The criminalization of politics to get Trump is endangering everyone’s rights (First Amendment Violations)

The Hill ^ | 08/30/23 7:00 AM ET | BY BRIAN DARLING, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR

[RandFan]

The U.S. Constitution is clear: Political speech is protected by the First Amendment.

Also, battles over the acceptance of electors to validate a presidential election are wholly within the political realm and should not be subject to criminal sanctions. Yet our nation is very close to setting a dangerous precedent by criminalizing speech and politics, and one political faction is rushing into this folly headlong.

If the Biden administration is allowed to criminalize speech and politics, we will become a nation where the losers of presidential elections are arrested instead of being sent into retirement with book tours and libraries.

The criminalization of politics is a dangerous game that Democrats used to decry, when they thought the shoe might end up on the other foot. No matter how you feel about former President Donald Trump’s activities after the 2020 election, the reaction of putting Trump in jail for his speech and activities to organize opposition to Congress counting Electoral College votes would degrade our political system and set the precedent that one party can criminalize the political activities of the other.

Notwithstanding all the legal spin you are hearing on a day-to-day basis from talking heads on cable television, it is a fact that the First Amendment to the Constitution vindicates the freedom of political speech. When you hear the talking point that “you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater,” know that the media are trying to gaslight you — to make you believe that there are limits to political free speech, when in fact there aren’t.

If government is permitted to redefine the Bill of Rights as something subjective and not containing inalienable rights, then the government can take anyone’s rights away, including yours.

Yelling fire in a crowded theater has nothing to do with political speech.

[faucetman]

Brian Darling will never be seen on “The Hill” again!

[georgia peach]

Yes, Wow.

[RandFan]

Ping

[Pollard]

https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2023/supporting-peoples-right-to-accurate-and-safe-political-discourse-on-x

Accurate and SAFE political discourse(safe and effective censorship?

More than half a billion people from around the world gather on X to talk about their interests in real-time, and that includes elections. X enables people to directly engage on important topics with elected representatives, local or national leaders and fellow citizens.

During elections, X works to get in front of a range of tactics that people use to target the process. To do this we hire the right people, update our policies and evolve our product.

Our people: We’re currently expanding our safety and elections teams to focus on combating manipulation, surfacing inauthentic accounts and closely monitoring the platform for emerging threats.

Our policies: We have rules in place to help protect the safety and authenticity of conversations on X. During elections, our Civic Integrity Policy provides an extra layer of protection that is applied for a limited period of time before and during an election. We’re updating this policy to make sure we strike the right balance between tackling the most harmful types of content—those that could intimidate or deceive people into surrendering their right to participate in a civic process—and not censoring political debate.

The policy will also be aligned with our updated enforcement philosophy, Freedom of Speech, Not Reach. We will add publicly visible labels to posts identified as potentially violating the Civic Integrity Policy, letting people know when their reach has been restricted.>/i>

Blah, blah, blah; translation: Leftists are going to censor conservatives as usual leading up to the 2024 election.

[RandFan]

Yes this is coming from the new CEO of X.

She is trying to mollify “brands” and advertisers

Same old? I dont think Elon will allow mass censorship though and he’s still in overall control

[model B]

It seems DJT wants to make the GA indictment a freedom of speech issue (perfect phone call) - and I think he will be fine on that regard, but how does a grand jury see evidence and decide hey there’s something here? Said another way, I think there’s more to it than just Trump’s phone call. I could be very wrong here, but do some believe it’s just about him leaning on Raffensberger? I just can’t see that and if you know something I don’t, let me have it!

[fluorescence]

>The criminalization of politics is a dangerous game that Democrats used to decry, when they thought the shoe might end up on the other foot.

I think this is the key. They no longer really think that an opposition candidate could win. And if one somehow wins an election then he will get the Trump treatment from the agencies and congress. Heads they win, tails you lose.

[Reverend Wright]

Exactly !

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

It’s a guest opinion article. “THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY CONTRIBUTORS ARE THEIR OWN AND NOT THE VIEW OF THE HILL.”

[Jacquerie]

Democrats would rather jackboot rule a miserable nation in decline that be bystanders in a happy and prosperous republic.

[entropy12]

Ditto, my first thought. WOW Hill to permit this article is surprising. The article is pro-Trump.

[entropy12]

For openers, indictment by grand jury is NOT PROOF OF GUILT.

Second, any decision in lower courts is subject to appeals to higher courts, all the way to supreme court.