Banjo,

Trying to compare the actions of a murderous cult leader to a speech by Trump is simply farcical. To quote:

Inciting to Riot, Violence, or Insurrection
Criminal incitement refers to conduct, words, or other means that urge or naturally lead others to riot, violence, or insurrection.

But what about First Amendment protections? How does the law determine when speech crosses the line from protected advocacy to incitement of violence?

The First Amendment: Brandenburg v. Ohio
Court decisions stress that democracy cannot stand if speech or conduct disagreeing with the government is criminalized—even when that speech advocates unpopular beliefs, condones racism or suggests the use of force.

In a seminal case involving a Ku Klux Klan leader, the U.S. Supreme Court found that a KKK leader’s anti-black, anti-Semitic, and anti-government comments were protected speech, even those comments that suggested taking future “vengeance” (sic) on the federal government.

To cross the legal threshold from protected to unprotected speech, the Supreme Court held the speaker must intend to incite or produce imminent lawless action, and the speaker’s words or conduct must be likely to produce such action. These requirements are known as the Brandenburg test. (Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969).)

Applying the Brandenburg Test
Cases applying the Brandenburg test stress just how high the bar is set before the government can criminalize someone for advocating dissent or violence.

First, incitement to violence requires proof that the defendant intended to incite violence or riot (whether or not it actually occurs). Careless conduct or “emotionally charged rhetoric” does not meet this standard. Second, the defendant must create a sort of roadmap for immediate harm—using general or vague references to some future act doesn’t qualify as imminent lawless action. Finally, the defendant’s words must be likely to persuade, provoke, or urge a crowd to violence. Profanity or offensive messaging alone isn’t enough; the messaging must appeal to actions that lead to imminent violence. (NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware, Co., 458 U.S. 886 (1982); Hess v. Indiana, 414 U.S. 105 (1973).)

LM,

Sorry but you utterly missed the point - as usual viz. Reichstag fire and feudalism.

We were talking about the internal Republican issues of members voting against Trump. So the alleged Xiden voters are entirely beside the point. I wonder if you'll understand that?

"Neither did the 80 odd million Biden voters."

Well sleepy Joe most definitely got 80+ million votes. But, given what we are increasingly finding out about the rigging of the election, that doesn't mean he had 80 million voteRs.

When I say that we are finding out about the rigging of the election I of course don't include you in that. To find out about it you'd need to want to know and many don't want to know.

__________________________________________________________________

Banjo,

The Manson murders aren't the least analogous to the Capitol riots. Manson specifically told his cultists to go to Polanski house and kill those inside - he just got mixed up as to who was there. Not only did he tell them to do it but he told them how to do it and provided the weapons.
And then the next night he specifically drove the killers to the murder site and participated in subduing the victims before leaving with instructions as to how to murder them.

Equating that to the Capitol riots is just perverse.

Mhaze,

When it comes to " .... finding out about the rigging of the election .....", the US courts don't seem to want to either. Perhaps for the simple reason that any such claim has not been backed up by the slightest evidence.

I think I'm starting to twig how some of you hicks claim to 'argue' issues:

* ADD TOGETHER: ASSERTION 1 + ASSERTION 2 + ASSERTION 3 ....... = UNASSAILABLE CONCLUSION.

REPEAT AS OFTEN AS YOU LIKE.

Brilliant. I'll have to give that a go.

The problem of course is that every one of your assertions is free of evidence. And as we all know, asseritur gratis, negatur gratis.

I'll wait for a reputable US Court to declare some fraud somewhere in relation to these elections.

Joe

.

Dear ALTRAV,

.

I’m pleased to see that we’re beginning to have a civil, mutually respectful discussion.

I note that you consider you have the good fortune of having been endowed with natural attributes of insight into human nature and are a very (overly?) sensitive person.

That, I am willing to believe, ALTRAV, and, if you don’t mind my saying so, I also find you highly emotive. In short, you are a combination of acute intuitive insight, raw sensitivity and ill-controlled emotivity.

And as I’m sure you are aware, ALTRAV, the challenge is to harness all that pent-up energy and channel it into something positive, creative – non-destructive – and, as I am also sure you are aware, you don’t always (nor often) succeed.

It’s a pity. I, personally, have been enlightened by the posts of many of the participants on this forum over the years. Not always directly, more often indirectly. The exchanges allow me to bounce my ideas off the minds of others, modifying, rectifying, up-dating, completing, enriching, reformulating, and, sometimes, changing them completely.

Unlike you, I do not seek to penetrate into the intimacy of the inner minds of my interlocutors and fathom their secret motivations. I do not doubt that they may have some, but that it is not the centre of my interest. I come here for facts, ideas and experiences which I submit, as far as possible, to rigorous empirical examination and verification.

I do my best to stick to facts and reality (that which exists independently of ideas concerning it). Interpretation, belief and opinion come second. Truth (information that has not been voluntarily deformed) comes third. Personal motivation of source comes fourth.

I enjoy mutually respectful discussions here on OLO with no ad hominem remarks nor any form of discrimination. I am comfortable with my inherited Christian culture but do not believe in the god hypothesis that goes with it.

If the “Great Reset” of Davos is to “Build a Better World”, what makes you think it will have the adverse effect ? Imposition by force is not on the agenda.

.

LM,

If you refuse to hear a tree fall in the forest, it doesn't mean it didn't fall.

If you refuse to look at the evidence, that doesn't mean the evidence doesn't exist.

I've provided you with links to articles where those who rigged the elections admitted it, indeed gloried in it.

I've provide evidence that machine counting deducted votes from republicans.

I've explained that courts haven't rejected evidence or found it faulty. They have just refused to look at for procedural reasons.

I've provided evidence of counties refusing to allow audits on their machines and counting for obvious reasons.

Just today we find that Michigan, where the margin was 150K removed 170K names from their rolls due to them being dead or no longer in the state. At the moment we don't know how many of these dead voted but we do know that generally Xiden had a large lead among the dead.

I've provided evidence that counting was halted in some jurisdictions for invalid or manufacturd reasons and that after that Xiden sudden had 100s of 1000s of extra votes.

And all that's before we even get into the issue of the media deliberately lying to help help sleepy Joe.

And much more.

None of this is going to sway courts who are anxious to find any reason to avoid the issue.

But its beyond bizarre that people who spent 4 years believing that the Russians swung the election to Trump despite zero evidence and indeed evidence to the contrary, now suddenly demand 110% proof.

Its almost as though they are irredeemably biased and incapable of seeing anything that doesn't confirm their prejudices.

Speaking of which...LM constantly harps on his evidence-free claim that Trumps caused all the claimed US WuFlu deaths. I wonder what he makes of the new evidence of the culpability of Cuomo in the extraordinary death rates in nursing homes in NY.

Or is it another case of the evidence not existing if you refuse to see it.

Loudmouth, is it a bridge too far, to imagine that there could ever be such a thing as voter/election fraud?
If we accept that the idea or concept is possible, then it is merely a question of finding out how it was done and how large was the fraud.
Only one group knows the truth, and they will never say.
So it leaves us with speculations.
BUT!
As it turns out, evidence of fraud has slipped through the cracks, and I have seen them.
Some of which I have bookmarked, the rest I have merely committed to memory.
Joe, there is too much at stake, and those responsible are wealthy and powerful enough to ensure that no trace of fraud is left behind.
So unless election fraud is an absolute impossibility, then the chance of it happening cannot be denied or dismissed.
I agree that it's a huge undertaking, and that even the hand recounts SHOULD confirm the numbers and be seen as the correct result.
BUT!
We are not privy to the machinations of such events as the American voting system, and as one of my video's shows, it is open to and vulnerable to malfeasance.
My submission is simply about whether or not the idea of election fraud was/is possible or not.
I find for the affirmative, as hard as it may be for people to accept, but that's life!