Media's Lack of Knowledge of Law should be Embarrassing

[Rayzer]

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