(December 21, 2020 at 9:24 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:(December 21, 2020 at 7:29 pm)Brian37 Wrote: I hate it when people bring up Lincoln suspending Habeas Corpus in the case of Trump.
Lincoln's suspension was not because he got election results he didn't like. Suspending Habeas Corpus was constitutionally basically a last resort in the case of war in terms of sedition or foreign bodies attacking us.
Trump would suspend Habeas Corpus, not because of sedition or a foreign country attacked us, but because he lost.
It isn't a matter of silencing free speech. Nobody is advocating that.
Incitement is not protected speech, and it should not be coddled when coming from seats of political power.
If free speech were always absolute then those fighting to keep slavery were right. If free speech were always absolute then it would be legal to sell alcohol to those under 18.
You also cannot shout "FIRE" in a theatre. It is worse when Politicians do that.
Trump and his sycophants are not protecting free speech, they are inciting for no good reason other than the fact he lost.
Of COURSE it’s about silencing free speech. What Flynn did - and all he did - was to mention the powers afforded to the President since 1807. You immediately labeled that ‘sick seditious shit’.
Quote:‘...if there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other, it is the principle of free thought—not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate.’ - Oliver Wendell Holmes
Boru
Um no, Flynn wasn't defending dissent, he was defending blind loyalty.
Flynn would have defended the King if he had been alive during the Revolutionary war.
