Trump's 46 minutes....To Censor or not to Censor?...

[tillingborn]

In theory it might be best to just let them work this out of their systems. Sadly, left to their own devices they do seem to prefer to egg each other on to new and ever more splendid bouts of insanity.

I'm not an expert on American history, but I'm fairly certain the Republican Party has lost an election once or twice before and it hasn't been the end of America. I suspect some people, alarmed by the changing demographics, think their America is vanishing, but it seems like a spectacular own goal for the Republicans to nail themselves to a shrinking constituency, rather than try to broaden their appeal.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Pence should then pardon him and his family.

You do understand that by law, accepting a pardon entails accepting guilt? That was explicitly why Roger Stone went for a commuted sentence.

Anyway, he probably has to pardon Ghislaine Maxwell first because he might not want her to name names in the dock.

I'm pretty sure that's not true, at least not here. It's the paradoxical nature of the word 'pardon' in law. It should really be changed. Here, if a person is 'pardoned' of the crime they have been convicted of it means there has been a miscarriage of justice. They are effectively declared innocent of whatever crime they were charged with.

[FlashDangerpants]

Pence should then pardon him and his family.

You do understand that by law, accepting a pardon entails accepting guilt? That was explicitly why Roger Stone went for a commuted sentence.

Anyway, he probably has to pardon Ghislaine Maxwell first because he might not want her to name names in the dock.

I'm pretty sure that's not true, at least not here. It's the paradoxical nature of the word 'pardon' in law. It should really be changed. Here, if a person is 'pardoned' of the crime they have been convicted of it means there has been a miscarriage of justice. They are effectively declared innocent of whatever crime they were charged with.

Under British and American law I understand in cases of post trial exoneration, acquittal and/or plain old dropping or vacation of charges covers that stuff. Pardons, however, are generally considered to be for the guilty.

There is surely scope to challenge that in court, especially American ones which are absurdly politicised by any standard. But I gotta say, not a great plan to stuff the Supreme Court of the USA with originalists and then ask them to reinterpret the meaning of pardon. Those originalist guys are really big on interpretting everything in the way that it was meant at the time it was written, making it very likely that Trump would end up a pardoned felon under law. If he accepts a pardon for a felony and continues to live in Florida, Trump may not even be allowed to vote in the next election.

Incidentally, the 5th amendment doesn't apply to people who cannot be prosecuted, including the pardoned, so anyone he does pardon can be compelled to testify. After you've pardoned your friends, you still gotta buy their silence somehow, especially if you pick the wrong friends as often as Trump has.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

You do understand that by law, accepting a pardon entails accepting guilt? That was explicitly why Roger Stone went for a commuted sentence.

Anyway, he probably has to pardon Ghislaine Maxwell first because he might not want her to name names in the dock.

I'm pretty sure that's not true, at least not here. It's the paradoxical nature of the word 'pardon' in law. It should really be changed. Here, if a person is 'pardoned' of the crime they have been convicted of it means there has been a miscarriage of justice. They are effectively declared innocent of whatever crime they were charged with.

Pardons, however, are generally considered to be for the guilty.

No, they are not. That's a ridiculous thing to say because it would never happen in the legal system. Guilty is guilty.
The whole point of a 'pardon' is to rectify a miscarriage of justice. It's a peculiar word to use. I'm sure there's a much better word but I can't think of it at the moment.

[FlashDangerpants]

In theory it might be best to just let them work this out of their systems. Sadly, left to their own devices they do seem to prefer to egg each other on to new and ever more splendid bouts of insanity.

I'm not an expert on American history, but I'm fairly certain the Republican Party has lost an election once or twice before and it hasn't been the end of America. I suspect some people, alarmed by the changing demographics, think their America is vanishing, but it seems like a spectacular own goal for the Republicans to nail themselves to a shrinking constituency, rather than try to broaden their appeal.

This isn't the first election that's been presented in terms of eschatalogical terror by the Republicans. There was a period, hopefully over with now, where the presidency was looking like it would be passed from one family to another without apparent end. We forget that it once seemed like a complete lock that Hillary would win the Democrat nomination in '08 and at that time, most people sort of assumed that Jeb Bush would very likely be the president after her. Then the Democrats chose a black guy instead of the jilted wife and all hell broke loose from that point forward.

People were openly assuming Obama would be assassinated when he won that election. His healthcare plan was supposed to be dominated by Death Panels, and it was a massive scandal when he wore a brown suit one time. In those days a bunch of the people you see screaming on this site probably believed the UN was running secret internment camps in America because of some New World Order (derived from a Bush Sr. speech). We often think of Trump as some special and unique calumny, but he's just the next object in the sequence, unless the GOP grows some sort of spine, he's a taste of things to come from those guys.

[FlashDangerpants]

I'm pretty sure that's not true, at least not here. It's the paradoxical nature of the word 'pardon' in law. It should really be changed. Here, if a person is 'pardoned' of the crime they have been convicted of it means there has been a miscarriage of justice. They are effectively declared innocent of whatever crime they were charged with.

Pardons, however, are generally considered to be for the guilty.

No, they are not. That's a ridiculous thing to say because it would never happen in the legal system. Guilty is guilty.
The whole point of a 'pardon' is to rectify a miscarriage of justice. It's a peculiar word to use. I'm sure there's a much better word but I can't think of it at the moment.

Here's a quote from the United States Supreme Court, which is the relevant body for establishing the law concerning a US citizen

There are substantial differences between legislative immunity and a pardon; the latter carries an imputation of guilt and acceptance of a confession of it, while the former is noncommittal, and tantamount to silence of the witness.

There is a distinction between amnesty and pardon; the former overlooks the offense, and is usually addressed to crimes against the sovereignty of the state and political offenses, the latter remits punishment and condones infractions of the peace of the state.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/236/79/

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Pardons, however, are generally considered to be for the guilty.

No, they are not. That's a ridiculous thing to say because it would never happen in the legal system. Guilty is guilty.
The whole point of a 'pardon' is to rectify a miscarriage of justice. It's a peculiar word to use. I'm sure there's a much better word but I can't think of it at the moment.

Here's a quote from the United States Supreme Court, which is the relevant body for establishing the law concerning a US citizen

There are substantial differences between legislative immunity and a pardon; the latter carries an imputation of guilt and acceptance of a confession of it, while the former is noncommittal, and tantamount to silence of the witness.

There is a distinction between amnesty and pardon; the former overlooks the offense, and is usually addressed to crimes against the sovereignty of the state and political offenses, the latter remits punishment and condones infractions of the peace of the state.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/236/79/

What's the point in giving me an American quote? I'm not arguing further about. As a matter of fact 'amnesty' is the word that denotes guilt, NOT pardon. Here, the word PARDON is used to free an INNOCENT person!

[FlashDangerpants]

No, they are not. That's a ridiculous thing to say because it would never happen in the legal system. Guilty is guilty.
The whole point of a 'pardon' is to rectify a miscarriage of justice. It's a peculiar word to use. I'm sure there's a much better word but I can't think of it at the moment.

Here's a quote from the United States Supreme Court, which is the relevant body for establishing the law concerning a US citizen

There are substantial differences between legislative immunity and a pardon; the latter carries an imputation of guilt and acceptance of a confession of it, while the former is noncommittal, and tantamount to silence of the witness.

There is a distinction between amnesty and pardon; the former overlooks the offense, and is usually addressed to crimes against the sovereignty of the state and political offenses, the latter remits punishment and condones infractions of the peace of the state.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/236/79/

What's the point in giving me an American quote? I'm not arguing further about. As a matter of fact 'amnesty' is the word that denotes guilt, NOT pardon. Here, the word PARDON is used to free an INNOCENT person!

Well I was talking about this American guy you may have heard of called Donald J Trump, which is sort of what the title suggests this tread is about. So given that American law is what I was referencing, American courts are the specific and correct ones to quote.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Here's a quote from the United States Supreme Court, which is the relevant body for establishing the law concerning a US citizen

What's the point in giving me an American quote? I'm not arguing further about. As a matter of fact 'amnesty' is the word that denotes guilt, NOT pardon. Here, the word PARDON is used to free an INNOCENT person!

Well I was talking about this American guy you may have heard of called Donald J Trump, which is sort of what the title suggests this tread is about. So given that American law is what I was referencing, American courts are the specific and correct ones to quote.

This is tedious. You were referring to the word 'pardon', which is what I was responding to. Apology accepted.

[commonsense]

Tracking back through this thread, I see that the discussion has been more about editing than censoring.

Censors limit expression a priori. This is fraught with many difficulties, as noted in earlier posts (What will the criteria be? Who sets the criteria? Who applies the censorship—to name a few concerns.)

Editors limit and arrange information according to criteria set by their employers or owners of their publications. Those criteria may be seen as arbitrary in that any employer or owner may suppress information favorable to one party or ideology and promote information favorable to another.

Editing is completely legitimate. What the discerning reader/viewer/listener must do is to identify the editing that takes place and absorb information and opinions with that manipulation in mind.

[commonsense]

As a matter of fact 'amnesty' is the word that denotes guilt, NOT pardon. Here, the word PARDON is used to free an INNOCENT person!

From the standpoint of US laws, amnesty does not imply guilt and pardons are only offered to the guilty, unlike a scholastic use of the terms.

[Funny thing about vernacular v legal terms. Don’t get me started on how being legally drunk compares to regular inebriation. ]

[vegetariantaxidermy]

As a matter of fact 'amnesty' is the word that denotes guilt, NOT pardon. Here, the word PARDON is used to free an INNOCENT person!

From the standpoint of US laws, amnesty does not imply guilt and pardons are only offered to the guilty, unlike a scholastic use of the terms.

[Funny thing about vernacular v legal terms. Don’t get me started on how being legally drunk compares to regular inebriation. ]

'Pardon' does not imply guilt in either the US or here. You've got it wrong. It might be given to someone who has been FOUND guilty (hence the reason they might be in prison) but the pardon itself implies that the person was wrongfully convicted in the first place.

[Scott Mayers]

The censorship this time was the most extreme I've ever seen it.

Is it censorship if a news channel decides not to report something that isn't newsworthy? President Trump is making unfounded claims about election fraud. Again.

Exactly. In fact, the supporters here for Trump believe that they should feel free to choose what to put on the air if they were the owners without concern for others. So then it is hypocritical when they presume they require these private media sources as businesses should be 'censored' for what they do not want to present. It is they who demand ''absolute free enterprise".

[Note, by the way, my ISP is right now censoring me!] I am being slowed down any time I write in this particular thread. And, when I first opened it the site was blocked as I tried to 'submit'! This kind of censoring is more questionable.

[tillingborn]

Exactly. In fact, the supporters here for Trump believe that they should feel free to choose what to put on the air if they were the owners without concern for others.

It has always been the case that media providers have published either what they want to be read, or what their customers want to read. I don't know whether things are any worse now; there's a lot of hand-wringing about the influence of the internet, but history isn't wanting for despots, all of whom managed without. Depending on what you think Trump's instincts are, the constraints of American democracy are either a good, or a bad thing. For what it's worth, I think checks and balances are essential to any functional state.

[Scott Mayers]

Exactly. In fact, the supporters here for Trump believe that they should feel free to choose what to put on the air if they were the owners without concern for others.

It has always been the case that media providers have published either what they want to be read, or what their customers want to read. I don't know whether things are any worse now; there's a lot of hand-wringing about the influence of the internet, but history isn't wanting for despots, all of whom managed without. Depending on what you think Trump's instincts are, the constraints of American democracy are either a good, or a bad thing. For what it's worth, I think checks and balances are essential to any functional state.

This is not universally true. The majority of media tend to NOT out-and-out lie or pretend that they are not pretending simply for profit. But the vast majority of the conservatives who intrinsically believe IN utilizing exploitation, favor media that attempts to mislead others into not being able to determine fact from fiction.

What you said about American democracy and 'checks and balances' are empty. Of coures things will either be 'good' or 'bad'. You just covered your bases like a horoscope writer might do. They are tautologies.