Kathy Griffin Under Secret Service Investigation

[Running Gator]

8 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

The problem is that Trump is an acceptable target for such things, in the eyes of many in our country and so they are not pushing too hard for her to face any real consequences.  Had this been done to Obama at this point in his first term, had someone put up an effigy like this, that person would be in prison.   Late night comedians were not even allowed to make jokes about Obama during the early months of his first term.

Her fan base will come back if she has really lost any, and her sponsors will come back.   I'll even bet that CNN, after the dust settles, will re-instate her for their New Year's show.  They are just doing what is expedient at this time.

Had this been done to Obama the left would be pushing for jail time and the right would be calling it free speech.  

In the end is she loses her job and we don't lose our freedom of speech, it is a win for everyone.

[kwikphilly]

Quote

The problem is that Trump is an acceptable target for such things, in the eyes of many in our country and so they are not pushing too hard for her to face any real consequences.  Had this been done to Obama at this point in his first term, had someone put up an effigy like this, that person would be in prison.   Late night comedians were not even allowed to make jokes about Obama during the early months of his first term.

Her fan base will come back if she has really lost any, and her sponsors will come back.   I'll even bet that CNN, after the dust settles, will re-instate her for their New Year's show.  They are just doing what is expedient at this time.                    Shiloh

Yes,that makes sense tome...I remember very well that the comedians were not allowed to make jokes about Obama,I remember it well because that really ruffled my feathers regarding freedom of speech......& nobody was "joking" about him not having a head!

[Running Gator]

2 minutes ago, kwikphilly said:

Yes,that makes sense tome...I remember very well that the comedians were not allowed to make jokes about Obama,I remember it well because that really ruffled my feathers regarding freedom of speech......& nobody was "joking" about him not having a head!

That was kind of a myth told by the right who were upset about losing the election, there was no such rule.  

I remember in 2009 (I think it was) Jon Stewart making an Obama joke and because his audience didn't laugh much and he told them something along the lines of "it is ok to laugh at an Obama joke, there will be lots of them in the coming years".

[PlanetChee]

3 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

9:20 a.m.

Kathy Griffin's attorney says the comedian has been contacted by the Secret Service in the wake of her controversial photo shoot in which she posed with the likeness of President Donald Trump's severed head.

Attorney Lisa Bloom says Griffin has retained a criminal attorney, who also appeared at a Friday press conference in which Griffin apologized again for the images. Griffin said she is the subject of a Secret Service investigation, but did not provide any further information about the inquiry or if she was cooperating.

Griffin says she will not refrain from joking about Trump in the future.

Since the comedian posed with a likeness of President Donald Trump's severed head, she has been fired from her annual gig hosting CNN's New Year's Eve special and several performances have been canceled at venues across the U.S.

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/latest-more-venues-cancel-kathy-griffin-shows-140737120.html

She's suffered more losses too. Bravo network cancelled her talk show.  Two venues in New Jersey have cancelled her planned stand up shows there. 
Jersey's Governor Christie even condemned her display. Griffin has a new book out and she's been dis-invited to promote that on the show hosted by Al Franken. It's snowballing.  People want to get out of the way just in case she comes up before a federal court on charges. Which I think she should. That wasn't free speech. That showed the aftermath carnage of an assassination. Just as she intended. There's no other reason to go that far as a leftist opposed to President Trump's Presidency.

 

[Guest shiloh357]

2 minutes ago, Running Gator said:

Had this been done to Obama the left would be pushing for jail time and the right would be calling it free speech.  

 

No, the Right would not be calling such things free speech, 'cause the Right would not have done this kind of thing to Obama.

For one thing, there were no public figures on the Right that made death threats on Obama.  We did not treat Obama the way the Left treats Trump and his supporters.    We did not riot, we did not get on YouTube, on TV, or hold rallies calling for his death.  We did not beat up his supporters, we did not make fun of, or in any way defame his children.  We did not harass any of his family members, we did not boycott, or make threats against entertainers that performed for him.    We did not send in paid thugs to disrupt any of Obama's rallies. We did not riot and damage personal or public property and we did not threaten Liberal public figures who were invited to  lecture at universities. We didn't say that we wanted to blow up the White House.   We did not walk out of university commencement speeches by Liberals. Conservative women were not dressing up like female genitalia and marching in protest of Obama's inauguration.  We didn't need safe spaces to protect us from Liberal propaganda.

So this attempt to make us morally equivalent to the Left is simply not going to fly.  The stuff that is being done to Trump is unique to any president.  It has NEVER happened on this scale to any one else who was elected president.  The Left has created a violent, toxic environment where no one can publicly support Trump without facing violent,  life-damaging consequences.   It is all on the Left.

 

[Guest shiloh357]

15 minutes ago, Running Gator said:

That was kind of a myth told by the right who were upset about losing the election, there was no such rule. 

No, it wasn't a myth.  None of the late-night comedians made any jokes about Obama for several months.  They used Biden.  He is a stooge, and is easy to make jokes about.  

At that time, there was a sentiment that he was untouchable that surrounded Obama.  He was off limits for almost a year.

[kwikphilly]

Quote

It seems to be the original intention that it would be kwik.  Consider this, when the founders began the Revolution, people were making straw figures of King George and burning them in public.  He was the official leader of the colonies at that time.  Fast forward to 1963, the FBI claimed to the Warren Commission that Oswald had visited the FBI office in Dallas and met with an agent Hosty, where Hosty claimed Oswald informed him of his intent to assassinate Kennedy.  This was several weeks prior to the assassination, but Oswald was not even investigated over this by the FBI or by the Secret Service.  Hosty claims that he destroyed his notes from this meeting with Oswald, so no official documents exist to support his claims, but this evidence was accepted and used by the Warren Commission to conclude Oswald was responsible for the assassination.  The point being, exactly when did it become acceptable that one could not speak against leadership?  These rights we were granted revolved around the very right to do so.

God bless

Blessings wing nut

Section 817 was written waaaay before my time so I don't know,I guess the early 1900's...it was modeled after that English Treason act of the 1300's   ,that I remember from grade school,thats when my dad told me about the Pres Roosevelt story,lol  My dad taught me many things & it was around the time you just spoke of ,the Kennedy Assasination,I remember it....no one would have been making such public "jokes" that t7ime .they would not have even made disrespectful remarks,it was a much different era

   I understand what you are saying,I still think the same laws that would apply to you & I should apply to Kathy Griffith and thats what has provoked my thoughts,it isn't fair                     Uh,I'm tired of this,I'm tired period,Have a Blessed evening      Love,Kwik

[wingnut-]

7 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

No, the Right would not be calling such things free speech, 'cause the Right would not have done this kind of thing to Obama.

 

That is absolutely true.  If Trump was dropped in the middle of these folks with no protection, they would tear him to shreds, literally.

[Running Gator]

1 minute ago, kwikphilly said:

 

   I understand what you are saying,I still think the same laws that would apply to you & I should apply to Kathy Griffith and thats what has provoked my thoughts,it isn't fair

On this I agree 200%, which is why I will fight for her freedom of speech.  I do not want to lose mine either 

[PlanetChee]

2 hours ago, SchmaltzWeasel said:

He's misrepresenting what the defendant in the SCOTUS case actually did say in order to arrive at a SCOTUS decision judging what he said. 

 

The antagonist role is getting really old. And weak. 

Yes.

What should be brought forth is that those civil cases aren't relevant to a federal violation. But when arguing from that standpoint we have to recall this case which, when arguing from the other case standpoint claiming Griffin won't be arrested, this case would repeal that claim and make it likely. 

This case concerned two effigy figures hung from a crossbar in order to send an opposition message in 1966 to then President Johnson. Hanging effigy's were not deemed entitlement under the first amendment. This case is closer to what Griffin did with a severed head, effigy, of President Trump. 

State v. Butlerotte this Case

455 P.2d 4 (1969)

The United States Supreme Court held in Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1, 69 S. Ct. 894, 93 L. Ed. 1131 (1949), that a speech which merely "stirred people to anger, invited public dispute, or brought about a condition of unrest" may not stand, and stated at page 4, 69 S.Ct. at page 896:

"[A] function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger. Speech is often provocative and challenging. It may strike at prejudices and preconceptions and have profound unsettling effects as it presses for acceptance of an idea. That is why freedom of speech * * * is * * * protected against censorship or punishment, unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience, annoyance or unrest. * * * There is no room under our Constitution for a more restrictive view. For the alternative would lead to standardization of ideas either by legislatures, courts, or dominant political or community groups."