Originally published at: Least-intelligent UA Senator gets scorched on Twitter | Boing Boing
…
6 Likes
Least-intelligent U[S] Senator
Er, Tommy “Three Branches” Tuberville would like a word with you.
35 Likes
“Least-intelligent senator” is a very competitive title these days.
And to think we all thought George Lucas was stretching believability with this guy back in 2002.
22 Likes
I thought UA was United Airlines. I had a confuse.
9 Likes
Thank you! I was re-reading and hovering over Mad Max links to try to figure out what UA was in reference to…
8 Likes
Their primary talking point seems to be “this is a 1st amendment rights issue”, except it’s not.
For example: I can talk all I want about robbing a bank and it’s not a problem, but the moment I enter the bank with a gun and a note and threaten the teller, then it’s a crime.
Trump was actively trying to steal the election, it wasn’t just talk.
22 Likes
TBF, Jar Jar was at least well meaning.
6 Likes
Sure he was.
9 Likes
Maybe when I get home, if I’m brave enough, I’ll use one of the AI image generators asking it to create a picture of “[name of a GQP senator or representative] like Jar-Jar Binks”.
Jar-Jar Boebert?
Jar-Jar Greene?
Hell, Jar-Jar Giuliani.
shudder
7 Likes
I tried Rubio, Bing blocked it.
3 Likes
If Microsoft is scared of the results, given some of the products they’ve released in the past (though that last was at least partly due to Twitter), now I’m really afraid.
5 Likes
Darth Jar Jar - the original Dark Brandon.
4 Likes
I prefer Space Pepsi.
3 Likes
(Pedantry follows)
Point taken, but the Golden Youth didn’t utter a word in that film.
The (physically untethered) Toady, on the other hand… ( 
pun unintended)
7 Likes
1st amendment is just the talking point of the day re: indictments. There will be a new talking point next week. It will also probably be a gross distortion, with cherry-picked facts and zero accurate context. I expect nothing less.
8 Likes
2 Likes
… if I tell other people to go rob banks and bring me the money, and they try to do it (but fail) it’s not generally considered a “free speech” thing
13 Likes
From Cornell Law School: (I was curious as to what it took to move talking about a criminal act from free speech to conspiracy)
conspiracy
Conspiracy is an agreement between two or more people to commit an illegal act, along with an intent to achieve the agreement’s goal. Most U.S. [jurisdictions] (https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/jurisdiction) also require an overt act toward furthering the agreement. An overt act is a statutory requirement, not a constitutional one. See Whitfield v. United States, 453 U.S. 209 (2005). The illegal act is the conspiracy’s "target offense.”
Conspiracy generally carries a penalty on its own. In addition, conspiracies allow for derivative liability where conspirators can also be punished for the illegal acts carried out by other members, even if they were not directly involved. Thus, where one or more members of the conspiracy committed illegal acts to further the conspiracy’s goals, all members of the conspiracy may be held accountable for those acts.
Where no one has actually committed a criminal act, the punishment varies. Some conspiracy statutes assign the same punishment for conspiracy as for the target offense. Others impose lesser penalties.
Conspiracy applies to both civil and criminal offenses. For example, you may conspire to commit murder, or conspire to commit fraud.
9 Likes
