Propaganda watch

[Armonica_Templar]

Rudy Giuliani’s Shameful MSNBC Appearance On Dallas Shooting

[*]John Amato [/url]Founder and publisher, CrooksandLiars.com

[*]





As a friend said, NBC should just pay Williams his money and make him narrateDateline or something. He has been terrible at being a breaking news anchor.

And someone over there also needs to tell Brian Williams that remaining mute while a former NYC mayor goes off on racist tangents about blacks to defend the police is not a good thing either.

Rudy Giuliani joined MSNBC Live, hosted by Brian Williams earlier today, and the former Republican presidential candidate was simply despicable throughout, blaming the Black Lives Matter movement for helping murder five people in Dallas as well as making other blacks hate the police so much that they will turn to violence against he men in blue.

Giuliani said this, “When you talk about Black Lives Matter, well you know, the black young boy who is killed by another black young boy is just as dead as a black young boy who was killed by the police officers.”

WTF is he talking about? He’s using the excuse of black-on-black crime to justify his complaints against BLM.

Crime is one thing, Rudy. That’s what the police force is there to protect us from, not up the body count. When that happens, and the police are culpable, law enforcement needs to be held accountable too.

Just like everybody else in this country and it’s not a crime to voice that opinion.

But when countless conservative politicians and pundits like Rudy apologize for all police violence, it creates the environment for protest actions to be born.

Then Giuliani firmly blamed Black Lives Matters for the heinous mass murder in Dallas last night.

“I think the reason there’s a target on police officers backs is because of groups like Black Lives Matter. They make it seem like all police are against blacks.”

No, Rudy, you cretinous jackass.

Americans have the right to voice their opinions and form protest groups. Especially when they feel an injustice has taken place, repeatedly.

In this case, African Americans have a right to show their frustration about police brutality, especially when there’s video evidence that civilians are gunned down by police officers for doing nothing at all.

Digby wrote a very thoughtful piece for Salon:

Yesterday afternoon the nation was once more reeling from news of police officers shooting black men, one in deep south big city Louisiana and one in the upper midwest suburban Minnesota. These two cases are a little bit different from the ones we’ve dealt with in the recent past in that both men were legally armed but from what we could tell were not threatening the police. Louisiana, where Alton Sterling was shot point blank while on the ground in police custody, is an open carry state meaning that anyone is allowed to have a gun on their person in public with no questions asked. Minnesota, is a concealed carry state and the other victim, Philando Castile, was shot after telling the officer that he was licensed and armed.

[*]

Williams for his part, sat like a stone statue throughout the segment and let this babbling fool blame blacks for being murdered by law enforcement and then criticized the groups that are outraged by that violence.

The only time Williams uttered a word in this segment I cut was when he mentioned that Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton said he didn’t believe Philando Castile would have been killed if he was white.

This riled Rudy up to the point where he became indignant of Gov. Dayton and said, “That’s a heck of an assumption, though and not appropriate by the governor.”

No it isn’t you pompous fool.

What’s not appropriate is MSNBC giving you an uninterrupted platform to voice your thoughtless, hateful and racist ideas.
But he didn’t stop there.

Rudy continued, “white people get killed also by police officers in the United States.”

Wow, they certainly do, Rudy. What a poignant opinion to have.

He then listed a litany of terrible white groups like the mafia and Russia crime syndicates that get shot by the police. Clearly, if anybody is supposed to get shot, it’s hardened criminals, not innocent civilians, you moron.

Brian, are you awake? Hello, anybody home!

Rudy continued on by making bogus analogies that aren’t pertinent to the recent tragedies and said, “a confrontation with the police is an inherently dangerous situation, whether you’re white or black. If you resist, a police officer is immediately going to become concerned for his own life.”

Absolutely, Rudy, but where did Alton Sterling and Philando Castile resist?

“When a police officer tells you something, do what he says. it doesn’t matter if you’re white or black.”

When a police officer has his gun drawn and pointing at you, that’s great advice, but Giuliani is stumping for a fascist police state, where citizens are supposed to subjugate their will to a uniform, in every situation. That’s not what America’s democracy stands for.

Rudy says he does want to prosecute all those officers, “beyond a reasonable doubt” that are guilty, but have you ever seen him come on TV to discuss a case like that on?

And he believes we must teach our black children that the police are the ones actually saving their lives! Kudos!!!
Then he goes to a place where no man should go.

Giuliani said, “because the real danger to you is that black kid is going to shoot you on the street cause that happens many, many more times than police officers.

Again, the police are supposed to protect people, not execute them.

This isn’t a math quiz, Rudy.

My God. That’s your reasoning? My cops don’t kill as many blacks as criminals do so it’s all good.

Isn’t one too damn many?

What an embarrassing moment for Rudy, MSNBC and our national discourse.
Follow John Amato on Twitter: www.twitter.com/JohnAmato

[*]


Actually, he is completely wrong and has made propaganda watch list (lmeao)

Shouting fire in a crowded theater

"Shouting fire in a crowded theater" is a popular metaphor for speech or actions made for the principal purpose of creating unnecessary panic. The phrase is a paraphrasing of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s opinion in the United States Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States in 1919, which held that the defendant's speech in opposition to the draftduring World War I was not protected free speech under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.


The paraphrasing does not generally include (but does usually imply) the word "falsely", i.e., "falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater", which was the original wording used in Holmes's opinion and highlights that speech which is dangerous and false is not protected, as opposed to speech which is dangerous but also true.

Contents
  [hide] 

• 1The Schenck case
  
• 2Literal examples
  
• 3Criticism
  
• 4See also
  
• 5References
  
• 6Further reading
  

The Schenck case[edit]
Main article: Schenck v. United States
Holmes, writing for a unanimous Court, ruled that it was a violation of the Espionage Act of 1917 (amended with the Sedition Act of 1918), to distribute flyers opposing the draft during World War I. Holmes argued this abridgment of free speech was permissible because it presented a "clear and present danger" to the government's recruitment efforts for the war. Holmes wrote:

The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.

The First Amendment holding in Schenck was later overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969, which limited the scope of banned speech to that which would be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (e.g. a riot). The test in Brandenburg is the current High Court jurisprudence on the ability of government to proscribe speech after that fact. Despite Schenck being limited, the phrase "shouting fire in a crowded theater" has since come to be known as synonymous with an action that the speaker believes goes beyond the rights guaranteed by free speech, reckless or malicious speech, or an action whose outcomes are obvious.

Literal examples[edit]
People have indeed falsely shouted "Fire!" in crowded public venues and caused panics on numerous occasions, such as at the Royal Surrey Gardens Music Hall of London in 1856, in Harlem in 1884,[1] and in the Italian Hall disaster of 1913, which left 73 dead. In the Shiloh Baptist Church disaster of 1902, over 100 people died when "fight" was misheard as "fire" in a crowded church causing a panic and stampede.
Criticism[edit]

A version of Chafee's article

Finan writes that Justice Holmes began to doubt his decision due to criticism received from Free Speech activists. He also met the legal scholar[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zechariah_Chafee]Zechariah Chafee and discussed his work "Freedom of Speech in War Times".[2][3] According to Finan, Holmes' change of heart influenced his decision to join the minority and dissent in the Abrams v. United States case. Abrams was deported for issuing flyers saying the US should not intervene in the Russian Revolution. Holmes and Brandeis said that 'a silly leaflet by an unknown man' should not be considered illegal.[2][4]Chafee argued in Free Speech in the United States that a better analogy in Schenk might be a man who stands in a theatre and warns the audience that there are not enough fire exits.[5][6]

In his introductory remarks to a 2006 debate in defense of free speech, writer Christopher Hitchens parodied the Holmes judgement by opening "FIRE! Fire, fire... fire. Now you've heard it," before condemning the famous analogy as "the fatuous verdict of the greatly over-praised Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes." Hitchens argued that the imprisoned socialists "were the ones shouting fire when there really was a fire in a very crowded theatre indeed... [W]ho’s going to decide?"[7][8]
See also[edit]

• Bomb threat
  
• False alarm
  
• Hate speech
  
• Shiloh Baptist Church disaster, 1902
  
• Italian Hall disaster, 1913
  
• The Boy Who Cried Wolf
  

[*]

I truely hope (being Texas I think I am waiting on it), that the police officers families Sue BLM and think progress

For billions

You see incitement to riot and the calls of actions of the organizations members, yelling fire in a theater when no fire exist

Not to mention that BLM actually has not denied it suggested killing cops
just a lot of fluff saying not to associate with BLM these acts the encourage

The families of the officers can use
terroristic threats
active communication of the threats
Incitement to riot (disorderly conduct)
Suggesting killing cops is crime when it is followed through with


The family has to prove that BLM as an organization has done this before for attention
(look at expelled student leader of BLM)

That words lead to direct harm
Prove shooter was Exposed to their speech and that of its members

Then it really is ABC

Can you imagine if the officers families get together and do this
Note it is not the government suing
Families that are in civil court with a lower bar of admission of evidence

Up to a jury to decide if the BLM movement influenced this
Not to mention they can not argue with widows and orphans
Plus it a peaceful means of obtaining justice

Also it would be funny if Dallas police department sued