While partially true, the only reason he is being charged is because of the infamous nature of Bill Clinton's wife. If he would have made the same statement about the average citizen nothing would have happened. This is elitist privilege dictating the outcome of a criminal case.
While partially true, the only reason he is being charged is because of the infamous nature of Bill Clinton's wife. If he would have made the same statement about the average citizen nothing would have happened. This is elitist privilege dictating the outcome of a criminal case.
You may have a point there.
When the law is not evenly enforced, it is corrupt.
But I think that's a different issue that affects more than just speech.
In this case, while there may be other problems, I don't see an attack on, or threat to, free speech.
You may have a point there.
When the law is not evenly enforced, it is corrupt.
But I think that's a different issue that affects more than just speech.
In this case, while there may be other problems, I don't see an attack on, or threat to, free speech.
I assume you mean a slope away from free speech?
If so, I don't agree. There is a pretty clear difference between speech, and inciting action. Inciting violent acts has always been against the law, and has it not slipped any, yet.
Martin is not being jailed because of his opinions, but because of an attempt to instigate a physical encounter.