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 2 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-19 09:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <atropos-4361F0.09354119092015@news.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #521945 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-19 18:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <t4l0dc-5jh.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #522028 |
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. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-19 13:22 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <DZGdnXa5bZ59OmDInZ2dnUU7-SOdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #522059 |
On 9/19/15 1:12 PM, 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. > > Now isn't that just always the case, jimp? -- sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated to the discussion of physics, news from the physics community, and physics-related social issues.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-19 18:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <1tm0dc-jth.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #522061 |
In sci.physics Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote: > On 9/19/15 1:12 PM, 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. >> >> > > Now isn't that just always the case, jimp? Except in your case where we can be sure it will be a cut and paste, off topic, pile of breathless arm waving, spamming shit head. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-19 13:58 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <DZGdnXC5bZ72LWDInZ2dnUU7-SOdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #522065 |
On 9/19/15 1:42 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > In sci.physics Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 9/19/15 1:12 PM, 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. >>> >>> >> >> Now isn't that just always the case, jimp? > > Except in your case where we can be sure it will be a cut and paste, > off topic, pile of breathless arm waving, spamming shit head. > Now, now jimp, people with anger management problems are the last to admit that they have an anger problem. You need help, jimp. See: > http://www.yellowpages.com/rancho-cucamonga-ca/anger-management-classes Someday, you will thank me, jimp. -- sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated to the discussion of physics, news from the physics community, and physics-related social issues.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-19 20:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <79s0dc-gdi.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #522070 |
In sci.physics Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote: > On 9/19/15 1:42 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> In sci.physics Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 9/19/15 1:12 PM, 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. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Now isn't that just always the case, jimp? >> >> Except in your case where we can be sure it will be a cut and paste, >> off topic, pile of breathless arm waving, spamming shit head. >> > > > Now, now jimp, people with anger management problems What makes you think I am angry about anything, shit head? Could it be because you disgust me, you misathropic, cut and paste, spamming piece of shit? I do realize that your education is marginal, shit head, but it should be possible for even you to open a dictionary and determine the difference between the words "anger" and "disgust", you worthless spamming piece of shit. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-19 12:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <atropos-7D05F5.12541719092015@news.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #522059 |
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. No, it really wouldn't.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <none@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-19 16:30 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <BBjLx.5286$7L.4177@fx06.iad> |
| In reply to | #522075 |
On 09/19/2015 03:54 PM, BTR1701 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.
>
> No, it really wouldn't.
>
Correct. It only depends on whether the statement made supports or
denies the agenda of those bringing the charges. Who said it or to whom
is irrelevant.
The fight against "big" tobacco (as opposed to boutique Lib tobacco
which is fine) is the example to use. What Climate Changers need is for
some vice president in the Koch Brothers organization to suddenly grow a
"conscience" and begin to testify how he used to work to lie about
warming and made up all the lies about the so-called Hiatus. It's a
winner! Worked for tobacco!
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\::/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
~~ \/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-19 13:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <atropos-876BB4.13221519092015@news.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #522059 |
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)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-19 22:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <6r31dc-n6j.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #522085 |
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.
--
Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-19 17:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <atropos-FF186F.17101719092015@news.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #522109 |
In article <6r31dc-n6j.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, 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.
Yes, true threats are excepted from 1st Amendment protection. Has a
"global warming denier" threatened to kill you lately?
No?
Then 871 is irrelevant to this discussion.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-20 01:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tud1dc-f5k.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #522125 |
In sci.physics BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
> In article <6r31dc-n6j.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, 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.
>
> Yes, true threats are excepted from 1st Amendment protection. Has a
> "global warming denier" threatened to kill you lately?
>
> No?
>
> Then 871 is irrelevant to this discussion.
The point being that not ALL speech is protected and one CAN be prosecuted
for speech alone.
--
Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-19 22:33 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <7j6svah6jeu64ivtcc02r48u9cd8j6nhq1@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #522133 |
On Sun, 20 Sep 2015 01:15:41 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>In sci.physics BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>> In article <6r31dc-n6j.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, 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.
>>
>> Yes, true threats are excepted from 1st Amendment protection. Has a
>> "global warming denier" threatened to kill you lately?
>>
>> No?
>>
>> Then 871 is irrelevant to this discussion.
>
>The point being that not ALL speech is protected and one CAN be prosecuted
>for speech alone.
Your example of trading disclosure seems
to ignore that act can be inadvertent, or it can be
the equivalent of industrial espionage.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-20 03:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <qkk1dc-bqk.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #522141 |
In sci.physics kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Sep 2015 01:15:41 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
>>In sci.physics BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>> In article <6r31dc-n6j.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, 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.
>>>
>>> Yes, true threats are excepted from 1st Amendment protection. Has a
>>> "global warming denier" threatened to kill you lately?
>>>
>>> No?
>>>
>>> Then 871 is irrelevant to this discussion.
>>
>>The point being that not ALL speech is protected and one CAN be prosecuted
>>for speech alone.
>
> Your example of trading disclosure seems
> to ignore that act can be inadvertent, or it can be
> the equivalent of industrial espionage.
Nope; an entirely separatate set of laws.
--
Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-20 00:45 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <LRqLx.22339$Tm4.20962@fx01.iad> |
| In reply to | #522141 |
On 09/19/2015 10:33 PM, kefischer wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Sep 2015 01:15:41 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
>> In sci.physics BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>> In article <6r31dc-n6j.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, 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.
>>>
>>> Yes, true threats are excepted from 1st Amendment protection. Has a
>>> "global warming denier" threatened to kill you lately?
>>>
>>> No?
>>>
>>> Then 871 is irrelevant to this discussion.
>>
>> The point being that not ALL speech is protected and one CAN be prosecuted
>> for speech alone.
>
> Your example of trading disclosure seems
> to ignore that act can be inadvertent, or it can be
> the equivalent of industrial espionage.
Actually all speech IS protected! Amendment one: "Congress shall make no
law...abridging the freedom of speech"
No Law! Period!
Hence, it is not the SPEECH that is being prohibited by laws against
threatening leaders or passing insider information. It is the fact that
that such speech causes CONSEQUENCES. A person is responsible for the
acts they commit. Being just speech does not free you from
responsibility. Having the right to say what you want also does not free
you from responsibility. For example Insider trading is fraud which
causes losses to innocent people. Clearly a crime. Also making threats
causes security actions that cost money, waste time and endanger the
people those agents should have been protecting when they were off
chasing some empty threat. The speaker is NOT protected from taking
responsibility for those costs and negative results.
The dangers as the framers saw it is that once you start prohibiting
speech of ANY type, pretty soon people are being sent to jail for saying
Obama is a Muslim or the like. And from that point on, we can use the
leftist hero Stalin as our guide.
This is a fine point but important.
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\_:/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
\/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-19 20:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <atropos-6F0FE0.20174719092015@news.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #522133 |
In article <tud1dc-f5k.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > In sci.physics BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote: > > In article <6r31dc-n6j.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, 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: > >> Under United States Code Title 18, Section 871 a person can be prosecuted > >> for nothing more than speech. > > > > Yes, true threats are excepted from 1st Amendment protection. Has a > > "global warming denier" threatened to kill you lately? > > > > No? > > > > Then 871 is irrelevant to this discussion. > > The point being that not ALL speech is protected and one CAN be prosecuted > for speech alone. Yes, if your speech includes obscenity, like child porn, you can be prosecuted for that, too. However, we aren't talking about that. And we're not talking about true threats. We're talking about speech that is, in theory, merely factually untrue. *That* speech is very much protected.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-20 05:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <16t1dc-fll.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #522144 |
In sci.physics BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote: > In article <tud1dc-f5k.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com > wrote: > >> In sci.physics BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote: >> > In article <6r31dc-n6j.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, 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: > >> >> Under United States Code Title 18, Section 871 a person can be prosecuted >> >> for nothing more than speech. >> > >> > Yes, true threats are excepted from 1st Amendment protection. Has a >> > "global warming denier" threatened to kill you lately? >> > >> > No? >> > >> > Then 871 is irrelevant to this discussion. >> >> The point being that not ALL speech is protected and one CAN be prosecuted >> for speech alone. > > Yes, if your speech includes obscenity, like child porn, you can be > prosecuted for that, too. However, we aren't talking about that. And > we're not talking about true threats. We're talking about speech that > is, in theory, merely factually untrue. *That* speech is very much > protected. Yep. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-20 00:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mtku4j$2ts$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #522109 |
<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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-20 01:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <f7e1dc-f5k.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #522127 |
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"
--
Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-20 15:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mtmjb8$h8d$3@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #522135 |
<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?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web