729
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 30 Sep 2023
729 points (95.3% liked)
politics
19088 readers
1743 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I mean technically he didn't actually do much.
IANAL but didn't he obstruct Congress?
Wow I hate that acronym!
False alarms are against the law regardless of it being an attempt to fuck with Congress. Which is probably why an aid wouldn't do it for him. They knew they'd at least lose their job, and possibly get fined or have a few days in jail.
I for one LOVE that the not a lawyer acronym sounds like an Asimov porn parody 😂
But if he did it to give the representatives the opportunity to read the bill they were about to vote on to make sure that they’re not being tricked by the Republicans — then he was supporting Congress
Hello anal I'm dad.
More seriously, it seems like it'd be a pain to prove, since he has a (shitty) excuse.
In some jurisdictions, false reporting of emergencies is illegal. Not sure about DC or the halls of Congress.
The proverbial false yelling of "fire" in crowded theater is literally one of the test examples for limitations that should be placed on free speech because it is so dangerous.
Profoundly stupid. Your hapless opponents are creating all the bad press they can for you. How did he possibly think this would help?
Yelling fire in a crowded theater has been protected speech since the 60s
The case was later partially 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).[1]
Okay so apparently he did it so the senate could actually read the bill they were signing as there was no time before the government shutdown so that adds interesting context at least.
Yeah I think he should probably get a stern talking to from a fire marshal and punished if he does it again