Greg, I don't envy you your job, but I really appreciate you doing it. Especially since the two comments before mine are both saying "whatabout". /Em facepalm.
Whataboutism is entirely legitimate. To think otherwise is to maintain that only you can make accusations against others, but they can't make accusations against you.
Jesus said, "Judge not, lest ye be judged." Believe it.
Whataboutism used as an excuse is not and maybe never legitimate.
There are three ways it is invalid here:
1. FIRE objected to the earlier / left free speech violations and it objects to the Trump cases. In other words, the answer to the “what about… ?”question is that they consistently object to first amendment violations by all sides, and the one that’s happening right now should concern everyone just as it concerns them.
2. We should focus on what’s going on right now and not use the past as a reason to ignore the present.
3. The Trump administration is on a tear, exploring new frontiers for this stuff. You won’t like it if a future democratic administration explores these aggressive lawsuits and regulatory threats against conservative voices, so you should speak up now to help make sure Trump doesn’t get away with it, so that future Democrats can’t say “but what about Trump?” to defend their guy or gal in the oval office doing it.
Sure, I get it. Because I said Trump is doing something wrong and it would be good to stop him, you believe that makes me an enemy who deserves any damage Trump can deliver to my rights or those of anyone else who criticizes him. Even if that weren’t evil, it is not a wise strategy. But yes, you have the right to claim that opposing Trump violating the first amendment should get me in trouble. You see, I believe in the first amendment, even for people who push political lunacy.
You made it very clear across your set of replies to me that by “pointing your finger” you mean that you identify anyone who opposes Trump as essentially the same and fair game for Trump to attack in a way that deprives them of their rights, because it is a fair retaliation for things some of Trump’s opponents did to him, even if the people Trump is attacking had nothing to do with it. Again, you propose a surprisingly radical collectivist vision for someone who calls himself a radical individualist.
First of all, that’s a terrible principle of law. Somebody who’s politically opposed to you or your side did something possibly similar against the law, or even attempted it, so you or your side can and should break the law now? Fortunately, that’s not how the law works. Second, we have escalation into novel forms. It’s going to get worse and worse for everyone if we let it continue. Third, how did the New York Times or ABC News or any of these other parties use the justice department or lawsuits backed by regulatory threats against Trump?
This only works if you treat everyone you politically disagree with as part of an opposing party and hold them all collectively responsible for the actions of anybody in their party.
In that case, it would amount to saying that all Democrats should expect to receive and deserve no first amendment protection during a Republican administration and vice versa: no Republicans should expect or deserve free speech rights during a Democratic administration. It’s a terrible principle that will lead to less and less effective ability to exercise our rights.
To summarize what you said: Trump is taking it back to you the way you took it to him, and you think that's unfair.
Show me where you expressed those concerns when Hilary screwed over Trump with Trump/Russia hoax.
Would care to give a rational, nonpolitical explanation for the first impeachment?
How about the second?
Do you understand the absurdity of those 34 felonies?
Do you recognize that the statement, "We can find no evidence of voter fraud in the 2020 election to an extent that would have affected the outcome of the elections," is mostly qualifiers, with very little statement? Try to find any 'authority' who will simply state that there was no election rigging in 2020.
I knew Hunter's laptop was genuine six months before that CIA cabal wrote that idiotic letter trying to make people doubt it.
I don't know if it's even possible for Trump to go any lower than these vermin have already gone. Nothing he does to them is unfair. They've got it coming. And let what he does to them be a warning to any other cabal that attempts a bloodless coup in this country.
Taking it to me the way I took it to him? Huh? No, that is not a summary of what I said, nor a statement that makes any sense.
Justin Amash speaks for me on the. impeachment. I though Peter Meijer also made sense on the second one.
Yes, I agree the NY felony charges were absurd lawfare.
Re: voter fraud, enjoy your fantasy. It was also a complete hoax. And enjoy living in a world where you can excuse literally anything the president does (as you said nothing he could do would be worse than what was done to him). The rest of us who want the rule of law will have to carry on without you.
"It was also a complete hoax.": That's your argument? That's your proof? Your declaration? Excuse me if it doesn't put me over the top.
And you simply ignored the Trump/Russia hoax.
In fact, NONE of what you've said in any way indicates that you have any comprehension of any of this. I challenge you to make your own case, and not just tell us that you're satisfied with what someone else said. YOU have made no case whatsoever, not even a bad one.
In brief, yes, that’s my argument. The 2020 election “stop the steal” hoax failed every sharp test of its important claims. It was a hoax. It’s also entirely beside the point. I don’t care what you believe about it because it’s irrelevant for the question concerning the first amendment and whether it’s OK for the president to try to suppress free speech.
As for the Russia hoax, It’s also irrelevant to this discussion and I wasn’t posting anything publicly anywhere at the time, so how does what I did or didn’t say about it have anything to do with this? I didn’t post about the “Stop the Steal” hoax either. Again, both are irrelevant to the question of whether the president is justified in suppressing speech.
On impeachment, like Amash I thought the Mueller report made it a strong case that that the president obstructed justice.
The reason I’m not “making a case” about these events, etc., is that a defense of free speech in no way depends on them. I have explained why that is so, but you’ve made it very clear that you feel that those who oppose the president in any way don’t deserve free speech, because of things that some of the president’s opponents have done. You offer an interesting proposal of radical collective punishment for someone who calls himself a radical individualist. I don’t think the strategy is going to work out for you, politically, and I have no interest in further discussing with you all the ways you think the president has been wronged and therefore deserves the prerogative of violating American citizens’ rights to retaliate against others.
Who began the use of lawsuits backed by regulatory pressure as a tool of attack: Trump suing ABC news and using the FCC or ABC news suing Trump and using their regulatory power (which is what?)? Do you really want to see a Democratic administration do this to Fox or would you rather see the courts act to put a stop to it, and ordinary people speak up and reject it?
The time to stop violations of Constitutional rights is now. Nobody wins.
Not disagreeing. I didn’t care for it when the IRS was selectively pursuing conservatives, when the government was “jawboing” and threatening social media companies about “misinformation “, much of it accurate, nor when they were arresting and prosecuting peaceful protestors in front of abortion clinics.
I agree 100 percent and you will notice that FIRE has been on the right side of such speech issues, especially including jawboning (though some of those date back to when FIRE was focused only on campus issues). Their piece on Kimmel and jawboning mentions the work they did on jawboning in the Murthy v Biden case. https://www.fire.org/news/why-our-critics-whataboutery-over-jimmy-kimmel-wrong
Of course it's overreach. Also insane. But... like Will Smith at the Oscars a few years ago, you don’t drag somebody's flame into the media melee if you are not prepared to get thumped by the boyfriend. Kimmel et al know exactly what they are doing and deserve whatever gets thrown at them.
I'm glad that there's now a presumption in case law that jawboning by a government authority always contains a veiled threat of "legal" action even if there's no clear law to be enforced or other "legal" pathway for action.
Now we need to find a way to enforce meaningful redress for process punishments, i.e., "you can beat the rap but you can't beat the ride". If someone in a government authority invokes arrest or other judicial powers in bad faith, etc., there needs a way to provide a sufficiently deterrent punishment on that government authority.
Greg, I don't envy you your job, but I really appreciate you doing it. Especially since the two comments before mine are both saying "whatabout". /Em facepalm.
Whataboutism is entirely legitimate. To think otherwise is to maintain that only you can make accusations against others, but they can't make accusations against you.
Jesus said, "Judge not, lest ye be judged." Believe it.
Whataboutism used as an excuse is not and maybe never legitimate.
There are three ways it is invalid here:
1. FIRE objected to the earlier / left free speech violations and it objects to the Trump cases. In other words, the answer to the “what about… ?”question is that they consistently object to first amendment violations by all sides, and the one that’s happening right now should concern everyone just as it concerns them.
2. We should focus on what’s going on right now and not use the past as a reason to ignore the present.
3. The Trump administration is on a tear, exploring new frontiers for this stuff. You won’t like it if a future democratic administration explores these aggressive lawsuits and regulatory threats against conservative voices, so you should speak up now to help make sure Trump doesn’t get away with it, so that future Democrats can’t say “but what about Trump?” to defend their guy or gal in the oval office doing it.
All your reasoning is pointless. If I want to point my finger at you, I will point my finger at you. If you don't like it, tough.
Sure, I get it. Because I said Trump is doing something wrong and it would be good to stop him, you believe that makes me an enemy who deserves any damage Trump can deliver to my rights or those of anyone else who criticizes him. Even if that weren’t evil, it is not a wise strategy. But yes, you have the right to claim that opposing Trump violating the first amendment should get me in trouble. You see, I believe in the first amendment, even for people who push political lunacy.
That in no way addresses what I said, but thanks for playing.
You made it very clear across your set of replies to me that by “pointing your finger” you mean that you identify anyone who opposes Trump as essentially the same and fair game for Trump to attack in a way that deprives them of their rights, because it is a fair retaliation for things some of Trump’s opponents did to him, even if the people Trump is attacking had nothing to do with it. Again, you propose a surprisingly radical collectivist vision for someone who calls himself a radical individualist.
We should note that the sword Trump seeks to wields was sharpened by others.
And the "others" could wield it in the future.
And so it goes. Back and forth, back and forth.
Yes, it was sharpened by the people who tried to use it on him. But now he's got it. As Shakespeare said, "Turnabout is fair play."
First of all, that’s a terrible principle of law. Somebody who’s politically opposed to you or your side did something possibly similar against the law, or even attempted it, so you or your side can and should break the law now? Fortunately, that’s not how the law works. Second, we have escalation into novel forms. It’s going to get worse and worse for everyone if we let it continue. Third, how did the New York Times or ABC News or any of these other parties use the justice department or lawsuits backed by regulatory threats against Trump?
This only works if you treat everyone you politically disagree with as part of an opposing party and hold them all collectively responsible for the actions of anybody in their party.
In that case, it would amount to saying that all Democrats should expect to receive and deserve no first amendment protection during a Republican administration and vice versa: no Republicans should expect or deserve free speech rights during a Democratic administration. It’s a terrible principle that will lead to less and less effective ability to exercise our rights.
To summarize what you said: Trump is taking it back to you the way you took it to him, and you think that's unfair.
Show me where you expressed those concerns when Hilary screwed over Trump with Trump/Russia hoax.
Would care to give a rational, nonpolitical explanation for the first impeachment?
How about the second?
Do you understand the absurdity of those 34 felonies?
Do you recognize that the statement, "We can find no evidence of voter fraud in the 2020 election to an extent that would have affected the outcome of the elections," is mostly qualifiers, with very little statement? Try to find any 'authority' who will simply state that there was no election rigging in 2020.
I knew Hunter's laptop was genuine six months before that CIA cabal wrote that idiotic letter trying to make people doubt it.
I don't know if it's even possible for Trump to go any lower than these vermin have already gone. Nothing he does to them is unfair. They've got it coming. And let what he does to them be a warning to any other cabal that attempts a bloodless coup in this country.
Taking it to me the way I took it to him? Huh? No, that is not a summary of what I said, nor a statement that makes any sense.
Justin Amash speaks for me on the. impeachment. I though Peter Meijer also made sense on the second one.
Yes, I agree the NY felony charges were absurd lawfare.
Re: voter fraud, enjoy your fantasy. It was also a complete hoax. And enjoy living in a world where you can excuse literally anything the president does (as you said nothing he could do would be worse than what was done to him). The rest of us who want the rule of law will have to carry on without you.
"It was also a complete hoax.": That's your argument? That's your proof? Your declaration? Excuse me if it doesn't put me over the top.
And you simply ignored the Trump/Russia hoax.
In fact, NONE of what you've said in any way indicates that you have any comprehension of any of this. I challenge you to make your own case, and not just tell us that you're satisfied with what someone else said. YOU have made no case whatsoever, not even a bad one.
In brief, yes, that’s my argument. The 2020 election “stop the steal” hoax failed every sharp test of its important claims. It was a hoax. It’s also entirely beside the point. I don’t care what you believe about it because it’s irrelevant for the question concerning the first amendment and whether it’s OK for the president to try to suppress free speech.
As for the Russia hoax, It’s also irrelevant to this discussion and I wasn’t posting anything publicly anywhere at the time, so how does what I did or didn’t say about it have anything to do with this? I didn’t post about the “Stop the Steal” hoax either. Again, both are irrelevant to the question of whether the president is justified in suppressing speech.
On impeachment, like Amash I thought the Mueller report made it a strong case that that the president obstructed justice.
The reason I’m not “making a case” about these events, etc., is that a defense of free speech in no way depends on them. I have explained why that is so, but you’ve made it very clear that you feel that those who oppose the president in any way don’t deserve free speech, because of things that some of the president’s opponents have done. You offer an interesting proposal of radical collective punishment for someone who calls himself a radical individualist. I don’t think the strategy is going to work out for you, politically, and I have no interest in further discussing with you all the ways you think the president has been wronged and therefore deserves the prerogative of violating American citizens’ rights to retaliate against others.
Sadly, that’s where we have come to over the last 15+ years. I’m all for stopping it. Let he who began cease first.
Who began the use of lawsuits backed by regulatory pressure as a tool of attack: Trump suing ABC news and using the FCC or ABC news suing Trump and using their regulatory power (which is what?)? Do you really want to see a Democratic administration do this to Fox or would you rather see the courts act to put a stop to it, and ordinary people speak up and reject it?
The time to stop violations of Constitutional rights is now. Nobody wins.
Not disagreeing. I didn’t care for it when the IRS was selectively pursuing conservatives, when the government was “jawboing” and threatening social media companies about “misinformation “, much of it accurate, nor when they were arresting and prosecuting peaceful protestors in front of abortion clinics.
I agree 100 percent and you will notice that FIRE has been on the right side of such speech issues, especially including jawboning (though some of those date back to when FIRE was focused only on campus issues). Their piece on Kimmel and jawboning mentions the work they did on jawboning in the Murthy v Biden case. https://www.fire.org/news/why-our-critics-whataboutery-over-jimmy-kimmel-wrong
The time to stop it was in 2016. You had your chance; you blew it.
I fired Kimmel a long time ago. You can too!
As Neal Boortz said, every radio (TV) contains at least two controls that will do that just nicely.
Did I miss the Comey part? Comey only seems to be in the headline. The latest Comey case is very different from the Kimmel cases.
Very good list of Trump cases. (Now do Biden).
Of course it's overreach. Also insane. But... like Will Smith at the Oscars a few years ago, you don’t drag somebody's flame into the media melee if you are not prepared to get thumped by the boyfriend. Kimmel et al know exactly what they are doing and deserve whatever gets thrown at them.
I have yet to see Trump do anything that hasn't been done to him for ten solid years.
Progressives, read The Boy Who Cried Wolf. I stopped listening to you years ago.
I'm glad that there's now a presumption in case law that jawboning by a government authority always contains a veiled threat of "legal" action even if there's no clear law to be enforced or other "legal" pathway for action.
Now we need to find a way to enforce meaningful redress for process punishments, i.e., "you can beat the rap but you can't beat the ride". If someone in a government authority invokes arrest or other judicial powers in bad faith, etc., there needs a way to provide a sufficiently deterrent punishment on that government authority.