They are getting banned from public spaces any time they bring them up. So instead of learning why they are wrong, they are instead sent off to find similarly delusional people. Censoring (moderating) feeds the echo chamber.

No, those delusions should be rebutted, so that when others arrive at a similar hypothesis, they learn where they went wrong.

Freedom of speech is also a principle. Generally speaking, the operator of a forum should strongly value that principle, and refuse to censor any natural person’s speech.

You are correct that an individual’s right of free speech isn’t infringed by by private censorship. The right to free speech is infringed by incarceration or other official sanctions. You absolutely should have the right to free speech on that private platform, as you should not be jailed for your statements made on it.

Note: not all forms of expression qualify as speech. CP and death threats, for example, are forms of violence, not forms of speech.

I’ll take the entrails of a priest.

Joenald Triden

It is not supposed to be easy to convict someone. It is a very high bar for a reason.

like if I shoot someone in self defense, I have to prove there was a threat to my person instead of me not liking their hat.

No, you don’t. The last state to place the burden of proof on you for defending yourself was Ohio, but they repealed their unconstitutional “Affirmative Defense” requirement in 2019. In every state, the burden is on the prosecutor to prove that your actions were not defensive, not yours to prove they were.

Likewise, it is the prosecutor’s burden to prove he was fraudulently “convinced”.

They absolutely can question intent. They just can’t use an “official act” as evidence of intent. They can use all the “unofficial acts” they want to demonstrate intent. And, once they decide that the bribe was an unofficial act, the door is opened to use it for intent as well.

Take conspiracy for example. The elements of conspiracy are:

1. Two or more people agreed to commit a crime

2. All conspirators had the specific intent to commit the crime

3. At least one of the conspirators committed an overt act

Trump conspires with false electors to rig the election. Trump’s is immune to charges stemming from his conversation with Pence, but he is not immune to charges of conspiring with false electors. His communication with Pence cannot be considered evidence of intent (#2), But it can be the overt act (#3) of the conspiracy.

You reversed the burden of proof. In a criminal case, the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. It is the prosecutor - not the accused president - who has to do the proving.

That is presumptively out of bounds for trial. That is a rebuttable presumption.

The court only has to “presume” it was an official act. That presumption is rebuttable. The prosecutor would present an argument that such a bribe was not an “official” act; the judge is free to accept that argument.

Use of the military is delegated to him under article 2, his use of that power cannot be questioned.

The military is strictly limited on what kind of operations it is allowed to perform. The commander and operators of Seal Team 6 would be prosecuted if they obeyed an unlawful order, even if it came from their Commander in Chief. The president does not have the power to order Seal Team 6 to violate the Posse Comitatus act. The President does not have the power to violate his political rival’s right to due process. A prosecutor can argue that such an egregious order falls well outside the scope of the office, and constitutes an “unofficial act”. The courts are free to rule accordingly.

The dissents are reading far more into the majority opinion than is actually there. I suggest you read the majority opinion a little more closely.

When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune

In all three of those cases, the question as to whether those actions are required or permitted under the law is put to a judge, and that judge is free to rule that they are not. The trial judge is free to rule that they are “unofficial” acts, and deny that immunity.

This ruling is terrible for Trump.

If he were legitimately convinced that the electoral college process was improper, it is his duty to pressure Pence not to certify. He can’t be criminally charged simply for pressuring Pence not to certify.

However, that same act of pressuring Pence can be considered a component of election fraud. He cannot be charged for merely pressuring Pence, but the act of pressuring Pence can be used as evidence of that wider fraud. The trial court is free to decide that the wider fraud is not an official act.

The immunity the court is talking about means they can’t be charged with murder for sending troops to war. Such an act is not “above the law”. The law specifically authorizes the president to perform such an act.

The legal remedy for a president who improperly sending troops to war is impeachment, not a criminal charge.

The president’s immunity extends only to those acts that he is specifically authorized by law to perform. Those are “official” acts. The acts that Trump is accused of are well outside the scope of his former office. The trial court is going to burn his ass. SCOTUS didn’t save him.

I don’t know why everybody is so upset about this ruling.

The trial court said he didn’t have absolute immunity. He said he did, and appealed. The appeals court said “no, you don’t have absolute immunity” and sent it back to thr trial court. He appealed again. SCOTUS could have reversed the trial court and appelate court. They did not. They upheld the appellate court decision, and said “no, you do not have absolute immunity. You only have immunity for official acts. Shove your appeal up your ass, we’re sending this back to the trial court.”

They ruled against him, folks.

Convince Biden to drop out of the race about a week before the Democratic National Convention, citing health reasons, and name a millennial candidate who grew up on a farm with wind turbines and solar panels, before enlisting for 2+ terms, and moving to a middle-class area of a blue state after separating. Turn the convention into a media frenzy, energizing the Democratic base.

Undercuts Trump among rural Americans and veterans. Reverses all of Trump’s old and senile attacks against Biden, as he suddenly becomes the geriatric candidate. Keeps all of Biden’s supporters, while stepping away from the “genocide” criticism.

Basically, if Biden backs out a week before the convention and names someone in their 40’s, they can run on a platform of “Ok, boomer” and reach 270.

The trial court is free to determine that lying to the VP for purposes of committing election fraud does not constitute an official act. The fact that they remanded the decision to the trial court instead of reversing the trial and appellate court is the “exception” you are looking for.

They denied his appeal. Ok? He claimed absolute immunity, they said “No, you only have immunity for your official acts. We aren’t going to save you here. The trial court is going to burn your ass.”

Talking to the VP about not confirming is protected. Lying to the VP about the reason why he should not confirm is not protected.