What's crazy is when asked at one point, Trump specifically referred to it as the "ban on free press". So rhetorically it's not like he's dancing around the constitutionality.
First term was somewhat coy. Second term is "yes we're violating the Constitution/law. What are you gonna do about it? Nothing? Ok cool I'll go do that again" over and over and over
I feel like this they're deliberately framing it this way to lay a trap for the courts, because accepting this framing doesn't really seem to leave a whole lot of legal wiggle room. After all, legally speaking, what is it exactly, if not a privilege? If it's a right, then basically any citizen should be allowed in, subject to fair/non-discriminatory constraints, like capacity... is/should that be the case? If it's neither then what is it?
Your original comment technically isn’t even wrong, it’s just the definition of “right” written in a backwards ass way. Unfortunately for you this latest comment proves that this was just an accident!
What's crazy is when asked at one point, Trump specifically referred to it as the "ban on free press". So rhetorically it's not like he's dancing around the constitutionality.
First term was somewhat coy. Second term is "yes we're violating the Constitution/law. What are you gonna do about it? Nothing? Ok cool I'll go do that again" over and over and over
I feel like this they're deliberately framing it this way to lay a trap for the courts, because accepting this framing doesn't really seem to leave a whole lot of legal wiggle room. After all, legally speaking, what is it exactly, if not a privilege? If it's a right, then basically any citizen should be allowed in, subject to fair/non-discriminatory constraints, like capacity... is/should that be the case? If it's neither then what is it?
I’m curious how a Jan. 6 insurrectionist would answer this question.
Any pardoned felons here?
Courts navigate this fine line already even for their own courtrooms. There are restrictions on rights like time/place restrictions, for instance.
No, it’s not a problem. The government can’t grant or withdraw a privilege for impermissible reasons.
Rights must be demanded and defended constanrly, otherwise some tin pot dictator will take them without much of a fight.
Do you what your rights or not?
If someone else can take it away it was never a right
People can take your life from you, do you not have the right to live?
No you don’t, thousands of people are murdered everyday
There is nothing and nobody guaranteeing your life
That's not what a "right" is.
There's perfectly legitimate ways to argue against the existence of natural rights (see Bentham), but this strawman ain't it.
Do you really think this is an interesting line of interrogation?
When we speak of rights, we speak of limits that should apply to our government and the actions of others, not of iron laws of the universe.
Your original comment technically isn’t even wrong, it’s just the definition of “right” written in a backwards ass way. Unfortunately for you this latest comment proves that this was just an accident!
The right to say useless crap on the internet seems to be in no immediate danger.
That’s not a right either
If you frame it that way we have hardly any rights at all though - it would completely preclude rights like free speech, assembly, fair trial etc
So what’s the use in using that framing? What good is it?