Speak up, I can’t hear you.
Goldstone is a Brit. This may explain it.
I have all the respect in the world for the Antlantic and some for the Business Insider, but I meant the real MSM like the networks, NYT and the like. I also meant in the main articles on the emails, not the “dig deeper” side articles.
Yes, I agree on both counts.
Man, I sure wish I said that first.
I agree. And I’m happy to discuss those implications. What are they, in your view?
Let’s say instead of the use of the term “crown prosecutor” in the email, a different title was used, like “attorney general,” “state’s attorney,” or “district attorney.” Would you expect newspapers to state that those positions don’t exist in Russia?
Or let’s say someone is quoted in a newspaper as saying that Mr. So-and-So is a parliamentarian from a northern state in Japan. Should newspapers report that there are no states in Japan?
The law says that campaigns can’t accept anything of value from foreign governments. Don Jr was explicitly offered something of value from a foreign government. He responded with enthusiasm and went to the party expecting to receive the drugs. I mean, the item of value which was offered to him by a foreign government. When he did not receive the item of value, he left in disgust.
The material was illegal on its face, being that it was an item of value being offered to help a US campaign by a foreign government.
I’d be curious to hear you explain why the first amendment doesn’t protect people from seeking illegal substances.
Not interested, obviously, because the answer is, obviously, “In this case, “the people” is a high-quality, wealthy, white, male Republican”.
But, sure. Curious. Take your best shot.
Are you saying it’s odd for me to expect a respectable news outlet to point out factual inaccuracies in an email they are reporting on? That putting (note: Crown prosecutor is not a job title in Russia.) is a huge burden?
And yes, why the hell shouldn’t they mention Japan has prefectures not states? Why would I defend the dumbing down of some of the simplest of facts? I guess they shouldn’t even worry about get the parliamentarian’s name right, cuz who cares amirite?
It may be something of value, or not. But this seems to be begging the question.
Sure.
The First Amendment does not protect all speech. Some speech it doesn’t protect at all, like obscenity, defamation, and fraud. Some speech it protects, but not strongly, such as commercial speech. And some speech it protects most vigorously, like political speech.
Would you like case cites for those statements?
To answer your question: speech intended to immediately acquire controlled substances is not protected by the First Amendment because it is an element of the crime of attempted possession of contraband. Proof of the intent element of a crime by means of words uttered does not infringe First Amendment rights. (Street v. New York, 394 US 576 (1969).
Does that answer your question? Do you have an opposing point to raise, one which you can support with cites?
I think it’s pretty clearly “something of value.” I provided cites for that proposition earlier in the thread, in post 113:
The difference in this analysis is that drugs are not protected by the First Amendment, but political speech generally is. Making speech illegal on its face is a First Amendment problem, and making drugs illegal is not.
I don’t see any big deal on the use of “crown prosecutor.” Hell, the TV show NCIS supposedly takes place (often) in Virginia, but the writers refer to the district attorney all the time, not realizing that in Virginia we have a Commonwealth Attorney.
Point being: the e-mail writer was not a sophisticated analyst, and was using a term he understood. The misuse of that term means nothing.
No, it doesn’t. It really grates, though, when the term “Crown prosecutor” gets repeated over and over, when it is so wildly inappropriate.
I should have added…‘outside the scope of the 1st amendment’. My bad.
Not sure what reports you saw, but CNN included that in the first one I saw. I don’t see where it’s required every time they report on the emails specifically, though.
Right. But the key point of that is the First Amendment does not protect all speech - not even all political speech.
For example, making sincere verbal threats against the President is a crime and people have gone to jail for it. (example A example b)
Not at this time (I’m sure you have them).
My point is, specifically, your statement, right here.
Specifically - “speech intended to immediately acquire [controlled substances] is not protected by the First Amendment because it is an element of the crime”.
Brackets and bolding, mine.
In my hypothetical the [controlled substances] are a specific class of drug. In the example of Don Jr., the [controlled substances] are “items of value given by a foreign government to assist a US political campaign.”
Don Jr’s verbal acceptance of the [item of value] and his actions in attending a meeting to immediately acquire the [item of value] are not protected by the First Amendment because that speech is an element of the crime of acquiring an item of value from a foreign government.