This is not protected free speech, people.

[lees1975]

https://signalpress.blogspot.com/2024/02/this-is-not-protected-free-speech-but.html

We have a real problem if a statement like this one, "Let Russia do whatever the hell it wants," made by a candidate for the Presidency, can be made without any consequences. This is not protected free speech by any definition that we know. And the real problem we have, aside from the danger this creates in possibilities of kicking off another World War, is that it doesn't appear America has the will, or the mechanism, to control it and do anything about it.

The fact that there are Americans who not only don't have a clue when it comes to the significance of a statement like this, made by a former President and current candidate for the Presidency, but who will allow treasonous remarks like this to sway their own opinion because of their ignorance, is a sign that the constitutional democracy under which we have prospered and lived for almost 240 years is in real danger. It is also a sign that the world is in danger of another conflict, this time with nukes, that has the potential to completely destroy human civilization. And that's not an exaggeration.

The constitutional definition of treason is, "levying war against the United States, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort." This is from Article 3, Section 3 of the Constitution. This would include NATO alliance countries, with which the US has mutual defense agreements through the treaty. An American, encouraging Russia to attack an ally, meets the definition of treason and should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

Is our democracy too weak to defend itself against this?

[Irish_Dem]

1. Ignorant, immoral voters. A criminal system which is afraid to prosecute criminals.

Not democracy's best year is it?

[SarahD]

2. Remember Jane Fonda?

There were demands to charge her with treason when she visited North Vietnam and boosted their propaganda effort. Trump is doing something very similar.

[Ferrets are Cool]

5. Absolutely NO similarities. NONE.

In 1972, Fonda went on to tour North Vietnam in a controversial trip would come to be the most famous — or infamous — part of her activist career, and led to her the nickname “Hanoi Jane.” While in Vietnam, Fonda appeared on 10 radio programs to speak out against the U.S. military’s policy in Vietnam and beg pilots to cease bombing non-military targets. It was during that trip that a photograph was taken of her seated on an anti-aircraft gun in Hanoi, making it look like she would shoot down American planes.

At the time, Fonda’s public criticisms of U.S. leadership caused massive outrage among American officials and war veterans. According to the Washington Post, some lawmakers saw her protests as treasonous, and the Veterans of Foreign Wars called for Fonda to be tried as a traitor. At one point, the Maryland state legislature considered banning her and her films from the state.

On the other hand, the antiwar feeling Fonda came to embody was relatively widespread among the American population at the time, and, as filmmaker Lynn Novick put it in discussing recent documentary series The Vietnam War, some veterans “think she was courageous for going to Hanoi and taking a stand even though they didn’t agree with everything she had to say.” More recent scholarship has also emphasized the ways in which the idea of “Hanoi Jane” has grown far beyond Fonda’s actual actions during that tumultuous period.

Fonda has more bravery in one little finger than the former resident has ever had.

[Igel]

10. You're right.

We were at war with Vietnam. We're not officially at war with Russia.

She visited the country and provided moral and verbal support and comfort to them while they were waging war against us and our ally. Trump didn't make his statements in Russia.

Fonda was brave. But that's not grounds for an all-encompassing halo effect. We're taking great pains to emphasize that Trump is just a citizen now with no special privileges or prerogatives (apart, I assume, from the usual funding for library, pension, and Secret Service) or 'pull'.

I strongly disagree with what Trump said, but at the same time this kind of rhetoric did convince some European countries to increase (or at least make mouthing sounds about increasing) their defense budget because those particular countries were basically free-riding their defense on the backs of the US taxpayer and creditors and were spooked.

[Kennah]

15. This

[Silent Type]

3. If trump were charged, he'd win in court. His defense would be

that he believes NATO should pay more and US is paying too much, and his statements about Russia are made in that context. Whether we believe that or not really doesn't matter. Doubt prosecutors would even indict him because they know they'd lose and likely couldn't bring him to trial by 2026 even if he loses election.

To me, the issue is that this is not the time to be pushing NATO to pay more, nor should an x-prez be making those statements. Hopefully, voters will take that into account.

[lees1975]

6. Here are the inherent problems with this whole issue--

"Prosecutors...likely couldn't bring him to trial by 2026 even if he loses the election."
So we have a justice system that essentially is completely broken, if it takes that much time to get something to trial.

"Hopefully voters will take that into account."
Yeah, and weigh that against "Biden is too old," and "What about inflation," and blah blah blah blah. The problem is that there are an awful lot of voters who can't tell you what NATO is or why it matters. And of course, the old grievance about the US paying all the dues for the UN and NATO is one of the biggest "woe is us" lines of all time. This from a man who patriotically finds ways not to pay his tax obligation.

[Silent Type]

7. Still couldn't get a conviction on this issue, probably not even and indictement. There are hundreds of things trump

has done wrong, I'd concentrate on those before something like this.

[liberalmuse]

4. Incendiary and/or hate speech

Is not protected under The Constitution. This is an extremely dangerous and alarming statement coming from a candidate. This (among hundreds of other things) should disqualify him from ever holding public office and even running again. My God, what’s it going to take???

[kelly1mm]

11. Sure they are in the vast majority of cases. Hate speech

Is 100% protected. Inciting speech, in order to not be protected has to be both specific and imminent.

This is settled law per Brandenburg v. Ohio.

What makes you think hate speech is not protected by the 1st amendment?

[OutNow]

8. Be Careful about ignoring the 1rst Amendment

Do you know that actual real Nazis are allowed to have a parade in public and give speeches calling for the extermination of Jews and people of color? Do you know why? Answer - because of the 1rst Amendment of the US Constitution.

Without that protection Nazis would certainly be arrested and convicted. So would the TFG. But, under a republican administration, so would progressive Democrats for speech that we would find quite reasonable but the MAGA crowd would label hate speech.

That's why the 1rst Amendment is so important and why I've been a member of the ACLU for almost 50 years. End of story.

[lees1975]

9. Even with the first amendment there's a difference

between pure hate speech, which is protected, and inciting an attack from a foreign nation on the US or an ally, which is not protected.

He stood in front of the White House on January 6th, after sending out emails gathering everyone there, and already had advanced parties of Proud Boys fighting with police at the Capitol before urging the fired-up crowd to march down there with clear intentions. He's being indicted for that, though we are still waiting and waiting and waiting and waiting for something to happen because of a broken legal system that can't handle case loads.

Words have consequences. We're talking about whether Democracy can protect itself from subversion, and it's beginning to look like the answer to that question is that it can't.

[OutNow]

12. Can you provide an example of your assertion?

re: Trump's Jan 6 speech in front of the White House. You may have noticed that his Jan 6 speech has not been the focus of his arrest for dozens of felonies. His actions: Yes His speech: no. Why? The analysis is that Jack Smith did not charge that as a crime because the defense would be - free speech protected by the 1rst Amendment.

But you assert his speech attacking NATO is not protected speech? Can you provide an example?

Back during the Vietnam War and the massive protests against US involvement most folks demanded an end to the war and bring the troops home. A small groups went further and loudly supported North Vietnam and the Viet Cong. They wrote and gave speeches calling for the defeat of the USA. They were never prosecuted for their speech. By now you know the reason, right?

[lees1975]

13. Read that article 3, section 3 of the constitution.

Not being prosecuted for treason doesn't mean it wasn't. It's political, sure. I think Jane Fonda cross the line, and was fortunate not to have been charged, because politics being what they were at the time, there was a lot of inertia to stop the war. I think she could have, and should have been charged. My opinion and I think it would have held up.

Trump's January 6th speech will be used as evidence to support the charges. It's not what got him charged, but after the fact, it incited the crowd.

Whether or not something like this will be prosecuted is an entirely different matter from whether it meets the definition of the constitution. If a court says it does, then it does.

Or do you not think encouraging and pushing Russia to attack a US ally isn't a crime? The Constitution clearly states that reason is levying war against the United States, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. Encouraging them to attack allies of the United States fits that definition. That makes Russia and anyone who encouraged or sided with them treasonous enemies.

[OutNow]

14. Poor Analysis

So in conclusion: all the historical instances I mention where folks are not persecuted for their speech you explain away due to politics of the time, etc, etc, but you can't provide even one example to support your position but are sure you're legally correct. Poor analysis.

Putin has a nasty habit of locking Russian people up for criticizing his war in Ukraine. Me, I'm delighted I live in a country with the 1rst Amendment. I have an overwhelming desire to see Trump in an orange jumpsuit but it will be for his actions, not his speech.

[lees1975]

16. Advocating for a foreign power to become an enemy by attacking allies is exactly what Article 3 Section 3 is saying.

Trump is a public figure, a former President, whose careless bombshells cost lives. He needs to be held accountable for that.

[world wide wally]

17. Correct me if I'm wrong, but...

The way I understand it is that there are no such things as yearly dues paid to NATO.
I think that it is just an agreement that each nation devotes something like 2% of their yearly budget to their national defense. All within their own countries.