Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity Subject: Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2015 18:42:09 -0000 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 29 Sender: Jim Pennino Message-ID: <1tm0dc-jth.ln1@mail.specsol.com> References: <197ucc-pl9.ln1@mail.specsol.com> Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="db4120ef82bbc153014637d4cd15a795"; logging-data="21034"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+OVecYtkFB07RoQU83nTj9" User-Agent: tin/2.2.1-20140504 ("Tober an Righ") (UNIX) (SunOS/5.10 (i86pc)) Cancel-Lock: sha1:77TY2+R8zfoCoaPZKuvNJ+b33qg= Xref: csiph.com sci.physics:522065 sci.physics.relativity:364601 In sci.physics Sam Wormley wrote: > On 9/19/15 1:12 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> In sci.physics BTR1701 wrote: >>> In article , jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Not quite, for instead of some convoluted interpretation of the RICO >>>> act, the charge would be something along the lines of conspiracy >>>> to deprive constitutional rights. >>> >>> By doing nothing more than saying stuff that's unpopular. >>> >>> The Court would have to overturn almost 200+ years of 1st Amendment >>> jurisprudence to uphold the notion that the state can validly hold >>> people criminally liable for deprivation of civil rights merely for >>> saying "bad" stuff. >> >> That would highly depend on exactly who said what and to whom. >> >> > > Now isn't that just always the case, jimp? Except in your case where we can be sure it will be a cut and paste, off topic, pile of breathless arm waving, spamming shit head. -- Jim Pennino