Judge Decides trump's Call For Violence Not "Free Speech"

Judge to Trump: No free speech protection for lawsuit over rally violence

By Associated Press
April 1, 2017
Chicago Tribune

A federal judge has rejected President Donald Trump's free speech defense against a lawsuit accusing him of inciting violence against protesters at a campaign rally.

Trump's lawyers sought to dismiss the lawsuit by three protesters who say they were roughed up by his supporters at a March 1, 2016 rally in Louisville, Kentucky. They argued that Trump didn't intend for his supporters to use force.

Two women and a man say they were shoved and punched by audience members at Trump's command. Much of it was captured on video and widely broadcast during the campaign, showing Trump pointing at the protesters and repeating "get them out."

Judge David J. Hale in Louisville ruled Friday that the suit against Trump, his campaign and three of his supporters can proceed. Hale found ample facts supporting allegations that the protesters' injuries were a "direct and proximate result" of Trump's actions, and noted that the Supreme Court has ruled out constitutional protections for speech that incites violence.

 

Sorry, but he didn't exactly say "hurt them", did he?

Why is it that liberals can use the English language to mean what liberals want it to mean, and conservatives can only use the English language to mean what liberals want it to mean?

.

 

Cedar Rapids, Iowa, February 1st, 2016:

"So I got a little notice in case, you see, the security guys, we have wonderful security guys, they said, 'Mr. Trump, there may be somebody with tomatoes in the audience.' So if you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them, would you? Seriously, OK, just knock the hell, I promise you I will pay for the legal fees. I promise. I promise. They won't be so much because the courts agree with us, too."

 

You really make me laugh, D'Iqless1. If anyone is getting ready to throw a tomato at me, I'm going to knock the crap out of them, too. I assume you feel the same way. Or are you just a pussy?

 

A blanket statement to a crowd of morons is always going to lead to violence. Trump should go to jail for inciting violence. What fucking idiot.

 

The only violence President Trump has incited is that on the part of intolerant liberals.

 

At the rally in question, no, Trump didn't "exactly" say "hurt them." The suit doesn't claim that he did. Rather it revolves around the question of whether the violence suffered by the plaintiffs was incited by Trump repeatedly barking "Get 'em out of here! Get them out!"

I think that the judge has taken into consideration the history of violence by Trump supporters directed against those attending Trump rallies who were considered disruptive. IQless1's instance of a specific example of Trump literally endorsing violence by his supporters at a previous rally is relevant. The judge referred to the "multiple occasions before and after the Louisville rally when Trump allegedly made comments endorsing or encouraging violence against protesters." I expect that the reasoning is that this shows a pattern of behavior.

 

He tells the crowd to assault protesters, as in "inciting violence".

He knows this will cause legal issues for the people that assault protesters. He knows it's against the law, but asks them to do it anyway, as in "knowingly breaking the law".

 

Evidently his use of such tongue-in-cheek humor, and at an entirely different event, is beyond either the comprehension or the acknowledgement of liberals who are wantonly blind to any facts not supporting their agenda.

.

 

The judge doesn't think it's so funny for him to tell a crowd to beat protesters up.

 

Of course not . . . it wouldn't serve a liberal judge's agenda to do so.

.

 

Meaning you believe a so-called conservative republican judge would be for inciting violence, in violation of law, or to more accurately define your opinion: You believe trump wasn't inciting violence at all and is therefore not breaking the law.

Clearly, trump called for people to attack protesters, but you disagree. It's also noted that you don't consider your comments as a defense of trump himself, but as a commentary about "liberal bias" in our court system.

That begs the question: How do you define "inciting violence"?

 

Ignoring the facts, , are we, by merely reading excerpts from a transcript, and not going back and reviewing the tone of voice during that portion of the appearance?

I'd expect no more of a self-serving liberal . . .

 

Violent Trump protestors? You mean those paid by Soros and Crooked Hillary? To impersonate "Trump" supporters?

 

So you'd be fine with Obama, or Clinton, or Sanders, or any liberal calling for people to beat the hell out of republicans?

Yeah, I take it you also have bridges for sale, cheap!

 

Stop trying to twist my response in your favor.

I wouldn't be fine with Donald Trump, in a serious manner, calling for attacking anyone . . . and he didn't.

 

So there you have it. The so-called conservative response is, as usual, complete bs.

Whether they are lying or not is uncertain. They may or may not truly believe their bs.

If they are not lying, if they truly have such a warped sense of reality, then the question goes to whether or not they are insane.

I'd have to say "no", but with an asterisk. Some may actually be insane, but the baseline bias within republicans is at such a level that it's become a moot point.

In general, I view so-called conservative republican beliefs as similar to certain religious practices, ones where reality isn't important, only the belief is. In that sense, some are Christian or Jewish and some are Jim Jones or David Koresh. Some drink water or wine and others drink Kool-Aid laced with arsenic.

The level of bias, or belief, determines how reality is perceived. Calling for people to beat the hell out of other people is inciting violence, and that's a normal unbiased response, but the so-called conservative republican ignores that fact when the person at fault is perceived to be one of their own, and that is political bias.

If Obama, or Clinton, or Sanders had done the exact same thing, all of us, liberal Democrats and so-called conservative republicans, would have denounced the act. However, when it's trump who says it, or Huckabee, or Ryan, the so-called conservative republican insists it's a bs determination by a liberal judge.

It's unclear whether it's a lie or a warped sense of reality. In either case, it's not a normal, unbiased response, it's a level of insanity that isn't healthy in or for a society.

 

Your dodging of my point is completely evident to all D'IQless1 . . . keep it up.

.

 

So you believe trump was joking when he said this?:

And no, the court did not agree with trump, too.

 

So if trump says he's "serious", we are to take that to mean he is joking.

Again, selling bridges you don't own is utter bs, a con, a lie, an insane reaction due to personally held bias....take your pick.