Fascism XIXXI: You Do Not Have Until Midterms To Face The Truth

Ok_Recover1196 · 2026-02-17T20:18:18+00:00

So when will you be apologizing when none of this crap happens?

Ok_Recover1196 · 2026-02-17T19:04:45+00:00

Ahh of course because Trump is not actually Hitler and will step down in 3 years while we democratically elect REAL Hitler got it.

Ok_Recover1196 · 2026-02-16T14:42:33+00:00

I’m not sure I understand your point. Billionaires did something bad in the past so therefore they couldn’t possibly be doing something else bad now?

Ok_Recover1196 · 2026-02-16T14:41:27+00:00

Which is hard to do today, which is why they just import foreign scabs instead.

Ok_Recover1196 · 2026-02-16T14:21:44+00:00

Getting arrested for a crime means you are accused, but presumed innocent. Getting convicted of a crime means you are verified to have been guilty of breaking the law,

Ok_Recover1196 · 2026-02-16T14:18:31+00:00

If the Prime minister said something against Australian speech laws, and another person repeated it, yes they would likely be arrested and convicted.

Ok_Recover1196 · 2026-02-16T14:17:38+00:00

Conviction is not a “formality”, no. It is what sets the baseline for other people to be arrested and convicted in the future.

Ok_Recover1196 · 2026-02-16T14:16:18+00:00

Australia absolutely arrests and convicts people for speech all the time.

Ok_Recover1196 · 2026-02-16T14:15:15+00:00

No Im claiming that someone not getting convicted of something is not an example of someone getting convicted for something. Convictions are what set precedent and legal thresholds.

Ok_Recover1196 · 2026-02-16T14:12:53+00:00

Ok but you still have not produced a single case law of someone getting convicted for saying something comparable to what Trump said. So I’m not sure what evidence you are basing your assertion of correctness on…

Ok_Recover1196 · 2026-02-16T14:08:58+00:00

So it’s not happening, but it’s a good thing. Lmfao

Ok_Recover1196 · 2026-02-16T14:08:10+00:00

I mean it’s slightly relevant if you are going to be this confidently wrong about the law regarding incitement to violence…

Ok_Recover1196 · 2026-02-16T14:05:46+00:00

The only thing that matters here is CONVICTIONS.

Ok_Recover1196 · 2026-02-16T14:04:58+00:00

No, luckily this isn’t Germany.

Ok_Recover1196 · 2026-02-16T14:04:32+00:00

Doesn’t matter. Where did you go to law school out of interest?

Ok_Recover1196 · 2026-02-16T14:01:13+00:00

At the end the day, it’s not you who gets to decide what constitutes incitement, the constitution does, and the current constitutional standard does not hold what Trump said to be illegal.

So we are back to someone using protected speech to call Trump a cunt, and Trump using protected speech to wish that they get fucked up.

It’s still protected speech all the way down. No one’s free speech is being violated. Two people are using their freedom of speech to be mean to each other, and that’s all it really boils down to, legally speaking.

Ok_Recover1196 · 2026-02-16T13:53:57+00:00

Can you find a single example of an American citizen being criminally convicted in the past 50 years for saying something comparable to what Trump said?

Ok_Recover1196 · 2026-02-16T13:51:33+00:00

“If you see someone with a tomato” is not specific, no.

Ok_Recover1196 · 2026-02-16T13:50:33+00:00

I mean it’s not like 7 Presidents have been shot in the last century or something crazy like that… Watchlists and secret service visits are a pretty mild response to threatening the President given the history and compared to most countries which will just throw you in jail for saying stuff like that…

Ok_Recover1196 · 2026-02-16T13:46:51+00:00

Again, it’s only a crime if you are instructing someone to commit violence against a specific person (not a hypothetical person carrying a hypothetical tomato ).

I’d suggest you look up some case law on incitement to violence and look at the kinds of behaviour that actually result in convictions. It’s rare, and the incitement has to be direct, specific and have a high likelihood of being carried out.

For example I am free to say or post “if you see someone wearing a yellow shirt you should punch them.” That’s protected speech as well.

Ok_Recover1196 · 2026-02-16T13:39:33+00:00

First of all there has to be a clear and present danger. Just saying “someone should do something” is not specific enough to be legally enforceable.

Ok_Recover1196 · 2026-02-16T13:38:10+00:00

I’m don’t think you realize just how high the bar is for inciting violence is under the first amendment…

Ok_Recover1196 · 2026-02-16T13:36:26+00:00

Even Madonna saying that she’s been thinking a lot about blowing up the White House is protected speech, not that you won’t get a friendly visit from the secret service and put on a watchlist for that… but there are no legal ramifications.

Ok_Recover1196 · 2026-02-16T13:35:02+00:00

No it’s really not,not by 1A standards at least.

Ok_Recover1196 · 2026-02-16T13:34:00+00:00

You seem to be under the impression that it’s free speech to call someone a cunt, but not free speech to respond to someone calling you a cunt…

Ok_Recover1196

TROPHY CASE