a case to be made within the State of Ohio for a civil defamation charge or inciting violence. Here's a statute in Ohio state law that seems pertinent.
https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-2...-------------------
(A) No person shall knowingly engage in conduct designed to urge or incite another to commit any offense of violence, when either of the following apply:
(1) The conduct takes place under circumstances that create a clear and present danger that any offense of violence will be committed;
(2) The conduct proximately results in the commission of any offense of violence.
(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of inciting to violence. If the offense of violence that the other person is being urged or incited to commit is a misdemeanor, inciting to violence is a misdemeanor of the first degree. If the offense of violence that the other person is being urged or incited to commit is a felony, inciting to violence is a felony of the third degree.
-------------------Vote carefully, people. If someone doesn't seem hooked up right, it is virtually impossible to chase them from office against their will after they've proven they're not hooked up right.
WTH
No. of Recommendations: 2
The citizens of Ohio are stuck with JD Vance as a Senator until January 1, 2029 unless he resigns or can be impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate.
Well, if Trump wins, Vance will no longer be a senator starting Jan 20, 2025, so Ohio could get a new one that way (god forbid). 😊
No. of Recommendations: 1
Why has Kamala Harris and her higher education buddies made the schools so unsafe?
And why did the bedwetter faculties run out of the schools?
(Remember, being scared of terrorist threats was bedwetter during the W years)
LOL you people.
Your schools and your country - unsafe due to your culture. And it's nowhere NEAR the worst yet :)
With any luck, soon your ChickenHawk President will be egging on wars all around the world......
(Remember Chickenhawk? Well, get ready.....)
No. of Recommendations: 2
Probably more a question for albaby, but if speech results in threats/acts of violence, is it still protected? I'm sure at least some it. But where is the line?
One limit is the threat of imminent violence. Not tomorrow or next week - now. So if Trump had said on Jan 6 - Let's walk down to the capital and burn it to the ground - highly likely not protected.
No. of Recommendations: 6
Probably more a question for albaby, but if speech results in threats/acts of violence, is it still protected? I'm sure at least some it. But where is the line?
The line, according to the SCOTUS decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio, is that speech is protected under the First Amendment and cannot be criminalized unless it is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action".
So with respect to speech that "results in" threats or acts of violence, mere causation is not enough. The speech has to have been "directed to" producing those threats or acts of violence, and the speech has to have been "likely to" cause those threats or acts of violence.
This is a high bar. It is exceptionally unlikely that anything JD Vance has been saying would meet it.
No. of Recommendations: 1
This is a high bar.
As it should be. Thanks for the clarification. "Hate speech" -at least in common parlance- is kinda squishy.
Though there is another case where "influencers" are being indicted because of links to Russia via RT. Not hate speech, but clearly questionable speech.**
**Due to monies exchanging hands, and something about registering as foreign agents (which they failed to do).
No. of Recommendations: 2
(Remember, being scared of terrorist threats was bedwetter during the W years)
Turns out there were 33 threats.
All 33 were hoaxes, and all 33...came from outside the country.
Another lib narrative fail. Meanwhile, their continued demonization and 24/7 hate spew goes on unabated.
