Surely saying "someone shoot $PERSON" could be a crime - the first amendment isn't unbounded.
I imagine there are criteria ("specific and credible" springs to mind, but IANAL) a court would consider, but it wouldn't necessarily be a trivial case, right?
Doesn't really fit, if only because it's directed very non-specifically -- towards hypothetical people being nominated six months from now. If Hillary had already started nominating people, a lawyer could argue that it falls in the category of inciting "imminent lawless action", though.
Surely saying "someone shoot $PERSON" could be a crime - the first amendment isn't unbounded.
I imagine there are criteria ("specific and credible" springs to mind, but IANAL) a court would consider, but it wouldn't necessarily be a trivial case, right?
Edit: I was too late! Beaten to the punch.
Basically. It was too vague and indirect. It wasn't a threat, it was barely an incitement. We've heard worse from other prominent political voices (Nugent and Limbaugh off the top of my head) without any real consequence. Drawing a line here would make no sense.
You're going to have explain dogwhistling to me. I looked it up but am not understanding the context.
In the interest of fairness and education: A "dog whistle" in political references is the use of a coded phrase that only catches the attention of people in the know while its true meaning but will go unnoticed otherwise (like a literal dog whistle).
For example, when North Carolina GOP officials talk about "maintaining the integrity of the ballot", what they are talking about isn't ensuring that everyone who is allowed to vote gets to vote if they want to and stopping voter fraud, but making it harder for democrats and specifically black people to vote.
Or, for instance, the word "thug" in a political context (or pretty much any context referring to the last fifty years) always implicitly means "scary black person."
Plus, when he literally asked Russia to hack Hillary's emails wasn't that sort of treasonous? That's asking a foreign country to conduct cyberwarfare on your own country.
Plus, when he literally asked Russia to hack Hillary's emails wasn't that sort of treasonous? That's asking a foreign country to conduct cyberwarfare on your own country.
No. Staggeringly stupid, but hardly treasonous. Treason is giving aid to a nation the US is at war with, or declaring war on the US. For example, there was an American chap who was charged in 2006, for serving as an al-Qaeda spokesman, and threatening attacks on US soil.
In 2008 Hillary said she was hanging on in the nomination race until the convention because "anything might happen, just remember Bobby Kennedy in 1968". That was a mere mention of the idea that Obama might be shot in June, and she was pilloried for it.
You're going to have explain dogwhistling to me. I looked it up but am not understanding the context.
Dude, that feigned ignorance is part and parcel with this sort of nonsense. Don't make other people do research for you. This is a well established political tactic, deeply researched and cited, and Trump has used it by-the-book.
So, having read numerous 1st Amendment cases where the courts have to draw the line between incitement to imminent violence and general rhetoric, I don't think this rises to the level of incitement to violence. Sure we all know what he was probably suggesting, but that's not the same as meeting an actual legal test.
Also, legally speaking, he didn't make an actual threat. He suggested that should some circumstance occur, maybe someone could do something about it. That's not a threat. And it certainly doesn't qualify as inciting something imminent when the election is still months away.
Yes, Trump is a garbage human being. We've all known this from the start. Yes, Trump is totally capable of suggesting that his "followers" do something and having it be done. In the past he has specifically said things like "Punch them right in the face; I'll pay your legal fees." So we know he's capable of it. That's NOT what happened here.
YES, it's a dog whistle. Yes, stupid people are going apeshit because Trump is legitimizing their bigotry and hate. But that doesn't mean it rises to the level of a legal threat or an incitement to imminent violence.
I think the FBI will need more before they can actually charge him with that. Do I think it's just a matter of time before they have it? ... Oh yes.
How is his comment that much different that Palin's "2nd Amendment Solutions"? I'm not condoning it, just noting she basically said the same thing and suffered no real consequences from it. That was also months before Gabby Giffords was shot.
It's stuff like this that proves pro-gun arguments are exercises in privileged bullying.
I hate reading or listening to Donald Trump’s rambly, run-on, digression-filled rants. Its like he’s trying to express three ideas at once, one of which is always how awesome he is, and he keeps tripping over himself mid-sentence as those ideas keeping bumping into one another. It makes me have to work harder to listen to him just to figure out what he’s trying to convey, and its never worth it because his ideas are so fucking awful. Who the hell enjoys listening to this shit?
Fuck the Republicans for handing this garbage fire of a man a position of importance where I actually have to listen to him to stay informed about the presidential race.
I hate reading or listening to Donald Trump’s rambly, run-on, digression-filled rants. Its like he’s trying to express three ideas at once, one of which is always how awesome he is, and he keeps tripping over himself mid-sentence as those ideas keeping bumping into one another. It makes me have to work harder to listen to him just to figure out what he’s trying to convey, and its never worth it because his ideas are so fucking awful. Who the hell enjoys listening to this shit?
Fuck the Republicans for handing this garbage fire of a man a position of importance where I actually have to listen to him to stay informed about the presidential race.
Could you imagine listening to this bullshit for FOUR years, nonstop? Bush II has his obnoxious quirks, but he didn't dominate the news cycle like Trump does.
That's one of the things that scare me, no such thing as bad press and alleged billionaire Donald Trump gets loads of press. He's on a lot of peoples minds and tongues. Not good for a monster that need only votes to become one of the most powerful people on this planet.
I don't buy into "no such thing as bad press". Bad press has dramatically changed many elections. I expect this to be one of them.
The perfect campaign counterpoint to "No such thing as bad press" is the Howard Dean. He wasn't going to take the presidency, and he was already sliding toward a loss, but it was recoverable - but the famous Dean Scream turned that slide into a freefall plummet, and ended his presidential bid for good.
He wasn't going to take the presidency, and he was already sliding toward a loss, but it was recoverable - but the famous Dean Scream turned that slide into a freefall plummet, and ended his presidential bid for good.
I always wondered if he had owned it with a "Heck, yeah, I screamed! We're talking about making great change! We're talking about the United States of America! I'm excited; my supporters are excited; and we are going to get you excited, too!" sort of statement followed with an SNL or late night comedy bit in which he does the Dean Scream after every sentence, if he would have been forgiven for the ebullience.
I'm quick to admit my view here isn't nuanced, and while if you call me on this, I'll just relent because I'm not willing to hunt down my source because this is so long ago. I remember reading that there exists a study where they compared the effectiveness of negative adverting vs no advertising (with a control of normal advertising), long story short, negative was better than none.
That is my entire basis for no such thing as bad press, only no press.
He wasn't going to take the presidency, and he was already sliding toward a loss, but it was recoverable - but the famous Dean Scream turned that slide into a freefall plummet, and ended his presidential bid for good.
I always wondered if he had owned it with a "Heck, yeah, I screamed! We're talking about making great change! We're talking about the United States of America! I'm excited; my supporters are excited; and we are going to get you excited, too!" sort of statement followed with an SNL or late night comedy bit in which he does the Dean Scream after every sentence, if he would have been forgiven for the ebullience.
It wasn't even that - it was an audio issue. He was matching the crowd's enthusiasm, but podium audio is set up to try and isolate the candidate's voice from crowd noise as much as physically possible. Crowd audio is there, but rarely if ever passed along to the media, especially as a separate audio stream.If you mix it back together(since we do have recordings of the crowd), it sounds perfectly reasonable and normal.
But that's not what got passed to the press at the time, or what was broadcast at the time. And thus, history as we know it.
I'm quick to admit my view here isn't nuanced, and while if you call me on this, I'll just relent because I'm not willing to hunt down my source because this is so long ago. I remember reading that there exists a study where they compared the effectiveness of negative adverting vs no advertising (with a control of normal advertising), long story short, negative was better than none.
That is my entire basis for no such thing as bad press, only no press.
Studies on marketing generally asses product marketing, which has some dramatic differences from electoral marketing. People make a very conscious decision for who to elect leader of the most powerful country int he world. They don't pay as much attention to which brand of soap they buy.
So now Wikileaks has started implying that the DNC leaks came from a DNC staffer who was shot a month ago, and that he was murdered by the Clintons. And now one of the Bernie-or-busters in my feed has started posting about it. I just fucking can't anymore.
Comments
I imagine there are criteria ("specific and credible" springs to mind, but IANAL) a court would consider, but it wouldn't necessarily be a trivial case, right?
Edit: I was too late! Beaten to the punch.
Add it to all the other dogwhistles ("not knowing" who David Duke is, the "sheriff star," etc...) it's obvious that this is intentional.
For example, when North Carolina GOP officials talk about "maintaining the integrity of the ballot", what they are talking about isn't ensuring that everyone who is allowed to vote gets to vote if they want to and stopping voter fraud, but making it harder for democrats and specifically black people to vote.
And now Trump.
Nobody with a grasp of the English language could interpret this any other way, unless they're deluded or intellectually dishonest.
Also, legally speaking, he didn't make an actual threat. He suggested that should some circumstance occur, maybe someone could do something about it. That's not a threat. And it certainly doesn't qualify as inciting something imminent when the election is still months away.
Yes, Trump is a garbage human being. We've all known this from the start. Yes, Trump is totally capable of suggesting that his "followers" do something and having it be done. In the past he has specifically said things like "Punch them right in the face; I'll pay your legal fees." So we know he's capable of it. That's NOT what happened here.
YES, it's a dog whistle. Yes, stupid people are going apeshit because Trump is legitimizing their bigotry and hate. But that doesn't mean it rises to the level of a legal threat or an incitement to imminent violence.
I think the FBI will need more before they can actually charge him with that. Do I think it's just a matter of time before they have it? ... Oh yes.
It's stuff like this that proves pro-gun arguments are exercises in privileged bullying.
Fuck the Republicans for handing this garbage fire of a man a position of importance where I actually have to listen to him to stay informed about the presidential race.
That is my entire basis for no such thing as bad press, only no press.
But that's not what got passed to the press at the time, or what was broadcast at the time. And thus, history as we know it.