Insurrection v. First Amendment
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 24 авг 2023
- Speech can be illegal too. 🥗 Use code LEGALEAGLE50 to get 50% OFF at Factor legaleagle.link/factor ⚖️ Get a great lawyer with EagleTeam! legaleagle.link/eagleteam
Welcome back to LegalEagle. The most avian legal analysis on the internets.
🚀 Watch my next video early & ad-free on Nebula! legaleagle.link/watchnebula
👔 Suits by Indochino! legaleagle.link/indochino
GOT A VIDEO IDEA? TELL ME!
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Send me an email: devin@legaleagle.show
MY COURSES
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Interested in LAW SCHOOL? Get my guide to law school! legaleagle.link/lawguide
Need help with COPYRIGHT? I built a course just for you! legaleagle.link/copyrightcourse
SOCIAL MEDIA & DISCUSSIONS
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Twitter: legaleagle.link/twitter
Facebook: legaleagle.link/facebook
Tik Tok: legaleagle.link/tiktok
Instagram: legaleagle.link/instagram
Reddit: legaleagle.link/reddit
Podcast: legaleagle.link/podcast
OnlyFans legaleagle.link/onlyfans
Patreon legaleagle.link/patreon
BUSINESS INQUIRIES
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Please email my agent & manager at legaleagle@standard.tv
LEGAL-ISH DISCLAIMER
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Sorry, occupational hazard: This is not legal advice, nor can I give you legal advice. I AM NOT YOUR LAWYER. Sorry! Everything here is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Nothing here should be construed to form an attorney-client relationship. Also, some of the links in this post may be affiliate links, meaning, at no cost to you, I will earn a small commission if you click through and make a purchase. But if you click, it really helps me make more of these videos! All non-licensed clips used for fair use commentary, criticism, and educational purposes. See Hosseinzadeh v. Klein, 276 F.Supp.3d 34 (S.D.N.Y. 2017); Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc., 139 F. Supp. 3d 1094 (C.D. Cal. 2015).
Special thanks:
Stock video and imagery provided by Getty Images and AP Archives
Music provided by Epidemic Sound
Short links by pixelme.me (pxle.me/eagle)
Maps provided by MapTiler/Geolayers
⚖ Who do you think will win this one?
🥗 Get delicious, healthy meals from Factor! legaleagle.link/factor
🦅 Get a great lawyer with EagleTeam legaleagle.link/eagleteam
I do wonder how it's illegal to point out what is on video in Fulton county where a woman was counting ballots after the polling building had closed. And it's on camera.
the sound effect used for a highlighting in the editing is really annoying
They are going to fire the prosecuting attorney on October first with a new law drafted by republicans.
OBJECTION: Something left unclear by the video, must INTENT be proven beyond a reasonable doubt by the government or only the actions of the crime? I feel like it would be super hard to prove beyond a doubt that trump knew he was lying. He's kind of dumb.
Ty mister LegalEagle for updates on mister Trump 😊!
It's legal to say, "I want my spouse dead."
It's illegal to call a hitman and tell him "I want my spouse dead."
Exact same words, extraordinarily different intent and potential outcome.
Question: is it legal to say "I want my spouse dead", either not knowing you were saying it to a hitman or not knowing that a hitman was in the vicinity and overheard?
@@lisahenry20since intent is crucial, it wouldn't be illegal. Also, hit men tend to want money, so unless you pay them, they probably wouldn't do anything.
@@lisahenry20 That's exactly where mens rea comes into it. Did you intend the person you're talking to to take action?
@@transsnack yeah, you didnt hire them. And if they ask for money after the thing happened that probably isnt a crime on you either. IF it were a crime so many boomers would be in jail given the "jokes" they tell.
@@crisdunbar4753It's like telling everyone, someone on your street is a chomo and waiting for them to attack, then claiming none of it is your fault really, isn't it?
Technically you didn't shoot anyone..
Saying "I wish I got 12000 more votes" is free speech and legal.
Saying "I want you to find 12000 more votes" to the person who you believe can do that, is intent to conspiracy and definitely illegal.
First one i'd give him. Donald doesn't like it when things don't go his way. The second one i'd say is criminal. We'll see what the courts figure out...
If I had to defend Mango No 45 on this one, I'd claim that he was so convinced (or deluded, which would be embarrassing but not illegal) he had to have won Georgia that to arrive at the current count, large numbers of legit votes in his favour had to have been mislaid and that it was all about retrieving, i.e. "finding" those existing but mislaid votes.
It's a veeery generous but not entirely outlandish interpretation of his call to Raffensperger.
Frankly, I still hope that testimony will link him directly to the various fake elector schemes because those were fraudulent beyond interpretation and might get him sentenced both in federal and state courts more certainly.
(especially when you've just casually threatened him with federal charges, like Trump did)
@@notroll1279
By your logic (which I don't really disagree with) that means Trump must claim to be either STUPID, or CRAZY.
He's running or PRESIDENT, though.
How does one campaign for president, after taking the "Stupid plea" in court?
@@notroll1279 don't forget that ithe call is just one piece of evidence. There is more to put it in perspective and show mens rea.
Free speech is so restricted nowadays, I can't even yell "I'm going to throw a firebomb at your house using the supplies I have in my garage and this lighter that I have in my back pocket" at my neighbor anymore without getting arrested, what has America come to.
Another false example.
You never could threaten someone.
Illegal activity is not and has never been protected
hyperbole
hī-pûr′bə-lē
noun
A figure of speech in which exaggeration is used for emphasis or effect, as in I could sleep for a year or This book weighs a ton.
This your first time seeing someone who's used this *literally for effect* ?
Just saying, it's pretty obvious to me that they weren't trying to be illustrative but rather they were trying to be comedic.....sheesh.
@@willmont8258 A more accurate example in the case of what he did in Georgia, would be
"Hey, can you give me some of your land neighbor? I just need half of it. But saying no would be bad for you, like, really bad. You shouldn't tell me no, something might happen." And then you find burnt matches and rags on the property and when the garage is searched, you find prepared molotovs and notes about plans to clean up after a house burns down.
@@Zarkarin And you giver another false example.
“Your Honor, my client was exercising his First Amendments rights to criticize the banking system when he said ‘take all the money from the drawer and put it in this bag.’”
But when I said, "I have a gun so give me all the money in the safe", I was simply exercising my First Amendment right to free speech.
But Trump has said nothing like that, it is lemons like you that imagine he has.
Can't arrest me for shooting the teller, it's my right to bear arms! Socialism! Socialism!!!!
@@sijcalv
Analogies are tough when you're still trying to learn pronouns but don't worry, you'll master English soon.
"Your Honor, it was mearly my aspiration that he hand over the money."
You didn't say "please" GUILTY!! :)
Devin’s videos will one day be used in a future history class to show kids how chaotic the Trump era is
It’s not chaotic. It’s clear that a lot of people in office don’t want him in office again. Hilary Clinton tried doing the same thing as trump when she lost but nothing happened to her because she is a dirty politician.
That would be really cool.
Assuming our public education doesn't screw it up. But I'm glad these videos are being made.
I doubt it, history is written by the winners, and the Trumpists are winning so far.
I feel smarter having watched 👍🏾
I feel like saying “Let’s have trial by combat” to an angry mob is definitely inciting violence
even though he said peacefully and patriotically which was not included in the federal inditement which by the way is illegal
@@giftbaseme7198 _"But he added _*_In Minecraft_*_ your honour so he's totally innocent! "_
@@giftbaseme7198 He only said that ONCE in a storm of other statements in the same speech where he incited violence.
Especially when you're hiding behind people obligated to protect you. It's so much easier when you know that nobody can harm you.
@gamestation2690 would you mind listing some of these quotes? And would you mind explaining why the crime of incitement to violence hasn't also been prosecuted?
How many time do we have to say "free speech isn't the same as consequence-free speech"?
Free speech literally means consequence free speech though. If some type of speech has consequences, then that speech isn't free speech. If a dictator says "You can say whatever you'd like, but if you speak out against my policies you will be executed" that that speech isn't free. The cost in this example would be your life. I really don't know why people keep repeating "free speech isn't the same as consequence-free speech"
@@cyfour familiar with your Miranda rights? "Anything you say will and can be used against you in a court of law". Consequences.
@@cyfour This is a ridiculous argument - there are thousands of actions you can do or words you can say, and all of them have a consequence. They don't have to be deliberate, and you don't have to like them. You are totally free to lift a rock into the air and then let go of it - the consequence will be that it falls. You're still totally free to do it or not. You can walk up to a huge man and insult his mother - he may well punch you in the face. You're totally free to do it or not. You AREN'T free of the consequences, and you don't get to choose what the consequences are.
The 'right to free speech' has NEVER meant that no-one can take action as a result of what you say, ONLY that Governments can't stop you saying certain things on public land (Government property is exempt, so no you can't yell anti-Government insults without being removed or potentially arrested). Private entities and companies also aren't bound by the 1st Amendment and can choose what speech they permit on forums or places they control (e.g. Twitter can ban your account), or even types of speech by their employees (e.g. non-disclosure agreements).
You have to be much more in depth with what youre saying. To support the first guys comment, free speech is saying what you want without consequence, that's the literal definition of what free speech is.
@@brandonreyes2417
No. It's really not.
Free speech isn’t unlimited. If it was then racketeering and harassment wouldn’t be crimes.
or defamation, or slander, or incitement, or making threats against a life, etc.
2023 Unlimited Free Speech glitch! *WORKING* *REAL*
@@Xerou Don't forget conspiracy!
As I like to say it, free speech is freedom to speak, not freedom from consequences if your speech is harmful.
But also death threats and intimidations arent either
At this rate, you're never gonna run out of Trump related content.
Don't wish that on him -- a career that revolves around Trump?? He'd begin to hate it passionately! Like someone else I'm trying to remember. Trucker Cartleson? Turtle Charleston? I forgot, but it was a tale of woe & a lesson about the horrors of moral trumpitude.
@@jennyjohnson5428cringe
@@jennyjohnson5428 Karlsson-on-the-Roof, you mean..
I want an episode dedicated to the mugshot…
He looks like a Karen in custody after a rampage and she _still_ wants to speak to the regional manager! 😂
@@tsundere.masterthe person who named themselves "lolimancer" can neve call anyone else cringe. It's just not possible.
There's a reason "Anything you say can and will be held against you in a court of law" is part of the Miranda rights.
Also the right to remain silent. People have ALWAYS responded to what others say to, or around them. Sometimes it's better to shut up.
The capital police that were letting people in some of the mysteriously killed themselves. Do you find that not suspicious 😂
"Basically, it's a nightmare law school exam by a sadistic, drunk law professor." That quote made me laugh hard enough where I needed to stop the video.
I can't wait for the inevitable Devin & Popehat team-up.
Ha ha I bet you really did rofl so hard roflcopter ha ha “help”
Timestamp to this fantastic gem?
Is at 17:55.
in the past I never understood why maffia bosses weren't just put in jail. Now I understand how hard it is when a boss has supporters all over the system and only speaks in riddles to his runners.
Mafia bosses use the same technique as DJT: “wish somebody would do something about this problem”. The rest takes care of itself.
@@Nick-Nasti " I may one day call upon you, to do me a Favor, Mr. Zelensky"
"Wont somebody rid me of this troublesome person?"
@@jlillerIronically, that example is one where the speaker (Henry VIII) *didn't* intend the results. He was expressing frustration but one of his underlings took it as a command. He was reportedly very broken up about it afterwards, since the priest in question was someone he generally liked.
@MrClickity it was Henry II and three drunk knights who overheard him.
Go into an airport, yell "I HAVE A BOMB!" and see how well the Free Speech argument works for you.
F o r
S c i e n c e
I joked about having drugs and needing a frisk to a very attractive airport security officer in Italy once, spent three hours being strip searched by a sweaty fat guy and had to pay for another flight 😂
@@alfsmith4936 what did you do to get him so sweaty?? 😏🕺🤼♂️👨🏭👨🍳👨⚕️🤷♀️
@@jennyjohnson5428😅 nice comeback
LOL. If you survive to see tomorrow that is. Knowing the states someone might shoot you hear in the states.
"this is the biggest witch hunt in history" is a crazy take for a country that used to ACTUALLY hunt witches.
😂too true!
Also he seems to forget about the witchunts for communists in the 1950s
Every country in Europe and the Americas used to hunt witches at one point (not sure about Canada)
anything that involves him is automatically the biggest and most important in history! DUH
(/s)
@@vickywitton1008yea that was called McCarthyism. What’s been happening recently from the GQP is Neo-McCarthyism. Scary times we live in
I really love the pivot from "drain the swamp!" To "its totally OK he lied to us! That's what we're in to!"
You mean the lies about Hunter's laptop perhaps?
What was the lie?
@@Alec0124everything is a lie unless it's about Trump then it's a fact that needs no proof.
Never seen so many people gripe about something they chose to participate in.
I didn't commit a crime I just said words to a hit man and then things happened.
Bingo
I don't see why it shouldn't be legal to pass a note to a bank teller asking for money. You're just asking. That in itself should not be a crime
All I did was tell them that they had a nice place and that it would be a shame if it caught on fire
@@yakovbrod9992 Passing a note to a bank teller asking for money that is not yours is almost universally viewed as part of a bank robbery, and any reasonable bank employee would assume that a note being passed to them asking for money the passer is not owed is part of a bank robbery and therefore there is an implicit threat present.
You might have a small sliver of land to stand on if you smile and ask politely "Can I have some of that money in the drawer please?" but its still dealing with what a reasonable person would assume. Keep in mind even if they dont charge you with robbery, you could be charged with receiving stolen property as even if you dont commit the theft, you have a legal responsibility to not knowingly receive property that is stolen which is what the money would be even if given willingly.
@@lisahenry20It wouldn't be illegal to say that.. That's why people do it.
Let's imagine for a second a black supposed gang member and drug dealer is getting charged with a crime and he publicly states "If you come after me I will come after you*
Is there anybody out there who believes that this person wouldn't go to jail pretty much immediately and charged with for their threats as well.
Well you see, it's actually illegal to prosecute a wealthy white man for doing the same things a black man does. It's common sense.
@@ManiaMac1613 precisely.
In addition, don't go around telling people that these are double standards, have some damn integrity!
To be fair its like the fun stuff you find all over now online with body cam footage drunk white girl says and does horrible things, then you find out they drop all but like weakest charge, and get a "don't do that again!" Then black man does same thing, and judge is all "ok were gonna let all these charges go to court, also in my opinion they were kind of soft, may the presiding judge make an example of you."
@@Zalzany They drop all the charges against a white girl, let them leave with a 'stern warning' and then pursue the death penalty for a jaywalking black man
I'll never understand why it's legal for a politician (specifically)to knowingly lie to the public.
Oh well
They make the laws
Because to make it illegal would be to make a toothless and unenforceable law. Those are generally not good laws to have on the books because they only get used against people who can't defend themselves properly.
Because someone needs to decide what is a lie and what is not. That is an obvious impossibility
@Turai12 -- Because making such a thing illegal would have to be done by politicians (at least at the federal level) and they won't pass such laws. It's possible that a federal agency (FEC, perhaps) could slip in some penalties under their regulatory abilities, but I think that Congress would quickly undo such changes.
And all of that is a long-winded way of repeating what @Dysfunctionality15 said earlier: They make the laws.
As people in the courtroom can be charged with perjury if they lie, I think, every time politicians speak, publicly, or online, it should also be under oath with the same perjury consequences. Too much misinformation is being spread by using Freedom of Speech to justify telling outright lies.
The problem is that we live in an entirely different technological context (sum of human knowledge and its applications), which means rights and freedoms _change with it._ Remember, for much of human history, slavery and serfdom were enforced because the technological context didn't support any other option for any period of time than very shortly. You'll need most of the human population scrubbing a living in the dirt to feed everyone else.
@@TheTrueAdeptGonna make some AI that can make thousands of AIs designed to spread misinformation as much as possible.
In the UK misleading parliament is grounds to be suspended from office
@@TheTrueAdeptwhat is this even In response to? Or even for what reason
@@mutantraze3681 everyone in general. Welcome to a vastly different technological context.
So, what we assume for freedoms and rights in one technological context doesn't apply in the new technological context we're living in.
Is it legal for house Republicans to investigate a prosecutor looking into their leader's crimes? That seems insane.
Its not NOT illegal
@@witchy90210oh snap! Triple negatives!
Exactly who should we call to hold the government responsible for it's actions? 😂
In isolation, it's legal and there's nothing wrong with the house investigating a random prosecutor for potential misconduct and/or malpractice of a case. However, the obvious conflict of interest here is a major red flag and the investigation needs outsourced a neutral third party (good luck with that) or stopped due to the aforementioned reason.
@@jofi4580elections
My favorite take on this is:
"Most mob bosses are not mimes.
Crimes involve speech and it isn't always as explicit as, 'here's how we're going to do these crimes.'
Sometimes it's, 'I just want to find 11,780 votes.'"
Even a Fox News viewer should be able to understand that.
**Should**, that is.
I love this quote.
Yeah, built-in plausible deniability: "You've got a nice shop here. It would be a pity if something were to happen to it. Oh, I wasn't threatening your shop. Just saying it would be a pity if something were to happen. Of course, maybe you could hire some protection ..."
they don't care
So the guy who demanded SNL be canceled for making fun of him now thinks he has a 1A right to cheat in an election.
Was SNL cancelled?
@@nigelhickman2274he demanded it get canceled. So it’s more a failure of being a honest person.
And he was a member of government demanding private citizens be punished for speech (the true goal of first amendment).
@@DorianGrayClampitt Was SNL cancelled?
@@nigelhickman2274 a government official failing at task doesn’t mean he didn’t demand it
@@DorianGrayClampitt Dude, you're talking to a recording of a person.
If this guy actually cared what the answer was, he would choose not to ask it and instead look it up, and he certainly wouldn't ask _twice._
Ah yes... Hiring a Hitman, also known as having a casual chat protected by the 1st Amendment
Republican platform: you have the right to encourage overthrowing the government if you don't agree with an election, but you don't have the right to tell 16 year olds that homosexuality isn't a crime.
Freedom for me, but not for thee.
Did trump say homosexuality is a crime?
@@Bfm359no, but he didn’t mention Trump once in his comment.
@@Bfm359did you read the 1st 2 words
@@Bfm359did you fall on your head multiple times when you were a baby?!
Man attempts to rob a bank. Trump's legal team: what, you're not allowed to use your first amendment right to inform a bank you're exercising your second amendment right?
Beautiful. Stunning & Brave 👏
😅😂🎉🎉❤Fanfuckintastic!!!
I didn't say I wanted anything, I just waved a gun and they gave me money unsolicited
“I’m sorry, I thought this was America, the land where I can say whatever I want with no consequences and shoot whatever I want with no consequences”
Does the 2nd amendment allow you to commit a crime or only allow ou to own a gun without restrictions/ infringement? Using all amendment rights have responsibilities and obligations.
Charge him the same way Charles Manson was charged for the Murders he technically didn't commit
Exactly , he never got out . He just directed others to commit crimes .
@@catherinesanchez1185it’s organized crime it’s not that hard to understand but yet people struggle so much on this.
@@bathroomshoesThey do understand, they're just panicking and gaslighting out of fear
He knows what he did. He doesn’t actually believe he did nothing wrong. We have had plenty of whistleblowers say that behind the scenes he’s freaked out over potentially being caught.
Really though? You genuinely believe a megalomaniacal narcist does not actually believe he won the election? Intent is hard to prove.
"Caught?" He's been accused of a new crime every week for 7+ years now. Wanting to know where your votes went when they disappeared from your tally and simultaneously appeared on your opponents tally is not a crime but spending 7+ years trying to rid this world of Trump is. Other than reversing trumps policies that benefits only major corporations, what has your "government" done for you?
"I won the election." is Free Speech.
Saying that you won the election while actively trying to subvert it, with multiple schemes at once, is not a Free Speech issue.
But a staggering number of citizens can't make that connection.
It’s not a matter of not being able to make the connection, they just choose not to.
@@yourwifesboyfriend6081 100% accurate assessment. I was being too generous.,
Or they are never allowed to hear the truth by a fake news channel.
Omg are you dense. the processes for challenging the results of an election are enshrined in law. He literally just unleashed a flurry of lawsuits, held some protests, and asked elected officials to do their jobs and investigate election fraud. Literally none of that is illegal, it was COMPLETELY within his right to do so. He was not “subverting” he was challenging.
I don’t know what you’re confused about? The only thing which could be misconstrued as a crime is Jan 6, which was literally just a protest that devolved into a mostly peaceful riot. If you legitimately believe that those unarmed boomers were going to overwhelm the personal security of the entirety of congress then you’re a lost cause.
Asking for recounts is not subverting the election sorry about that he followed the correct procedure unchecking the votes if you say he doesn't then we gotta go back and throw Hillary Obama and a bunch of others in jail because they did the same damn thing it's either one oh
Trump said to Raffensberger: "because, you know what they did and you’re not reporting it. That’s a criminal - that’s a criminal offense. And you can’t let that happen. That’s a big risk to you and to Ryan, your lawyer." We all know that this was Trump throwing his weight around during his last days in office. Yeah, that would surely have been seen by Raffensberger as a threat.
So you mean Trump is asking Raffensberger to uphold the law by reporting what he thinks is crime is now coersion? Yep, anything Trump does legally is criminal but anything that a democrat does illegally is A-okay.
This was a few days before 1/6, as well. We went from the major scandal of the week being Trump’s godfather impression to his reenactment of the Beer Hall Putsch.
@@warlordofbritannia Look like putsch is about to end same way. I just hope story didnt repeat itself this time.
Clearly Trump believed the election was stolen - therefore his words and actions did not amount to the 'mens rea' to commit a crime.
He was (in fact) boldly defending the constitution - that he swore an oath to uphold.
US vs Spock seems like a very illogical case. I don't think the Vulcan high command would approve. He really needs to stop going back in time though.
You don't need a criminal lawyer. You need a CRIMINAL lawyer!
“Better call Saul!”
Did you know you have rights? The Constitution says so.
@@Preinstallableand so do I.
IMO Trump just naming a witness is akin to a threat towards that person based off his fan base and their proven penchant towards harassment.
Unrelated to anything about the video but what does IMO stand for? I would look it up but looking up acronyms on the internet is so often a crap shoot.
But also you are correct. Him naming a witness is putting a target on that witness’ back.
@@tuiteyfruity5010In My Opinion.
@@iapetusmccool thank you!!!
If they could prove that he knew certain elements of his supporters are likely to act on his words then yeah, it would probably stand up in court.
You know, with all of the money Trump allegedly has, you'd think he could afford a suit that doesn't hang off him like a wet paper sack.
It's his signature aesthetic 🤌
At a virile 77 years young, he needs baggy suits to cover up the soft, too-cold porridge like consistency of his body.
That suit is designed and tailored to hide his paunch.
@@RDPendleton
No. He is 6'3 215lb according to the police, the man is fit. Lmfao.
@@thedude925 According to that one white house doctor, Trump is the paragon of health and wellness
This man was a mob boss. All of his tactics are straight out of mobster play books.
He is the last of the Enoch Johnson era NJ mobsters. His entire family have been criminals for 5 generations.
They are the actions of a
mob boss
in a badly written
and under researched movie.
um. this is not going to work in a court of law
Makes me wanna vote for him even more. Old school New Yorker
Nope The mayor of NYC crushed them.... maybe not all, but he did the best he could do...
I really appreciate you labelling AI generated images in your videos. Thank you, LegalEagle!!
I've never understood the confusion surrounding the First Amendment. One has the right to express one's feelings, not to commit criminal acts. I am 100% free to jump up and down, but if I do that deliberately on somebody's head I'll be arrested for assault. That's not some kind of persecution of people moving in a vertical direction; it's assault. What am I missing? What is the counter-argument?
There isn't one. They like trump and are just trying to say anything they can that makes him sound like he's not a criminal. They don't care if it makes sense.
People only think but they don't think *through* things.
I think our schools do an abysmal job of explaining what free speech is. Too many Americans have this idea that free speech means you can say whatever you want whenever you want, with absolutely no consequences whatsoever.
A segment of Americans want to be able to say anything they want without consequences. They hate that saying racist, hateful things can be used to shame them.
Have you seen these people? They wouldn't care even if they were taught properly. They say whatever they want.
@@horrormoviereactions.....seeing as Twitter execs ADMITTED to working at the behest of government entities to censor people, yeah that IS a 1st amendment violation.
And i have Never seen a single Conservative talk about banning a political opponent.
I have however seen Liberals run and hide like cowards at the merest hint of a confrontation at having their "facts" and views questioned.
As someone who works in a school, they generally don’t teach you much about civics or government at all, and when they do it’s not the intricacies of your rights under the constitution. I’m not saying that they should, but I am saying that most people’s understanding of any amendment is equivalent to magical thinking of what they believe it SHOULD be based on what outcomes they want.
I think they know, they're just playing purposely obtuse for political reasons.
It seems like they're trying to say that if you use speech to incite or induce a crime to achieve a political end, that makes it "political speech" and therefore protected by the First Amendment.
Exactly. It unfortunately makes exactly as much sense as trying to argue that confronting someone in a back alley and demanding their wallet is merely economic activity.
No, not necessarily. Lies make it beyond urging crime to fraud.
@@frederf3227 But that's more of the same. After all, lying in and of itself isn't a crime. It's lying in order to achieve a criminal goal that makes it fraud.
But they're trying to say that the ultimate purpose of the lie (and the criminal fraudulence invoked by it) was political in nature and therefore, it can't be a crime because "First Amendment!!11!1!!"
Since the First Amendment protects political speech most strongly, they are trying to claim that everything they said was political in nature and therefore can't possibly be a crime because of those protections. For example, witness tampering is a crime. But if they can claim that the court case is somehow "political," then any speech regarding the witness is a "political" statement and therefore protected.
@@dhwyll well, they do have a job to do & constructing any kind of meaninful defense against the charges arrayed must be pretty tricky. (imo that's a wild understatement)
i'm not shocked they're trying; i'm more amused that that might be the core of his defense... it can be eviscerated in a few dozen minutes by a small team (as above) i can't imagine it'll get much milage in court.
@@sjs9698 They know their best bet is to run out the clock. The client (might) have enough money to keep the gravy train rolling in for the lawyers until he dies provided they keep him out of jail. If he were to get elected again he'd just pardon himself (if that's legal is a whole other issue, but it wouldn't stop him from doing it) which would be the backup plan for his defenders.
I was merely exercising my second amendment right one day, when my first amendment right was criminalized JUST for me using my freeze peach.
Why yes, I was in a bank at the time of the robbery. ... I mean First Amendment Audit.
First Amendment doesn't mean you can say whatever you want with no consequences.
Exactly. The first amendment protects your speech, not the consequences of said speech.
To put another way, it's free speech to plan a robbery using bolt-cutters with a friend; it's no longer consequence -free when you buy the bolt-cutters with your friend.
Miranda rights inform the accused that what they say can be used against them in court.
Well, if you look at the indictments in D.C. and Georgia. They aren't charging him for his free or political speech. They are charging the actions that came from it
@@maryhales4595 Actually no it protects you from the government.
Otherwise what is the point of free speech? If the gov can arrest you for it then how is it free speech?
Running for president does not absolve a person from being charged for a crime.
Tell that to every republican since Nixon
@@chrisrubin6445 Tell that to all those who just resigned and never get charged insted. I mean that was old norm something really bad happens they resign, and its "ok maybe we give him a pass now..." I mean every one was willing to let Trump retire as big loser till he ran again and then its like "ok you didn't get the subtly now we got actually punish you as you didn't self shame isntead." Like its crazy people get that if big enough in power and money "its like ok you act embarrased and slink away for a few years we will pretend you learned a lesson."
Tell that to Hillary
@@excentrik5725you guys are still on that?
I thought you moved on to hunter?
@@excentrik5725 You mean the woman that never committed any crimes?
With Trump's defense I can hire a hitman if I wanted to!
It's just free speech, brah.
Manson never killed anyone, he just asked people to kill for him
"it's just free speech" is the new, politician version of "it's just a prank, bro"
Me telling the 7/11 clerk to give me all the money in the safe was just an "aspirational ask". 😉
brilliant. you are so insightful
All public officials should be considered under oath while they hold office. Our representatives, being in a position of power, should be held to higher standards. Is there any legal merit to this idea?
In Whitney v. California (1927) the Supreme Court held that speech advocating illegal conduct or the advocacy of illegal conduct was outside the protection of the First Amendment.
What was the illegal speech in Trump's case?
@@willmont8258how the one the one that incited a f*cking insurection?
@@willmont8258it's well defined in the indictment. If you've been following this at all you should already know that planning and then taking steps to commit a crime is illegal.
That's what this entire video is about.
Precisely, I find precious little difference between "suggesting someone do an illegal act on your behalf" and "stating that someone ought to do something illegal on your behalf". Stochastic terrorism is still terrorism. "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest" is still part of a conspiracy to commit murder.
Can you IMAGINE if this wasn't the case??? Every mob boss ever could say "It would be nice if someone would pick up the Heroin on 6th street. And after that, it would be pretty cool if someone could put three rounds into Smilin Jonny over on 8th. Oop, I didn't say you HAD to do it, so perfectly legal, perfectly fine!"
"You have the right to remain silent, anything you say, can and will be used against you in a court of law." - Miranda Rights (and the 5th Amendment Law)
Is he representing himself? No lawyer will work for him? His mouth is controlling his brain. You can now see a true "sovereign citizen". "Cancel the Constitution?" Do you remember who wrote the U.S. Constitution? Ever hear of hubris, or it's more common name "arrogance".
First Amendment Law - Freedom of Speech
Fifth Amendment Law - Right to Remain Silent
He is actually seeking to exercise his Right to Remain Silent, but his mouth is controlling his brain. Apparently it's also his attorney.
Elected officials shouldn't be allowed to lie to the public imo. He wasn't doing those speeches as a private person but as the president and that is scary.
biden lied about not knowing about his sons business when he knowingly did and got the prosecutor fired that was investigating his sons business and went on to make 20 "innocent" phone calls for his sons business. these are proven lies with public video evidence
He wasn't lying if he actually believes what he says. I haven't seen anything to convince me he didn't believe the election had problems... if anything, I've seen confirmation the election had some issues (Twitter files in particular).
If all politicians were punished for lying maybe we would have more ethical people representing us.
It shouldn't be allowed for anyone to lie to the public period.
If all Politicians were not allowed and actually faced repercussions for lying, we'd have no politicians left.
(And we'd be better for it.)
freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences. sometimes your words have consequences and just because we have free speach, it doesn't mean you won't get in trouble ;)
Yeah those uigyers should’ve known not to criticize the CCP. Freedom of speech without freedom of consequence isn’t free speech.
Trump could use this time to talk about his policy plans on issues like infrastructure, job creation or healthcare. Oh wait, he doesn’t have plans or any interest in those issues, and never has
The ignorance of this comment is astounding. Listen to one of his speeches. Give it a try. And try to listen to one from before you lunatics charged him for every time he ever jay walked.
Also, he might have more time to talk about those issues on the campaign trail, but you're lot has tied him up with vindictive lawsuits that preclude him from proper election campaigning.
@@JC-mi8fw so how many mugshot T's have you bought from the billionaire family?
@@Humannondancer zero. He doesn't sell them outside of America.
How many elections have you rigged?
@@JC-mi8fwboo hoo he is a criminal, deal with it son
@@_Somsnosa_actually, he is innocent. So stop lying.
Trump's Speech is not free, it's costing many other people a lot.
I just want to find... 11 thousand ... 780 ... uh ... votes...
At least he isn’t talking about his kitchen fire for the 10th time.
Trump isn't paying for it though. He is pretty making a pretty nice amount of "donations" from his marks, sorry supporters. To paraphrase Nixon (very badly I might add): "It isn't a crime when Trump does it."
has cost close to a dozen their lives
Silencing him costs so much more and the cost will be paid by your grandchildren.
Trump: "I have free speech and can say whatever I want. But not that judge! She can't say anything mean about me."
Right 😂 Usually people who scream "freee speeech" the loudest don't want it for people who say anything that hurts their feelings or contradicts their views. It's just a code for "I want to say anything I want, mean or dangerous, without taking any amount of accountability."
This video is 100% underrated. I believe this is a super important concept for Americans to understand. Just goes to show how important these trials are.
1000% a partial law education right here.
Thank you for your work.
Just to be clear...
Trump is not being indicted in the middle of his campaign.
Trump is campaigning in the middle of his indictments.
you ppl are seriously insane. trying to justify this by pretending you had noooooo idea he was ever going to run again, and this is all just a huge coincidence. the ppl constantly whining about democracy being endangered, trying to find ways to justify subverting it heh
because it hasn't been a perpetual string of empty indictments with political timing?
They waited for over 2 years to bring up these indictments for the sole reason of tying up Trump’s time and money in the lead up to the 2024 election.
@@ohioagainsttheworld676
What?
The investigations started years ago. He's had literal years that he's known.
Just because he runs for president doesn't mean he shouldn't be prosecuted.
@@TheJacklikesvideos
Correct. It hasn't.
As someone who has been convicted of extortion: speech can send you to jail. It really can.
you can't say that without giving us details
@@ericdodson3630i mean to be fair if dudes telling the truth and he went down for extortion, im pretty sure he learned his lession about sharing the details 🤣
@@kailebdv
Yes…but I’m curious 😂
@@warlordofbritanniabro stooooppp you're gonna get him in trouble!!!
@@basedokadaizo😈
Devin is working over time on these videos lately
Not surprising considering the frankly overwhelming amount of material Trump is giving him to work with.
There's a lot going on right now. 👍
😂😂😂😂😂
Make hay while the sun shines. A bunch of ytubers are making money off trump. Hopefully he has access to twitter from jail.
My names Devin, & yes I am
Stochastic Terrorism:
commonly refers to the idea that demonizing or dehumanizing a targeted group or individual incites violence that is statistically likely, but cannot be precisely predicted.
Or....how Republicans campaign and pursue politics. Or as they call it "free speech".
Demonized victims attract discipline and punishment from the vigilante.
@@cronostvg The best punishment I could possibly think of?
Let them lose every single election. They've already been trying to pass abortion bans in multiple states. Literally *all* of them failed by pretty solid margins. They're doing this because after decades of immense power, their hateful senior citizen voter base is literally dying off from old age, and not enough hatred is being spread around to replace them. The numbers literally aren't on their side.
Just keep pushing. Vote, speak out, be active. No vigilante needed and frankly it would be the worst possible punishment. To live in the country they tried to take over and watch it turn into the opposite of what they wanted ;)
Violence is *their* answer. Math should be ours. Take away the numbers = take away their power and influence. The only thing they give a single shit about.
The 1st Amendment doesn't change the fact that Miranda Rights says "anything you say CAN and WILL be used AGAINST you."
miranda right only apply durring an arrest. it has little to do with the first amendment and more to do with the fifth.
The irony of railing against the infringement of his 1A Rights, while simultaneously calling for the abolition of the COTUS is, no doubt lost on the Mango Mussolini, Trumpty Dumpty.
The Supreme Court found, in the case of Brandenburg v. Ohio, that speech is not constitutionally protected if it is intended to produce imminent lawless action and is likely to do so.
@@jonahfalcon1970 👍
It's like when the so called 'sovereign citizens' go into court and argue their constitutional rights are being violated while also arguing they aren't beholden to the laws because they are sovereign from the US
Mango Mussolini is amazing actually🫡I’m stealing that
@@blue_eyedfloozy Be my guest👍
Devin didn’t even stutter reading out "he tweeted out on Truth Social". He knows what he's doing.
It was so smooth, I didn't even notice it the first time around.
I don’t know how to tell the people who believe that the first amendment protects their guy is that your actions have consequences.
I refer you to Giboney v. Empire Storage & Ice Co. 336 U.S. 490, 498 (1949) ("It rarely has been suggested that the constitutional freedom for speech and press extends its immunity to speech or writing used as an integral part of conduct in violation of a valid criminal statute. We reject the contention now.").
They even reject the same platitudes they use when other people are arrested: Don't break the law!
If you mean that people can dislike you, distrust you, avoid you, etc. because of your speech, yes. But the point of the first amendment is to protect speech from LEGAL consequences. So "your actions have consequences" is usually going to be a meaningless argument in a court of law.
Wow @galian way to completely miss the point of what was being said.
because it is the wrong argument here. if you still don't understand that you are part of the problem why they don't understand
genuinely love the way Eagle uses his experience as an actual courtroom lawyer to say things like 'this is very routine' or 'which would 8e very unusual in this particular case'. it helps give those of us watching with minimal legal knowledge the a8lity to asses how 'out of line' something actually is. Most of us only experience the legal system through famous court cases, which can skew how normal/appropr8 measures seem when cele8ritys or politicians yell loudly a8out them either 8eing harassed or not supported. Very good and grounding keep up the lovely educational work.
This video does a great job at explaining how free speech is free but can still be used against you if you break the law.
What I understood was the speech itself is not a crime but it can be used as evidence for an actual crime.
I seriously love Devin's analysis of these issues.
@marcomoreno6748 Yea basically. Free speech as a right is designed so that the citizens of our nation can freely express their opinions without having to worry about the government punishing them for it. What it does NOT do is provide you protection for planning or committing crimes.
_Objection!_
*Over-ruled!*
He doesn't deserve to be President.
Neither does.
I'd vote for a plank of wood with a face scribbled on it because the plank wouldn't DO ANYTHING.
Can we throw both out? Jfc...
@@marcomoreno6748 Uhh no he gave many examples where the speech itself *is* the crime.
His defense is basically like saying "I was just on the phone with all the people breaking in, telling them where to go and what to do. I was just saying things, I didn't do anything, so I have first amendment protections."
Very Nixonesque
@@warlordofbritanniaMansonesque
I'm not an American. I just cannot believe that people are still thinking of voting for Trump. The world saw the riots and storming of your parliament and held its breath.
The dominant group in this country believes it is the exception to every rule and law on the planet. That's what Trump represents to them: an American who gets away with doing and saying anything to anyone. That's what this country has done throughout its history. If Trump lost the presidency it would have signaled to them that the country and the world are changing and won't accept those actions anymore (even though the Democrats aren't that different, they just aren't overtly bigoted towards minorities). His supporters are a lot like him in that they only care about themselves. They don't even care about Trump, but believes he truly doesn't give a shit about higher ideals, which suits their needs. They're already leaning towards Vivek after the Republican debate because he came across as the most genuinely insane person on the panel.
What I don't get is why people from other countries believe more in how the US portrays itself than its actual history. If you knew this country's history then these things really wouldn't be all too surprising.
This demonstrates just how insidiously dangerous the US political right wing has become here -- tRumpsky's voter base is so desperate to hold onto / take back their moment when a man as prejudiced, bigoted & mean-spirited as they are was sitting in the Oval Office that NOTHING -- not the system of democracy, not the rule of law, not due process nor even hard evidence -- will dissuade them from voting yet again for what is arguably the most dangerous Presidential candidate in American history.
some people want the chaos here
He stands for not cleaning my room, mom, I can have all the candy I like, very appealing to the simpler minds.
As someone immersed in this, in real time. They believe it was the "other" who stormed the Capital. "Their" side would never do that. It was a set up in their eyes. "Their" side are the ones standing for freedom, do you really think those FOR freedom would do such a thing? Think about it. Do your own research. You think those FOR freedom would do this, so then YOU must be the enemy. For we are FOR freedom.
*gags* 🤢🤮
I hate it. You don't even have to have a stance other than "That was bad and I did not like it." and all of a sudden you are a terrible extremist liberal in their eyes.
that was a smooth transition into the factor pitch. even the adds are well done
‘Based on mental state?’ Yeah tell that to Matthew Rushin. His lawyer tricked him into pleading guilty to a crime that never occurred just because of a seizure that caused him to crash his car by mistake. Even the crash victims didn’t think he was treated fairly.
"He tweeted out on Truth social." I can't think of a better way to say this.
Such excellent teaching / info !
Thank you for this great work
The first amendment protects you if you shout "Bomb" or "Fire" in a crowded movie theater, even if there isnt actually one.
However, if your shout causes a panic, and someone ends up trampled by others and injured, your speech itself is protected but the consequences of your speech are not and you can be charged for causing the injury.
He said to peacefully protest though. Not to storm the capital. People that egged on the BLM protests even when some turned violent still aren’t in jail, even still those protests seem to be looked back upon as a good thing despite having more casualties and property damage the capital invasion ever caused. With someone like Hunter Biden still completely fine, seems reasonable to assume this is politically motivated
Trump said nothing to invite anything. He said protest patriotically and peacefully, no violence.
Meanwhile democrats have openly stated they demanded their followers to get aggressive with Republicans and libertarians. Funny how a majority of mass shooters repost a lot of leftist propaganda before they become psychotic
Speaking of the First Amendment, I would love to hear your take on the situation with the Marion County Record out in Kansas. A search warrant served on a media outlet, then withdrawn by the DA? A police chief serving said warrant with a past that was being investigated by the paper? A restaurant owner applying for a liquor license while she has been driving on a suspended driver's license? The judge that issued the warrant also having a suspended license? This story has everything. I would love to see this channel cover it!
What a complicated web😅
Look into it. I live in TN, but I have a friend near the area in Kansas that called my attention to the situation. It is a mess.
It's wild to me because the cops know damn well that lady's record concerning the DUI is a matter of public record and there was zero concern of foul play. Pure, inexcusable, typical pig behavior.
Sounds like a great Netflix series.
You guys working on this channel are being gifted, infinite amounts of content from this whole Trump situation
Politics are always fun. Comedians, youtubers, critics, news, everyone just love them, because they barely have any work to do; politicians have just that very neat tendency to do very stupid stuff that either shock or amuse the population. Free content!
Next time I go to the bank, I'm gonna instruct the teller to find $11,780 to deposit into in my savings account, which is one more dollar than I am missing.
And the teller would say, no, and that would be the end of it.
You've made an excellent argument as to why these charges are politically motivated trash.
@@JC-mi8fw
Nope.
@@JC-mi8fw I used to be a teller. I would get kicked out if I did that.
It is stupid to give the people we elect to represent us, the right to lie to us.
It should be a crime
You mean we should put every politician in the world behind bars? Because they can't help themselves, Trump is just lying more then average.
What we should do is of course to not vote for lying weasels but since everyone does it, that is kinda impossible.
I am starting to think that we should fire all of them and replace them with Chat GPT, it lies too but it is getting payed a whole lot less.
Yeah, it might lead to Skynet but keeping the current bunch in charge might also lead to disaster.
Just like the Biden admin does
Really is a moral grey area. "I don't have faith in the public to not panic", for example. "So I fib about 'X'"
All politicians lie. All of them.
The best way to respond to someone using the "free speech" argument is to dare them to visit a bank go to a teller and say "I have a gun in my pocket, fill this bag with money" and lets see if that free speech argument will work in court when they are caught.
Always worth a listen. Excellent education going on here.
These free speech evangelists always say 'words dont hurt so i can say what i like', but I ain't never seen any of them say "I have a bomb" in an airport.
It's a shame the abstract concept of democracy cant sue him for libel.
Like they said: this needs to be decided in the court of law, not on the Internet.
14:58 Ah yes, the infamous "US vs Spock" case. One of my old favorites. Spock made some of the most highly logical arguments ever seen by a human being. Loved how in his closing arguments he stated all parties should, "live long and prosper."
Sorry, I just couldn't resist as a trekkie. ☺
I had to double take on that one too lol
Cant wait for more content, LegalEagle!
I'm a huge fan of the new chud thing of describing crimes in the simplest and most relatable way to make them seem legal. "Oh it's illegal to use the phone now?!"
This is why Trump slipped in the word "peacefully" sardonically into his speech. To separate his speech from the violent action he was pretty sure would follow.
Weasel words.
Yep. It was like dousing everything in gasoline, and then sprinkling a little bit of water on top to make it look like he didn't INTEND for there to be a fire.
@@leyrua Really its more like dousing everything in gasoline but making it so that the match can only be set off by a line of dominoes you kick over from outside the building, that way you can say you didn't start the fire, the dominoes were the ones that lit the fuel.
He added that after the event. On Jan 6, when told that his nutcase fans were armed, Trump said they weren't there to harm him.
That token word doesn't counter his encouraging his pet terrorist groups to "stand down and stand by".
At LegalEagle (please anyone upvote if you agree) -- I'd like you to do a video on whether 14th Amendment Section 3 bars Trump from holding office, and also if this should apply to any members of Congress who also aided, abetted, and fomented the Jan. 6th insurrection.
Seconded
Thirded.
I'd like to see a video as well. My interpretation is that he would have to actually be convicted first.
Also please to look at the implication of these statutes cited in Jack Smith's 2nd indictment, in case the 14/3 strategy fails:
'There are two statutes mentioned in the [special counsel] indictment against Trump that invoke the *penalty of disqualification from office:*
18 U.S. Code § 2384: This statute prohibits any person from conspiring to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States.
18 U.S. Code § 1512(c)(2): This statute prohibits any person from corruptly obstructing, impeding, or interfering with any official government proceeding.
Both of these statutes carry a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison. Additionally, if convicted of either of these crimes, Trump would be *disqualified from holding any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.'*
No it doesn't because the 14 amendment, section 3 has 2 parts
1 shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same
OR
2. given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.
There is little evidence that Trump engaged in an 'insurrection or rebellion' (there is more evidence that Nancy Pelosi engaged in fomenting the Jan 6th 'insurrection' than Trump) and there is no evidence that he gave 'aid or comfort' to the the Enemies of the USA.
It is always inter to get a good analyse of the American laws about these matters. I find Devlin’s videos fascinating.
Today I learned that Spock is an actual surname and I could not separate that from an image of Leonard Nimoy. Yes, I imagined a Vulcan on trial today
"You're too honest". That phrase alone could bury him.
I was just using speech to tell people to commit crimes. SPEECH!!!
Me telling folks that I was a FBI special agent was just free speech because it was my "aspiration" to be a federal agent, so I just told people I was one.
I hear you are all so a great salt merchant. But, what's your point?
I have always liked your channel - but my first comment is your commitment to solid motion graphics really sets you apart
So, according to trump's lawyer, ordering people to break the law for you is "aspirational" speech. John Gotti missed an opportunity to use that defense in court.
"He didn't order his underlings to murder that guy. He just said 'gee, I wish someone would murder that guy'. See? Aspirational!
@@MrClickity He did order them to destroy evidence though.
@@Zalzany Now I want to know what his _exact_ words were when he told them to do that. Purely so that I can make a joke about it being perfectly innocent... "You know what would be nice right now? A bonfire. Could somebody grab some *paper* for us to use as kindling?" **gestures in the vague direction of the pile of evidence**
It's sad that a lot of the details of this type of law were originally worked out in the context of mob bosses using euphemisms to order assassinations, for example. Sad in the sense that I never thought it would become appropriate to treat a political party as similar in nature to a mafia family. But that's where we are.
@@leyrua I mean he did, according to his Lawyers notes, say 'What if we don't play ball, if we don't tell them we have the documents' and 'What if there were no documents' and then he told that lawyer to take the documents to his hotel room and 'made a plucking motion' to remove anything 'bad'.
When they make a movie about this, I want every part of it to be Oliver Stone serious, but I want Alec Baldwin to play Trump just like he did on SNL.
MUPPETSSSS
I'd watch that movie.
Baldwin was perfect as trump😊
Yo 😂😂😂
Muppets with Baldwin Trump!!!
Muppets do MarALago!!!!!
Devin’s explanation is excellent and easy to understand.
Anyone remember the phrase: Freedom of speech, but not freedom of consequence?
I think people did forget
yeah, where's that phrase quoted from in law?
@@TheJacklikesvideos”…or the right of the people peaceably to assemble…” he had the people non peacefully assemble. Even if you think this doesn’t apply, the constitution has the elasticity clause, and it would be downright stupid to think that somebody can say something that they KNOW will cause harm.
It's good to get these often convoluted and murky affairs explained in a way that a layman can understand. Thank you very much for your service.
Run into a bank and yell "I have a gun and want everyones money" - then see how your speech is protected... or run into an airport and yell 'I've got a bomb', or into a movie theater and shout 'There's a fire' - there are PLENTY of examples where your freedom of speech ends, due to the right to safety that others possess.
What about the “it’s just a prank bro” defence?
Direct threats of violence are pretty straightforward crimes.
The movie theater fire one might be protected, it's a really bad example of a 1A exception from a really bad overturned SCOTUS opinion (IIRC a concurrence, not even the majority opinion... and they ruled that distributing anti-draft pamphlets isn't protected in that decision, so it's definitely not current 1A case law). It's definitely context-dependent at least.
I think a later incitement case where people died was ruled protected by SCOTUS because it didn't meet a very stringent test (they riled up the crowd, but it didn't immediately precede the actual lawless acts). It's been some time since I read about that case however.
Did Trump do that? BTW if theres a fire your good, and if you don't have a gun your screwed, you can figure how the Airport thing works out........
@@reddragonflyxx657 Wellput
@@scoops2 I'd vote to acquit the killer facing a: "it was just a prank, Bro" prosecution
Love the way you cover cases - generally unbiased - but wish you would cover the lack of a case being brought for similar high visibility incidents and why an indictment should be or not be made
While i appreciate his attempts to diminish them, he clearly does have a bias against trump, as any sane person would
What cases do you think aren't being brought?
Don't mind me, just gonna take out a full page ad in the New York Times advocating that trump gets the death penalty.
That might be protected by the First Amendment since it would be expressing an opinion, an "aspirational goal", if you will, rather than being a direct threat that you're going to off him.
clown
@@Alec0124 you support a traitor, my guy
all insults from you are compliments.
@sirsplintfastthepungent1373 ... smh. I've never seen a president act more against the country's security. How are our oil reserves doing, btw? Many people signing up for the military? How many secrets has Biden sold to China?
But Trump is the traitor?
I personally would t mind an independent candidate that could unite our country. But I can't believe so many people are convince that Biden was the lesser of two evils. He is a puppet, and that dont seem to bother liberals. It's why PA elected a cognitively impaired man to congress I believe.
I'm wasting my time typing. U right.
@@tracychristenson177 what do you mean "might be"?
Do you think it could have been illegal when trump did that same exact thing?
Because its not too late to add charges.
I can't believe we are at a point where we have to debate whether Trumps lies are legal or not! The fact that we ALL know he lies, including his own followers, is insanity!!!
I'm pretty sure nearly all his followers believe he was telling the truth. I see them say so all the time
Politicians lie ... Trump is no different.
So when we start prosecuting the lies politicians tell - why should he be first of the rank?
@@wasabiknight8125Yeah, its kinda concerning there’s no test to prove someone has basic intelligence and insanity. I’m not saying someone needs 100 IQ to vote, no need to lock out half the population, but 85.
Trump's lies didn't lead to the deaths of 400,000 Ukranians.
@@cailemkostiuk377 The tests used for this would have to be approved by politicians. Given the existing issues with gerrymandering, disenfranchisement of felons and other forms of voter suppression, I don't think that'd turn out well.
I actually own a copy of the Hitman manual he’s talking about. The fact that several people were caught in the act with the book tells you how “good” its instruction is worth.
The fact you can legally lie because you're a politician baffles me. What a joke. It's like having a badge that say "oopsie" everythime you get caught.
Great video thanks for being straightforward and informative