Wow.

As quoted above by Kevbo:

“Advocacy of force or criminal activity does not receive First Amendment protections if (1) the advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action, and (2) is likely to incite or produce such action.”

There is no First Amendment right to call for the death of another person, whether that person be a federal agent, or your neighbor.

I haven't read the transcript of the trial, but I think that the assumption that the US Attorney wasn't able to prove the second part of the test (likely to incite or procure...) is probably correct. Bigdeal's point that the the case was tried in Boston before a jury that is probably fairly liberal is also possibly a factor, I don't know. But there was enough to take to trial here, just not enough after the evidence was heard to convict.

As for the Elon Musk case, one element to be proved was that the guy he insulted had actually suffered harm. There was no evidence at trial that he had, in fact, suffered any harm, and thus Musk was not found liable for having caused any libel.

So the correct answer in the twink case is that he did not have a right to say it, was rightly prosecuted for saying it, but in the end was found not guilty as there was insufficient proof of the second element of the crime. That's why we have trials. The trial didn't establish a right to solicit murder. It established that there was insufficient evidence of the second element of the crime, thus re-establishing the balance between free speech, and criminal activity.

As for the pedo guy case which was also referenced, again, there was no absolute right to make the insult, but it was not actionable as libel as there was no damage to the plaintiff.

If either of these guys had a First Amendment right to say what they said, they never would have been brought to court in the first place, OR the court would have decided the case on First Amendment grounds. The courts did not; there was enough evidence to go to trial, the the courts decided the cases on evidentiary grounds based on likelihood of incitement on the one hand and no provable damages on the other.

As for the right of revolution, it arises when the government has become comprehensively tyrannical, not over a disagreement regarding one law. Virginia's citizens have no right of revolt at this time regarding the laws, and to begin to organize for revolution in Virginia would be illegal.

At a bare minimum, the laws will have to be passed and regulations drawn for their enforcement. Then there will be the preemptive legal challenges, which will have to go through the courts. In the event that the laws are found to be constitutional, they will actually need to be enforced, property confiscated, and people jailed. Then there will be a second round of lawsuits to be tried. If, at the end of all that, the laws survive, and the state moves to comprehensively disarm the citizenry, then and only then, will the citizens be able to make the case for armed resistance to a tyrannical state.

To make the point clearer, if you shoot a legislator who passes a gun bill you don't like, or you shoot a cop who comes to confiscate your gun based on that law, you are going to jail. Period. End of argument.

Revolution is a real thing and it is an inherent unalienable right of the people. But it is not invoked casually as a means of political disagreement, it is a defense against tyranny, and we are a long way from tyranny at the moment.

It would seem that a new description of the term ‘obtuse’ has been discovered.

quote:

Originally posted by Longbow_06:

quote:

Originally posted by ensigmatic:

quote:

Originally posted by Longbow_06:
Lol, placed on Moderation status to insure the Limitation of Freedom of Speech.

You truly do have a SIGforum membership death wish, don't you

The only action open to the owner is Moderation status or banning a member, when not in agreement with what that member says.
It’s happened before, it’ll happen again.

That is called “Intolerance”.

Oh, it's intolerance, all right. But there's intolerance and there's intolerance. He's not intolerant of a reasonable counter-argument. He's intolerant of people who argue in bad faith. That is what you're doing.

But in the end it doesn't matter. His house, so his rules. It would be the same in my house. Anybody who doesn't like it knows where the door is.

quote:

Originally posted by FenderBender:

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:

quote:

Originally posted by FenderBender:
Not at all, I hate ICE, because it only exists to protect the welfare state which I also hate. Because again I hate government and will continue to call for it's dismantling.

So, you're OK with the murder of Federal law enforcement officers? I want to hear you say it plainly.

Yes.

Fuck you FenderBender. FUCK.YOU.

quote:

Originally posted by marksman41:

quote:

Originally posted by Longbow_06:

quote:

Originally posted by marksman41:
The quote from a forum member, "I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you." springs to mind regarding Longbow's stance on soliciting murder is an okay thing to do. Truly incomprehensible how one can think that way.

I didn’t say he had the right to solicit murder. I said he had the right to say it.
You have the Right to say anything you like, as king as you are willing to face the music for saying it.

But in your post on page 2 you said that there shouldn't be any consequences for what he said -

"Think about it for a minute lol.
He says something, and we don’t like it, so there for he should go to jail.
We own firearms, and Liberals don’t like it, and think we should go to jail for it.
So therefore, if we get what we want, this asshat in jail for saying something, it’s gives the Liberals what they want, and the chance to put us in jail. "

Did he act upon what he said ? No.
Therefore he was acquitted.

Not sure what the issue is.

You either want the full protection of the Bill of Rights, or you don’t.

quote:

Fuck you FenderBender. FUCK.YOU.

I concur!

quote:

Originally posted by Longbow_06:

quote:

Originally posted by marksman41:

quote:

Originally posted by Longbow_06:

quote:

Originally posted by marksman41:
The quote from a forum member, "I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you." springs to mind regarding Longbow's stance on soliciting murder is an okay thing to do. Truly incomprehensible how one can think that way.

I didn’t say he had the right to solicit murder. I said he had the right to say it.
You have the Right to say anything you like, as king as you are willing to face the music for saying it.

But in your post on page 2 you said that there shouldn't be any consequences for what he said -

"Think about it for a minute lol.
He says something, and we don’t like it, so there for he should go to jail.
We own firearms, and Liberals don’t like it, and think we should go to jail for it.
So therefore, if we get what we want, this asshat in jail for saying something, it’s gives the Liberals what they want, and the chance to put us in jail. "

Did he act upon what he said ? No.
Therefore he was acquitted.

Not sure what the issue is.

You either want the full protection of the Bill of Rights, or you don’t.

No doubt a liberal jury let him off.

Longbow, next time you’re in a movie theater with your family, perhaps someone should yell “Fire!” If your wife and children are trampled to death, so be it. The person who yelled isn’t guilty according to you, even though they caused the stampede b/c they didn’t participate in running for the exit. Is that correct???

quote:

Originally posted by Longbow_06:

quote:

Originally posted by marksman41:

quote:

Originally posted by Longbow_06:

quote:

Originally posted by marksman41:
The quote from a forum member, "I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you." springs to mind regarding Longbow's stance on soliciting murder is an okay thing to do. Truly incomprehensible how one can think that way.

I didn’t say he had the right to solicit murder. I said he had the right to say it.
You have the Right to say anything you like, as king as you are willing to face the music for saying it.

But in your post on page 2 you said that there shouldn't be any consequences for what he said -

"Think about it for a minute lol.
He says something, and we don’t like it, so there for he should go to jail.
We own firearms, and Liberals don’t like it, and think we should go to jail for it.
So therefore, if we get what we want, this asshat in jail for saying something, it’s gives the Liberals what they want, and the chance to put us in jail. "

Did he act upon what he said ? No.
Therefore he was acquitted.

Not sure what the issue is.

You either want the full protection of the Bill of Rights, or you don’t.

Did you read ArtieS' post above?

These two remind me of Posse Comitatus.

He didn’t just say something we didn't like, he offered payment for services. If someone had taken him up on it, then what?

Wow, two 10 year plus members flaming out in the same thread......gotta be a first.

quote:

Did he act upon what he said ? No.
Therefore he was acquitted.

Not sure what the issue is.

You either want the full protection of the Bill of Rights, or you don’t.

The issue is, you said he had a right to do what he did. He absolutely didn't have a First Amendment right to do so; he committed a prima facie felony, but there was insufficient evidence to convict. That's 5th Amendment due process, not 1st Amendment speech. That's why he was found "not guilty" rather than "innocent".

The result is the same in a practical sense in that he is not in jail, but not in a philosophical or legal sense. Furthermore, the state made a legal and appropriate decision to charge him and take him to trial. There is no claim here of malicious prosecution or abuse of prosecutorial discretion.

He is not guilty of the offense charged, and it has absolutely nothing at all to do with his 1st Amendment rights.

quote:

Originally posted by Dakor:

quote:

Originally posted by Longbow_06:
Folks may not like what he said, but he had the Right to say it.

Seems legit to me.

I don’t like folks trying to take my 2A Rights away.

Get a clue. Yelling "Fire" in a movie theater isn't protected free speech, nor should an advertised bounty on someone's head.

You might want to look into that a bit. I believe SCOTUS over turned the conviction (ie, it is allowed).

^^^ Although I used a literal example, it’s a metaphor. Is a bomb threat legal? Is it legal to solicit someone’s murder? Of course not.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Dakor,

quote:

Originally posted by Longbow_06:
Did he act upon what he said ? No.
Therefore he was acquitted.

.

You folks who are debating with LongBow and FenderBender, would you like a comment from an Old Guy?

No? Well here it is anyway.

You are wasting your time and annoying the pig.

quote:

Originally posted by FenderBender:

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:

quote:

Originally posted by FenderBender:
Not at all, I hate ICE, because it only exists to protect the welfare state which I also hate. Because again I hate government and will continue to call for it's dismantling.

So, you're OK with the murder of Federal law enforcement officers? I want to hear you say it plainly.

Yes.

Remember, they do things like this, in you name.

https://news.yahoo.com/ice-arr...reign-151045004.html

You are completely fucking unhinged.

I don't like the idea of setting up a fake university to lure people into breaking the law, but we have a court system to deal with likely excesses like this.

This will be examined by the courts, and it will be found to be ok (which I doubt), found to be improper, in which case there will be repercussions for those who promulgated the scheme, or it will be found to be illegal, in which case, those involved will go to jail. None of those who go to jail, however, will be the poor saps who made the arrests.

Why? because they didn't have enough information to know that the arrest could be found, way in the future, to either be ok, or not ok. And before you pull out the "just obeying orders" canard, stick it. It doesn't apply. For the Nuremberg standard to apply, you either must be high enough up the chain to know, as a fact, that the orders you are following are illegal, or the conduct you are asked to perform is so outrageous that it could not possibly be legal. I mean like throwing babies into woodchippers, shooting prisoners, or chaining the doors of a church shut and burning it to the ground style outrageous. Arresting people on a charge of a visa violation doesn't even come close.

Inchoate rage at a system you have issues with does not justify the random murder of people involved in the system. It particularly doesn't justify murder of the lowest levels of that system.

You hate government so much that you feel it's ok to murder the employees of that government?

Your position isn't just morally wrong, its actively insane. Get the fuck over that level of anger.

quote:

Originally posted by FenderBender:

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:

quote:

Originally posted by FenderBender:
Not at all, I hate ICE, because it only exists to protect the welfare state which I also hate. Because again I hate government and will continue to call for it's dismantling.

So, you're OK with the murder of Federal law enforcement officers? I want to hear you say it plainly.

Yes.

Remember, they do things like this, in you name.

https://news.yahoo.com/ice-arr...reign-151045004.html

You’re truly an idiot if you actually feel this way. It would make you no better than the fucktards in black masks throwing bricks at cops.

A red flag law may be appropriate after all.

These two are not driving, they are only traveling...