@vivify saidFull context please.
It says "lawful challenge" challenge.
Same thing.
"falsely claim that an elected official or candidate did not win after any lawful challenge is completed and the election results are certified"
Does that mean that until the lawful challenge is completed and the election results are certified he can make false claims all he wants?
31 Jan 22
@vivify said"falsely claim that an elected official or candidate did not win after any lawful challenge is completed and the election results are certified"
See OP
Does that mean that until the lawful challenge is completed and the election results are certified he/she can make false claims all he/she wants?
@metal-brain saidA completed legal challenge sets up a basis from which to charge someone with pushing election lies.
"falsely claim that an elected official or candidate did not win after any lawful challenge is completed and the election results are certified"
Does that mean that until the lawful challenge is completed and the election results are certified he/she can make false claims all he/she wants?
31 Jan 22
@vivify saidRight, but until that legal challenge is completed the candidate can lie all they want. That is when it is really important, not after the legal challenge is over. Losing twice does not increase the perceived credibility of said lies. Besides, democrats hated Trump making election fraud allegations far before the legal challenges were completed. They would not be satisfied with that and you know it.
A completed legal challenge sets up a basis from which charge someone with pushing election lies.
31 Jan 22
@metal-brain saidThat's because Trump made (and continues to make) baseless claims. That's key,
Besides, democrats hated Trump making election fraud allegations far before the legal challenges were completed.
If Trump has actual evidence, he wouldn't have lost over 60 legal challenges, including from a SCOTUS with a conservative majority where half of those conservatives were chosen by him.
31 Jan 22
@metal-brain said"Cancel culture" is Republican in origin.
You are projecting your self shame onto others again. You enable the wealthy minority and you know it. You repeat their lies and want to censor the truth.
When democrats are censored you hate it, yet you still support cancel culture. Your hypocrisy is evident.
31 Jan 22
1 edit
@metal-brain said“ Does that mean that until the lawful challenge is completed and the election results are certified he/she can make false claims all he/she wants?”
"falsely claim that an elected official or candidate did not win after any lawful challenge is completed and the election results are certified"
Does that mean that until the lawful challenge is completed and the election results are certified he/she can make false claims all he/she wants?
YES!
With the proviso that the legal challenge has not been heard and ruled on before the certification.
31 Jan 22
@vivify saidPeople lose legal challenges all the time; by what principle can you criminalize them complaining about a negative result?
False. The OP states that a legal challenge must be made.
You and your conservative dipsh¡ts can try to pretend you didn't see it all you want.
This won't get passed and if it did, it would be found an impermissible restriction on speech.
31 Jan 22
@sleepyguy said===Who gets to decide what is a lie and what is not? ===
Listen to yourselves, you fascists!
Who gets to decide what is a lie and what is not? You? Some unelected bureaucrat?
If Trump wins the next election, do you want his administration to have the power to shut down your speech because he thinks you are lying? Regulate your government, idiots, not your neighbors.
A Twitter algorithm written by some intern.
Duh.
- Joined
- 05 Nov 06
- Moves
- 147487
31 Jan 22
@sh76 saidthe mindset of the OP is scary.
===Who gets to decide what is a lie and what is not? ===
A Twitter algorithm written by some intern.
Duh.
31 Jan 22
2 edits
@no1marauder saidThat's fine and dandy but my post was simply addressing the "who gets to decide" tripe the right-wingers were spitting out, who kept implying this bill was meant to arbitrarily punish disputes they don't like. Since a lawful challenge must be completed, that's clearly not the case.
People lose legal challenges all the time; by what principle can you criminalize them complaining about a negative result?
This won't get passed and if it did, it would be found an impermissible restriction on speech.
Whether you agree this law should be passed or not is not my concern. The issue is right-wingers here are falsely claiming Dems want to use this to arbitrarily stop disputes they disagree with.