http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,42951,00.html From Declan's story: Because Bell repeatedly said he would not violate the law, Leen had hoped to raise a First Amendment defense -- essentially saying that because the law protects advocacy of violent acts, the jury can find Bell to be not guilty as charged. Leen asked the judge to incorporate a First Amendment defense in instructions to the jury. But Tanner nixed that idea. He said he did not believe Bell was engaged in political speech. "Are the IRS laws political?" Tanner asked. "I thought they were passed by Congress and signed by the president." Tanner suggested the IRS was as apolitical as a highway "speed limit." "I'm going to deny those instructions," Tanner said, which means the jury will not consider the First Amendment implications of the charges against Bell. ***************** Declan, did anyone in court burst into hysterical laughter? I would have had a hard time restraining myself and would now be a guest of the Feds, I suppose. While it is true that trial courts hate 1A defenses and leave such things to the appeals courts, this is truly funny. Tanner is carving out a yet another "commercial speech" exception to the 1st arguing that mere government administration is not "political" and thus not open to full speech protection. He is certainly wrong. Actually, it's a great quote for the Appeals judges (if Jim gets around to appealing). I expect Jim to cave like he did the last time. No guts. DCF ---- "When confronted with persons of your ilk, my usual response is: Action Front! Load Triple Canister! Fire as they lay!" -- Canister. A cylindrical metal container filled with lead shot. Designed to turn a field artillery piece into a very large shotgun.