Yeah, no. That decision was about American Corporations and American Money. In no way, shape or form did it hold that foreign entities have some sort of freedom of speech right to insert themselves in US elections.
You are literally describing a crime.
OK but here weāre talking about something that is unambiguously legal and constitutionally protected if done for free. Like, I donāt receive anything for my posting here. But if Vlad takes a look and likes what he sees and decides to pay me what my posts are worth, all of the sudden it is illegal? Bad!
Does it really mean āAmerican Moneyā? Do you think it applies to Budweiser, Burger King, Ben and Jerryās, Trader Joeās, American Apparel? Corporations are people and those people are American I guess. What about any publicly traded company? Foreigners can buy stocks on the NYSE, canāt they?
How many US citizens: government officials, politicians, CIA contractors, etc.; have done to other countries what Assange is allegedly accused of?
Have any of them been arrested? Prosecuted? Convicted? How many of those people are currently in prison?
The law in question there is amazingly/hilariously broad. Itās the kind of law that only a fascist/totalitarian/global hegemon could imagine passing. The law seems to be that if you do anything we donāt like that we think harms us, we can prosecute you. Thereās something in there about the action having to be deceitful or tricky or something, but it doesnāt have to be for money. Itās still not the Espionage Act - a potentially capital crime.
Isnāt Fox owned by an Australian? So, pretty much every single American who works for Fox News should be prosecuted, no?
I could get on board for this.
Unsurprising for a Greenwald assassination advocate. But both seem unlikely to pass constitutional muster.
Iām sure a lot of people here could. I get that thereās still a big difference between Republicans and Democrats. One group wants everyone to be required to pay health insurance companies to maybe cover them and one group doesnāt. One group wants to deport you at the border and one will deport you anywhere. One group wants the top tax bracket to be 35% and the other wants it to be 25%. One group wants to spend $750B a year on war and the other group wants to spend $750B a year on war. But as far as rounding up enemies and prosecuting themā¦maybe not so different.
You both took obvious jokes a little too seriously.
1 Like
Lol @ being threatened with a good time here
āSo what, you just want them to shoot Assange in the head or what?ā No, but seeing him get the Omar treatment out of a helicopter over the inauguration wouldnāt hurt my feelings.
Often wrong; always confident.
1 Like
Dunno why you are disagreeing with him over a matter of law or how you imagine you know US law better than him (heās a US lawyer and was a prosecutor).
The non-profs that do political lobbying (like MoveOn) take some care to not take money from non-Americans. They do that for these legal reasons.
Iām sure there are lots of avenues that move money around that eventually may put your dollars into advocacy, but there are restrictions.
1 Like
Lawbros, Keeed needs legal advice.
1 Like
They arenāt, though? Iām all for tearing down Citizens Unitedās protections for American corps.
At least one poster has non-jokingly and repeatedly advocated in favor of extra judicial assasination of journalists ITT. Others have only called for their imprisonment.
Itās good to know that your post was in jest, but it falls within the range of positions that people seriously hold.
Are the people at Fox News doing political work on behalf of a foreginer, ie Murdoch, or are they working for a Deleware Corporation?
Come on, I said I was in favor of assassinating GG because it would piss off Keeeed. Nobody should be taking that seriously (especially Keeeed), even considering the other posts ITT which I had seen before I posted my joke.
Iām not saying that you were serious about that either. Other posters have been serious about it tho.