To all the easily triggered on this site please explain the difference to your current outrage??

Posted by: redhitchy

To all the easily triggered on this site please explain the difference to your current outrage??


Users who upvoted this (4)

User comments (10)


Sort by:
Follow comments

Please log in or register to post a comment.

expert

Isn't everyone entitled to an opinion?
And after several years of lies, abuse and oppression from the highest levels of government aren't the 'pinko commie socialist libtards' allowed a right of reply?

+4
 
Hide 1 reply...

@Buttless Racism and bigotry is not a difference of opinion.

+1
 

skilled

I wouldn't mind hearing that too.. Anyone?

+3
 
Hide 7 replies...

@SimonM Its quite simple really. In the video above you have people expressing opinions on uprisings and revolutions. At best it could be seen as seditious conspiracy, which would be quite hard to prove since for any conspiracy there needs to be evidence of prior planning. Without such evidence they can only be regarded as opinions protected under the First Amendment.

The federal law against seditious conspiracy can be found in Title 18 U.S.C. § 2384 of the U.S. Code. According to the statutory definition of sedition, it is a crime for two or more people within the jurisdiction of the United States:

1. conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or
2. to levy war against them, or
3. to oppose by force the authority thereof, or
4. by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or
...
Read more

+2
 

@JudgeDredd Good answer! I agree it is an epic clusterf**k, but you know as well that what you have said does really apply both ways. Your doing your lawyer wizadry now for which I have no real valid retort, but I believe if you were infact a Rep supporter, you would say something to similar effect regarding the riots, arson and looting etc carried out in the summer.

+3
 

@SimonM There is a significant difference. The arson, looting, property damage and general violence that occurred in the BLM riots were devoid of the elements of overthrowing, opposing, by force the Government of the United States or by force preventing, hindering, or delaying the execution of any law of the United States. There was no scheduled legislative or governmental milestone taking place that they were trying to impede. They were trying to influence future policy in no certain terms or timeline. That alone puts the BLM riots in the Civil Disorder bracket.

+2
 

@JudgeDredd I see your point, there is definitely a difference from that perspective which I did not really think about. The implications are much more profound but I still think their motives were not that dissimilar. I don't think it was really an attempt to actually overthrow a government, I think it was just a lot of idiots that took things way too far trying to make their point. If they were really trying to actually overthrow a government, they wouldn't have stood posing infront of cameras for a photo op/publicity stunt. I think the most significant difference was where they made their stand, they really f**cked themselves and their message by choosing that building as they were never going to make any change to the outcome like that, certainly not for any good to come from it. Thanks for explaining without the lawyer wizardry.

+1
 

@SimonM I would certainly agree that for most there was no plan other than breaching the Capitol grounds. And that is evident on the general behaviour after they succeeded where you can see them not knowing what to do next. You can see in their faces the pondering question "Ok, we are in, now what?".

And it certainly wasnt an attempt to overthrow the government. The government is still on the Republican side until the 19th. It was an attempt to delay by any means necessary the certification of the electoral votes. This falls squarely on the bracket of "by force preventing, hindering, or delaying the execution of any law of the United States" implemented by taking control of the chambers of the Capitol grounds, which in itself falls under the bracket "by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority".

As for their choice of building, its crucial to point out that the Capitol was designated as the destination by Trump himself. Another nail in the coffin of incitement for Trump.
...
Read more

+1
 

@JudgeDredd for the most part i agree with you, most of these clips they are put out into the aether as it were that people should rise up, no one says hey gather here, lets forment a direct plan. maxine waters comments though, for me, come out and say if you see certain people out in public please harass them and or cause them harm to some extent. no matter what, politics for a very long time has been utter garbage in and out and no hands are clean in the mess called american politics.

+2
 

@JudgePestilence Thats exactly the point. You can say to someone "go out and beat somebody up" and if they do it because you said it, then your words are incitement to that violence. Remember in the beginning of Trump's presidency when he was telling his followers to go out and beat up CNN reporters? He was saying that he will cover all legal expenses if they did and implied that its more than OK to do so. And when the President says that, the person holding the authority of the nation, he is essentially giving you a get out of jail free card.

+1
 

Top posts of the day


Similar posts




About Us:
AnySubj.com - is a social sharing network. Share your favorite news, videos, posts with our users. Participate in discussions on any topic, ask questions and read answers. Vote for posts and comments.

Cookies:
We use cookies to improve the efficiency and quality of our service, to customize content and advertisements, analyse our web traffic. Read more in our privacy policy...

Join 326,243 users who love sharing awesome content!

Follow your interests • Join the conversation • Find new friends