c/progressivepolitics · by CubitOom@infosec.pub · 6d

Fascist paramilitary thug threatens to arrest US citizen for exercising his 1st amendment rights

https://cdn.social.linux.pizza/system/media_attachments/files/117/050/421/682/683/882/original/b8a303e6c19e1fd2.mp4

cross-posted from: https://infosec.pub/post/50566589

Video Source

127 points · 19 comments · view on lemmy.world

19 Comments

thethrilloftime69@feddit.online · 16 pts · 5d (7 replies)

Ice is a fascist pos fake ass government organization that should be abolished and everyone who works for them should be put in jail.

I still wouldn't go around insulting guys with guns.

wolfeh@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 4d

Put in jail, or... whatever.

the_crotch@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 4d (5 replies)

There's nothing fake about it. This is your government. This is the shit they do. This organization has survived 3 democratic terms so clearly the Republicans aren't the entirety of the problem.

Alkali@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 4d (4 replies)

Nearly every nation has immigration control in some way, often with a dedicated service. The current administration has modified and abused an agency that already existed to give their "SS" false legitimacy.

the_crotch@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 4d (3 replies)

ICE was founded in 2003. The United States somehow managed to enforce immigration for over 200 years without it. It's always been abusive, including during Obama and bidens administrations. Those "kids in cages" photos that made the rounds during Trump's first term were taken during Obama's. Trump made it a Hallmark of his second term and poured a ton of funding into it but it was rotten long before that.

Alkali@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 4d (2 replies)

As you said, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) was officially established in March 2003. The agency was created following the passage of the Homeland Security Act of 2002. It was created from merging prior organizations such as US customs.

If you don't understand how difficult it would be for a president to undo such a sweeping change to government structure with limited congressional support, then you don't understand how the US government works, and this conversation is futile. The literal reason Trump us using ICE is because he can't make a new organization, so is utilizing one that already existed.

I didn't like Obama's presidency, so I don't know what bringing him up means to you, but the new issue don't under trump was the purposeful separation of children from their parents, and separate deportations to keep them separate as a means of punishment.

Honestly, what even is your point? That people were ok with it previously? Many weren't. That is hasn't gotten dramatically worse under Trump/Republicans? If so, fuck right on off.

the_crotch@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 3d

My point is that blaming Trump alone is giving him too much credit. trump is a symptom, not a cause. Removing him or riding him out isn't really going to change much. The two democratic president who've done nothing about ICE are proof of that. If trump can unilaterally increase ICEs funding then Obama could have unilaterally cut it if he'd been so inclined..

kgbbot@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 4d

The heritage foundation was largely behind pushing the god-damned patriot act

iThinkDifferentThanU@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 6d (2 replies)

Tell them you think, first. Like I think your mom and dad were bro and sis... Can't touch ya then, its an opinion

LincolnsDogFido@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 5d (1 reply)

Can't touch him anyway. They just think they can because they're fucking stupid-ass motherfuckers that don't know how the first amendment works.

Alkali@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 4d

They can touch him. The question is whether someone will enforce legal protections if they do.

betterdeadthanreddit@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 6d (1 reply)

~~His first amendment right's what?~~

CubitOom@infosec.pub · 2 pts · 6d

Ok, fixed that

CubitOom@infosec.pub · 1 pts · 6d

Video Source

some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org · 1 pts · 3d

"That's not how that works."

It's surprising how frequently they cross the line because they want that to be true. Dude is correct to push back, but also lucky they didn't commit violence. I'd buy him a beer for sure.

earmuff@lemmy.dbzer0.com · -9 pts · 6d (9 replies)

[ removed ]

4am@lemmy.zip · 10 pts · 5d (1 reply)

[ removed ]

earmuff@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 0 pts · 5d

[ removed ]

CubitOom@infosec.pub · 5 pts · 6d (5 replies)

Idk about that.

Categories of speech that are given lesser or no protection by the First Amendment (and therefore may be restricted) include obscenity, fraud, child pornography, speech integral to illegal conduct, speech that incites imminent lawless action, speech that violates intellectual property law, true threats, and commercial speech such as advertising. As a general rule, lies are protected, with limited exceptions such as defamation, fraud, false advertising, perjury, and lying under oath during an official government proceeding. Even deliberate lies about the government are fully protected.

Hate speech is not a general exception to First Amendment protection.[2][3][4][5][6] Per Wisconsin v. Mitchell, hate crime sentence enhancements do not violate First Amendment protections because they do not criminalize speech itself, but rather use speech as evidence of motivation, which is constitutionally permissible.[7]

Along with communicative restrictions, less protection is afforded to uninhibited speech when the government acts as subsidizer or speaker, is an employer, controls education, or regulates the mail, airwaves, legal bar, military, prisons, and immigration

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions

I guess it depends on how obscenity is defined.

earmuff@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 4 pts · 6d (4 replies)

[ removed ]

Jax@sh.itjust.works · 4 pts · 5d (3 replies)

Watts v United States established that you can literally threaten to kill the president and it's protected by free speech.

earmuff@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 5d (2 replies)

[ removed ]

Jax@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 5d (1 reply)

The determination is made whether or not the threat can be proven to be true.

If I say I'm going to kill the president and it's proven that 1) I've taken no actual steps toward a plan and 2) I don't have the means to do so anyway - the threat is considered 'untrue'.

earmuff@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 5d

[ removed ]

Sprocketfree@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 5d

You are incorrect. See Lewis v. City of New Orleans