02-12-2021, 03:39 PM
Is anyone out there following the Impeachment Defense?
An orgy of "Bothsidesism" for sure. If the point is to provide cover for those voting against impeachment, I think a montage of Dems shouting "fight back" and "punch him in the face" certainly does that.
But I'm wondering if a majority of voters will conclude that such political speech is "the same" regardless of context. Or if the context is effectively expanded/extended to include inflammatory speech from "both sides"?
A second question--Is the "free speech" argument working? At one point, van der Veen seems to be arguing that speech which is Constitutionally protected under the 1st Amendment cannot therefore make a president impeachable: the speech is "Constitutional" and protected by the Constitution--so it cannot ipso facto be represented as "unConstitutional." Am I oversimplifying that?
Holding Trump's speech accountable violates protection of unpopular speech?
Elected officials have "enhanced" free speech rights according to much precedent? (But not enhanced accountability?)
Wood vs Georgia The SCOTUS decided in favor of a sheriff censured for publicly criticizing a grand jury impaneled to investigate his re-election: "...imperative that [elected officials] be allowed freely to express themselves on matters of current public importance."
Trump can therefore use "free speech" to defend his political interests.
In my view, none of this affects the charge that Trump behaved in a manner that a president should not. Free speech protects frivolous speech and even lying, but there is no reason why protection of bad conduct should protect a president from impeachment.
An orgy of "Bothsidesism" for sure. If the point is to provide cover for those voting against impeachment, I think a montage of Dems shouting "fight back" and "punch him in the face" certainly does that.
But I'm wondering if a majority of voters will conclude that such political speech is "the same" regardless of context. Or if the context is effectively expanded/extended to include inflammatory speech from "both sides"?
A second question--Is the "free speech" argument working? At one point, van der Veen seems to be arguing that speech which is Constitutionally protected under the 1st Amendment cannot therefore make a president impeachable: the speech is "Constitutional" and protected by the Constitution--so it cannot ipso facto be represented as "unConstitutional." Am I oversimplifying that?
Holding Trump's speech accountable violates protection of unpopular speech?
Elected officials have "enhanced" free speech rights according to much precedent? (But not enhanced accountability?)
Wood vs Georgia The SCOTUS decided in favor of a sheriff censured for publicly criticizing a grand jury impaneled to investigate his re-election: "...imperative that [elected officials] be allowed freely to express themselves on matters of current public importance."
Trump can therefore use "free speech" to defend his political interests.
In my view, none of this affects the charge that Trump behaved in a manner that a president should not. Free speech protects frivolous speech and even lying, but there is no reason why protection of bad conduct should protect a president from impeachment.
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
