Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #521822 > unrolled thread
| Started by | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-09-18 10:50 -0700 |
| Last post | 2015-09-23 05:47 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 138 — 22 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-09-18 10:50 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-09-18 14:53 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2015-09-18 15:33 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-18 20:03 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-09-18 18:03 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> - 2015-09-18 17:13 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-09-19 04:06 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-09-18 23:04 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-19 04:48 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-09-19 04:08 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-09-19 13:22 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-09-19 13:43 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-09-19 13:54 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> - 2015-09-19 15:51 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-09-21 20:54 +0200
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-09-21 14:03 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-09-21 14:45 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-09-22 05:43 +0200
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-09-21 22:16 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-22 01:29 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> - 2015-09-19 09:35 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-19 18:12 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-09-19 13:22 -0500
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-19 18:42 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-09-19 13:58 -0500
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-19 20:13 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> - 2015-09-19 12:54 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-09-19 16:30 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> - 2015-09-19 13:22 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-19 22:23 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> - 2015-09-19 17:10 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-20 01:15 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-19 22:33 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-20 03:09 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-09-20 00:45 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> - 2015-09-19 20:17 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-20 05:35 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2015-09-20 00:20 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-20 01:20 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2015-09-20 15:28 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-20 17:22 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2015-09-20 18:18 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> - 2015-09-20 11:31 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-20 18:50 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics Jimmie Wynne <jimmwyn@metermap.org> - 2015-09-20 19:06 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2015-09-20 20:49 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-20 18:46 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2015-09-20 20:53 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-20 21:31 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-09-20 19:08 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-20 23:17 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2015-09-20 23:36 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2015-09-20 23:34 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-21 00:00 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2015-09-21 00:06 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-21 02:16 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2015-09-21 02:42 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-21 04:57 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2015-09-21 05:23 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-21 06:13 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2015-09-21 13:18 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics Jimmie Wynne <jimmwyn@metermap.org> - 2015-09-21 14:21 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2015-09-18 18:24 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics csampson@inetworld.net (Charles H. Sampson) - 2015-09-19 00:46 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-09-19 04:09 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics csampson@inetworld.net (Charles H. Sampson) - 2015-09-19 11:57 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-09-19 16:23 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-09-19 17:43 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics Rhino <no_offline_contact_please@example.com> - 2015-09-19 18:00 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-09-19 18:59 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics Rhino <no_offline_contact_please@example.com> - 2015-09-20 15:11 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-20 15:24 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-09-20 18:44 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-20 18:40 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-09-20 19:18 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-09-20 15:54 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics Rhino <no_offline_contact_please@example.com> - 2015-09-20 17:17 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-09-20 19:05 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2015-09-20 20:30 -0600
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics Lawrence Watt-Evans <lwe@sff.net> - 2015-09-20 16:03 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics Rhino <no_offline_contact_please@example.com> - 2015-09-20 17:22 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-09-20 18:51 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-09-29 03:20 +0200
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-09-20 00:29 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-09-19 23:17 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> - 2015-09-19 23:19 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-09-19 23:57 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-09-20 00:01 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-09-20 00:06 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> - 2015-09-20 08:24 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> - 2015-09-20 08:29 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-09-20 12:04 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics Lawrence Watt-Evans <lwe@sff.net> - 2015-09-20 16:00 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-09-20 07:42 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics Lawrence Watt-Evans <lwe@sff.net> - 2015-09-20 15:57 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-09-20 18:48 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-09-20 23:27 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-09-20 23:33 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-09-19 17:25 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2015-09-20 10:52 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> - 2015-09-20 08:30 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> - 2015-09-19 09:33 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics csampson@inetworld.net (Charles H. Sampson) - 2015-09-19 11:57 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> - 2015-09-19 13:07 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-19 16:13 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2015-09-19 16:21 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> - 2015-09-19 13:33 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2015-09-19 20:17 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> - 2015-09-19 17:28 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2015-09-20 00:54 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> - 2015-09-19 22:32 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics Mike M <mike@xenocyte.com> - 2015-09-20 06:01 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-09-20 11:47 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics BTR1701 <address_is@invalid.invalid> - 2015-09-20 15:51 -0500
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> - 2015-09-20 16:55 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2015-09-20 23:56 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-09-20 23:35 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2015-09-20 03:31 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-09-19 23:09 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-09-19 20:34 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-09-21 06:26 +0200
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-09-23 07:15 +0200
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics csampson@inetworld.net (Charles H. Sampson) - 2015-09-21 01:22 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics Rhino <no_offline_contact_please@example.com> - 2015-09-19 17:51 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-09-18 12:59 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2015-09-18 13:10 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> - 2015-09-18 17:14 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-09-18 22:41 +0200
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-09-18 23:03 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-09-21 05:54 +0200
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-21 01:06 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-09-21 07:42 +0200
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-21 02:02 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-09-21 20:32 +0200
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-21 16:49 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-09-22 06:02 +0200
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Persecute Global Warming Skeptics Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> - 2015-09-22 19:48 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-09-23 05:47 +0200
Page 3 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-20 17:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <si63dc-p4q.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #522217 |
In sci.physics Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:
>>In sci.physics Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:
>>>>In sci.physics BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>> In article <t4l0dc-5jh.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In sci.physics BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>>> > In article <p26vcc-boc.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> The remedy for speech that is false is speech that is true. This is the
>>>>> ordinary course in a free society. The response to the unreasoned is the
>>>>> rational; to the uninformed, the enlightened; to the straight-out lie,
>>>>> the simple truth. See Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 377 (1927)
>>>>> (Brandeis, J., concurring) ("If there be time to expose through
>>>>> discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the
>>>>> processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not
>>>>> enforced silence").
>>>>>
>>>>> The theory of our Constitution is "that the best test of truth is the
>>>>> power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the
>>>>> market," Abrams v. United States, 250 U. S. 616, 630 (1919) (Holmes, J.,
>>>>> dissenting).
>>>>>
>>>>> The 1st Amendment itself ensures the right to respond to speech we do
>>>>> not like, and for good reason. Freedom of speech and thought flows not
>>>>> from the beneficence of the state but from the inalienable rights of the
>>>>> person. And suppression of speech by the government can make exposure of
>>>>> falsity more difficult, not less so. Society has the right and civic
>>>>> duty to engage in open, dynamic, rational discourse. These ends are not
>>>>> well served when the government seeks to orchestrate public discussion
>>>>> through content-based mandates.
>>>>>
>>>>> U.S. vs. Alvarez, 132 S. Ct. at 2550
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "How can you develop a reputation as a straight shooter if lying is not
>>>>> an option? Even if untruthful speech were not valuable for its own sake,
>>>>> its protection is clearly required to give breathing room to truthful
>>>>> self-expression, which is unequivocally protected by the First
>>>>> Amendment."
>>>>>
>>>>> United States v. Alvarez, 638 F.3d 666, 675 (9th Cir. 2011)
>>>>
>>>>The person doing the tipping in an insider trading case who does no
>>>>trading can be prosecuted even though the tipster has done nothing
>>>>but speak.
>>>>
>>>>Under United States Code Title 18, Section 871 a person can be prosecuted
>>>>for nothing more than speech.
>>>
>>> You made me look it up.
>>>
>>> Not just any speech; it has to be mailed.
>>>
>>> 18 U.S.C. Sec. 871
>>> Threats against President and successors to the Presidency
>>>
>>> (a) Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits for conveyance in the mail or
>>> for a delivery from any post office or by any letter carrier any letter,
>>> paper, writing, print, missive, or document containing any threat to take
>>> the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President
>>> of the United States, the President-elect, the Vice President or other
>>> officer next in the order of succession to the office of President of the
>>> United States, or the Vice President-elect, or knowingly and willfully
>>> otherwise makes any such threat against the President, President-elect,
>>> Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the
>>> office of President, or Vice President-elect, shall be fined under this
>>> title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
>>
>>Nope; "or knowingly and willfully otherwise makes any such threat"
>
> I hate statutory construction. You sure that's not meant to broaden out
> what was being threatened, instead of relating to mailing? If that was
> meant to be any threat, what the hell is the point of addressing
> the issue of mailing it in the first place?
As people HAVE been convicted for what they said, but not mailed, yes.
As to why it was worded that way, likely because when it was enacted
in 1917 mail was a common form of communications.
--
Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-20 18:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mtmtae$52a$4@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #522237 |
<jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:
>In sci.physics Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:
>>>In sci.physics Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:
>>>>>In sci.physics BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>>> In article <t4l0dc-5jh.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In sci.physics BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> > In article <p26vcc-boc.ln1@mail.specsol.com>,
>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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The remedy for speech that is false is speech that is true. This is the
>>>>>> ordinary course in a free society. The response to the unreasoned is the
>>>>>> rational; to the uninformed, the enlightened; to the straight-out lie,
>>>>>> the simple truth. See Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 377 (1927)
>>>>>> (Brandeis, J., concurring) ("If there be time to expose through
>>>>>> discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the
>>>>>> processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not
>>>>>> enforced silence").
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The theory of our Constitution is "that the best test of truth is the
>>>>>> power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the
>>>>>> market," Abrams v. United States, 250 U. S. 616, 630 (1919) (Holmes, J.,
>>>>>> dissenting).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The 1st Amendment itself ensures the right to respond to speech we do
>>>>>> not like, and for good reason. Freedom of speech and thought flows not
>>>>>> from the beneficence of the state but from the inalienable rights of the
>>>>>> person. And suppression of speech by the government can make exposure of
>>>>>> falsity more difficult, not less so. Society has the right and civic
>>>>>> duty to engage in open, dynamic, rational discourse. These ends are not
>>>>>> well served when the government seeks to orchestrate public discussion
>>>>>> through content-based mandates.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> U.S. vs. Alvarez, 132 S. Ct. at 2550
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "How can you develop a reputation as a straight shooter if lying is not
>>>>>> an option? Even if untruthful speech were not valuable for its own sake,
>>>>>> its protection is clearly required to give breathing room to truthful
>>>>>> self-expression, which is unequivocally protected by the First
>>>>>> Amendment."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> United States v. Alvarez, 638 F.3d 666, 675 (9th Cir. 2011)
>>>>>
>>>>>The person doing the tipping in an insider trading case who does no
>>>>>trading can be prosecuted even though the tipster has done nothing
>>>>>but speak.
>>>>>
>>>>>Under United States Code Title 18, Section 871 a person can be prosecuted
>>>>>for nothing more than speech.
>>>>
>>>> You made me look it up.
>>>>
>>>> Not just any speech; it has to be mailed.
>>>>
>>>> 18 U.S.C. Sec. 871
>>>> Threats against President and successors to the Presidency
>>>>
>>>> (a) Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits for conveyance in the mail or
>>>> for a delivery from any post office or by any letter carrier any letter,
>>>> paper, writing, print, missive, or document containing any threat to take
>>>> the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President
>>>> of the United States, the President-elect, the Vice President or other
>>>> officer next in the order of succession to the office of President of the
>>>> United States, or the Vice President-elect, or knowingly and willfully
>>>> otherwise makes any such threat against the President, President-elect,
>>>> Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the
>>>> office of President, or Vice President-elect, shall be fined under this
>>>> title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
>>>
>>>Nope; "or knowingly and willfully otherwise makes any such threat"
>>
>> I hate statutory construction. You sure that's not meant to broaden out
>> what was being threatened, instead of relating to mailing? If that was
>> meant to be any threat, what the hell is the point of addressing
>> the issue of mailing it in the first place?
>
>As people HAVE been convicted for what they said, but not mailed, yes.
>
>As to why it was worded that way, likely because when it was enacted
>in 1917 mail was a common form of communications.
You're missing my point: If it's a criminal threat in ANY method of
communication, then there's no purpose in mentioning the mails at all. The
statute would attempt to make the letter illegal before it's mailed the
moment ink is on paper.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-20 11:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <atropos-6E2049.11310220092015@news.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #522245 |
In article <mtmtae$52a$4@news.albasani.net>, "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote: > <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote: > >In sci.physics Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote: > >> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote: > >>>In sci.physics Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote: > >>>> 18 U.S.C. Sec. 871 > >>>> Threats against President and successors to the Presidency > >>>> > >>>> (a) Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits for conveyance in the mail > >>>> or > >>>> for a delivery from any post office or by any letter carrier any letter, > >>>> paper, writing, print, missive, or document containing any threat to > >>>> take > >>>> the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President > >>>> of the United States, the President-elect, the Vice President or other > >>>> officer next in the order of succession to the office of President of > >>>> the > >>>> United States, or the Vice President-elect, or knowingly and willfully > >>>> otherwise makes any such threat against the President, President-elect, > >>>> Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the > >>>> office of President, or Vice President-elect, shall be fined under this > >>>> title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. > >>> > >>>Nope; "or knowingly and willfully otherwise makes any such threat" > >> > >> I hate statutory construction. You sure that's not meant to broaden out > >> what was being threatened, instead of relating to mailing? If that was > >> meant to be any threat, what the hell is the point of addressing > >> the issue of mailing it in the first place? > > > >As people HAVE been convicted for what they said, but not mailed, yes. > > > >As to why it was worded that way, likely because when it was enacted > >in 1917 mail was a common form of communications. > > You're missing my point: If it's a criminal threat in ANY method of > communication, then there's no purpose in mentioning the mails at all. It was only an offense if sent through the mail when the statute was first written. As technology improved and allowed for threats to be fixed in media and communicated in other ways, they tacked on the "otherwise" addendum.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-20 18:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <0pb3dc-gnq.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #522248 |
In sci.physics BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote: > In article <mtmtae$52a$4@news.albasani.net>, > "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote: > >> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote: >> >In sci.physics Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote: >> >> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote: >> >>>In sci.physics Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote: > >> >>>> 18 U.S.C. Sec. 871 >> >>>> Threats against President and successors to the Presidency >> >>>> >> >>>> (a) Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits for conveyance in the mail >> >>>> or >> >>>> for a delivery from any post office or by any letter carrier any letter, >> >>>> paper, writing, print, missive, or document containing any threat to >> >>>> take >> >>>> the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President >> >>>> of the United States, the President-elect, the Vice President or other >> >>>> officer next in the order of succession to the office of President of >> >>>> the >> >>>> United States, or the Vice President-elect, or knowingly and willfully >> >>>> otherwise makes any such threat against the President, President-elect, >> >>>> Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the >> >>>> office of President, or Vice President-elect, shall be fined under this >> >>>> title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. >> >>> >> >>>Nope; "or knowingly and willfully otherwise makes any such threat" >> >> >> >> I hate statutory construction. You sure that's not meant to broaden out >> >> what was being threatened, instead of relating to mailing? If that was >> >> meant to be any threat, what the hell is the point of addressing >> >> the issue of mailing it in the first place? >> > >> >As people HAVE been convicted for what they said, but not mailed, yes. >> > >> >As to why it was worded that way, likely because when it was enacted >> >in 1917 mail was a common form of communications. >> >> You're missing my point: If it's a criminal threat in ANY method of >> communication, then there's no purpose in mentioning the mails at all. > > It was only an offense if sent through the mail when the statute was > first written. As technology improved and allowed for threats to be > fixed in media and communicated in other ways, they tacked on the > "otherwise" addendum. Nope; many prosecutions during WWI right after it was enacted for simple speech. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jimmie Wynne <jimmwyn@metermap.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-20 19:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mtn02u$ih8$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #522253 |
jimp wrote: >> It was only an offense if sent through the mail when the statute was >> first written. As technology improved and allowed for threats to be >> fixed in media and communicated in other ways, they tacked on the >> "otherwise" addendum. > > Nope; many prosecutions during WWI right after it was enacted for simple > speech. jimp. take this stuff to alt.conspiracy. Thanks. Seems that alt.conspiracy moved to sci.physics. Leave sci.physics.relativity to Einstein only. Thanks, you are great.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-20 20:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mtn64s$pqb$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #522248 |
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote: >"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote: >>jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote: >>>>jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote: >>>>>>18 U.S.C. Sec. 871 >>>>>>Threats against President and successors to the Presidency >>>>>> (a) Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits for conveyance in >>>>>> the mail or for a delivery from any post office or by any letter >>>>>> carrier any letter, paper, writing, print, missive, or document >>>>>> containing any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to >>>>>> inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States, >>>>>> the President-elect, the Vice President or other officer next >>>>>> in the order of succession to the office of President of the >>>>>> United States, or the Vice President-elect, or knowingly and >>>>>> willfully otherwise makes any such threat against the President, >>>>>> President-elect, Vice President or other officer next in the order >>>>>> of succession to the office of President, or Vice President-elect, >>>>>> shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five >>>>>> years, or both. >>>>>Nope; "or knowingly and willfully otherwise makes any such threat" >>>>I hate statutory construction. You sure that's not meant to broaden out >>>>what was being threatened, instead of relating to mailing? If that was >>>>meant to be any threat, what the hell is the point of addressing >>>>the issue of mailing it in the first place? >>>As people HAVE been convicted for what they said, but not mailed, yes. >>>As to why it was worded that way, likely because when it was enacted >>>in 1917 mail was a common form of communications. >>You're missing my point: If it's a criminal threat in ANY method of >>communication, then there's no purpose in mentioning the mails at all. >It was only an offense if sent through the mail when the statute was >first written. As technology improved and allowed for threats to be >fixed in media and communicated in other ways, they tacked on the >"otherwise" addendum. This is wrong. I looked at the legislative history. H.R. 15314, 2-14-1917, stated, Chap. 64. An Act To punish persons who make threats against the President of the United States. [enacting clause], That any person who knowingly and willfully deposits or causes to be deposited for conveyance in the mail or for delivery from any post office or by any letter carrier any letter, paper, writing, print, missive, or document containing any threat to take the life of or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States, or who knowingly and willfully otherwise makes any such threat against the President, shall upon conviction be fined not exceeding $1,000 or imprisoned not exceeding five years, or both. Yeah, the very broad clause is in the original statutory language before it was amended years later, so I really don't get why there's any reference to the mails at all.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-20 18:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ghb3dc-gnq.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #522245 |
In sci.physics Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:
>>In sci.physics Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:
>>>>In sci.physics Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:
>>>>>>In sci.physics BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <t4l0dc-5jh.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In sci.physics BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> > In article <p26vcc-boc.ln1@mail.specsol.com>,
>>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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The remedy for speech that is false is speech that is true. This is the
>>>>>>> ordinary course in a free society. The response to the unreasoned is the
>>>>>>> rational; to the uninformed, the enlightened; to the straight-out lie,
>>>>>>> the simple truth. See Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 377 (1927)
>>>>>>> (Brandeis, J., concurring) ("If there be time to expose through
>>>>>>> discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the
>>>>>>> processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not
>>>>>>> enforced silence").
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The theory of our Constitution is "that the best test of truth is the
>>>>>>> power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the
>>>>>>> market," Abrams v. United States, 250 U. S. 616, 630 (1919) (Holmes, J.,
>>>>>>> dissenting).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The 1st Amendment itself ensures the right to respond to speech we do
>>>>>>> not like, and for good reason. Freedom of speech and thought flows not
>>>>>>> from the beneficence of the state but from the inalienable rights of the
>>>>>>> person. And suppression of speech by the government can make exposure of
>>>>>>> falsity more difficult, not less so. Society has the right and civic
>>>>>>> duty to engage in open, dynamic, rational discourse. These ends are not
>>>>>>> well served when the government seeks to orchestrate public discussion
>>>>>>> through content-based mandates.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> U.S. vs. Alvarez, 132 S. Ct. at 2550
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "How can you develop a reputation as a straight shooter if lying is not
>>>>>>> an option? Even if untruthful speech were not valuable for its own sake,
>>>>>>> its protection is clearly required to give breathing room to truthful
>>>>>>> self-expression, which is unequivocally protected by the First
>>>>>>> Amendment."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> United States v. Alvarez, 638 F.3d 666, 675 (9th Cir. 2011)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The person doing the tipping in an insider trading case who does no
>>>>>>trading can be prosecuted even though the tipster has done nothing
>>>>>>but speak.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Under United States Code Title 18, Section 871 a person can be prosecuted
>>>>>>for nothing more than speech.
>>>>>
>>>>> You made me look it up.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not just any speech; it has to be mailed.
>>>>>
>>>>> 18 U.S.C. Sec. 871
>>>>> Threats against President and successors to the Presidency
>>>>>
>>>>> (a) Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits for conveyance in the mail or
>>>>> for a delivery from any post office or by any letter carrier any letter,
>>>>> paper, writing, print, missive, or document containing any threat to take
>>>>> the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President
>>>>> of the United States, the President-elect, the Vice President or other
>>>>> officer next in the order of succession to the office of President of the
>>>>> United States, or the Vice President-elect, or knowingly and willfully
>>>>> otherwise makes any such threat against the President, President-elect,
>>>>> Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the
>>>>> office of President, or Vice President-elect, shall be fined under this
>>>>> title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
>>>>
>>>>Nope; "or knowingly and willfully otherwise makes any such threat"
>>>
>>> I hate statutory construction. You sure that's not meant to broaden out
>>> what was being threatened, instead of relating to mailing? If that was
>>> meant to be any threat, what the hell is the point of addressing
>>> the issue of mailing it in the first place?
>>
>>As people HAVE been convicted for what they said, but not mailed, yes.
>>
>>As to why it was worded that way, likely because when it was enacted
>>in 1917 mail was a common form of communications.
>
> You're missing my point: If it's a criminal threat in ANY method of
> communication, then there's no purpose in mentioning the mails at all. The
> statute would attempt to make the letter illegal before it's mailed the
> moment ink is on paper.
You're missing my point: How that hell would anyone know what the thinking
was behind the wording 98 years later other than making a guess?
--
Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-20 20:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mtn6d3$pqb$2@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #522252 |
<jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:
>In sci.physics Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:
>>>In sci.physics Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:
>>>>>In sci.physics Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>In sci.physics BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> In article <t4l0dc-5jh.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> > In article <p26vcc-boc.ln1@mail.specsol.com>,
>>>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.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The remedy for speech that is false is speech that is true. This is the
>>>>>>>> ordinary course in a free society. The response to the
>unreasoned is the
>>>>>>>> rational; to the uninformed, the enlightened; to the straight-out lie,
>>>>>>>> the simple truth. See Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 377 (1927)
>>>>>>>> (Brandeis, J., concurring) ("If there be time to expose through
>>>>>>>> discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the
>>>>>>>> processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not
>>>>>>>> enforced silence").
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The theory of our Constitution is "that the best test of truth is the
>>>>>>>> power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the
>>>>>>>> market," Abrams v. United States, 250 U. S. 616, 630 (1919)
>(Holmes, J.,
>>>>>>>> dissenting).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The 1st Amendment itself ensures the right to respond to speech we do
>>>>>>>> not like, and for good reason. Freedom of speech and thought flows not
>>>>>>>> from the beneficence of the state but from the inalienable
>rights of the
>>>>>>>> person. And suppression of speech by the government can make
>exposure of
>>>>>>>> falsity more difficult, not less so. Society has the right and civic
>>>>>>>> duty to engage in open, dynamic, rational discourse. These ends are not
>>>>>>>> well served when the government seeks to orchestrate public discussion
>>>>>>>> through content-based mandates.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> U.S. vs. Alvarez, 132 S. Ct. at 2550
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "How can you develop a reputation as a straight shooter if lying is not
>>>>>>>> an option? Even if untruthful speech were not valuable for its
>own sake,
>>>>>>>> its protection is clearly required to give breathing room to truthful
>>>>>>>> self-expression, which is unequivocally protected by the First
>>>>>>>> Amendment."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> United States v. Alvarez, 638 F.3d 666, 675 (9th Cir. 2011)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The person doing the tipping in an insider trading case who does no
>>>>>>>trading can be prosecuted even though the tipster has done nothing
>>>>>>>but speak.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Under United States Code Title 18, Section 871 a person can be prosecuted
>>>>>>>for nothing more than speech.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You made me look it up.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not just any speech; it has to be mailed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 18 U.S.C. Sec. 871
>>>>>> Threats against President and successors to the Presidency
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (a) Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits for conveyance in the mail or
>>>>>> for a delivery from any post office or by any letter carrier any letter,
>>>>>> paper, writing, print, missive, or document containing any threat to take
>>>>>> the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President
>>>>>> of the United States, the President-elect, the Vice President or other
>>>>>> officer next in the order of succession to the office of President of the
>>>>>> United States, or the Vice President-elect, or knowingly and willfully
>>>>>> otherwise makes any such threat against the President, President-elect,
>>>>>> Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the
>>>>>> office of President, or Vice President-elect, shall be fined under this
>>>>>> title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
>>>>>
>>>>>Nope; "or knowingly and willfully otherwise makes any such threat"
>>>>
>>>> I hate statutory construction. You sure that's not meant to broaden out
>>>> what was being threatened, instead of relating to mailing? If that was
>>>> meant to be any threat, what the hell is the point of addressing
>>>> the issue of mailing it in the first place?
>>>
>>>As people HAVE been convicted for what they said, but not mailed, yes.
>>>
>>>As to why it was worded that way, likely because when it was enacted
>>>in 1917 mail was a common form of communications.
>>
>> You're missing my point: If it's a criminal threat in ANY method of
>> communication, then there's no purpose in mentioning the mails at all. The
>> statute would attempt to make the letter illegal before it's mailed the
>> moment ink is on paper.
>
>You're missing my point: How that hell would anyone know what the thinking
>was behind the wording 98 years later other than making a guess?
Try reading the words for comprehension, like anything else.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-20 21:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <i6l3dc-jlr.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #522281 |
In sci.physics Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:
>>In sci.physics Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:
>>>>In sci.physics Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:
>>>>>>In sci.physics Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>In sci.physics BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In article <t4l0dc-5jh.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> > In article <p26vcc-boc.ln1@mail.specsol.com>,
>>>>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.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The remedy for speech that is false is speech that is true. This is the
>>>>>>>>> ordinary course in a free society. The response to the
>>unreasoned is the
>>>>>>>>> rational; to the uninformed, the enlightened; to the straight-out lie,
>>>>>>>>> the simple truth. See Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 377 (1927)
>>>>>>>>> (Brandeis, J., concurring) ("If there be time to expose through
>>>>>>>>> discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the
>>>>>>>>> processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not
>>>>>>>>> enforced silence").
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The theory of our Constitution is "that the best test of truth is the
>>>>>>>>> power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the
>>>>>>>>> market," Abrams v. United States, 250 U. S. 616, 630 (1919)
>>(Holmes, J.,
>>>>>>>>> dissenting).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The 1st Amendment itself ensures the right to respond to speech we do
>>>>>>>>> not like, and for good reason. Freedom of speech and thought flows not
>>>>>>>>> from the beneficence of the state but from the inalienable
>>rights of the
>>>>>>>>> person. And suppression of speech by the government can make
>>exposure of
>>>>>>>>> falsity more difficult, not less so. Society has the right and civic
>>>>>>>>> duty to engage in open, dynamic, rational discourse. These ends are not
>>>>>>>>> well served when the government seeks to orchestrate public discussion
>>>>>>>>> through content-based mandates.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> U.S. vs. Alvarez, 132 S. Ct. at 2550
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "How can you develop a reputation as a straight shooter if lying is not
>>>>>>>>> an option? Even if untruthful speech were not valuable for its
>>own sake,
>>>>>>>>> its protection is clearly required to give breathing room to truthful
>>>>>>>>> self-expression, which is unequivocally protected by the First
>>>>>>>>> Amendment."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> United States v. Alvarez, 638 F.3d 666, 675 (9th Cir. 2011)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The person doing the tipping in an insider trading case who does no
>>>>>>>>trading can be prosecuted even though the tipster has done nothing
>>>>>>>>but speak.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Under United States Code Title 18, Section 871 a person can be prosecuted
>>>>>>>>for nothing more than speech.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You made me look it up.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not just any speech; it has to be mailed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 18 U.S.C. Sec. 871
>>>>>>> Threats against President and successors to the Presidency
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (a) Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits for conveyance in the mail or
>>>>>>> for a delivery from any post office or by any letter carrier any letter,
>>>>>>> paper, writing, print, missive, or document containing any threat to take
>>>>>>> the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President
>>>>>>> of the United States, the President-elect, the Vice President or other
>>>>>>> officer next in the order of succession to the office of President of the
>>>>>>> United States, or the Vice President-elect, or knowingly and willfully
>>>>>>> otherwise makes any such threat against the President, President-elect,
>>>>>>> Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the
>>>>>>> office of President, or Vice President-elect, shall be fined under this
>>>>>>> title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Nope; "or knowingly and willfully otherwise makes any such threat"
>>>>>
>>>>> I hate statutory construction. You sure that's not meant to broaden out
>>>>> what was being threatened, instead of relating to mailing? If that was
>>>>> meant to be any threat, what the hell is the point of addressing
>>>>> the issue of mailing it in the first place?
>>>>
>>>>As people HAVE been convicted for what they said, but not mailed, yes.
>>>>
>>>>As to why it was worded that way, likely because when it was enacted
>>>>in 1917 mail was a common form of communications.
>>>
>>> You're missing my point: If it's a criminal threat in ANY method of
>>> communication, then there's no purpose in mentioning the mails at all. The
>>> statute would attempt to make the letter illegal before it's mailed the
>>> moment ink is on paper.
>>
>>You're missing my point: How that hell would anyone know what the thinking
>>was behind the wording 98 years later other than making a guess?
>
> Try reading the words for comprehension, like anything else.
Bullshit.
If it were that simple there would be no court cases attempting to
determine the intent of the original authors, and there have been
a LOT of those.
An excellent example is the amount of effort in determining the intent
of the framers in "A well regulated Militia".
The words "well regulated" and militia had far different meanings 230
years ago.
Without research, one can only guess the purpose of explicitly mentioning
mail in something written 98 years ago.
--
Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-20 19:08 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.306906808a474055989b62@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #522310 |
In article <i6l3dc-jlr.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
says...
>
> In sci.physics Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> > <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:
> >>In sci.physics Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> >>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:
> >>>>In sci.physics Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> >>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>In sci.physics Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>In sci.physics BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> In article <t4l0dc-5jh.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> > In article <p26vcc-boc.ln1@mail.specsol.com>,
> >>>>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.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> The remedy for speech that is false is speech that is true. This is the
> >>>>>>>>> ordinary course in a free society. The response to the
> >>unreasoned is the
> >>>>>>>>> rational; to the uninformed, the enlightened; to the straight-out lie,
> >>>>>>>>> the simple truth. See Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 377 (1927)
> >>>>>>>>> (Brandeis, J., concurring) ("If there be time to expose through
> >>>>>>>>> discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the
> >>>>>>>>> processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not
> >>>>>>>>> enforced silence").
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> The theory of our Constitution is "that the best test of truth is the
> >>>>>>>>> power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the
> >>>>>>>>> market," Abrams v. United States, 250 U. S. 616, 630 (1919)
> >>(Holmes, J.,
> >>>>>>>>> dissenting).
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> The 1st Amendment itself ensures the right to respond to speech we do
> >>>>>>>>> not like, and for good reason. Freedom of speech and thought flows not
> >>>>>>>>> from the beneficence of the state but from the inalienable
> >>rights of the
> >>>>>>>>> person. And suppression of speech by the government can make
> >>exposure of
> >>>>>>>>> falsity more difficult, not less so. Society has the right and civic
> >>>>>>>>> duty to engage in open, dynamic, rational discourse. These ends are not
> >>>>>>>>> well served when the government seeks to orchestrate public discussion
> >>>>>>>>> through content-based mandates.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> U.S. vs. Alvarez, 132 S. Ct. at 2550
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> "How can you develop a reputation as a straight shooter if lying is not
> >>>>>>>>> an option? Even if untruthful speech were not valuable for its
> >>own sake,
> >>>>>>>>> its protection is clearly required to give breathing room to truthful
> >>>>>>>>> self-expression, which is unequivocally protected by the First
> >>>>>>>>> Amendment."
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> United States v. Alvarez, 638 F.3d 666, 675 (9th Cir. 2011)
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>The person doing the tipping in an insider trading case who does no
> >>>>>>>>trading can be prosecuted even though the tipster has done nothing
> >>>>>>>>but speak.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Under United States Code Title 18, Section 871 a person can be prosecuted
> >>>>>>>>for nothing more than speech.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> You made me look it up.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Not just any speech; it has to be mailed.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 18 U.S.C. Sec. 871
> >>>>>>> Threats against President and successors to the Presidency
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> (a) Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits for conveyance in the mail or
> >>>>>>> for a delivery from any post office or by any letter carrier any letter,
> >>>>>>> paper, writing, print, missive, or document containing any threat to take
> >>>>>>> the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President
> >>>>>>> of the United States, the President-elect, the Vice President or other
> >>>>>>> officer next in the order of succession to the office of President of the
> >>>>>>> United States, or the Vice President-elect, or knowingly and willfully
> >>>>>>> otherwise makes any such threat against the President, President-elect,
> >>>>>>> Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the
> >>>>>>> office of President, or Vice President-elect, shall be fined under this
> >>>>>>> title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Nope; "or knowingly and willfully otherwise makes any such threat"
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I hate statutory construction. You sure that's not meant to broaden out
> >>>>> what was being threatened, instead of relating to mailing? If that was
> >>>>> meant to be any threat, what the hell is the point of addressing
> >>>>> the issue of mailing it in the first place?
> >>>>
> >>>>As people HAVE been convicted for what they said, but not mailed, yes.
> >>>>
> >>>>As to why it was worded that way, likely because when it was enacted
> >>>>in 1917 mail was a common form of communications.
> >>>
> >>> You're missing my point: If it's a criminal threat in ANY method of
> >>> communication, then there's no purpose in mentioning the mails at all. The
> >>> statute would attempt to make the letter illegal before it's mailed the
> >>> moment ink is on paper.
> >>
> >>You're missing my point: How that hell would anyone know what the thinking
> >>was behind the wording 98 years later other than making a guess?
> >
> > Try reading the words for comprehension, like anything else.
>
> Bullshit.
>
> If it were that simple there would be no court cases attempting to
> determine the intent of the original authors, and there have been
> a LOT of those.
>
> An excellent example is the amount of effort in determining the intent
> of the framers in "A well regulated Militia".
I would not say that there have been A LOT of court cases addressing
this particular matter. I believe that there have been three rulings by
the Supreme Court in the 20th Century addressing the Second Admendment
and none of them addressed the definition of a "well regulated militia".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-20 23:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <jcr3dc-tas.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #522352 |
In sci.physics J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article <i6l3dc-jlr.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
> says...
>>
>> In sci.physics Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>> > <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:
>> >>In sci.physics Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>> >>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:
>> >>>>In sci.physics Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>> >>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>>In sci.physics Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>In sci.physics BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>> In article <t4l0dc-5jh.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
>> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>> > In article <p26vcc-boc.ln1@mail.specsol.com>,
>> >>>>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.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> The remedy for speech that is false is speech that is true. This is the
>> >>>>>>>>> ordinary course in a free society. The response to the
>> >>unreasoned is the
>> >>>>>>>>> rational; to the uninformed, the enlightened; to the straight-out lie,
>> >>>>>>>>> the simple truth. See Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 377 (1927)
>> >>>>>>>>> (Brandeis, J., concurring) ("If there be time to expose through
>> >>>>>>>>> discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the
>> >>>>>>>>> processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not
>> >>>>>>>>> enforced silence").
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> The theory of our Constitution is "that the best test of truth is the
>> >>>>>>>>> power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the
>> >>>>>>>>> market," Abrams v. United States, 250 U. S. 616, 630 (1919)
>> >>(Holmes, J.,
>> >>>>>>>>> dissenting).
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> The 1st Amendment itself ensures the right to respond to speech we do
>> >>>>>>>>> not like, and for good reason. Freedom of speech and thought flows not
>> >>>>>>>>> from the beneficence of the state but from the inalienable
>> >>rights of the
>> >>>>>>>>> person. And suppression of speech by the government can make
>> >>exposure of
>> >>>>>>>>> falsity more difficult, not less so. Society has the right and civic
>> >>>>>>>>> duty to engage in open, dynamic, rational discourse. These ends are not
>> >>>>>>>>> well served when the government seeks to orchestrate public discussion
>> >>>>>>>>> through content-based mandates.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> U.S. vs. Alvarez, 132 S. Ct. at 2550
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> "How can you develop a reputation as a straight shooter if lying is not
>> >>>>>>>>> an option? Even if untruthful speech were not valuable for its
>> >>own sake,
>> >>>>>>>>> its protection is clearly required to give breathing room to truthful
>> >>>>>>>>> self-expression, which is unequivocally protected by the First
>> >>>>>>>>> Amendment."
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> United States v. Alvarez, 638 F.3d 666, 675 (9th Cir. 2011)
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>The person doing the tipping in an insider trading case who does no
>> >>>>>>>>trading can be prosecuted even though the tipster has done nothing
>> >>>>>>>>but speak.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>Under United States Code Title 18, Section 871 a person can be prosecuted
>> >>>>>>>>for nothing more than speech.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> You made me look it up.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Not just any speech; it has to be mailed.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> 18 U.S.C. Sec. 871
>> >>>>>>> Threats against President and successors to the Presidency
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> (a) Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits for conveyance in the mail or
>> >>>>>>> for a delivery from any post office or by any letter carrier any letter,
>> >>>>>>> paper, writing, print, missive, or document containing any threat to take
>> >>>>>>> the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President
>> >>>>>>> of the United States, the President-elect, the Vice President or other
>> >>>>>>> officer next in the order of succession to the office of President of the
>> >>>>>>> United States, or the Vice President-elect, or knowingly and willfully
>> >>>>>>> otherwise makes any such threat against the President, President-elect,
>> >>>>>>> Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the
>> >>>>>>> office of President, or Vice President-elect, shall be fined under this
>> >>>>>>> title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>Nope; "or knowingly and willfully otherwise makes any such threat"
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> I hate statutory construction. You sure that's not meant to broaden out
>> >>>>> what was being threatened, instead of relating to mailing? If that was
>> >>>>> meant to be any threat, what the hell is the point of addressing
>> >>>>> the issue of mailing it in the first place?
>> >>>>
>> >>>>As people HAVE been convicted for what they said, but not mailed, yes.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>As to why it was worded that way, likely because when it was enacted
>> >>>>in 1917 mail was a common form of communications.
>> >>>
>> >>> You're missing my point: If it's a criminal threat in ANY method of
>> >>> communication, then there's no purpose in mentioning the mails at all. The
>> >>> statute would attempt to make the letter illegal before it's mailed the
>> >>> moment ink is on paper.
>> >>
>> >>You're missing my point: How that hell would anyone know what the thinking
>> >>was behind the wording 98 years later other than making a guess?
>> >
>> > Try reading the words for comprehension, like anything else.
>>
>> Bullshit.
>>
>> If it were that simple there would be no court cases attempting to
>> determine the intent of the original authors, and there have been
>> a LOT of those.
>>
>> An excellent example is the amount of effort in determining the intent
>> of the framers in "A well regulated Militia".
>
> I would not say that there have been A LOT of court cases addressing
> this particular matter.
Yes, there have been a LOT of court cases addressing the writers
intent.
> I believe that there have been three rulings by
> the Supreme Court in the 20th Century addressing the Second Admendment
> and none of them addressed the definition of a "well regulated militia".
Irrelevant to what was actually written.
--
Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-20 23:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mtnfuk$c0v$3@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #522381 |
<jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:
>In sci.physics J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>> In article <i6l3dc-jlr.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
>> says...
>>>
>>> In sci.physics Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>> > <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:
>>> >>In sci.physics Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>> >>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:
>>> >>>>In sci.physics Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>> >>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:
>>> >>>>>>In sci.physics Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>> >>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:
>>> >>>>>>>>In sci.physics BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>> >>>>>>>>> In article <t4l0dc-5jh.ln1@mail.specsol.com>,
>jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
>>> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>> >>>>>>>>>> > In article <p26vcc-boc.ln1@mail.specsol.com>,
>>> >>>>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.
>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>> The remedy for speech that is false is speech that is true.
>This is the
>>> >>>>>>>>> ordinary course in a free society. The response to the
>>> >>unreasoned is the
>>> >>>>>>>>> rational; to the uninformed, the enlightened; to the
>straight-out lie,
>>> >>>>>>>>> the simple truth. See Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357,
>377 (1927)
>>> >>>>>>>>> (Brandeis, J., concurring) ("If there be time to expose through
>>> >>>>>>>>> discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the
>>> >>>>>>>>> processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more
>speech, not
>>> >>>>>>>>> enforced silence").
>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>> The theory of our Constitution is "that the best test of
>truth is the
>>> >>>>>>>>> power of the thought to get itself accepted in the
>competition of the
>>> >>>>>>>>> market," Abrams v. United States, 250 U. S. 616, 630 (1919)
>>> >>(Holmes, J.,
>>> >>>>>>>>> dissenting).
>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>> The 1st Amendment itself ensures the right to respond to
>speech we do
>>> >>>>>>>>> not like, and for good reason. Freedom of speech and
>thought flows not
>>> >>>>>>>>> from the beneficence of the state but from the inalienable
>>> >>rights of the
>>> >>>>>>>>> person. And suppression of speech by the government can make
>>> >>exposure of
>>> >>>>>>>>> falsity more difficult, not less so. Society has the right
>and civic
>>> >>>>>>>>> duty to engage in open, dynamic, rational discourse. These
>ends are not
>>> >>>>>>>>> well served when the government seeks to orchestrate public
>discussion
>>> >>>>>>>>> through content-based mandates.
>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>> U.S. vs. Alvarez, 132 S. Ct. at 2550
>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>> "How can you develop a reputation as a straight shooter if
>lying is not
>>> >>>>>>>>> an option? Even if untruthful speech were not valuable for its
>>> >>own sake,
>>> >>>>>>>>> its protection is clearly required to give breathing room
>to truthful
>>> >>>>>>>>> self-expression, which is unequivocally protected by the First
>>> >>>>>>>>> Amendment."
>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>> United States v. Alvarez, 638 F.3d 666, 675 (9th Cir. 2011)
>>> >>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>The person doing the tipping in an insider trading case who does no
>>> >>>>>>>>trading can be prosecuted even though the tipster has done nothing
>>> >>>>>>>>but speak.
>>> >>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>Under United States Code Title 18, Section 871 a person can
>be prosecuted
>>> >>>>>>>>for nothing more than speech.
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> You made me look it up.
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> Not just any speech; it has to be mailed.
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> 18 U.S.C. Sec. 871
>>> >>>>>>> Threats against President and successors to the Presidency
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> (a) Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits for conveyance
>in the mail or
>>> >>>>>>> for a delivery from any post office or by any letter carrier
>any letter,
>>> >>>>>>> paper, writing, print, missive, or document containing any
>threat to take
>>> >>>>>>> the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President
>>> >>>>>>> of the United States, the President-elect, the Vice President
>or other
>>> >>>>>>> officer next in the order of succession to the office of
>President of the
>>> >>>>>>> United States, or the Vice President-elect, or knowingly and
>willfully
>>> >>>>>>> otherwise makes any such threat against the President,
>President-elect,
>>> >>>>>>> Vice President or other officer next in the order of
>succession to the
>>> >>>>>>> office of President, or Vice President-elect, shall be fined
>under this
>>> >>>>>>> title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>Nope; "or knowingly and willfully otherwise makes any such threat"
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> I hate statutory construction. You sure that's not meant to broaden out
>>> >>>>> what was being threatened, instead of relating to mailing? If that was
>>> >>>>> meant to be any threat, what the hell is the point of addressing
>>> >>>>> the issue of mailing it in the first place?
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>As people HAVE been convicted for what they said, but not mailed, yes.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>As to why it was worded that way, likely because when it was enacted
>>> >>>>in 1917 mail was a common form of communications.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> You're missing my point: If it's a criminal threat in ANY method of
>>> >>> communication, then there's no purpose in mentioning the mails at
>all. The
>>> >>> statute would attempt to make the letter illegal before it's mailed the
>>> >>> moment ink is on paper.
>>> >>
>>> >>You're missing my point: How that hell would anyone know what the thinking
>>> >>was behind the wording 98 years later other than making a guess?
>>> >
>>> > Try reading the words for comprehension, like anything else.
>>>
>>> Bullshit.
>>>
>>> If it were that simple there would be no court cases attempting to
>>> determine the intent of the original authors, and there have been
>>> a LOT of those.
>>>
>>> An excellent example is the amount of effort in determining the intent
>>> of the framers in "A well regulated Militia".
>>
>> I would not say that there have been A LOT of court cases addressing
>> this particular matter.
>
>Yes, there have been a LOT of court cases addressing the writers
>intent.
>
>> I believe that there have been three rulings by
>> the Supreme Court in the 20th Century addressing the Second Admendment
>> and none of them addressed the definition of a "well regulated militia".
>
>Irrelevant to what was actually written.
Not irrelevant; it means that the plain meaning of the term stands.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-20 23:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mtnfqt$c0v$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #522310 |
<jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:
>In sci.physics Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:
>>>In sci.physics Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:
>>>>>In sci.physics Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>In sci.physics Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> In article <t4l0dc-5jh.ln1@mail.specsol.com>,
>jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> > In article <p26vcc-boc.ln1@mail.specsol.com>,
>>>>>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.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The remedy for speech that is false is speech that is true.
>This is the
>>>>>>>>>> ordinary course in a free society. The response to the
>>>unreasoned is the
>>>>>>>>>> rational; to the uninformed, the enlightened; to the
>straight-out lie,
>>>>>>>>>> the simple truth. See Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 377 (1927)
>>>>>>>>>> (Brandeis, J., concurring) ("If there be time to expose through
>>>>>>>>>> discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the
>>>>>>>>>> processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not
>>>>>>>>>> enforced silence").
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The theory of our Constitution is "that the best test of truth is the
>>>>>>>>>> power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the
>>>>>>>>>> market," Abrams v. United States, 250 U. S. 616, 630 (1919)
>>>(Holmes, J.,
>>>>>>>>>> dissenting).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The 1st Amendment itself ensures the right to respond to speech we do
>>>>>>>>>> not like, and for good reason. Freedom of speech and thought
>flows not
>>>>>>>>>> from the beneficence of the state but from the inalienable
>>>rights of the
>>>>>>>>>> person. And suppression of speech by the government can make
>>>exposure of
>>>>>>>>>> falsity more difficult, not less so. Society has the right and civic
>>>>>>>>>> duty to engage in open, dynamic, rational discourse. These
>ends are not
>>>>>>>>>> well served when the government seeks to orchestrate public
>discussion
>>>>>>>>>> through content-based mandates.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> U.S. vs. Alvarez, 132 S. Ct. at 2550
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "How can you develop a reputation as a straight shooter if
>lying is not
>>>>>>>>>> an option? Even if untruthful speech were not valuable for its
>>>own sake,
>>>>>>>>>> its protection is clearly required to give breathing room to truthful
>>>>>>>>>> self-expression, which is unequivocally protected by the First
>>>>>>>>>> Amendment."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> United States v. Alvarez, 638 F.3d 666, 675 (9th Cir. 2011)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>The person doing the tipping in an insider trading case who does no
>>>>>>>>>trading can be prosecuted even though the tipster has done nothing
>>>>>>>>>but speak.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Under United States Code Title 18, Section 871 a person can be
>prosecuted
>>>>>>>>>for nothing more than speech.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You made me look it up.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not just any speech; it has to be mailed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 18 U.S.C. Sec. 871
>>>>>>>> Threats against President and successors to the Presidency
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (a) Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits for conveyance in
>the mail or
>>>>>>>> for a delivery from any post office or by any letter carrier any letter,
>>>>>>>> paper, writing, print, missive, or document containing any
>threat to take
>>>>>>>> the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President
>>>>>>>> of the United States, the President-elect, the Vice President or other
>>>>>>>> officer next in the order of succession to the office of
>President of the
>>>>>>>> United States, or the Vice President-elect, or knowingly and willfully
>>>>>>>> otherwise makes any such threat against the President, President-elect,
>>>>>>>> Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the
>>>>>>>> office of President, or Vice President-elect, shall be fined under this
>>>>>>>> title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Nope; "or knowingly and willfully otherwise makes any such threat"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I hate statutory construction. You sure that's not meant to broaden out
>>>>>> what was being threatened, instead of relating to mailing? If that was
>>>>>> meant to be any threat, what the hell is the point of addressing
>>>>>> the issue of mailing it in the first place?
>>>>>
>>>>>As people HAVE been convicted for what they said, but not mailed, yes.
>>>>>
>>>>>As to why it was worded that way, likely because when it was enacted
>>>>>in 1917 mail was a common form of communications.
>>>>
>>>> You're missing my point: If it's a criminal threat in ANY method of
>>>> communication, then there's no purpose in mentioning the mails at all. The
>>>> statute would attempt to make the letter illegal before it's mailed the
>>>> moment ink is on paper.
>>>
>>>You're missing my point: How that hell would anyone know what the thinking
>>>was behind the wording 98 years later other than making a guess?
>>
>> Try reading the words for comprehension, like anything else.
>Bullshit.
>If it were that simple there would be no court cases attempting to
>determine the intent of the original authors, and there have been
>a LOT of those.
>An excellent example is the amount of effort in determining the intent
>of the framers in "A well regulated Militia".
>The words "well regulated" and militia had far different meanings 230
>years ago.
No, they didn't. It's merely an old-fashioned term. It had a legal meaning,
and quite a bit of discussion from Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 29
(I looked it up).
For amusement, this article criticizes the originalism expressed in BOTH
the majority (Scalia) and dissenting (Stevens) opinions interpreting
English law, heh; bad historical interpretations on the part of both.
"Mason, Madison, and Militias: A Progressive for a Right to Bear Arms"
by Ross Raffin, May 2010
http://web.stanford.edu/group/progressive/cgi-bin/?p=559
Militia are the able-bodied men of the community who can be called up
for service to the nation or state in case of insurrection or invasion
or some other emergency or disaster. Well-regulated means they have had
some training in arms. It is specifically NOT a standing army, and the
modern National Guard, a part-time army whose members can be activated
into full-time status, never was analogous to the militia.
I am unaware of any controversy, current or historical, among legal scholars
as to what was meant by a well-regulated militia, but feel free to point
it out to me.
>Without research, one can only guess the purpose of explicitly mentioning
>mail in something written 98 years ago.
One wasn't ask to guess. If one doesn't know the answer, one might have
chosen not to followup.
The meanings of "threat" and "bodily harm" haven't changed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-21 00:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <but3dc-jgs.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #522386 |
In sci.physics Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:
>>In sci.physics Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:
>>>>In sci.physics Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:
>>>>>>In sci.physics Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> In article <t4l0dc-5jh.ln1@mail.specsol.com>,
>>jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> > In article <p26vcc-boc.ln1@mail.specsol.com>,
>>>>>>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.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The remedy for speech that is false is speech that is true.
>>This is the
>>>>>>>>>>> ordinary course in a free society. The response to the
>>>>unreasoned is the
>>>>>>>>>>> rational; to the uninformed, the enlightened; to the
>>straight-out lie,
>>>>>>>>>>> the simple truth. See Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 377 (1927)
>>>>>>>>>>> (Brandeis, J., concurring) ("If there be time to expose through
>>>>>>>>>>> discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the
>>>>>>>>>>> processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not
>>>>>>>>>>> enforced silence").
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The theory of our Constitution is "that the best test of truth is the
>>>>>>>>>>> power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the
>>>>>>>>>>> market," Abrams v. United States, 250 U. S. 616, 630 (1919)
>>>>(Holmes, J.,
>>>>>>>>>>> dissenting).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The 1st Amendment itself ensures the right to respond to speech we do
>>>>>>>>>>> not like, and for good reason. Freedom of speech and thought
>>flows not
>>>>>>>>>>> from the beneficence of the state but from the inalienable
>>>>rights of the
>>>>>>>>>>> person. And suppression of speech by the government can make
>>>>exposure of
>>>>>>>>>>> falsity more difficult, not less so. Society has the right and civic
>>>>>>>>>>> duty to engage in open, dynamic, rational discourse. These
>>ends are not
>>>>>>>>>>> well served when the government seeks to orchestrate public
>>discussion
>>>>>>>>>>> through content-based mandates.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> U.S. vs. Alvarez, 132 S. Ct. at 2550
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "How can you develop a reputation as a straight shooter if
>>lying is not
>>>>>>>>>>> an option? Even if untruthful speech were not valuable for its
>>>>own sake,
>>>>>>>>>>> its protection is clearly required to give breathing room to truthful
>>>>>>>>>>> self-expression, which is unequivocally protected by the First
>>>>>>>>>>> Amendment."
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> United States v. Alvarez, 638 F.3d 666, 675 (9th Cir. 2011)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>The person doing the tipping in an insider trading case who does no
>>>>>>>>>>trading can be prosecuted even though the tipster has done nothing
>>>>>>>>>>but speak.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Under United States Code Title 18, Section 871 a person can be
>>prosecuted
>>>>>>>>>>for nothing more than speech.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You made me look it up.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not just any speech; it has to be mailed.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 18 U.S.C. Sec. 871
>>>>>>>>> Threats against President and successors to the Presidency
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> (a) Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits for conveyance in
>>the mail or
>>>>>>>>> for a delivery from any post office or by any letter carrier any letter,
>>>>>>>>> paper, writing, print, missive, or document containing any
>>threat to take
>>>>>>>>> the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President
>>>>>>>>> of the United States, the President-elect, the Vice President or other
>>>>>>>>> officer next in the order of succession to the office of
>>President of the
>>>>>>>>> United States, or the Vice President-elect, or knowingly and willfully
>>>>>>>>> otherwise makes any such threat against the President, President-elect,
>>>>>>>>> Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the
>>>>>>>>> office of President, or Vice President-elect, shall be fined under this
>>>>>>>>> title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Nope; "or knowingly and willfully otherwise makes any such threat"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I hate statutory construction. You sure that's not meant to broaden out
>>>>>>> what was being threatened, instead of relating to mailing? If that was
>>>>>>> meant to be any threat, what the hell is the point of addressing
>>>>>>> the issue of mailing it in the first place?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>As people HAVE been convicted for what they said, but not mailed, yes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>As to why it was worded that way, likely because when it was enacted
>>>>>>in 1917 mail was a common form of communications.
>>>>>
>>>>> You're missing my point: If it's a criminal threat in ANY method of
>>>>> communication, then there's no purpose in mentioning the mails at all. The
>>>>> statute would attempt to make the letter illegal before it's mailed the
>>>>> moment ink is on paper.
>>>>
>>>>You're missing my point: How that hell would anyone know what the thinking
>>>>was behind the wording 98 years later other than making a guess?
>>>
>>> Try reading the words for comprehension, like anything else.
>
>>Bullshit.
>
>>If it were that simple there would be no court cases attempting to
>>determine the intent of the original authors, and there have been
>>a LOT of those.
>
>>An excellent example is the amount of effort in determining the intent
>>of the framers in "A well regulated Militia".
>
>>The words "well regulated" and militia had far different meanings 230
>>years ago.
>
> No, they didn't. It's merely an old-fashioned term. It had a legal meaning,
> and quite a bit of discussion from Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 29
If it was cut and dry why any discussion at all?
<snip remaining beating of a dead horst>
--
Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-21 00:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mtnhlo$c0v$6@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #522398 |
<jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:
>In sci.physics Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:
>>>In sci.physics Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:
>>>>>In sci.physics Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>In sci.physics Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <t4l0dc-5jh.ln1@mail.specsol.com>,
>>>jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> > In article <p26vcc-boc.ln1@mail.specsol.com>,
>>>>>>>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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The remedy for speech that is false is speech that is true.
>>>This is the
>>>>>>>>>>>> ordinary course in a free society. The response to the
>>>>>unreasoned is the
>>>>>>>>>>>> rational; to the uninformed, the enlightened; to the
>>>straight-out lie,
>>>>>>>>>>>> the simple truth. See Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357,
>377 (1927)
>>>>>>>>>>>> (Brandeis, J., concurring) ("If there be time to expose through
>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the
>>>>>>>>>>>> processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more
>speech, not
>>>>>>>>>>>> enforced silence").
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The theory of our Constitution is "that the best test of
>truth is the
>>>>>>>>>>>> power of the thought to get itself accepted in the
>competition of the
>>>>>>>>>>>> market," Abrams v. United States, 250 U. S. 616, 630 (1919)
>>>>>(Holmes, J.,
>>>>>>>>>>>> dissenting).
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The 1st Amendment itself ensures the right to respond to
>speech we do
>>>>>>>>>>>> not like, and for good reason. Freedom of speech and thought
>>>flows not
>>>>>>>>>>>> from the beneficence of the state but from the inalienable
>>>>>rights of the
>>>>>>>>>>>> person. And suppression of speech by the government can make
>>>>>exposure of
>>>>>>>>>>>> falsity more difficult, not less so. Society has the right
>and civic
>>>>>>>>>>>> duty to engage in open, dynamic, rational discourse. These
>>>ends are not
>>>>>>>>>>>> well served when the government seeks to orchestrate public
>>>discussion
>>>>>>>>>>>> through content-based mandates.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> U.S. vs. Alvarez, 132 S. Ct. at 2550
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "How can you develop a reputation as a straight shooter if
>>>lying is not
>>>>>>>>>>>> an option? Even if untruthful speech were not valuable for its
>>>>>own sake,
>>>>>>>>>>>> its protection is clearly required to give breathing room to
>truthful
>>>>>>>>>>>> self-expression, which is unequivocally protected by the First
>>>>>>>>>>>> Amendment."
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> United States v. Alvarez, 638 F.3d 666, 675 (9th Cir. 2011)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>The person doing the tipping in an insider trading case who does no
>>>>>>>>>>>trading can be prosecuted even though the tipster has done nothing
>>>>>>>>>>>but speak.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Under United States Code Title 18, Section 871 a person can be
>>>prosecuted
>>>>>>>>>>>for nothing more than speech.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You made me look it up.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Not just any speech; it has to be mailed.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 18 U.S.C. Sec. 871
>>>>>>>>>> Threats against President and successors to the Presidency
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> (a) Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits for conveyance in
>>>the mail or
>>>>>>>>>> for a delivery from any post office or by any letter carrier
>any letter,
>>>>>>>>>> paper, writing, print, missive, or document containing any
>>>threat to take
>>>>>>>>>> the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President
>>>>>>>>>> of the United States, the President-elect, the Vice President or other
>>>>>>>>>> officer next in the order of succession to the office of
>>>President of the
>>>>>>>>>> United States, or the Vice President-elect, or knowingly and willfully
>>>>>>>>>> otherwise makes any such threat against the President,
>President-elect,
>>>>>>>>>> Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the
>>>>>>>>>> office of President, or Vice President-elect, shall be fined
>under this
>>>>>>>>>> title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Nope; "or knowingly and willfully otherwise makes any such threat"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I hate statutory construction. You sure that's not meant to broaden out
>>>>>>>> what was being threatened, instead of relating to mailing? If that was
>>>>>>>> meant to be any threat, what the hell is the point of addressing
>>>>>>>> the issue of mailing it in the first place?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>As people HAVE been convicted for what they said, but not mailed, yes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>As to why it was worded that way, likely because when it was enacted
>>>>>>>in 1917 mail was a common form of communications.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You're missing my point: If it's a criminal threat in ANY method of
>>>>>> communication, then there's no purpose in mentioning the mails at all. The
>>>>>> statute would attempt to make the letter illegal before it's mailed the
>>>>>> moment ink is on paper.
>>>>>
>>>>>You're missing my point: How that hell would anyone know what the thinking
>>>>>was behind the wording 98 years later other than making a guess?
>>>>
>>>> Try reading the words for comprehension, like anything else.
>>
>>>Bullshit.
>>
>>>If it were that simple there would be no court cases attempting to
>>>determine the intent of the original authors, and there have been
>>>a LOT of those.
>>
>>>An excellent example is the amount of effort in determining the intent
>>>of the framers in "A well regulated Militia".
>>
>>>The words "well regulated" and militia had far different meanings 230
>>>years ago.
>>
>> No, they didn't. It's merely an old-fashioned term. It had a legal meaning,
>> and quite a bit of discussion from Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 29
>
>If it was cut and dry why any discussion at all?
The meaning of "well-regulated militia" wasn't the controversial part of
the amendment. The legal controversy was whether "the right to bear arms"
had to be read together with "well-regulated militia". It really was a
case of poorly executed legal drafting, sorry, Mr. Madison.
><snip remaining beating of a dead horst>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-21 02:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <1s54dc-n1.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #522399 |
In sci.physics Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:
>>In sci.physics Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:
>>>>In sci.physics Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:
>>>>>>In sci.physics Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <t4l0dc-5jh.ln1@mail.specsol.com>,
>>>>jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > In article <p26vcc-boc.ln1@mail.specsol.com>,
>>>>>>>>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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The remedy for speech that is false is speech that is true.
>>>>This is the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ordinary course in a free society. The response to the
>>>>>>unreasoned is the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> rational; to the uninformed, the enlightened; to the
>>>>straight-out lie,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the simple truth. See Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357,
>>377 (1927)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Brandeis, J., concurring) ("If there be time to expose through
>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more
>>speech, not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> enforced silence").
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The theory of our Constitution is "that the best test of
>>truth is the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> power of the thought to get itself accepted in the
>>competition of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> market," Abrams v. United States, 250 U. S. 616, 630 (1919)
>>>>>>(Holmes, J.,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> dissenting).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The 1st Amendment itself ensures the right to respond to
>>speech we do
>>>>>>>>>>>>> not like, and for good reason. Freedom of speech and thought
>>>>flows not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the beneficence of the state but from the inalienable
>>>>>>rights of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> person. And suppression of speech by the government can make
>>>>>>exposure of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> falsity more difficult, not less so. Society has the right
>>and civic
>>>>>>>>>>>>> duty to engage in open, dynamic, rational discourse. These
>>>>ends are not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> well served when the government seeks to orchestrate public
>>>>discussion
>>>>>>>>>>>>> through content-based mandates.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> U.S. vs. Alvarez, 132 S. Ct. at 2550
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "How can you develop a reputation as a straight shooter if
>>>>lying is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> an option? Even if untruthful speech were not valuable for its
>>>>>>own sake,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> its protection is clearly required to give breathing room to
>>truthful
>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-expression, which is unequivocally protected by the First
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Amendment."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> United States v. Alvarez, 638 F.3d 666, 675 (9th Cir. 2011)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>The person doing the tipping in an insider trading case who does no
>>>>>>>>>>>>trading can be prosecuted even though the tipster has done nothing
>>>>>>>>>>>>but speak.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Under United States Code Title 18, Section 871 a person can be
>>>>prosecuted
>>>>>>>>>>>>for nothing more than speech.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You made me look it up.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Not just any speech; it has to be mailed.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 18 U.S.C. Sec. 871
>>>>>>>>>>> Threats against President and successors to the Presidency
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits for conveyance in
>>>>the mail or
>>>>>>>>>>> for a delivery from any post office or by any letter carrier
>>any letter,
>>>>>>>>>>> paper, writing, print, missive, or document containing any
>>>>threat to take
>>>>>>>>>>> the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President
>>>>>>>>>>> of the United States, the President-elect, the Vice President or other
>>>>>>>>>>> officer next in the order of succession to the office of
>>>>President of the
>>>>>>>>>>> United States, or the Vice President-elect, or knowingly and willfully
>>>>>>>>>>> otherwise makes any such threat against the President,
>>President-elect,
>>>>>>>>>>> Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the
>>>>>>>>>>> office of President, or Vice President-elect, shall be fined
>>under this
>>>>>>>>>>> title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Nope; "or knowingly and willfully otherwise makes any such threat"
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I hate statutory construction. You sure that's not meant to broaden out
>>>>>>>>> what was being threatened, instead of relating to mailing? If that was
>>>>>>>>> meant to be any threat, what the hell is the point of addressing
>>>>>>>>> the issue of mailing it in the first place?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>As people HAVE been convicted for what they said, but not mailed, yes.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>As to why it was worded that way, likely because when it was enacted
>>>>>>>>in 1917 mail was a common form of communications.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You're missing my point: If it's a criminal threat in ANY method of
>>>>>>> communication, then there's no purpose in mentioning the mails at all. The
>>>>>>> statute would attempt to make the letter illegal before it's mailed the
>>>>>>> moment ink is on paper.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You're missing my point: How that hell would anyone know what the thinking
>>>>>>was behind the wording 98 years later other than making a guess?
>>>>>
>>>>> Try reading the words for comprehension, like anything else.
>>>
>>>>Bullshit.
>>>
>>>>If it were that simple there would be no court cases attempting to
>>>>determine the intent of the original authors, and there have been
>>>>a LOT of those.
>>>
>>>>An excellent example is the amount of effort in determining the intent
>>>>of the framers in "A well regulated Militia".
>>>
>>>>The words "well regulated" and militia had far different meanings 230
>>>>years ago.
>>>
>>> No, they didn't. It's merely an old-fashioned term. It had a legal meaning,
>>> and quite a bit of discussion from Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 29
>>
>>If it was cut and dry why any discussion at all?
>
> The meaning of "well-regulated militia" wasn't the controversial part of
> the amendment. The legal controversy was whether "the right to bear arms"
> had to be read together with "well-regulated militia". It really was a
> case of poorly executed legal drafting, sorry, Mr. Madison.
So thus we have come full circle, through a long and arduous path, to
intent of the author.
Q.E.D.
--
Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-21 02:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mtnqr5$hgs$2@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #522414 |
<jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:
>In sci.physics Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:
>>>In sci.physics Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:
>>>>>In sci.physics Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>In sci.physics Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <t4l0dc-5jh.ln1@mail.specsol.com>,
>>>>>jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > In article <p26vcc-boc.ln1@mail.specsol.com>,
>>>>>>>>>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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The remedy for speech that is false is speech that is true.
>>>>>This is the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ordinary course in a free society. The response to the
>>>>>>>unreasoned is the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rational; to the uninformed, the enlightened; to the
>>>>>straight-out lie,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the simple truth. See Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357,
>>>377 (1927)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Brandeis, J., concurring) ("If there be time to expose through
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more
>>>speech, not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enforced silence").
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The theory of our Constitution is "that the best test of
>>>truth is the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> power of the thought to get itself accepted in the
>>>competition of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> market," Abrams v. United States, 250 U. S. 616, 630 (1919)
>>>>>>>(Holmes, J.,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dissenting).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The 1st Amendment itself ensures the right to respond to
>>>speech we do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not like, and for good reason. Freedom of speech and thought
>>>>>flows not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the beneficence of the state but from the inalienable
>>>>>>>rights of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> person. And suppression of speech by the government can make
>>>>>>>exposure of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> falsity more difficult, not less so. Society has the right
>>>and civic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> duty to engage in open, dynamic, rational discourse. These
>>>>>ends are not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well served when the government seeks to orchestrate public
>>>>>discussion
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> through content-based mandates.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> U.S. vs. Alvarez, 132 S. Ct. at 2550
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "How can you develop a reputation as a straight shooter if
>>>>>lying is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an option? Even if untruthful speech were not valuable for its
>>>>>>>own sake,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its protection is clearly required to give breathing room to
>>>truthful
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-expression, which is unequivocally protected by the First
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Amendment."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> United States v. Alvarez, 638 F.3d 666, 675 (9th Cir. 2011)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>The person doing the tipping in an insider trading case who does no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>trading can be prosecuted even though the tipster has done nothing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>but speak.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Under United States Code Title 18, Section 871 a person can be
>>>>>prosecuted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>for nothing more than speech.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You made me look it up.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Not just any speech; it has to be mailed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 18 U.S.C. Sec. 871
>>>>>>>>>>>> Threats against President and successors to the Presidency
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits for conveyance in
>>>>>the mail or
>>>>>>>>>>>> for a delivery from any post office or by any letter carrier
>>>any letter,
>>>>>>>>>>>> paper, writing, print, missive, or document containing any
>>>>>threat to take
>>>>>>>>>>>> the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President
>>>>>>>>>>>> of the United States, the President-elect, the Vice
>President or other
>>>>>>>>>>>> officer next in the order of succession to the office of
>>>>>President of the
>>>>>>>>>>>> United States, or the Vice President-elect, or knowingly and
>willfully
>>>>>>>>>>>> otherwise makes any such threat against the President,
>>>President-elect,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Vice President or other officer next in the order of
>succession to the
>>>>>>>>>>>> office of President, or Vice President-elect, shall be fined
>>>under this
>>>>>>>>>>>> title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Nope; "or knowingly and willfully otherwise makes any such threat"
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I hate statutory construction. You sure that's not meant to
>broaden out
>>>>>>>>>> what was being threatened, instead of relating to mailing? If that was
>>>>>>>>>> meant to be any threat, what the hell is the point of addressing
>>>>>>>>>> the issue of mailing it in the first place?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>As people HAVE been convicted for what they said, but not mailed, yes.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>As to why it was worded that way, likely because when it was enacted
>>>>>>>>>in 1917 mail was a common form of communications.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You're missing my point: If it's a criminal threat in ANY method of
>>>>>>>> communication, then there's no purpose in mentioning the mails
>at all. The
>>>>>>>> statute would attempt to make the letter illegal before it's mailed the
>>>>>>>> moment ink is on paper.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You're missing my point: How that hell would anyone know what the thinking
>>>>>>>was behind the wording 98 years later other than making a guess?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Try reading the words for comprehension, like anything else.
>>>>
>>>>>Bullshit.
>>>>
>>>>>If it were that simple there would be no court cases attempting to
>>>>>determine the intent of the original authors, and there have been
>>>>>a LOT of those.
>>>>
>>>>>An excellent example is the amount of effort in determining the intent
>>>>>of the framers in "A well regulated Militia".
>>>>
>>>>>The words "well regulated" and militia had far different meanings 230
>>>>>years ago.
>>>>
>>>> No, they didn't. It's merely an old-fashioned term. It had a legal meaning,
>>>> and quite a bit of discussion from Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 29
>>>
>>>If it was cut and dry why any discussion at all?
>>
>> The meaning of "well-regulated militia" wasn't the controversial part of
>> the amendment. The legal controversy was whether "the right to bear arms"
>> had to be read together with "well-regulated militia". It really was a
>> case of poorly executed legal drafting, sorry, Mr. Madison.
>
>So thus we have come full circle, through a long and arduous path, to
>intent of the author.
>
>Q.E.D.
I'm sorry, but the intent of the author doesn't mean shit. Clearly,
Scalia ignored it, paid attention to what he could make of the
language instead in the Heller decision.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-21 04:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <3af4dc-0v.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #522415 |
In sci.physics Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:
>>In sci.physics Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:
>>>>In sci.physics Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:
>>>>>>In sci.physics Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <t4l0dc-5jh.ln1@mail.specsol.com>,
>>>>>>jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > In article <p26vcc-boc.ln1@mail.specsol.com>,
>>>>>>>>>>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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The remedy for speech that is false is speech that is true.
>>>>>>This is the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ordinary course in a free society. The response to the
>>>>>>>>unreasoned is the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rational; to the uninformed, the enlightened; to the
>>>>>>straight-out lie,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the simple truth. See Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357,
>>>>377 (1927)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Brandeis, J., concurring) ("If there be time to expose through
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more
>>>>speech, not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enforced silence").
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The theory of our Constitution is "that the best test of
>>>>truth is the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> power of the thought to get itself accepted in the
>>>>competition of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> market," Abrams v. United States, 250 U. S. 616, 630 (1919)
>>>>>>>>(Holmes, J.,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dissenting).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The 1st Amendment itself ensures the right to respond to
>>>>speech we do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not like, and for good reason. Freedom of speech and thought
>>>>>>flows not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the beneficence of the state but from the inalienable
>>>>>>>>rights of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> person. And suppression of speech by the government can make
>>>>>>>>exposure of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> falsity more difficult, not less so. Society has the right
>>>>and civic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> duty to engage in open, dynamic, rational discourse. These
>>>>>>ends are not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well served when the government seeks to orchestrate public
>>>>>>discussion
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> through content-based mandates.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> U.S. vs. Alvarez, 132 S. Ct. at 2550
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "How can you develop a reputation as a straight shooter if
>>>>>>lying is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an option? Even if untruthful speech were not valuable for its
>>>>>>>>own sake,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its protection is clearly required to give breathing room to
>>>>truthful
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-expression, which is unequivocally protected by the First
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Amendment."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> United States v. Alvarez, 638 F.3d 666, 675 (9th Cir. 2011)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The person doing the tipping in an insider trading case who does no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>trading can be prosecuted even though the tipster has done nothing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>but speak.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Under United States Code Title 18, Section 871 a person can be
>>>>>>prosecuted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>for nothing more than speech.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You made me look it up.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not just any speech; it has to be mailed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 18 U.S.C. Sec. 871
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Threats against President and successors to the Presidency
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits for conveyance in
>>>>>>the mail or
>>>>>>>>>>>>> for a delivery from any post office or by any letter carrier
>>>>any letter,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> paper, writing, print, missive, or document containing any
>>>>>>threat to take
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the United States, the President-elect, the Vice
>>President or other
>>>>>>>>>>>>> officer next in the order of succession to the office of
>>>>>>President of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> United States, or the Vice President-elect, or knowingly and
>>willfully
>>>>>>>>>>>>> otherwise makes any such threat against the President,
>>>>President-elect,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vice President or other officer next in the order of
>>succession to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> office of President, or Vice President-elect, shall be fined
>>>>under this
>>>>>>>>>>>>> title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Nope; "or knowingly and willfully otherwise makes any such threat"
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I hate statutory construction. You sure that's not meant to
>>broaden out
>>>>>>>>>>> what was being threatened, instead of relating to mailing? If that was
>>>>>>>>>>> meant to be any threat, what the hell is the point of addressing
>>>>>>>>>>> the issue of mailing it in the first place?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>As people HAVE been convicted for what they said, but not mailed, yes.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>As to why it was worded that way, likely because when it was enacted
>>>>>>>>>>in 1917 mail was a common form of communications.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You're missing my point: If it's a criminal threat in ANY method of
>>>>>>>>> communication, then there's no purpose in mentioning the mails
>>at all. The
>>>>>>>>> statute would attempt to make the letter illegal before it's mailed the
>>>>>>>>> moment ink is on paper.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>You're missing my point: How that hell would anyone know what the thinking
>>>>>>>>was behind the wording 98 years later other than making a guess?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Try reading the words for comprehension, like anything else.
>>>>>
>>>>>>Bullshit.
>>>>>
>>>>>>If it were that simple there would be no court cases attempting to
>>>>>>determine the intent of the original authors, and there have been
>>>>>>a LOT of those.
>>>>>
>>>>>>An excellent example is the amount of effort in determining the intent
>>>>>>of the framers in "A well regulated Militia".
>>>>>
>>>>>>The words "well regulated" and militia had far different meanings 230
>>>>>>years ago.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, they didn't. It's merely an old-fashioned term. It had a legal meaning,
>>>>> and quite a bit of discussion from Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 29
>>>>
>>>>If it was cut and dry why any discussion at all?
>>>
>>> The meaning of "well-regulated militia" wasn't the controversial part of
>>> the amendment. The legal controversy was whether "the right to bear arms"
>>> had to be read together with "well-regulated militia". It really was a
>>> case of poorly executed legal drafting, sorry, Mr. Madison.
>>
>>So thus we have come full circle, through a long and arduous path, to
>>intent of the author.
>>
>>Q.E.D.
>
> I'm sorry, but the intent of the author doesn't mean shit. Clearly,
> Scalia ignored it, paid attention to what he could make of the
> language instead in the Heller decision.
And what does all this have to do with my original statement that
courts having to determine the intent of the author is not a rare
thing?
Take carefull note that in this I said "courts", NOT Supreme Court
nor did I offer a particular case involing the 2nd Amendment as
anything other than one fairly well known example and NOT an exhaustive
list of such cases.
I'm sure with a bit of digging I can find a case where the intent of
the author was subject to interpretation in a traffic case.
--
Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-21 05:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mto49c$7hf$3@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #522428 |
<jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:
>In sci.physics Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:
>>>In sci.physics Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:
>>>>>In sci.physics Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>In sci.physics Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <t4l0dc-5jh.ln1@mail.specsol.com>,
>>>>>>>jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > In article <p26vcc-boc.ln1@mail.specsol.com>,
>>>>>>>>>>>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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The remedy for speech that is false is speech that is true.
>>>>>>>This is the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ordinary course in a free society. The response to the
>>>>>>>>>unreasoned is the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rational; to the uninformed, the enlightened; to the
>>>>>>>straight-out lie,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the simple truth. See Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357,
>>>>>377 (1927)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Brandeis, J., concurring) ("If there be time to expose through
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the
>evil by the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more
>>>>>speech, not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enforced silence").
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The theory of our Constitution is "that the best test of
>>>>>truth is the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> power of the thought to get itself accepted in the
>>>>>competition of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> market," Abrams v. United States, 250 U. S. 616, 630 (1919)
>>>>>>>>>(Holmes, J.,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dissenting).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The 1st Amendment itself ensures the right to respond to
>>>>>speech we do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not like, and for good reason. Freedom of speech and thought
>>>>>>>flows not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the beneficence of the state but from the inalienable
>>>>>>>>>rights of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> person. And suppression of speech by the government can make
>>>>>>>>>exposure of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> falsity more difficult, not less so. Society has the right
>>>>>and civic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> duty to engage in open, dynamic, rational discourse. These
>>>>>>>ends are not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well served when the government seeks to orchestrate public
>>>>>>>discussion
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> through content-based mandates.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> U.S. vs. Alvarez, 132 S. Ct. at 2550
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "How can you develop a reputation as a straight shooter if
>>>>>>>lying is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an option? Even if untruthful speech were not valuable for its
>>>>>>>>>own sake,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its protection is clearly required to give breathing room to
>>>>>truthful
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-expression, which is unequivocally protected by the First
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Amendment."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> United States v. Alvarez, 638 F.3d 666, 675 (9th Cir. 2011)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The person doing the tipping in an insider trading case
>who does no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>trading can be prosecuted even though the tipster has done nothing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>but speak.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Under United States Code Title 18, Section 871 a person can be
>>>>>>>prosecuted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>for nothing more than speech.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You made me look it up.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not just any speech; it has to be mailed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 18 U.S.C. Sec. 871
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Threats against President and successors to the Presidency
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits for conveyance in
>>>>>>>the mail or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for a delivery from any post office or by any letter carrier
>>>>>any letter,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> paper, writing, print, missive, or document containing any
>>>>>>>threat to take
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the
>President
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the United States, the President-elect, the Vice
>>>President or other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> officer next in the order of succession to the office of
>>>>>>>President of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> United States, or the Vice President-elect, or knowingly and
>>>willfully
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> otherwise makes any such threat against the President,
>>>>>President-elect,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vice President or other officer next in the order of
>>>succession to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> office of President, or Vice President-elect, shall be fined
>>>>>under this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Nope; "or knowingly and willfully otherwise makes any such threat"
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I hate statutory construction. You sure that's not meant to
>>>broaden out
>>>>>>>>>>>> what was being threatened, instead of relating to mailing?
>If that was
>>>>>>>>>>>> meant to be any threat, what the hell is the point of addressing
>>>>>>>>>>>> the issue of mailing it in the first place?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>As people HAVE been convicted for what they said, but not mailed, yes.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>As to why it was worded that way, likely because when it was enacted
>>>>>>>>>>>in 1917 mail was a common form of communications.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You're missing my point: If it's a criminal threat in ANY method of
>>>>>>>>>> communication, then there's no purpose in mentioning the mails
>>>at all. The
>>>>>>>>>> statute would attempt to make the letter illegal before it's
>mailed the
>>>>>>>>>> moment ink is on paper.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>You're missing my point: How that hell would anyone know what
>the thinking
>>>>>>>>>was behind the wording 98 years later other than making a guess?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Try reading the words for comprehension, like anything else.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Bullshit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>If it were that simple there would be no court cases attempting to
>>>>>>>determine the intent of the original authors, and there have been
>>>>>>>a LOT of those.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>An excellent example is the amount of effort in determining the intent
>>>>>>>of the framers in "A well regulated Militia".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The words "well regulated" and militia had far different meanings 230
>>>>>>>years ago.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, they didn't. It's merely an old-fashioned term. It had a legal
>meaning,
>>>>>> and quite a bit of discussion from Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 29
>>>>>
>>>>>If it was cut and dry why any discussion at all?
>>>>
>>>> The meaning of "well-regulated militia" wasn't the controversial part of
>>>> the amendment. The legal controversy was whether "the right to bear arms"
>>>> had to be read together with "well-regulated militia". It really was a
>>>> case of poorly executed legal drafting, sorry, Mr. Madison.
>>>
>>>So thus we have come full circle, through a long and arduous path, to
>>>intent of the author.
>>>
>>>Q.E.D.
>>
>> I'm sorry, but the intent of the author doesn't mean shit. Clearly,
>> Scalia ignored it, paid attention to what he could make of the
>> language instead in the Heller decision.
>
>And what does all this have to do with my original statement that
>courts having to determine the intent of the author is not a rare
>thing?
It means EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE. The "well-regulated militia" phrase
refers to the militia clauses in the main body of the Constitution; that's
not controversial either. Madison's intent was to link the right of the
people to keep and bear arms to the formation of the militia, without
addressing the keeping and bearing of arms for any other purpose.
But that ain't what he wrote, is it. It's critical to convey meaning
when drafting legislation; the Second Amendment was a failure due to
its ambiguity. Thanks to Scalia's opinion in Heller, it's no longer ambiguous.
>Take carefull note that in this I said "courts", NOT Supreme Court
>nor did I offer a particular case involing the 2nd Amendment as
>anything other than one fairly well known example and NOT an exhaustive
>list of such cases.
It doesn't matter if it's at trial court or appellate court level. The
judge says what the law is. Legislative intent can come up at trial.
In fact, both sides are usually required to make all arguments at trial
in order to have something to appeal if the trial judge rules against their
side. Senate and House committees often include guidance to courts that
they call "legislative intent", written at the direction of the committee
chairman and not necessarily the opinion of the member of Congress or
Senator that actually drafted the language. It's not precedent and
it can certainly be ignored. Sometimes it discusses aspects of the law
that never made it into the actual bill.
They're legislators. If they wanted the law interpreted in a specific
manner, it had to be drafted in the legislation itself; opinions that
"Apply provision A in these circumstances but not in the following
circumstances" stated as legislative intent don't actually guide courts.
I have no idea when Congress started issuing "intent" to guide courts;
I suppose in the 1930s. My state legislature doesn't do anything like that.
The more traditional way of determining legislative intent is to read
arguments in support and oppose made on the floor and possibly in committee.
You may have to look for debate on the provision from a previous session,
given how common it is that provisions from bills that died get
reintroduced in identical language in subsequent sessions.
>I'm sure with a bit of digging I can find a case where the intent of
>the author was subject to interpretation in a traffic case.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-21 06:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <dpj4dc-ce1.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #522432 |
In sci.physics Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:
>>In sci.physics Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:
>>>>In sci.physics Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:
>>>>>>In sci.physics Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <t4l0dc-5jh.ln1@mail.specsol.com>,
>>>>>>>>jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > In article <p26vcc-boc.ln1@mail.specsol.com>,
>>>>>>>>>>>>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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The remedy for speech that is false is speech that is true.
>>>>>>>>This is the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ordinary course in a free society. The response to the
>>>>>>>>>>unreasoned is the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rational; to the uninformed, the enlightened; to the
>>>>>>>>straight-out lie,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the simple truth. See Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357,
>>>>>>377 (1927)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Brandeis, J., concurring) ("If there be time to expose through
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the
>>evil by the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more
>>>>>>speech, not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enforced silence").
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The theory of our Constitution is "that the best test of
>>>>>>truth is the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> power of the thought to get itself accepted in the
>>>>>>competition of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> market," Abrams v. United States, 250 U. S. 616, 630 (1919)
>>>>>>>>>>(Holmes, J.,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dissenting).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The 1st Amendment itself ensures the right to respond to
>>>>>>speech we do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not like, and for good reason. Freedom of speech and thought
>>>>>>>>flows not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the beneficence of the state but from the inalienable
>>>>>>>>>>rights of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> person. And suppression of speech by the government can make
>>>>>>>>>>exposure of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> falsity more difficult, not less so. Society has the right
>>>>>>and civic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> duty to engage in open, dynamic, rational discourse. These
>>>>>>>>ends are not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well served when the government seeks to orchestrate public
>>>>>>>>discussion
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> through content-based mandates.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> U.S. vs. Alvarez, 132 S. Ct. at 2550
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "How can you develop a reputation as a straight shooter if
>>>>>>>>lying is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an option? Even if untruthful speech were not valuable for its
>>>>>>>>>>own sake,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its protection is clearly required to give breathing room to
>>>>>>truthful
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-expression, which is unequivocally protected by the First
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Amendment."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> United States v. Alvarez, 638 F.3d 666, 675 (9th Cir. 2011)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The person doing the tipping in an insider trading case
>>who does no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>trading can be prosecuted even though the tipster has done nothing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>but speak.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Under United States Code Title 18, Section 871 a person can be
>>>>>>>>prosecuted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>for nothing more than speech.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You made me look it up.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not just any speech; it has to be mailed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 18 U.S.C. Sec. 871
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Threats against President and successors to the Presidency
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits for conveyance in
>>>>>>>>the mail or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for a delivery from any post office or by any letter carrier
>>>>>>any letter,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> paper, writing, print, missive, or document containing any
>>>>>>>>threat to take
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the
>>President
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the United States, the President-elect, the Vice
>>>>President or other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> officer next in the order of succession to the office of
>>>>>>>>President of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> United States, or the Vice President-elect, or knowingly and
>>>>willfully
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> otherwise makes any such threat against the President,
>>>>>>President-elect,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vice President or other officer next in the order of
>>>>succession to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> office of President, or Vice President-elect, shall be fined
>>>>>>under this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Nope; "or knowingly and willfully otherwise makes any such threat"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I hate statutory construction. You sure that's not meant to
>>>>broaden out
>>>>>>>>>>>>> what was being threatened, instead of relating to mailing?
>>If that was
>>>>>>>>>>>>> meant to be any threat, what the hell is the point of addressing
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the issue of mailing it in the first place?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>As people HAVE been convicted for what they said, but not mailed, yes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>As to why it was worded that way, likely because when it was enacted
>>>>>>>>>>>>in 1917 mail was a common form of communications.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You're missing my point: If it's a criminal threat in ANY method of
>>>>>>>>>>> communication, then there's no purpose in mentioning the mails
>>>>at all. The
>>>>>>>>>>> statute would attempt to make the letter illegal before it's
>>mailed the
>>>>>>>>>>> moment ink is on paper.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>You're missing my point: How that hell would anyone know what
>>the thinking
>>>>>>>>>>was behind the wording 98 years later other than making a guess?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Try reading the words for comprehension, like anything else.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Bullshit.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>If it were that simple there would be no court cases attempting to
>>>>>>>>determine the intent of the original authors, and there have been
>>>>>>>>a LOT of those.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>An excellent example is the amount of effort in determining the intent
>>>>>>>>of the framers in "A well regulated Militia".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The words "well regulated" and militia had far different meanings 230
>>>>>>>>years ago.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, they didn't. It's merely an old-fashioned term. It had a legal
>>meaning,
>>>>>>> and quite a bit of discussion from Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 29
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If it was cut and dry why any discussion at all?
>>>>>
>>>>> The meaning of "well-regulated militia" wasn't the controversial part of
>>>>> the amendment. The legal controversy was whether "the right to bear arms"
>>>>> had to be read together with "well-regulated militia". It really was a
>>>>> case of poorly executed legal drafting, sorry, Mr. Madison.
>>>>
>>>>So thus we have come full circle, through a long and arduous path, to
>>>>intent of the author.
>>>>
>>>>Q.E.D.
>>>
>>> I'm sorry, but the intent of the author doesn't mean shit. Clearly,
>>> Scalia ignored it, paid attention to what he could make of the
>>> language instead in the Heller decision.
>>
>>And what does all this have to do with my original statement that
>>courts having to determine the intent of the author is not a rare
>>thing?
>
> It means EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE. The "well-regulated militia" phrase
> refers to the militia clauses in the main body of the Constitution; that's
> not controversial either. Madison's intent was to link the right of the
> people to keep and bear arms to the formation of the militia, without
> addressing the keeping and bearing of arms for any other purpose.
>
> But that ain't what he wrote, is it. It's critical to convey meaning
> when drafting legislation; the Second Amendment was a failure due to
> its ambiguity. Thanks to Scalia's opinion in Heller, it's no longer ambiguous.
Your fixation on the 2nd Amendment and it's interpretation has already
been noted.
>>Take carefull note that in this I said "courts", NOT Supreme Court
>>nor did I offer a particular case involing the 2nd Amendment as
>>anything other than one fairly well known example and NOT an exhaustive
>>list of such cases.
>
> It doesn't matter if it's at trial court or appellate court level. The
> judge says what the law is. Legislative intent can come up at trial.
Good.
I'm glad you agree with me.
> In fact, both sides are usually required to make all arguments at trial
> in order to have something to appeal if the trial judge rules against their
> side. Senate and House committees often include guidance to courts that
> they call "legislative intent", written at the direction of the committee
> chairman and not necessarily the opinion of the member of Congress or
> Senator that actually drafted the language. It's not precedent and
> it can certainly be ignored. Sometimes it discusses aspects of the law
> that never made it into the actual bill.
>
> They're legislators. If they wanted the law interpreted in a specific
> manner, it had to be drafted in the legislation itself; opinions that
> "Apply provision A in these circumstances but not in the following
> circumstances" stated as legislative intent don't actually guide courts.
> I have no idea when Congress started issuing "intent" to guide courts;
> I suppose in the 1930s. My state legislature doesn't do anything like that.
>
> The more traditional way of determining legislative intent is to read
> arguments in support and oppose made on the floor and possibly in committee.
> You may have to look for debate on the provision from a previous session,
> given how common it is that provisions from bills that died get
> reintroduced in identical language in subsequent sessions.
Your fixation on Federal law is noted.
>>I'm sure with a bit of digging I can find a case where the intent of
>>the author was subject to interpretation in a traffic case.
That you ramble on and on about Federal law and totally ignore the
last sentence is noted.
--
Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web