US Russian Hoax

[CadyandZoe]

I'm not a lawyer but I don't think seditious speech is protected. I think it is a federal crime to incite others to overthrow the government.

[Athanasius]

I'm not a lawyer but I don't think seditious speech is protected. I think it is a federal crime to incite others to overthrow the government.

It's criminal in most places, but also unenforceable unless organisation is involved, and then, it's not quite the speech that attracted attention. If you were Russian, would you incite others to overthrow the government with you in the present circumstance?

[Athanasius]

You are personalizing your argument, seemingly to put words in my mouth. Did I talk about opinions that differed from mine? I  don't think I did. Did I make myself or my opinions the measure of "Americanism" or "accepted thought?" I don't think I did.

You did, here I'll explain.

You replied to Fenris, who was originally replying to RandyPNW's statement:

However, the Democrat Party has become, in recent times, something different, and I'm not quite sure I can welcome them into the "American Family."

Fenris of course said:

And there we have it. People whose politics is different from yours are not "Americans".

RandyPNW agrees with this assessment in post #51. In short, a political opinion can indeed disqualify one from being considered American, and such a person would indeed be "American" (i.e. nominally, in name only).

You then agree with RandyPNW some replies later with the following, although you do go a step further in identifying those with a particular political opinion as traitors and not American:

No, they are not "American" as in they are traitors to our country.

Fenris then takes issue with this:

So you believe that people whose opinions differ from yours are not "American". My friend, that is the exact opposite of what America stands for.

And that leads us back to the reply you most recently wrote, which is the one I'm responding to. It's an odd reply, admittedly. Fenris isn't "personalising" his argument, or putting words into your mouth. What else are we supposed to read from this exchange:

"And there we have it. People whose politics is different from yours are not "Americans"."
"No, they are not "American" as in they are traitors to our country"
"So you believe that people whose opinions differ from yours are not "American". My friend, that is the exact opposite of what America stands for."

I'd say Fenris read from that exchange what any reasonable person would have read from it. In a bizarre move, you double down on the thing you supposedly didn't say vis-a-vis the crisis in America regarding citizenship and those who attack the very concept of citizen. Presumably, they hold different opinions about the concept than you do. And the same for their views on borders and nationalism and such. You are indeed suggesting that such people are a threat to the nation, are you not?

Bizarre.

[Kingfisher]

History is repeating itself...
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/russia-s-kharkiv-attacks-are-war-crimes-zelensky/ar-AAUttsv?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531

A nearby memorial to victims of the Holocaust was damaged in the same strike. The Babyn Yar ravine is Europe's largest mass grave of the Holocaust where between 70,000 and 100,000 people, mostly Jews, were shot by the Nazis.

Mr Zelensky said on Twitter that the attack was "history repeating...".

"What is the point of saying 'never again' for 80 years, if the world stays silent when a bomb drops on the same site of Babyn Yar?" he asked.

[Athanasius]

Well, make no mistake...

Short of a miracle, Ukraine will lose this war. Russia will continue to be aggressive, and the Western world will be self-congratulatory at all the unprecedented action it's taken -- never mind all the dead men, women and children. It will be yet another failing of the West, because Russia has nukes, and no one wants World War 3. Short of a miracle, of course. Let's hope pray for a miracle, because it's not going to get any better if it doesn't stop here.

[Fenris]

You are personalizing your argument, seemingly to put words in my mouth. Did I talk about opinions that differed from mine? I  don't think I did. Did I make myself or my opinions the measure of "Americanism" or "accepted thought?" I don't think I did.

Perhaps you are unaware of the crisis we face in the United States today with regard to citizenship, specifically the attack on the very concept of citizen. Those who want to destroy our country, i.e. traitors, are working with all diligence to destroy the concept of citizen in favor of "resident". Global citizens have no loyalty to any particular country; they have no need of borders; they vote for initiatives and candidates which favor the cosmocracy. Such people are against nationalism and certainly don't put America first.

And guess what? They have the right to those opinions under our system of government.

Yes, I believe that anyone who is working to destroy the nation should not be allowed to vote or hold office. And I believe you WILL find that in the constitution.

Do tell.

[Fenris]

I'm not a lawyer but I don't think seditious speech is protected. I think it is a federal crime to incite others to overthrow the government.

People who advocate for open borders, citizenship for illegal immigrants, non citizen voting, (all things I happen to oppose, by the way) and so on are not advocating for an overthrow of the government. So I don't see how the "sedition" charge applies.

[RabbiKnife]

Sedition is an act, not a group of words

[RabbiKnife]

And, as it just so happens, I am a lawyer, although I did not stay at a holiday inn express last night.

Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969)

Last SCOTUS case setting the standard for the edges of free speech.  In essence, even seditious speech is protected unless the speech is such— almost always accompanied by action — such that the threat to governmental institutions is imminent

In other words, spoken from the main hatch of a tank on Pennsylvania Avenue saying “overtake the White House “ is probably not protected.

Saying it from the back if a Ford pickup in Kalamazoo probably is

Content restriction on free speech are almost always overturned as violative of the First Amendment

Private companies of course are free to prohibit any speech they like in the workplace during work times

[Fenris]

Well, make no mistake...

Short of a miracle, Ukraine will lose this war. Russia will continue to be aggressive, and the Western world will be self-congratulatory at all the unprecedented action it's taken -- never mind all the dead men, women and children. It will be yet another failing of the West, because Russia has nukes, and no one wants World War 3. Short of a miracle, of course. Let's hope pray for a miracle, because it's not going to get any better if it doesn't stop here.

I agree with this. I am impressed by how the west has gotten together to sanction Russia though. Even usually neutral countries like Switzerland are on board. The ruble has lost 1/3 of its value and is now worth less than a penny. The Russian stock market has been closed the last two days to prevent a complete crash as investors flee. Private corporations like Intel, AMD, and Apple are stopping shipments. It's going to inflict the hurt on the Russian economy.

[Fenris]

And, as it just so happens, I am a lawyer, although I did not stay at a holiday inn express last night.

Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969)

Thanks for sharing your wisdom as always.

[IMINXTC]

Well, make no mistake...

Short of a miracle, Ukraine will lose this war. Russia will continue to be aggressive, and the Western world will be self-congratulatory at all the unprecedented action it's taken -- never mind all the dead men, women and children. It will be yet another failing of the West, because Russia has nukes, and no one wants World War 3. Short of a miracle, of course. Let's hope pray for a miracle, because it's not going to get any better if it doesn't stop here.

Praying that the Russian people will finally put a stop to Putin. 
But however it comes about, this has got to be his last stand.
Ultimately, he's toast.

[Athanasius]

I agree with this. I am impressed by how the west has gotten together to sanction Russia though. Even usually neutral countries like Switzerland are on board. The ruble has lost 1/3 of its value and is now worth less than a penny. The Russian stock market has been closed the last two days to prevent a complete crash as investors flee. Private corporations like Intel, AMD, and Apple are stopping shipments. It's going to inflict the hurt on the Russian economy.

Absolutely, and the stock market is set to stay closed until at least the 5th. But in the long-term, if Putin gets Ukraine what's it going to matter so long as he's sitting comfy? There are plenty of pariah countries, and hey, the height of the USSR was breadlines and dead Ukrainians, right? Looks like he's getting exactly what he wanted.

21st-century war is an entirely different beast, it seems. What happens to all the sanctions when Russia declares victory? Do we keep them? Are they now an act of economic aggression over a conflict that has since ended? Do we end them, and then, do Putin and his oligarchs get back what they once lost for a few days? Those sanctions don't seem to have stopped the use of GRAD systems, cluster munitions and vacuum bombs. Unprecedented and not enough is my concern. Everything short of boots on the ground, and it wasn't enough.

Let's hope those Russians get their act together and do to the leadership of their country what they've always done.

[CadyandZoe]

You are personalizing your argument, seemingly to put words in my mouth. Did I talk about opinions that differed from mine? I  don't think I did. Did I make myself or my opinions the measure of "Americanism" or "accepted thought?" I don't think I did.

You did, here I'll explain.

You replied to Fenris, who was originally replying to RandyPNW's statement:

However, the Democrat Party has become, in recent times, something different, and I'm not quite sure I can welcome them into the "American Family."

Fenris of course said:

And there we have it. People whose politics is different from yours are not "Americans".

RandyPNW agrees with this assessment in post #51. In short, a political opinion can indeed disqualify one from being considered American, and such a person would indeed be "American" (i.e. nominally, in name only).

You then agree with RandyPNW some replies later with the following, although you do go a step further in identifying those with a particular political opinion as traitors and not American:

No, they are not "American" as in they are traitors to our country.

Fenris then takes issue with this:

So you believe that people whose opinions differ from yours are not "American". My friend, that is the exact opposite of what America stands for.

And that leads us back to the reply you most recently wrote, which is the one I'm responding to. It's an odd reply, admittedly. Fenris isn't "personalising" his argument, or putting words into your mouth. What else are we supposed to read from this exchange:

"And there we have it. People whose politics is different from yours are not "Americans"."
"No, they are not "American" as in they are traitors to our country"
"So you believe that people whose opinions differ from yours are not "American". My friend, that is the exact opposite of what America stands for."

I'd say Fenris read from that exchange what any reasonable person would have read from it. In a bizarre move, you double down on the thing you supposedly didn't say vis-a-vis the crisis in America regarding citizenship and those who attack the very concept of citizen. Presumably, they hold different opinions about the concept than you do. And the same for their views on borders and nationalism and such. You are indeed suggesting that such people are a threat to the nation, are you not?

Bizarre.

You also don't seem to understand the mistake Fenris made and why it matters. The issue is NOT disagreement. Republican Americans and Democratic Americans disagree all the time and I have no problem with that. I never even suggested that disagreement was an issue. I never said that we should ban the speech with which we disagree.

Randy posited that the Democratic Party "has become . . . something different." How can anyone not have noticed that the Democratic party has been subverted by a cabal of treacherous people who are attempting to destroy America?

What is a country if not a group of people who all share the same assumptions and in our case, the bill of rights? What is a country if not a society of shared values, shared history, shared culture, and loyalty among citizens?

Whose speech is being censored today? And by whom?

Do you believe that people attempting to destroy American should hold office? I don't.

[RabbiKnife]

We have a political solution called the ballot box