2021 Biden Presidential Address to Congress (1 Viewer)

[B4YOU]

Blue collar, kids, elderly, and jobs. No middle class taxes.

Biden’s pacing isn’t great and his speech lacks some of those applause moments.

 

[Xeno]

How do you define this “reckless speech” standard?

The standard already exists with Brandenburg, such that it is. The point is that we've placed limits on Constitutional rights before and the only reason we can't now is purely because of obstruction and partisanship.

Focusing on Biden using an example people recognize, even if it's inaccurate, is missing the forest for the trees.

 

[Mr. Blue Sky]

I couldn’t watch.. Joe makes me nervous.. He.... isnt the best speaker.. i just watch the postgame wrap up on cnn and msnbc.. Just glad he isnt Trump.

 

[Xeno]

I couldn’t watch.. Joe makes me nervous.. He.... isnt the best speaker.. i just watch the postgame wrap up on cnn and msnbc.. Just glad he isnt Trump.

This one was worth watching. He stumbled over his words a few times but by and large did a good job laying out what he wants to accomplish going forward and how he wants to do it. Definitely one of his strongest speeches and potentially defining if he can deliver on even some of what he wants. He put himself directly and publicly at odds with Reaganomics and made it clear that one of his goals is to begin reversing the damage it's caused.

 

[MT15]

Early CBS polling

 

[cxz37]

This one was worth watching. He stumbled over his words a few times but by and large did a good job laying out what he wants to accomplish going forward and how he wants to do it. Definitely one of his strongest speeches and potentially defining if he can deliver on even some of what he wants. He put himself directly and publicly at odds with Reaganomics and made it clear that one of his goals is to begin reversing the damage it's caused.

Accomplish what? Destroying U.S for his pals in the CCP by starting war with Russia?

 

[Devildog]

In Soviet Russia, English speak you.

 

[superchuck500]

The standard already exists with Brandenburg, such that it is. The point is that we've placed limits on Constitutional rights before and the only reason we can't now is purely because of obstruction and partisanship.

Focusing on Biden using an example people recognize, even if it's inaccurate, is missing the forest for the trees.

I get your point from a certain perspective, and I agree it's one small part of his broader commentary.

But to our discussion, when it comes to legal standards and how our constitutional rights are defined, the trees (the actual legal standards) matter. They arguably matter more than the forest (the conceptual rights themselves as stated in the Constitution) because they reflect how those rights actually operate in society. So I don't see how it can be helpful to illustrate a broad point that constitutional rights do indeed have limits with an example that is both legal error and has a history of unfortunate rhetorical misapplication. It is, in effect, misinformation because it perpetuates a belief about the limits of free speech in America that is inaccurate.

When it comes to allegedly incendiary speech, the example Biden chose to illustrate that constitutional rights are not absolute, the Brandenburg test (as you point out is the actual legal standard) is far more narrow and contextually tailored than "you can't yell fire in a crowded theater." When the test is one based on the elements of intent to cause imminent lawless action and likelihood that such action would result, you actually can yell "fire!" in a crowded theater under many circumstances.

I would similarly disagree if he had chosen to illustrate the idea that law enforcement reform requires a new look at qualified immunity by saying "qualified immunity means there's no accountability for anything police does" . . . which is another inaccurate characterization that is floating around these days. Yes, it's correct that the standard for application of qualified immunity is so far in favor of excusing officer conduct in violating constitutional rights that it bears meaningful reinterpretation, and yes, it's part of the context in which officers interact with the public which also needs reform. But the rhetoric that it wholly excuses officer conduct is false and gives a false impression to the audience about how qualified immunity operates.

In many instances, rhetorical license is entirely understandable. But when discussing a legal concept that has identifiable, well-settled standards in America, I don't think the president should mischaracterize them. There's no legitimate rhetorical value in misinformation.

 

[insidejob]

Accomplish what? Destroying U.S for his pals in the CCP by starting war with Russia?

Ok. We get your schtick. Anything else to share with the class?

 

[RebSaint]

 

[coldseat]

I get your point from a certain perspective, and I agree it's one small part of his broader commentary.

But to our discussion, when it comes to legal standards and how our constitutional rights are defined, the trees (the actual legal standards) matter. They arguably matter more than the forest (the conceptual rights themselves as stated in the Constitution) because they reflect how those rights actually operate in society. So I don't see how it can be helpful to illustrate a broad point that constitutional rights do indeed have limits with an example that is both legal error and has a history of unfortunate rhetorical misapplication. It is, in effect, misinformation because it perpetuates a belief about the limits of free speech in America that is inaccurate.

When it comes to allegedly incendiary speech, the example Biden chose to illustrate that constitutional rights are not absolute, the Brandenburg test (as you point out is the actual legal standard) is far more narrow and contextually tailored than "you can't yell fire in a crowded theater." When the test is one based on the elements of intent to cause imminent lawless action and likelihood that such action would result, you actually can yell "fire!" in a crowded theater under many circumstances.

I would similarly disagree if he had chosen to illustrate the idea that law enforcement reform requires a new look at qualified immunity by saying "qualified immunity means there's no accountability for anything police does" . . . which is another inaccurate characterization that is floating around these days. Yes, it's correct that the standard for application of qualified immunity is so far in favor of excusing officer conduct in violating constitutional rights that it bears meaningful reinterpretation, and yes, it's part of the context in which officers interact with the public which also needs reform. But the rhetoric that it wholly excuses officer conduct is false and gives a false impression to the audience about how qualified immunity operates.

In many instances, rhetorical license is entirely understandable. But when discussing a legal concept that has identifiable, well-settled standards in America, I don't think the president should mischaracterize them. There's no legitimate rhetorical value in misinformation.

If he got into the weeds of parsing out an exact legal definition during a political speech for something like qualified immunity or 2nd amendment restriction, he would be guilty of what so many other Democrats have had problems with in communicating with the public, being too nuanced and losing people in an effort to explain it more clearly. In effect, he's doing here what Republicans do so well and Democrats often struggle with, which is having a clear and concise message by using simple imagery or colloquialism, even if it's inaccurate.

As long as that nuance is present in the broader policy that is being proposed, I have no problem with him doing it. Mostly because you need to convince and get the American public on board if he is going to be successful at making these needed changes in our laws, and that is a very effective way of doing it.

 

[SystemShock]

I get your point from a certain perspective, and I agree it's one small part of his broader commentary.

But to our discussion, when it comes to legal standards and how our constitutional rights are defined, the trees (the actual legal standards) matter. They arguably matter more than the forest (the conceptual rights themselves as stated in the Constitution) because they reflect how those rights actually operate in society. So I don't see how it can be helpful to illustrate a broad point that constitutional rights do indeed have limits with an example that is both legal error and has a history of unfortunate rhetorical misapplication. It is, in effect, misinformation because it perpetuates a belief about the limits of free speech in America that is inaccurate.

When it comes to allegedly incendiary speech, the example Biden chose to illustrate that constitutional rights are not absolute, the Brandenburg test (as you point out is the actual legal standard) is far more narrow and contextually tailored than "you can't yell fire in a crowded theater." When the test is one based on the elements of intent to cause imminent lawless action and likelihood that such action would result, you actually can yell "fire!" in a crowded theater under many circumstances.

I would similarly disagree if he had chosen to illustrate the idea that law enforcement reform requires a new look at qualified immunity by saying "qualified immunity means there's no accountability for anything police does" . . . which is another inaccurate characterization that is floating around these days. Yes, it's correct that the standard for application of qualified immunity is so far in favor of excusing officer conduct in violating constitutional rights that it bears meaningful reinterpretation, and yes, it's part of the context in which officers interact with the public which also needs reform. But the rhetoric that it wholly excuses officer conduct is false and gives a false impression to the audience about how qualified immunity operates.

In many instances, rhetorical license is entirely understandable. But when discussing a legal concept that has identifiable, well-settled standards in America, I don't think the president should mischaracterize them. There's no legitimate rhetorical value in misinformation.

Less lawyering, more populism

 

[superchuck500]

If he got into the weeds of parsing out and exact legal definition during a political speech for something like qualified immunity or 2nd amendment restriction, he would be guilty of what so many other Democrats have had problems with in communicating with the public, being too nuanced and losing people in an effort to explain it more clearly. In effect, he's doing here what Republicans do so well and Democrats often struggle with, which is having a clear and concise message by using simple imagery or colloquialism, even if it's inaccurate.

As long as that nuance is present in the broader policy that is being proposed, I have no problem with him doing it. Mostly because you need to convince and get the American public on board if he is going to be successful at making these needed changes in our laws, and that is a very effective way of doing it.

It’s a fine point and I don’t think it was some egregious error but this “it’s okay to mischaracterize with a flawed and false idiom because I support the big-picture policy and this rhetoric gets people behind it even though it’s false“ idea to be a bit surprising. We just got through four-years of blasting that same kind of rationalization.

It’s not that big of deal but I wish he would have used a better illustration. He and his speech writers should be more capable than that - at least that’s what I imagined.

I’ll leave it at that, it’s a very minor point in what was a solid address.

 

[bdb13]

What the hell is Tim Scott talking about?

He was probably their best choice, I guess.. but I do find it funny that the Republicans can't come up with anyone who's a better speaker than a guy who much of the Republican base believes to be senile..

 

[DaveXA]

He was probably their best choice, I guess.. but I do find it funny that the Republicans can't come up with anyone who's a better speaker than a guy who much of the Republican base believes to be senile..

Scott is a good enough speaker. His delivery is fine. The substance of what he said was meh at best tho.

 

[bdb13]

Scott is a good enough speaker. His delivery is fine. The substance of what he said was meh at best tho.

I agree, he was fine.. not great and not Jindal bad.. but fine.

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

Accomplish what? Destroying U.S for his pals in the CCP by starting war with Russia?

I think you took a wrong turn at TigerDroppings, friend.

 

[insidejob]

I think you took a wrong turn at TigerDroppings, friend.

Betcha like a coke or something he does not live in Sweden. I mean, anyone with a VPN can claim to be from anywhere. I claim to live in the UK to trade on the international binance site because the binance US site sucks in comparison. This dude probably lives in like Amite and figured if he claimed to be international, no one would be able to label him before hearing from him. But then his first three posts are straight TD drivel and that basically outed him from actually being a foreigner. @Dragon could probably quiz him on some stuff just from being in the same part of the world to out him officially if anyone actually cared that much.

 

[Saintman2884]

It's a colloquialism that people recognize, whether it's accurate or not. The point being that your free speech doesn't extend to putting other people in danger.

Perhaps its time legal experts come up with a better, more accurate colloquial term that maybe better describes the nuances, complexities, and sometimes the dangerous trends some forms of free speech can lead to(like hate sperch, or libel/slander) than an old, fading descriptive rhetorical device that actually falls apart the more one analyzes and evaluates its logical drawbacks.