- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: 86 47 is free speech
Posted on 5/16/25 at 11:00 am to MintBerry Crunch
Posted on 5/16/25 at 11:00 am to MintBerry Crunch
quote:
86 47 is free speech
Then he should have left it up.
0
Posted on 5/16/25 at 11:05 am to MintBerry Crunch
The people who are saying 86 47 is okay are the same fricks who wanted a rodeo clown's life destroyed for wearing an Obama mask.
I can't take them seriously and my indifference to them is off the charts
I can't take them seriously and my indifference to them is off the charts
Posted on 5/16/25 at 11:10 am to MintBerry Crunch
I have no problem with totally free speech as long as everyone has it. Shreveport's Independence Bowl is always desperate for sponsors who get their name on the bowl. Trump could win the rights with a $1M donation. It would have to be named: THE LET'S MURDER JAMES COMEY BOWL.
At halftime a group of performers could illustrate the different ways the assassination could be conducted. Lots of cool music and special effects would make it must see T.V.
At halftime a group of performers could illustrate the different ways the assassination could be conducted. Lots of cool music and special effects would make it must see T.V.
Posted on 5/16/25 at 11:20 am to kbmaverick
quote:
18 U.S. Code § 871 - Threats against President and successors to the Presidency
1st amendment literally says "no law". I'd says that's a law
Posted on 5/16/25 at 11:21 am to tigger1
quote:
Free speech ends when you threaten to kixx someone.
Nope, free speech is unconditional.
Posted on 5/16/25 at 11:23 am to MintBerry Crunch
quote:
86 47 is free speech
yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is not covered.....
Posted on 5/16/25 at 11:34 am to MintBerry Crunch
quote:
Trump wasn’t present.
Irrelevant
Posted on 5/16/25 at 11:36 am to tigeraddict
quote:
yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is not covered.....
Fun fact, it is.
The Supreme Court ruling that cited that phrase as an example was later overturned.
“Yelling fire” was really about protesting the war.
Also, yelling fire in a crowded theater is a good thing if there is a fire.
Posted on 5/16/25 at 11:44 am to MintBerry Crunch
quote:
Unless there is a threat of imminent lawless action, you can say that someone should be 86ed.
It could be interpreted as inciting violence. On the other hand, leftists are so stupid, it probably went right over their heads. That's probably a valid defense.
Posted on 5/16/25 at 11:47 am to graychef
quote:
Free speech is for criticisms of government without retaliation.
You can criticize the government. That's different than encouraging someone to murder the POTUS.
Posted on 5/16/25 at 11:48 am to MintBerry Crunch
Yea but if you said that about Biden or Obama what would happen?
Posted on 5/16/25 at 11:49 am to ninthward
quote:
Yea but if you said that about Biden or Obama what would happen?
I think we all know what would happen.
Posted on 5/16/25 at 11:50 am to MintBerry Crunch
quote:
Unless there is a threat of imminent lawless action,
What do you think all these people who hate Trump posting 86-47 are intending by posting it?
Posted on 5/16/25 at 11:53 am to International_Aggie
quote:
Also, yelling fire in a crowded theater is a good thing if there is a fire.
It was meant to cover false claims of a fire.
Posted on 5/16/25 at 11:58 am to Tigergreg
quote:
It was meant to cover false claims of a fire.
As stated earlier, it was never about fire in a theater at all.
It was about protesting the draft for WWI. That ruling is overturned.
Posted on 5/16/25 at 12:04 pm to International_Aggie
So it is ok to incite violence to kill the president but it is not ok to say ****?
Posted on 5/16/25 at 12:08 pm to omegaman66
If everyone here is smart, then you need to take note of who supports this.
These are the people that want Trump, and YOU, dead.
These are the people that want Trump, and YOU, dead.
Posted on 5/16/25 at 12:25 pm to omegaman66
quote:
So it is ok to incite violence to kill the president but it is not ok to say ****?
I never said incitement was covered. I very clearly said incitement to violence is not protected speech.
Someone earlier incorrectly stated it is illegal to yell fire in a crowded building. I simply corrected him.
Posted on 5/16/25 at 12:25 pm to Penrod
quote:
You are intentionally taking an extreme interpretation to fit your narrative.
Considering there has been an assassination attempt TWICE on his life, I would consider ANY threat viable, not mater how miniscule you think it is.
Posted on 5/16/25 at 12:45 pm to International_Aggie
quote:
That ruling is overturned.
Stop lying. Only the part about his opposition to the draft was overturned
quote:
The case was later partially overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969, which limited the scope of banned speech to that directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (e.g. an immediate riot)
The part about incitement of violence was actually strengthen by the ruling
Page 5 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News