Inciting Riot – Should Trump Be Prosecuted?

14 Apr

When Trump encourages his supporters to attack protesters and the media at his rally’s…

That is criminal.

Donald Trump is a domestic terrorist: Why the demagogue’s violent provocations demand judicial action

Trump threatens riots if he’s not nominated. Let’s let the courts decide if this is politically protected speech

Donald Trump is a domestic terrorist. That assertion rests on two pillars: a definition and a pattern of facts.

In the definitions of terrorism, the common elements are the use of violence or the threat of violence to coerce or intimidate other people for political purposes.

It is widely recognized that Trump’s repeated incitements during campaign speeches are out of bounds.

He laments that his followers cannot follow the practice of older days when protesters were carried out of political meetings on stretchers. He expresses regret that he cannot punch protesters in the face. While he may not have engaged in violence himself, his inflammatory comments are virtual invitations for others to do so on his behalf — witness his campaign manager’s arrest for assault.


Trump, of course, denies that he wishes to incite violence, exploiting the broad latitude for free speech under the first amendment. Yet, the context for assessing incitement has changed profoundly in recent years. There are ample grounds for seeking a fresh judicial review of what constitutes incitement in today’s circumstances.

The core principles on which the Supreme Court has relied stem from a distinction first made by then-Federal District Court Judge Learned Hand in 1917, namely that, to be prosecutable, language must be a “trigger to action” rather than “a key to persuasion”.

When Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes declared in 1919 that no one had the right to shout fire in a crowded theater, he added that the question was one of “proximity and degree”, that is, there must be a “clear and present danger” to public order.

In 1969, this precedent was tightened as the Supreme Court linked judgment about whether inflammatory statements tend to incite unlawful action to a verdict that such action is likely and imminent.

The court revised its earlier interpretations, now declaring that

…the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.

An admirable standard, but one open to reasonable refinement….More Here


Posted by on April 14, 2016 in The Clown Bus, The Definition of Racism


Tags: , , , , , , , ,

6 responses to “Inciting Riot – Should Trump Be Prosecuted?

  1. CNu

    April 14, 2016 at 11:20 AM

    Hyperfeminized political correctness gone wild yet again. This limp-wristed ass-clown sounds like the type to screech “RAPE!!!” upon being recklessly eyeballed on the street.

    Waaaay past time to start implementing those Excess Population tattoos…,


    • btx3

      April 14, 2016 at 11:58 AM

      So my peaceful repast, sitting down with a delightful, neat, 35 Year Aged Single Malt on the Veranda, after your dog loses by 20 points in the greatest loss in American Presidential election history,won’t be disturbed by the usual caterwauling, whimpering, and whining of the usual hyper-machoeffeminate cross-dressed closet queens of the right?

      My dwindling supply of 1971 Glenrothes Reserve (No – you can’t get it anymore) and I…

      Are Thankful!


      • CNu

        April 14, 2016 at 12:19 PM

        The author is a first-order corporatist, fascist pig – long endentured to and handsomely rewarded by the very imperial system that Trump threatens so gravely.

        One expects nothing less than the maximum pearl-clutching, vapor-catching, and pooh-poohing from a mendacious swine such as this one. Perhaps it was the single-malt that got the better of your Sanderwitsky supporting critical judgement….,


      • btx3

        April 14, 2016 at 1:31 PM

        You been reading Destructive Flatulence’s stuff to long, CNu. I have explained quite clearly what my objection to Drumph is. And it has nothing to do with what some Imperial Mental-Eunuch claims.

        Not afraid of the Drumph…Just his baggage.


  2. CNu

    April 14, 2016 at 1:56 PM

    I have explained quite clearly what my objection to Drumph is. And it has nothing to do with what some Imperial Mental-Eunuch claims.

    I have yet to see a single, straightforward critique of Trump hereabouts. OTOH, there is a daily cut-rate Chris Hayes screed posted without qualification. That’s enough for a low-information, emotional-hambone like your boy Chicken and Biscuit to run with – that fool’s committed to Granny Goodness no matter what. But for those of us actually paying attention, it just looks like generic establishment chaff intended to mask and confuse the underlying issue(s).

    If your platform looks like, sounds like, and uncritically repeats Imperial mental-eunuch claims, how is one to distinguish it as something other than an imperial mental-eunuch platform?


    • btx3

      April 14, 2016 at 5:45 PM

      You have yet to listen to critiques of the Drumph. Seeing and deciding to comprehend are indeed two different things.

      This amusing piece fro Karl Rove – Vanity Will Be The Donald’s Undoing

      Now – As to the Drumphshits “Platform”…

      ACA –

      Of the 18 wealthiest countries in the world we are the only one without socialized medical care. As to the private system working – it don’t. Even Cuba, one of the poorest counties in the world whips our ass in both discovery of new medicines, and health of the population. Re-privatizing is genocide to black communities where at least 135,000 black American die a year due to lack of medical treatment. Of that. Not counting 35,000 which are preventable pre-natal deaths of black babies. Why exactly do you want to support the murder of black children?

      DId I mention that Cuba has developed the cure for lung cancer?

      The United Nations reports that Cuba’s infant mortality rate is less than five deaths per 1,000 births compared to six in the U.S. Cubans also have the same life expectancy as people in the U.S. — 79 years, according to the U.N. report. The black infant mortality rate in several of those red zone “privatization” states is 25/1,000 – and generally is 2-4 times higher than white or Hispanic.

      The country has developed systems for vaccination that are among the best in the developing world, Reed said, because the communist government has made it a financial priority.

      Cuba produced a vaccine for meningitis B in 1989, she said, while it took until 2014 for the U.S. to approve one.

      Cuba also has a vaccine for diabetic foot ulcers, which is the reason behind some 80,000 amputations a year in the U.S., Reed said.

      In Cuba, the vaccine has reduced amputations by 70 percent. It is available in 26 countries but not in the U.S.

      Cuba is currently working on a vaccine for cholera, Reed said.

      – See more at:


      Uhhhh…Drumphshit…Manufacturing is coming back to America. It don’t mean the happy days of lazy assed, ignorant white people mindlessly earning high wages for robotic tasks. In he newest factories being built in the US (and in China), to replace the old ones in China – you would be hard pressed to find 6 live people – it’s all done by robot. Robots which don’t want raises, and never go on strike.

      Why is your boy lying?

      Di I need to disassemble the rest of the bullshit gushing from you boy’s mouth?



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: