A Political Thread pt. 2

[BrokenWing]

He did not "steal" top secret files. He was the president, he could and did declassify them, making them not secret any longer. The most he did was violate an administrative policy relating to presidential records. Bit different than Biden who legitimately stole top secret files which he stored in an unsecured garage. He had no right to possess those files and zero ability to declassify them when he took them.

How come Biden couldn't declassify them but Trump could?

 

[Sour Patch Kid]

Police doing raids/investigating insults or memes...I would argue you're looking at the extreme cases there which I think many would roll their eyes at on how pathetic it is. It's best not to assume that's being done with every person.

They arrested someone for posting a racist meme. Doesn't seem too extreme. Objectionable yes, but not extreme.

CBS Aired Ride Along With German Police On Anti-Free Speech Raid Hours After Saying Free Speech Led To Nazis

CBS broadcasted German police raiding a man's home over internet posts the same day a network host suggested Nazis

dailycaller.com

 

[Sour Patch Kid]

How come Biden couldn't declassify them but Trump could?

Because Biden was the vice-president when he took them and had no authority to classify or de-classify anything when he took them. The president however, does have that authority and when Trump took those papers, he was the president.

 

[Weldit]

They arrested someone for posting a racist meme. Doesn't seem too extreme. Objectionable yes, but not extreme.

CBS Aired Ride Along With German Police On Anti-Free Speech Raid Hours After Saying Free Speech Led To Nazis

CBS broadcasted German police raiding a man's home over internet posts the same day a network host suggested Nazis

dailycaller.com

Ah, yeah, Germany are incredibly strong on anything to do with the nazi's so that's no surprise.

 

[dirty harry]

Avoided commenting here for a while, all the Trump debate consists of the same old tired arguments for and against...

But there's something about people defending how the UK is policing speech that just gets to me...

The UK doesn't have free speach, that is a fact, and it was incredibly embarrassing watching Starmer claim so.

 

[Sour Patch Kid]

Ah, yeah, Germany are incredibly strong on anything to do with the nazi's so that's no surprise.

So they justify fear of an authoritarian regime by going after free speech? Seems backwards and simply a justification for suppressing ideas that they don't like

 

[Sour Patch Kid]

Avoided commenting here for a while, all the Trump debate consists of the same old tired arguments for and against...

But there's something about people defending how the UK is policing speech that just gets to me...

The UK doesn't have free speach, that is a fact, and it was incredibly embarrassing watching Starmer claim so.

That is why I have a hard time wrapping my brain around people from countries in Europe tout their dedication to "freedom". As an American one of the most fundamental freedoms is the right to express yourself and speak out on things even when unpopular. This was the crux of the complaints by conservatives when it came to COVID and social media. It appeared at the time that these conservative views were being censored by social media companies which was fine as they were private companies, but it took on another more sinister tone now that we have discovered that the White House was pressuring Facebook for example, to censor posts that went against the government position, a clear violation of the 1st amendment.

 

[dirty harry]

That is why I have a hard time wrapping my brain around people from countries in Europe tout their dedication to "freedom". As an American one of the most fundamental freedoms is the right to express yourself and speak out on things even when unpopular. This was the crux of the complaints by conservatives when it came to COVID and social media. It appeared at the time that these conservative views were being censored by social media companies which was fine as they were private companies, but it took on another more sinister tone now that we have discovered that the White House was pressuring Facebook for example, to censor posts that went against the government position, a clear violation of the 1st amendment.

I'm a rare brit who's almost a free speech absolutist, I also think if companies like Facebook and Twitter etc want to become billion dollar companies from advertising it as a digital town square, they need to adhere to legality not their own moral code.

These companies are too big to be allowed to dictate what is right and what is wrong.

 

[Sour Patch Kid]

I'm torn on that. I see both sides of the argument on private company vs digital town square when it comes to them controlling what is on their platform. I had no problem with them censoring stuff on COVID for example when it appeared that it was on their own, once it became apparent that the government was pressuring them, the fault there was with the government and their violation of the 1st Amendment.

 

[ncurd]

I'm torn on that. I see both sides of the argument on private company vs digital town square when it comes to them controlling what is on their platform. I had no problem with them censoring stuff on COVID for example when it appeared that it was on their own, once it became apparent that the government was pressuring them, the fault there was with the government and their violation of the 1st Amendment.

Okay I can't stop myself.

Who was the head of state during COVID?

 

[Sour Patch Kid]

Okay I can't stop myself.

Who was the head of state during COVID?

The censorship was done at the request of the Biden administration. Zuckerburg was very clear about that.
Biden and the Democrats used COVID and "misinformation" as an excuse to clamp down on free speech especially as it came to the "vaccine".

https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/27/business/mark-zuckerberg-meta-biden-censor-covid-2021/index.html

 

[TommiG88]

Avoided commenting here for a while, all the Trump debate consists of the same old tired arguments for and against...

But there's something about people defending how the UK is policing speech that just gets to me...

The UK doesn't have free speach, that is a fact, and it was incredibly embarrassing watching Starmer claim so.

How doesn't the UK have free speech?

 

[McTallshort]

How doesn't the UK have free speech?

Yeah, why are people constantly telling me I don't have freedom of speech. What is it I can't say?

 

[ncurd]

How doesn't the UK have free speech?

You can't go into a theatre and yell fire. Which incidentally your first 1st amendment rights in the USA doesn't cover either.

You are free to say what you like in the UK (and USA) you are not free from the consequences of your speech.

Incitement being a clear one.
UK libel laws are stronger here to

In the USA, the burden of proof rests with the person who claims to have been libelled. They need to prove that what the libeller said about them was false. In the UK, it's up to the person who made the allegedly defamatory statement to prove that it was true.

Nothing anyone really cares about in the strongest sense. Unless you think deplatforming is anti free speech but I'd say you don't know what your talking about in that instance.

 

[Sour Patch Kid]

How doesn't the UK have free speech?

MSN

Woman guilty of 'racist' Snap Dogg rap lyric Instagram post

Chelsea Russell said she used the Snap Dogg lyric as a tribute to a boy who died in a crash.

www.bbc.com

Supreme Court appeal blocked for man in Pug Nazi salute case

Senior judges reject Mark Meechan's bid to take his hate crime conviction to the Supreme Court for appeal.

www.bbc.com

I would say that the examples here would suggest that the UK does not have free speech or that the free speech is strictly limited. In none of these examples was anyone threatened in any way yet people were arrested and fined over something that someone didn't like and was offended by.

 

[Which Tyler]

Freedom of speech means that the government cannot prosecute you for your speech.
It doesn't (and never has) mean that you are free from any and all consequences of your speech.
I'm not aware of anywhere in the world that has absolute free speech.

ETA: always remember to post the relevant XKCD (where known)

 

[Sour Patch Kid]

Nothing anyone really cares about in the strongest sense. Unless you think deplatforming is anti free speech but I'd say you don't know what your talking about in that instance.

I don't think that deplatforming is anti-free speech in general, however deplatforming at the behest of the government is anti-free speech as it applies to the 1st Amendment when it doesn't like what you are saying. There does not have to be an arrest to violate the First Amendment

 

[Sour Patch Kid]

Freedom of speech means that the government cannot prosecute you for your speech.
It doesn't (and never has) mean that you are free from any and all consequences of your speech.
I'm not aware of anywhere in the world that has absolute free speech.
ETA: always remember to post the relevant XKCD

In all three examples I cited though, people were arrested for what they said. I have never conflated the two ideas. Free speech consequences government vs private

 

[ncurd]

In all three examples I cited though, people were arrested for what they said. I have never conflated the two ideas. Free speech consequences government vs private

Actually they were arrested and convinced over posting grossly offensive material in a public space. (The public space being the interenet).

Sadly like all BBC articles they gloss over the detail of the content for fear of reproducing the offence.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

He did not "steal" top secret files. He was the president, he could and did declassify them, making them not secret any longer. The most he did was violate an administrative policy relating to presidential records. Bit different than Biden who legitimately stole top secret files which he stored in an unsecured garage. He had no right to possess those files and zero ability to declassify them when he took them.

What criminal charges has he ever been charged with before? Based on common sense standards the New York trial was a sham. No one had EVER been charged with the same thing and there was no victim. I'd be curious how many other companies have overvalued a property or business valuation to their advantage? Also don't you find it odd that Leticia James was a visitor to the White House leading up to this case and that a Biden White House lawyer left that prestigious post to go work for a local DA's office when he previous bosses political opponent is the defendant? Again, none of this adds up.

MSN

This shows our level of free speech and expression is FAR greater than yours, your country has elevated itself to policing and criminalizing thoughts. As do the German police raids for memes and insults that those prosecutors were so proud of on CBS. Europe likes to talk about freedom and democracy but show that they are much closer to authoritarianism than they admit.

That is some weapons grade bullshit right there, so lets take it apart.

No Trump did no declassify the documents. Some of the documents in his possession were at a security level so high they weren't supposed to ever be taken out of dedicated secure facilities. He just had them lying around at Mar-A-Lago. But let's just go further into the detail of why what you said is such bullshit. Let's compare the evidence in favour of Trump's claim he declassified them and the evidence against:
For:
- Trump said he did

Against:
- Trump said he did just by thinking it. That's never been a thing.
- Trump was recorded saying they were classified
- Trump didn't claim that as his very first defence in court, it came much later after his other lies were dispelled
- There are no records anywhere of the files in question going through the declassification procedure.
- There are no records or witnesses to support Trump's claim of even wanting to put them through the procedure, even if they didn't
- The documents all still had the varying degrees of classification markings on them. These are removed when files are declassified
- FBI agents weren't allowed to see the contents of the files, that would not have been an issue if they had been declassified
- Judge Cannon wasted weeks during the trial procedures appointing a special master to oversee the documents and determine what was an wasn't classified. This was legal malpractice anyway but the special master confirmed the files were still classified
- During the trial procedure, the US government was required to set up a SCIF facility, these are only required when dealing with classified information
- At no point during the trial process was the claim that the documents were declassified ever accepted by the court
- Early on Trump argued he was allowed to keep classified files, only later did he claim they weren't classified
- When the trial was thrown out on completely illegal grounds, the classification of the files was NOT disputed, they were still recognised as classified.
- The recovered files have gone straight back into secure facilities suitable for their classification and have not been made public as declassified documents can.

In addition Trump engaged in the following:
- Trump lied about possession of the documents, something he wouldn't do if he didn't want to hide them
- Trump had his team intentionally obstruct attempts to regain the files and hide them, again why do that if they've done nothing wrong?
- Trump claimed the documents were his PERSONAL possessions and not the possessions of the government. He kept citing the presidential records act, even though the act says the exact opposite of what Trump claimed. Presidential records are the property of the government, NOT the president as an individual. The only thing that a president has ownership of are the personal effects (eg if they kept a diary).
- He destroyed government documents that then had to be pieced back together after he ripped them up and even tried to flush them down the toilet. This has been testified to under oath.

Trump's organisations have been found guilty of fraud before he became president. Look up Trump university and the Trump foundation. In both cases in court they were found to have engaged in fraud. So now you find it surprising that a person with a proven history of fraud continued to engage in fraud...? You want to go on about nothing adding up and yet display zero critical thinking when it comes to Trumps lies.

To believe Trump declassified the files you have to either be a troll or a Trump cultist with zero critical thinking.