General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsTrump's demand that TBS fire Samantha Bee may violate First Amendment
In a tweet published on Friday morning, President Donald Trump suggested that TBS fire television host Samantha Bee, after the comedian used a vulgar term to describe White House adviser Ivanka Trump, the presidents daughter. But while its natural for the president to claim a paternal prerogative in defense of his own children, Trumps unique position puts him in sketchy waters with regard to the First Amendment.
Whats more, Trumps claim of a double standard in play casts him in a hypocritical light, based upon his own history of wanton vulgarity.
Why arent they firing no talent Samantha Bee for the horrible language used on her low ratings show? he wrote. A total double standard but thats O.K., we are Winning, and will be doing so for a long time to come!
Link to tweet
On Wednesday night, in the opening monologue of her show, Full Frontal, Bee criticized Ivanka for posting a photo of herself with her son at the same time her father was implementing aggressive immigration policies that separated hundreds of thousands of children from their parents at the southern U.S. border.
Ivanka Trump, who works at the White House, chose to post the second most oblivious tweet weve seen this week, Bee said. You know, Ivanka, thats a beautiful photo of you and your child. But let me just say, one mother to another, do something about your dads immigration practices, you feckless ct.
https://thinkprogress.org/trumps-call-for-tbs-to-fire-samantha-bee-is-hypocritical-5b85b08d7a63/
Sophia4
(3,515 posts)Plus he is not a good listener so hiring lawyers doesn't help him much.
Ferrets are Cool
(21,110 posts)kimbutgar
(21,193 posts)But he has time to go after Samatha Bee. Everyday that pile of shit is growing in his brain.
mahatmakanejeeves
(57,613 posts)Last edited Sun Jun 3, 2018, 12:27 AM - Edit history (1)
he enjoys Constitutionally-protected rights the same as anyone else.
Now, if he **acts** by, say, calling up someone in the Justice Department to try to get her fired, then we've gone beyond 1A.
Speech or the written word? Fine. Acts? Not so fine.
unblock
(52,326 posts)It depends on if his "speech" could be considered applying pressure.
onenote
(42,762 posts)See discussion here. https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=10677907
And the description of what is a "clear cut" violation of 227 in the linked article is anything but a clear cut violation since it lacks the required element of "solely on the basis of partisan political affiliation."
saidsimplesimon
(7,888 posts)think they are "winning". In reality, their fans will be ready to give a thumbs down at the coliseum when the gladiator fights don't produce enough violence for the serial killer wanabes.
Grassy Knoll
(10,118 posts)Fuck Your Feelings.
Initech
(100,103 posts)He is seriously abusing his power. God damn him!
mythology
(9,527 posts)I mean if we got to fire everybody who has ever said a vulgar word towards women, we could get rid of the guy who called Sally Yates that, or the guy who called Jennifer Lin that, or Jessica Leeds, the guy who talked about Megyn Kelly bleeding out of her wherever, talks about women being too unattractive for him to sexually assault, brags about sexually assaulting women, brags about intentionally walking in on underage girls.
I mean if what has so far been a one time thing merits a firing, all of Donald Trump's repeated slurs against women might deserve being fired into space on a one way ticket.