• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Does the Trump Administration believe in free speech or its own version of compelled speech and cancel culture?

EHocking said:
“soft drink”

Soda here is specifically soda water, e.g., if you order a scotch and soda, doesn’t expect coke/Pepsi
(my autocorrect prefers sofa to soda, had to uncorrect it 3 times in this post)
Click to expand...
If you order a scotch and soda, you get soda water, because bartenders understand context. That's true even in regions where soda means soda pop in other contexts.
 
EHocking said:
“soft drink”

Soda here is specifically soda water, e.g., if you order a scotch and soda, doesn’t expect coke/Pepsi
(my autocorrect prefers sofa to soda, had to uncorrect it 3 times in this post)
Click to expand...
Did JD Vance get a hold of your phone? He uses the " sofa pop" all the time.
 
mumblethrax said:
Other countries not only have an official language, they have multiple official languages, which makes ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ out of the administration's claim that a single official language is "at the core of a unified, cohesive society." When I lived in Switzerland years ago, they had four national languages.

In general, I don't see any good reason why a liberal democracy ought to have a national language, particularly in countries that are former colonialist projects. I don't really think there's such a thing as an "ethnic American", and if Spanish becomes one of the languages of public life...so what?

This stuff is for butt-scratching, status-seeking monkeys.
Click to expand...
It's that phrase about "a unified, cohesive society" that's a little worrying here. I mean, there's a difference between a society that's unified and cohesive to a degree where it's necessary to its functioning as one with due respect for its citizens' rights, and one that's strait-jacketed by expectations that are not just substantially ones of political correctness but now of political definition (i.e., law). This administration doesn't just want a unified America (and constant attacks on Democrats or liberals for nothing more heinous than being Democrats or liberals seems like a funny way to get that)- this administration is demanding conformity.
 
Languages with a large number of speakers consist of two to several dialects; it's unavoidable. Which breed of English does Trumpptf mean?

Whar Ah sprouted n growed up, we by neddy jingo talk MERRICAN! Ain't no wobble-asted dude from back east a goin ta tell this pilgrim how ta palaver!

Ennabody don't like that kin smell my shoes.
 
Last edited:
Norman Alexander said:
There will be an issue with accents too. For example, a workmate and I, while on a business trip to Seattle years ago, confused the heck out of our Yank hosts by conversing in Brabham-Aussie, a method of speaking Aussie slang with the mouth barely open and lips barely moving (it keeps the flies out).
Click to expand...
I mentioned this previously. This is Sir Jack Brabham in interview. A lot of Americans can barely understand him.

 

Trump's EO making English the official language seems to have few teeth. It rescinds a Clinton-era mandate that required agencies and recipients of federal funding to provide extensive language assistance to non-English speakers. Agencies are allowed, but no longer are required to provide service in other languages.
 
The Khalil case is extremely disturbing. I've scoured the Internet, and haven't been able to find (yet) to find any evidence that he did or said anything specific that *materially* aided a terrorist organization or that specifically advocated violence or illegality.

Given the publicity of the case, I feel Trump's government has an absolute responsibility to spell out exactly what he is being deported for.
If all he did was say something along the lines of "I like Hamas" then this is *precisely* the kind of speech that the 1st amendment is intended to protect!

If they deport him anyways, then that is clear evidence that Trump's regime is abandoning the 1st amendment and is embracing fascism.
 
stanfr said:
The Khalil case is extremely disturbing. I've scoured the Internet, and haven't been able to find (yet) to find any evidence that he did or said anything specific that *materially* aided a terrorist organization or that specifically advocated violence or illegality.
Click to expand...
The rhetoric I've seen is that he participated in an "illegal protest," but that what made it supposedly illegal is that it negatively affects the national security of the United States, and that only by advocating for Palestine.

stanfr said:
Given the publicity of the case, I feel Trump's government has an absolute responsibility to spell out exactly what he is being deported for.
If all he did was say something along the lines of "I like Hamas" then this is *precisely* the kind of speech that the 1st amendment is intended to protect!
Click to expand...
Given the protests that I've seen and participated in on other subjects, it's not too hard for law enforcement to gin up a criminal charge where needed. It may not stand up in court in the face of a competent defense, but it can at least lend credibility to a removal proceeding against a green-card holder. If we live in a country where picketing a favorite business run by a powerful oligarch is "domestic terrorism," then we're really not very far from simply speaking one's conscience is legally actionable. Political speech is the most hallowed speech no matter how much those in power disagree with it.
 
Acting ICE director Tom Homan:

"When you are on campuses -- I hear 'speech,' 'freedom of speech,' 'freedom of speech' -- can you stand a movie theater and yell fire? Can you slander? Free speech has limitations," Homan said during an appearance in Albany, New York.
Click to expand...

Every first amendment lawyer in the country winces.
 
JayUtah said:
The rhetoric I've seen is that he participated in an "illegal protest," but that what made it supposedly illegal is that it negatively affects the national security of the United States, and that only by advocating for Palestine.


Given the protests that I've seen and participated in on other subjects,
it's not too hard for law enforcement to gin up a criminal charge where needed.It may not stand up in court in the face of a competent defense, but it can at least lend credibility to a removal proceeding against a green-card holder. If we live in a country where picketing a favorite business run by a powerful oligarch is "domestic terrorism," then we're really not very far from simply speaking one's conscience is legally actionable. Political speech is the most hallowed speech no matter how much those in power disagree with it.
Click to expand...
Agreed completely. And the highlighted begs the question 'why haven't they charged him with anything?" I've seen remarks that indicate the exact opposite, that they aren't charging him with anything. They seem to be relying on some nebulous idea that he supported groups that are contrary to 'our (Trump administration) interests' They're testing the waters to see what they can get away with. And if they can deport him based simply on these indirect or nebulous ties to Hamas, then really, anything is fair game. You could be deported for saying "I don't like Trump"
 
Norman Alexander said:
They have already said that judges that rule against Trump should be deported. It raises the question: Where should such American citizens be deported TO?
Click to expand...
I'd say Canada, but if Canada becomes the 51st state then they really haven't been deported. :p
 
stanfr said:
I'd say Canada, but if Canada becomes the 51st state then they really haven't been deported. :p
Click to expand...
Why Canada? I mean, why should Canada be forced to accept American citizens living there? America does not accept deported Mexicans living in Texas. Hates it, in fact.
 
Last edited:
Norman Alexander said:
Why Canada? I mean, why should Canada be forced to accept American citizens living there? America does not accept deported Mexicans living in Texas. Hates it, in fact.
Click to expand...
They don't have to accept them, they could complain and then you just go to the next obvious location, Greenland--until that is annexed too so all that is left is Cuba, which is of course is the original intended destination. :giggle:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom