My tweets regarding the latest stupid thing fat boy said to get the cameras pointing at him (/and the media is making BANK on advertising due to his words, not a one of which he believes/) had this tenor:
There's no law against suggesting people go hunting politicians INCLUDING Donald Trump. Beware of an 'incitement' rap, and: I'd gladly trade a bunch of dead politicians INCLUDING DONALD TRUMP, for a similar number murdered by police for #WalkingWhileBlack and #DrivingWhileBlack Rr On 08/10/2016 01:59 AM, jim bell wrote: > Today, there was yet another manufactured scandal involving the media. > Apparently Trump > made a comment about Hillary Clinton and the NRA, which the mainstream > media is portraying > as some sort of a threat against her. No doubt that media is unaware of > the Supreme Court > case Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio According > to Wikipedia, this decision held that "The Court held that government > cannot punish inflammatory > speech unless that speech is directed to inciting, and is likely to > incite, imminent lawless action. > Specifically, it struck down Ohio's criminal syndicalism statute, > because that statute broadly > prohibited the mere advocacy of violence." > > This decision has never been overturned, although there are probably > many subsequent cases, mostly > district court and appeals court, which cite it. This decision is > important to me especially: I wrote > my Assassination Politics essay, and because of Brandenburg I am > supposed to be Constitutionally > protected even if I advocate violent crime, unless it will involve > "imminent lawless action", such as > a riot. > > I think the mainstream media (MSM) should be flailed (figuratively > speaking, of course!) for > "interpreting" Trump's statement, choosing the interpretation they > conclude will be considered most > outrageous, and then pushing that as if it is somehow accurate and > relevant. Do they ever do that > for his main opponent, Hillary Clinton? Not very often, if at all. > > Another thing that should be done is to criticizing the news media for > implicitly valuing Hillary > Clinton's life higher than that of other people. While it may seem odd > to value a life, courts do this > frequently, often in the context of a civil lawsuit based on a wrongful > death. For example, if > a life is 'worth" $100,000 per year and actuaries can state how much > longer than life would last, say 30 > years, if that person wrongfully dies, the damage is 30 x $100,000, or > $3 million. > > If, when elected, Hillary Clinton will waste, say, $500 billion per > year, that amounts to the > equivalent of: $500 billion/$3 million, or 167,000 lives per year. > The kind of people who would criticize > Donald Trump's "NRA" statement involving Hillary would presumably claim > that all human life is > equal in value: If they really believe that, they should realize that > they must not value Hillary's life > over that of a typical citizen. How does the value of 1 life compare > with 167,000 lives, the latter in > each year over four years? (No doubt that others will believe that > Trump will also waste money; > however, the numerous examples of new spending Hillary has proposed > would have to result in > huge tax increases, or at least enormous deficit spending, which is > merely delayed taxation, or inflation.) > > I believe that the public should be able to protect themselves against > corrupt and incompetent > politicians. Naturally, those politicians won't agree. > > Jim Bell
