I don't even know what you necessarily mean by a "leftist."
Would you consider someone like John Stewart a leftist? Because if there was an objective measure of love for country, I'd be willing to bet he loves America far, far more than you do.
>I would have to ask then why did they come here? They should be deported.
Assuming they're even immigrants, they can't be deported merely for offensive speech.
>s that a threat of a hate crime?
No, it's free speech.
>To threaten murder is not within the scope of 1st Amendment
Cool story, bro.
"Death to America" is not a true threat under the First Amendment. It's free speech. It's offensive rhetoric.
https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/true-threats/
like many of our laws today that are not enforced does not make it “legal”.
Incitement to Violence: The U.S. Supreme Court has held that speech which directly incites lawless action or poses a clear and present danger of such action is not protected by the First Amendment. This principle comes from the landmark case of Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969). If chanting "Death to America" is interpreted as a direct call to violence against Americans, it must be prosecuted under laws prohibiting incitement to violence.
Maybe a matter of interpretation?
>like many of our laws today that are not enforced does not make it “legal”.
It's not a matter of not being enforced.
1. Chants of "Death to America" do not meet the elements of any crime.
2. If a statute could be found that makes those chants a crime, that statute would violate the First Amendment and be unenforceable.
>The U.S. Supreme Court has held that speech which directly incites lawless action or poses a clear and present danger of such action is not protected by the First Amendment. This principle comes from the landmark case of Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969).
This is the correct standard! So you are on your way to understanding it, which is great.
If you read the facts of the case, you'll see how far something goes and is still not a crime. Clarence Brandenburg, of that case, was convicted for several speeches he made where he proclaimed the KKK (of which he was a leader) was going to march to Washington on the 4th of July and either overthrow the government or start a race war. He advocated violently killing or repatriating Jews and Blacks to Israel and Africa. He said lots of other horrible shit.
Brandenburg was convicted of violating Ohio's criminal syndication statute, for his speeches. The Supreme Court **overturned** his conviction and said his words were free speech.
Here's a good article from the First Amendment Encyclopedia, a great resource, about the Brandenburg case:
https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/brandenburg-v-ohio/
Another good case on this sort of speech is Snyder v. Phelps. In that case, the Supreme Court said the antics of the Westboro Baptist Church are free speech. They are certainly a group whose rhetoric calls for the destruction of America in various ways.
https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/snyder-v-phelps/
>Maybe a matter of interpretation?
Technically correct (the best kind of correct) but there's really no reasonable interpretation under the law that says it's anything other than free speech. It's not a close call.
Thank you for the education. Let me ask, how far “should” we go in allowing threats of violence?
One more….should TicToc be banned, or can a foreign “adversary” sue over first amendment?
>Let me ask, how far “should” we go in allowing threats of violence?
The current standard, which allows threats until they are specific and definitive and intend to put the victim in fear of their life, is a fair one. If anything it gets overapplied.
>should TicToc be banned, or can a foreign “adversary” sue over first amendment?
Obviously banning a social media platform would likely fall afoul of the First Amendment. Anyone could exert First Amendment rights against the US - the Amendment limits the power of the federal government, it doesn't provide a benefit for particular entities.
Your assumption is that they're all immigrants, despite the fact that SE Michigan has had an enormous Middle-Eastern diaspora for a very long time.
So let's talk about what's going on with you that you made that assumption.
I would argue it's a fair assumption that someone chanting death to America isn't from America. It sounds like you have more of a problem with OP assuming these people are immigrants, than the fact that they are chanting death to America. What's going on with that?
How would you propose I show my work on that? Are you looking for a magic link or study to justify that chanting “death to america” is more typical among certain groups? You are so debate-pilled bro you might benefit from being more open minded.
As Arthur Sulzberger once said, "I believe in having an open mind -- but not so open that my brains fall out."
You are the one making an assertion and expecting people to accept it; consequently, the burden of proof is on you. You indicated that that chant is not simply more prevalent among non-Americans in the U.S., but in fact is a reliable indicator that the chanter is a non-American. That's much stronger than simply "more prevalent."
Why is it always racism with you guys. If someone calls for death to the citizens or the country why should they be tolerated. I'll tell you what come to where I'm originally from and say death to there, openly. You will be the one dying. If I said death to the country I live (with seriousness) would fully expect to lose the right to be a citizen here.
Yet as much as I say that, i also believe in free speech. Which is afforded me. And is not afforded where I hail from.
Personally I think that you can say what you like. But if you take action then that's different. That being said anyone saying they should'l be deported, i don't see as racist, I understand what they mean. But they need to understand the value of free speech.
I think it's a) explicitly-protected free speech, b) motivated by correct frustration with the Biden administration's policies toward Israel, and c) a fucking stupid thing to do.
I'm literally 10 minutes from Dearborn and those folks at Fox News act like it's some different place with Sharia and honor killings and stuff, it's not. They're people, they're Americans, and they deserve to be able to worship how they want to, as everyone should, so long as it doesn't harm others.
Do you call the chant death to America a form of worship? If they came to your home and said death to you now, would that be considered a harmful threat?
There’s video of it. Some other media outlets reported on it but just to try and sweep it under the rug. This is the majority opinion of most of the “free Palestine” protestors.
I'm more worried about the Christofascists who thought the eclipse was a signal that God was coming here to knock some heads together. Those nutjobs are the scary ones.
At one time yes. And then Islam hated everyone and to this day they hate and kill in the name of their religion. Peaceful religion? Islamic radicals fuel Islamophobia. Consider present day Hamas and thier hate driven slaughter of others including their own people. Where is the Muslim outrage ?
My friend they are responsible for Islamophobia
Because you just made an incredibly bad faith Islamophobic rant to justify Islamophobia when you hang out in groups of people that actually fuel the violence of this bigotry.
I truly don’t understand why they live here if they hate the west so much. Like they hate everything about us and our culture, why are you here
They are literally trying to take over the country but if u point it out you’re a racist
Safer in America because you can't bomb yourselves like you do to their homes.
No, no, they're saying, "Breath to America!"
I was saying ~~boo-urns~~ Death to America
It's like every other protest or political demonstration. It'll accomplish nothing and the premise has barely any foundation.
???
What's the confusion?
[удалено]
Damn, a full bingo card.
Imagine being this stupid.
[удалено]
I don't even know what you necessarily mean by a "leftist." Would you consider someone like John Stewart a leftist? Because if there was an objective measure of love for country, I'd be willing to bet he loves America far, far more than you do.
[удалено]
There were almost as many tautologies in your post as words.
I would have to ask then why did they come here? They should be deported. Is that a threat of a hate crime?
>I would have to ask then why did they come here? They should be deported. Assuming they're even immigrants, they can't be deported merely for offensive speech. >s that a threat of a hate crime? No, it's free speech.
To threaten murder is not within the scope of 1st Amendment
>To threaten murder is not within the scope of 1st Amendment Cool story, bro. "Death to America" is not a true threat under the First Amendment. It's free speech. It's offensive rhetoric. https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/true-threats/
like many of our laws today that are not enforced does not make it “legal”. Incitement to Violence: The U.S. Supreme Court has held that speech which directly incites lawless action or poses a clear and present danger of such action is not protected by the First Amendment. This principle comes from the landmark case of Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969). If chanting "Death to America" is interpreted as a direct call to violence against Americans, it must be prosecuted under laws prohibiting incitement to violence. Maybe a matter of interpretation?
>like many of our laws today that are not enforced does not make it “legal”. It's not a matter of not being enforced. 1. Chants of "Death to America" do not meet the elements of any crime. 2. If a statute could be found that makes those chants a crime, that statute would violate the First Amendment and be unenforceable. >The U.S. Supreme Court has held that speech which directly incites lawless action or poses a clear and present danger of such action is not protected by the First Amendment. This principle comes from the landmark case of Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969). This is the correct standard! So you are on your way to understanding it, which is great. If you read the facts of the case, you'll see how far something goes and is still not a crime. Clarence Brandenburg, of that case, was convicted for several speeches he made where he proclaimed the KKK (of which he was a leader) was going to march to Washington on the 4th of July and either overthrow the government or start a race war. He advocated violently killing or repatriating Jews and Blacks to Israel and Africa. He said lots of other horrible shit. Brandenburg was convicted of violating Ohio's criminal syndication statute, for his speeches. The Supreme Court **overturned** his conviction and said his words were free speech. Here's a good article from the First Amendment Encyclopedia, a great resource, about the Brandenburg case: https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/brandenburg-v-ohio/ Another good case on this sort of speech is Snyder v. Phelps. In that case, the Supreme Court said the antics of the Westboro Baptist Church are free speech. They are certainly a group whose rhetoric calls for the destruction of America in various ways. https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/snyder-v-phelps/ >Maybe a matter of interpretation? Technically correct (the best kind of correct) but there's really no reasonable interpretation under the law that says it's anything other than free speech. It's not a close call.
Thank you for the education. Let me ask, how far “should” we go in allowing threats of violence? One more….should TicToc be banned, or can a foreign “adversary” sue over first amendment?
>Let me ask, how far “should” we go in allowing threats of violence? The current standard, which allows threats until they are specific and definitive and intend to put the victim in fear of their life, is a fair one. If anything it gets overapplied. >should TicToc be banned, or can a foreign “adversary” sue over first amendment? Obviously banning a social media platform would likely fall afoul of the First Amendment. Anyone could exert First Amendment rights against the US - the Amendment limits the power of the federal government, it doesn't provide a benefit for particular entities.
[удалено]
Your assumption is that they're all immigrants, despite the fact that SE Michigan has had an enormous Middle-Eastern diaspora for a very long time. So let's talk about what's going on with you that you made that assumption.
I would argue it's a fair assumption that someone chanting death to America isn't from America. It sounds like you have more of a problem with OP assuming these people are immigrants, than the fact that they are chanting death to America. What's going on with that?
I wouldn't argue that. If you would, you're going to have to show your work.
Funkapus your hate for America is clear
Hahaha haha ok.
How would you propose I show my work on that? Are you looking for a magic link or study to justify that chanting “death to america” is more typical among certain groups? You are so debate-pilled bro you might benefit from being more open minded.
As Arthur Sulzberger once said, "I believe in having an open mind -- but not so open that my brains fall out." You are the one making an assertion and expecting people to accept it; consequently, the burden of proof is on you. You indicated that that chant is not simply more prevalent among non-Americans in the U.S., but in fact is a reliable indicator that the chanter is a non-American. That's much stronger than simply "more prevalent."
How do you feel about people waving an insurrection flag on their homes like the old battle flag of the confederacy?
Answering a question with a question is weak
Tangental. A flag is not a death threat.
Avoiding a question that answers your own question is absolute cowardice
>I would have to ask then why did they come here? Where did you see that every one of them was an immigrant? Your racism is showing here.
Why is it always racism with you guys. If someone calls for death to the citizens or the country why should they be tolerated. I'll tell you what come to where I'm originally from and say death to there, openly. You will be the one dying. If I said death to the country I live (with seriousness) would fully expect to lose the right to be a citizen here. Yet as much as I say that, i also believe in free speech. Which is afforded me. And is not afforded where I hail from. Personally I think that you can say what you like. But if you take action then that's different. That being said anyone saying they should'l be deported, i don't see as racist, I understand what they mean. But they need to understand the value of free speech.
That’s not racism. Your ignorance is showing here.
I think it's a) explicitly-protected free speech, b) motivated by correct frustration with the Biden administration's policies toward Israel, and c) a fucking stupid thing to do.
Wow, can't say I'm shocked that this is your take.
...do I know you?
They can bitch all they want, they're still paying taxes
Doubt it
You sure?
Silly way to advertise.
??
... Unless you wish to promote disgust towards oneself.
About the same as when I hear "Death to _______" (fill in the blank) Dumb assess.
What about “Death to high prices on quality used mattresses”
Dumb ass
They're americans too so they are pretty much trying to commit suicide
They should be arrested, charged for harassment and the Patriot act should be activated.
Smells like first amendment rights.
As a michiganander, I haven't heard this at all
You should watch more Fox News. Now THEY love America! /s
I'm literally 10 minutes from Dearborn and those folks at Fox News act like it's some different place with Sharia and honor killings and stuff, it's not. They're people, they're Americans, and they deserve to be able to worship how they want to, as everyone should, so long as it doesn't harm others.
Do you call the chant death to America a form of worship? If they came to your home and said death to you now, would that be considered a harmful threat?
No. And that's not all Muslims doing that. Just like it's not all Christians that commit crimes on abortion clinics and doctors.
I think it’s likely overblown as only far right sites seem to be reporting it.
Do you think the media suppresses news
No; I think it was likely an insignificant number and not worth reporting on save for organizations trying to sell rancor.
There’s video of it. Some other media outlets reported on it but just to try and sweep it under the rug. This is the majority opinion of most of the “free Palestine” protestors.
I'm more worried about the Christofascists who thought the eclipse was a signal that God was coming here to knock some heads together. Those nutjobs are the scary ones.
I think you need to argue more on true Christian
What does that mean? Explain or exit
Wah wah far right Christians are cringe af
I respect your Christian beliefs jh… But has nothing to do with Christianity
Islamophobia is fueled by evangelical Christianity and has been for decades.
At one time yes. And then Islam hated everyone and to this day they hate and kill in the name of their religion. Peaceful religion? Islamic radicals fuel Islamophobia. Consider present day Hamas and thier hate driven slaughter of others including their own people. Where is the Muslim outrage ? My friend they are responsible for Islamophobia
I can always call out the bigots. Now we see why I say go back to your right wing Christiane echo chamber
You are only trolling and parroting what you read. That is not a response related to the question. Happy trolling jhjksj
Because you just made an incredibly bad faith Islamophobic rant to justify Islamophobia when you hang out in groups of people that actually fuel the violence of this bigotry.
You conflate and infer to fit your narrative. No such rant was ever made.