Quote (tman65ky @ Aug 21 2017 04:06pm)

She is an elected official, I believe the voters put her in office and the voters should take her out of office. This among other reasons and examples are why I support strong recall laws for elected officials. There should be a petition in her district, if they get enough votes a recall election should be held where she can run and if she wins she wins if she loses she loses.

Quote (BardOfXiix @ Aug 21 2017 06:08pm)

Runs against whom, exactly?

Quote (Ghot @ Aug 20 2017 01:35am)

‘I hope Trump is assassinated’: A Missouri lawmaker faces mounting calls to resign after Facebook comment

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/08/18/i-hope-trump-is-assassinated-a-missouri-lawmakers-facebook-comment-leads-to-calls-for-her-resignation/?utm_term=.b86d26e1bf1b


In the current political climate, should Democratic state Sen. Maria Chappelle-Nadal of Missouri, be forced out of office, allowed to resign, or just be allowed to say wtf ever?
IMO, with all the crazies running around out there, I think she should be forced out of office.

She claims she was just "venting". I'm wondering how many folks are oiling their rifles after this outrageous comment from a Senator no less.

Quote (Santara @ Aug 21 2017 08:58pm)

It's a problem for her voters. She should be able to say whatever she wants, as long as she isn't inciting violence.

Quote (Ghot @ Aug 21 2017 08:07pm)

I dunno. I'm pretty sure assassination could be considered....violence.

/e ...and she was definitely inciting that.

Quote (Santara @ Aug 21 2017 09:19pm)

She said she hopes. That's not incitement to violence.

Quote (Ghot @ Aug 21 2017 07:51pm)

Believe what you need to.
That woman does not belong in any political office.

Quote (Ghot @ Aug 21 2017 08:51pm)

Believe what you need to.
That woman does not belong in any political office.

Quote

"Imminent lawless action" is a standard currently used that was established by the United States Supreme Court in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), for defining the limits of freedom of speech. Brandenburg clarified what constituted a "clear and present danger", the standard established by Schenck v. United States (1919), and overruled Whitney v. California (1927), which had held that speech that merely advocated violence could be made illegal. Under the imminent lawless action test, speech is not protected by the First Amendment if the speaker intends to incite a violation of the law that is both imminent and likely. While the precise meaning of "imminent" may be ambiguous in some cases, the court provided later clarification in Hess v. Indiana (1973). In this case, the court found that Hess's words did not fall outside the limits of protected speech, in part, because his speech "amounted to nothing more than advocacy of illegal action at some indefinite future time,"[1] and therefore did not meet the imminence requirement.

The two legal prongs that constitute incitement of imminent lawless action is as follows:

Advocacy of force or criminal activity does not receive First Amendment protections if (1) the advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action, and (2) is likely to incite or produce such action.[2]

Quote (Santara @ Aug 21 2017 09:59pm)