As we hear the volume of right-wing calls for violence in "defense" of tfg, I don't believe it is

[Atticus]

at all out of line to ask how authorities will respond WHEN, not if, a mob of traitorous thugs starts assaulting their opponents on the streets or mounts another invasion of a government building.

I will say it.

There are circumstances that definitely justify a "shoot to kill" order. The January 6th coup attempt was one of them, but that water has already gone under the bridge.

[elias7]

1. They really should be pre-emptive about this (I imagine they are)

We don’t want to wait until a public figure is assassinated or a govt building is bombed. Or someone opening fire on protesting Libruls.

We need to see some legislation against “news” outlets like Fox who are clearly fomenting potential violence through lies and dog whistling…

[MarineCombatEngineer]

2. What kind of legislation?

Because now you're stepping into 1A territory.

[Scrivener7]

4. Disclaimers when non-news stations pass themselves off as news stations.

That say they are NOT news stations, their information is "for entertainment purposes only" and does not reflect reality.

Based on provably wrong statements racked up in a 24 hour period.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

5. That's not true at all

Fox News itself has never said they're entertainment, Fucker Carlson, in a case, claimed that, not Fox, even Rachael Maddow argued the same thing.

https://factcheck.thedispatch.com/p/fact-checking-a-claim-that-fox-news?triedSigningIn=true

Fact Checking a Claim That Fox News Says Its Programming Is ‘Entertainment,’ Not News
The claim is misleading.

Popular Facebook page Occupy Democrats went viral with a post claiming that Fox News avoids lawsuits by claiming that “it's NOT real news, but rather ‘entertainment.’”

This post has a seed of truth to it: Fox News host Tucker Carlson was sued for slander in 2020 by Karen McDougal, a former Playboy model who sold the rights of the story of her affair with Donald Trump to the National Enquirer. Carlson claimed that McDougal attempted to extort money from Trump—though she never asked Trump for money or even approached him. McDougal sued, and in response Fox’s legal team argued that his comments “cannot reasonably be interpreted as facts.”

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil—district judge of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York—heard the case and agreed, finding that “given Mr. Carlson’s reputation, any reasonable viewer ‘arrive[s] with an appropriate amount of skepticism’ about the statements he makes” and that “this overheated rhetoric is precisely the kind of pitched commentary that one expects when tuning in to talk shows like Tucker Carlson Tonight, with pundits debating the latest political controversies.”

“The Court concludes that the statements are rhetorical hyperbole and opinion commentary intended to frame a political debate, and, as such, are not actionable as defamation,” wrote Vyskocil in her ruling.

Carlson isn’t the only opinion show host to win a lawsuit with such a defense: David Folkenflik of NPR noted that Rachel Maddow’s lawyers used a similar argument to convince a judge to dismiss a libel lawsuit brought by One America News Network. The judge ruled that Maddow’s comments about an OANN reporter being “on the payroll for the Kremlin” could reasonably be understood to be opinion.

Regardless of that, how do you think the RW SCOTUS would rule? Or for that matter, any Court in the land?

[Scrivener7]

6. *Sigh.* I never said they DID say they were entertainment, now did I?

There is no statement in my post that requires you to say if it was true or not true.

Because my statement is an answer to your question on how to handle them legislatively. It is a suggestion on how to do that. Which is: require disclaimers on stations that spew misinformation. The disclaimers should be based on the number of provably false statements they make.

If the same standard is applied equally to all news stations, there is no reason for the SC to object to it if it ever got to them.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

7. Sorry, I read your post wrong,

but I think you're wrong about the Courts upholding such a law, even if it were to be applied evenly, especially this RW SCOTUS.

I'm a 1st Amendment absolutist and I will oppose any attempt to curb free speech.

I may not like what one has to say, but I will defend their right to say it.

[Scrivener7]

8. That's nice for you. No one is suggesting any curtailment of their right to say anything.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

9. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this issue.

[Scrivener7]

10. Yes, but just to be clear, if your position is that this would violate the 1A and

you would fight against it, what you would be fighting FOR would be their right to spread misinformation without restriction, which has proven to be deadly to our democracy, and you would be fighting AGAINST the free speech of the rest of us to point out their lies.

[wnylib]

22. There are exceptions, though,

like slander, libel, impersonating a police officer, inciting a riot. I am wary of absolutist positions.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

23. Yes, very narrow exceptions.

I am wary of absolutist positions.

That's your right to be wary.

[hadEnuf]

36. The 1A is being used as cover for nationally broadcasted seditious propaganda.

Perhaps it's become time to separate the two and address what is obviously taking place.

[brooklynite]

11. And that's even worse...

You want the GOVERNMENT to decide which statements are "misinformation" requiring a disclaimer? I'm sure the next Republican President would love to have that authority.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

14. Thank you.

That's what I was trying to get across, but I miserably failed.

[Scrivener7]

16. Yes, just terrible. Because there is no way we could ever set it up to prevent that.

Our only possible option is to have the President make those decisions.

We never had anything like, say, a fairness doctrine, that worked reasonably well for generations.

It's just impossible. Our only choice is to let them continue to hypnotize a third of our electorate with lies and Russian propaganda to the point where they are on the brink of taking down our Democracy.

We should all just leave poor Rupert alone.

And, really? You're going to take the position that the GOVERNMENT can't be trusted with regulatory powers? Do you know who that sounds like?

[brooklynite]

19. "We never had anything like, say, a fairness doctrine, that worked reasonably well"

No it didn't in the way you imagine it.

The Fairness Doctrine only applied to local broadcast TV and radio stations; not to networks and never to cable. And it never resulted in robust "alternative viewpoints" being presented to the audience at times they were listening.

[Scrivener7]

21. LOL. A) It applied to broadcast licenses. Networks had broadcast licenses.

B) It didn't apply to cable because cable hardly existed when it was repealed.

C) I never said anything about "robust alternative viewpoints." I am talking about clear and dangerous and intentional misinformation and lots of Russian propaganda.

I hope your argument is not that we cannot label clear and intentional and destructive misinformation because regulation for the outlets that spew that misinformation didn't exist in the days before those outlets themselves existed.

[brooklynite]

29. "Networks had broadcast licenses."

No they didn't. Networks produced content. The broadcast licenses were held by local stations who were (or were not) network affiliates.

"It didn't apply to cable because cable hardly existed when it was repealed. "

No it didn't apply to cable be cable is not Federally controlled. The ONLY reason it applied to Broadcast is because the Government controlled the transmission frequencies and was able to include it as a condition of the lease.

"I am talking about clear and dangerous and intentional misinformation"

In which case the Fairness doctrine would have been useless. It in no way restricted what "misinformation" a TV station presented. It merely gave alternative viewpoints an opportunity to state their opinions on air.

[Scrivener7]

31. OK. So you ARE saying that we cannot label the destructive misinformation

and Russian propaganda that are destroying our Democracy because the outlets spreading that misinformation and Russian propaganda were not regulated before those outlets existed.

Right?

And PS: that's bonkers.

I'd hate to hear what you think of all those traffic laws we have that didn't exist before cars were invented.

[brooklynite]

32. Yes, I'm saying that, and that's a good thing.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I'm not aware of a Constitutional right to drive.

Too many people imagine that allowing any Government entity to restrict or regulate or label media content will only impact the content that THEY don't like.

[Scrivener7]

34. OK. So we're back to this: I'm not suggesting anything that limits their

ability to say anything they want to say.

And if we are not allowed to label the lies and misinformation that are destroying our Democracy as lies and misinformation, we are protecting the free speech of the liars and denying free speech to the rest of us.

[Scrivener7]

39. Here's another angle: Fox news pushed Ivermectin hard as a cure for Covid.

This misinformation was dangerous to the citizens of the United States.

A US government agency, the FDA, came out and labeled Fox News's statements as false. Because they are PROVABLY false. They had to do this because it was the right of Americans to know that they were being given dangerous misinformation that could fundamentally fuck up their lives.

In what way did that FDA action violate Fox New's first amendment rights to free speech, and how is what I am proposing different in anything except scale?

[Gidney N Cloyd]

48. The networks each were allowed at the time 6 Owned & Operated stations.

Not just affiliates, owned outright.

[Effete Snob]

3. More likely that Timothy McVeigh types will do things

With luck, they will give themselves away prior to completing their projects.

But, that nut in Tennessee who blew up the camper in Nashville demonstrated that one person with sufficient skills, working alone, can pull off quite a dramatic event undetected.

[Javaman]

12. they will scream and yell and demand...

but they won't do shit.

now that everyone and their closet moron friend on the right wing is being scrutinized for being involved in Jan 6th.

most of all the right wing racist militia's are infiltrated with FBI informants or undercover agents.

granted, sadly, one or two nuts might slip through, but for the majority of them, it's all bullshit and bluster.

don't get me wrong, there are crazy assholes out there that will still commit violence, but something en masse? not a chance.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

15. +100. nt

[wnylib]

27. I think that this view is either

wishful thinking or naive, or both.

I am currently reading Malcolm Nance's book, They Want to Kill Americans. The RW militia problem existed in the US before Trump and will not fade away, even if Trump does. Nance's expertise in Intelligence analysis makes his warnings about the ongoing danger from militias and RW politics very credible.

Various RW groups coalesced around Trump as a leader who represented them. That was the successful goal of the Unite the Right demonstrations in Charlottesville. It united them in political goals and actions. They will follow any other RW leader that represents their views, like DeSantis, for example. They will stand behind RW candidates in state and local elections, even to the point of threats and intimidation.

I would like to believe that they are weakened without Trump as a leader. But realistically, that is not likely. If/when Trump is actually indicted and tried, they will intensify their violent actions. Even Republicans who are ready to dump Trump for DeSantis or someone else will recognize the value of riling their base over "Democratic overreach" and use it.

[hadEnuf]

40. The hard right has never been so close to achieving dominating power in the government as they

have been in the last several years.

I just can't see them throwing their millions of guns and bullets in the trash because Trump is indicted and tried.


They are not going to go away. They instead need to be rendered incapable of causing insurrection, sedition and violence. However that is achieved will be up to them.

[wnylib]

45. Agree. It is a grave mistake if we become complacent about them.

[Hortensis]

13. As we hear LW calls for violence and "shoot to kill..."

In the world we want, all these decisions would be made by competent people of good character and judgement -- whose goals were protection of the people as well as the established authority. January 6 shows that their influence ruled even in the midst of a violent event that involved pro-coup actors in government and military.

So, for that matter did many other events leading up to it. Then POTUS (!) tRump called demonstrators violent and wanted them shot down in the streets, but that didn't happen. And not incidentally, over 3/4 of Americans came to admire and support the peaceful BLM marches in over 700 cities, which drew some bad actors and had a few tragic incidents but never broke out in police riots and racial and civil warring.

A result that shows the influence of competence and principle.

We need to be careful what we wish for. It could be different. Competent authorities know both LEOs and the citizens they are supposed to serve are representative of their societies and they have to work with what they have at any time.

[dalton99a]

17. Insurrectionists must be shot dead.

[IronLionZion]

18. We can start by calling it terrorism

these people are making terrorist threats against Americans.

[slightlv]

28. I think we need to get serious about a domestic terrorism law,

if we haven't already... and I don't think we have. Foreign terrorism was a shoe-in after 9-11. But we've let domestic terrorism slide, thanks to GW and those who followed. This has let the militia groups and the "lone wolves" proliferate out of control. We need to rein them in, and the only way I can see to do that is with a domestic terrorism law. Something like this would have been useful with McVeigh when he first popped up on the terror scene.

I know we over the last couple of years we have done something towards domestic terrorism laws, but I'm not sure what. Are they enough to handle the 3%'ers, "Proud" boys, and other posers we have out there with all their guns and glory dreams? Fertilizer bombs are way too easy still to make in this country for these guys, for example, IMO. And who cares? With their arsenals of AR-15's, who needs fertilizer bombs? They can get immediate gratification.

I'm a veteran, but I'm NOT a 1st Amend absolutist. When it comes to saving our democracy against these Nazi/dictators who want to kill our country, I'm all for going WWIII against them. Let us be the next great generation, and make our fathers (god rest their souls) proud of us. My father fought in Germany, Algeria, and in France. He was at D-Day. I'd like to think he'd be proud of his daughter today.

[brooklynite]

33. Perhaps a House Un-American Activities Committee? That worked well the last time.

[Atticus]

37. Or perhaps a "There are fine people on both sides" committee so we don't offend

the screaming enemies with the Confederate flags and AR-15s.

[Scrivener7]

41. In what way would having a law against domestic terrorism be like HUAC?

[brooklynite]

42. Because it gives the next Republican President the ability to tag opposition as "domestic terrorism"

What actions by the MAGA crowd cannot be prosecuted today by existing statutes?

[Scrivener7]

44. All your arguments seem to be based on the notion that

it is impossible to write any law that has actual criteria written into it.

Also, they seem to be built around the idea that we are powerless against anything a republiQan might do and so therefore we should do nothing.

[brooklynite]

47. I questioning WHY we have to "do something"

We don't have a domestic terrorism "crisis" despite what the keyboard warriors and screen actors on the internet say, and we have laws on the books that allow any of them who engage in violence to be prosecuted.

[Atticus]

50. I thought "We don't have a domestic terrorism crisis---" was just misguided, but then you

mocked those who disagree with that "keyboard warriors and screen actors".

I think that's all I will say---for reasons many will understand.

[Scrivener7]

51. Wow. Again, that's bonkers.

[DemocraticPatriot]

57. But the January 6th committee is doing alright...

They are exposing a lot of very "un-American activities"...

[malthaussen]

20. I expect no mobs.

MAGATS are 90% blowhards, and when the rubber hits the road will cower like children with a monster in the closet. That said, a few outbreaks by small groups of crazies, or independent actors, are not out of the question.

6 Jan took a lot of planning, and had a clear timing framework and objective. Without that kind of organized leadership (or disorganized leadership, since they made a right hash of it), the aimless masses can do nothing but mill about and bleat like the sheep they claim their opponents are.

As for "shoot to kill," only if there is a clear and present danger to life. Not property, although government officials hold that dearer than life.

-- Mal

[Atticus]

38. So, you'd let them burn the Capitol as long as they evacuated the building first and no

lives were threatened?

[malthaussen]

54. Oh, come on, I'm not playing false dichotomy hypothetical games. n/t

[Atticus]

55. Really? nt

[Aerator]

24. WLW radio is reporting 71 is closed

WLW is reporting part of I - 71 is closed after a police chase of a armed suspect that tried to break into the FBI office in Ohio. Shots were fired no further reports

[cutroot]

25. They got lucky on their first attack. Some of their ducks lined up for them

Next time the National Guard will be called in much sooner and they will not have the opportunity to sneak one by. republicans are mostly squawking sky is falling chickens. Their leader is just swirling down the tubes

[Danascot]

26. The venn diagram for "reasonable viewers"

and Fox viewers is null.

[crud]

30. The war on terror

was difficult at the time (we were told), because we didn't have "on-the-ground" intel. We needed to recruit folks who knew the language, culture etc. who could infiltrate the enemy.

For these domestic terrorists, we know the language, the culture etc. no problem infiltrating them. Unless the trump terrorists completely compromised federal LOE, it will be easier to disrupt their plans.

just a thought I had last night.

[Traildogbob]

35. I approve this message

I would love to see a national emergency address to the nation, by top law enforcement warning, take up arms against the majority of the country, there WILL be deadly force used against terrorists within our borders. You have been warned. Like we treat terrorists abroad, we will come for you leaders, Fux, Bannon, Jones MTG and all the clerics pushing attacks against us. Take a look at this Hell Fire Missile with blades. Proven effective with little infrastructure damage. Just you, your truck and those stupid ass flags with trump on Stallone’s body, (how Ronnie Jackson see’s his naked body🤮🤮🤮 .

[brooklynite]

43. You want the President to announce a crisis that doesn't exist.

Rants on social media notwithstanding, there is no evidence of public risk from Trump supporters that law enforcement can't take care of.

[Traildogbob]

49. Did not say

President. No risk from trump supporters? Quite a few families of slaughtered people, Capitol police, all victims from trump humpers, kids included, that disagree. J6 was not a threat prior to the day of?? The intentions were to kill with guns stored in DC. The amped up “we are at war” from Jones, Bannon and the endless stream of calls, not from social media but on MSM, to take action with guns. A parade of elected people on Fux, not hidden on some social media closet, calling to take the country, end Law enforcement. The Three Percenters, Proud Boys, White Supremacy Cults fully intend to kill, with chants at rallies, “when does the shooting start”? The threats are real. The loonies are “Locked and Loaded” and being encouraged by elected cultist. Political advertisements with white wingers touting guns and to action to take the country.
I just think a public statement of “You will be shot if you take arms and attempt to kill citizens not Bowing to trump” would be a fair warning. Just letting it brew to a point of explosion would be a fatal response. These lunatics need to be forewarned, consequences will be substantial.
My oath and service mattered, still does. If the threats of J6 were headed, with a warning of consequences and a fully armed presence to protect the Capital, maybe some lives would have been saved and a some fools not in prison, following the call to attack, from elected officials, in prime time on MSM, and well supported by Social Media wackos. How Many kids would be alive if we took those Social Media sites AND MSM serious, and were addressed about the bull shit they
spout? Just me. Respect your opinion but totally disagree with “no evidence of public risk”.
Grave sites, mutilated survivors from trump supporters, (Like armless Rittenhouse survivor) and pretty painted kids coffins, and just today, a nut bag took action against FBI in Cincinnati, are all evidence. Those terrorists on J6 wanted to kill, and did. If they get another chance and are ordered to go, guns will be used. I think nothing is wrong with them “hearing” they WILL be confronted with well armed Law enforcement and if you attack, you will be treated as any terrorist murderer, with the “Weapons hot” go.
Again, just my opinion, I served during a bull shit war to have the freedom of that. Respect yours.
We got to watch our 6, many will not do it for us. These threats are real. The Crisis is one “The likes we have never seen”. The coming days after trump and his propaganda machines continue the call to arms because he sees he is a cornered rat, may prove to be the evidence you seek. Hell, I think Fux’s wine soaked Judge J, Tuckums and Waters ate about to go postal for trump.

[Baggies]

46. The volume you hear

The volume you hear will be them showing up at the polls if there’s no verifiable smoking gun that the vastly overwhelming majority can point at and say that it’s unmistakable. Anything short of that will only feed their accusations that this is the modern-day equivalent of Nazis going after Jews.

[ecstatic]

52. Fair enough. It doesn't hurt to have a plan in place

What happened on January 6th is simply NOT acceptable.

[pwb]

53. We have a new sheriff in town. Deadly force will be authorized

this time if the freaks act up again.. IMO.

[BidenRocks]

56. 1/6

I expect mobs and shots fired.
They are a special kind of stupid and need to be put down if they choose to violently overthrow our government!
I stand by my USMC oath!

[BobTheSubgenius]

58. I completely agree.

And, at the cost of making myself a pariah, it's the same reasoning I used when I realized I wasn't all that scandalized by what happened at Waco. It was an overreaction, but not a crime - Karesh and his muppets had taken up arms against a legitimate government and refused to surrender. A govt. cannot allow people to do that to them, then not expect others to follow suit.

A not dissimilar incident happened in Philly, and the govt's actions had all kinds of collateral damage, but no one was outraged. I wonder what difference was in those two cases.