[...]what Trump said, if turned into actual law, would violate the Bill of Rights. From my point of view, there's nothing to be upset about. He's welcome to his personal opinion, and if he tries to influence the law in this direction (unlikely imo), he'll get stuck in a short legal fight after which he'll be told to shove it.
totally agree.
That's not to say you can't or shouldn't be upset. I was specifically responding to Saddam's mentality. The idea that "Trump should know that there's a legal precedent for this, ergo he shouldn't be tweeting about it!" is extremely silly.
i can see what you mean. and personally i'm on the side of 'let's reserve our criticisms for policy proposals, not personality traits and tweets.' not that i follow my own advice all the time, but i agree with the principle.
that said, i'm also in the camp of taking all politicians both literally, and seriously. the transparency of the state is very important to me, and that extends to the politicians themselves. i'm troubled that he might genuinely believe in such a policy, and i'm equally troubled that i don't know if he does or not.
and if he does believe in such a policy, then i think that's troubling in its own right. sure, he may not be able to roll back free speech in cases like flag burning that are already well-settled. but not all of our rights are so clearly delineated (privacy comes to mind), and if his attitude toward individual rights are so draconian in this instance (even if he can't actualize them), then i kinda shudder to think what his attitude will be on the rights issues he can affect.