#attempted assassinatio of Donald Trump

[trexalicious]

TMZ also is doing a special investigation report on the many Secret Service security failures...

[geezerwench]

Donnie and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Week

(Recap)

And may he have many, many more.

[meret118]

But since 2021, the social media industry has undergone a dramatic transformation and pivoted from many of the commitments, policies and tools it once embraced to help safeguard the peaceful transfer of democratic power.

The public got a taste of the new normal this summer, when social media was flooded with misinformation following the attempted assassination of former President Donald Trump and the platforms said nothing.

Though platforms still maintain pages describing what election safeguards they do support, such as specific bans on content suppressing the vote or promoting violence near polling places, many who have worked with those companies to contain misinformation in the past report an overall decline in their engagement with the issue.

. . .

The shift took place against the backdrop of a yearslong intimidation campaign led by Republican attorneys general and state and federal lawmakers aimed at forcing social media companies to platform falsehoods and hate speech and thwarting those working to study or limit the spread of that destabilizing content.

------

I don't know how we combat this constant tsunami of lies.

[beardedmrbean]

More than 50 Minnesota state legislators sent Gov. Tim Walz a letter on Sept. 30 requesting he take action against a state employee.

This comes after a Minnesota Department of Natural Resources employee posted, “Too bad they weren’t a better shot” on their personal Facebook account following the July 13 assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump.

On July 26, several legislators asked Walz to take action against the employee, but the legislators say Walz didn’t address the situation. With this new letter, legislators are again asking Walz to take action.

“Your refusal to act as Governor is troubling, especially in light of the growing public demand for the political violence to end,” the letter reads. “By not addressing this situation, you are failing to act in the interests of the people of Minnesota, who seek peaceful political discourse without fear of violence.” 

The Minnesota DNR previously posted on social media condemning the incident, calling the employee’s statement “reprehensible and inconsistent with (the DNR’s) views and values.” It also said the Minnesota Data Practices Act limits the agency’s ability to comment further on the incident. 

A spokesperson from Walz's office directed the St. Cloud Times, part of the USA TODAY Network, to the DNR. It in turn said the department is actively investigating the employee's post.

Legislators are worried about the precedent this could create for public employees, especially in light of recent acts of political violence. 

“Minnesotans expect taxpayer-funded employees to be held accountable to a standard of behavior that is respectful and peaceful, regardless of political views,” Minnesota state Sen. Steve Drazkowski, a Republican, wrote in a statement. “Allowing state employees to publicly incite or celebrate political violence is a dangerous precedent and degrades civic dialogue.”

"Political violence has no place in our state or nation and must not be tolerated," Republican state Rep. Bernie Perryman said. "Minnesotans deserve to know they can freely participate in political dialog without fear of violence, but, by his inaction, the governor is failing to uphold that basic cornerstone of our democratic republic."

Potential legal factors

Since the DNR is a public entity rather than a private business, University of Minnesota Professor of Law Charlotte Garden, J.D., tells the St. Cloud Times there are additional legal factors at play when considering disciplinary measures.

"We're talking about the First Amendment because this is a public employer, and obviously the First Amendment does not apply to private employers," Garden said. "Private employers have fewer constraints if they decide they want to fire somebody because of something they've said at work."

Garden said this case is similar to the 1987 Rankin v. McPherson case when a county employee in Texas said "if they go for him again, I hope they get him," after the failed assassination attempt on then-President Ronald Reagan. A co-worker overheard the comment and reported it, leading to the employee being fired.

The Supreme Court ruled that while direct threats to person's life would not be considered protected speech, comments on a matter of public interest spoken by an employee with no policymaking functions and public interaction would be protected under the First Amendment.

Garden said the 1987 case posed two questions, is the comment a matter of public opinion and did the comment impact the functionality of the office.

In the similar comment made following the Reagan assassination attempt, providing opinion or comment on the assassination attempt was deemed a matter of public interest by the court. However, Garden said how the comment would impact the functionality of the department, which is the DNR in this Minnesota instance, can vary from case to case.

"Sometimes a statement by an employee really does make it difficult for a public employer to continue to function efficiently," Garden said. "An example the court would think about would be if (the comment) diminished public trust in the agency."

Despite these potential legal implications, those signing the letter say there are still actions Walz can take.

"There is no law prohibiting the Governor of Minnesota from calling for an employee's resignation, calling out an employee's behavior or performance, or otherwise commenting on actions of state employees," the letter reads.