Tim May <tcmay@got.net> wrote :
Which is why I asked for you some actual cases. I pointed out that--so far as I have heard--there have been _no_ prosecutions for "paramilitary training." (There may have been some paramilitary types busted for firing AK-47s, for trespassing, whatever. This is why I listed these as exceptions.)
You are right. Actual cases in which the bare-assed anti-paramilitary training laws are applied are in short supply. Generally they are associated with other infractions. Do note, however that there is a consistent thread of discussing the speech and the act i.e. the manual-based "training" regarding propane cylinders and the actual posession of same. The separate items are not puniushable but together seem to imply conspiracy to commit the act. http://nwcitizen.com/publicgood/reports/bailhear.html http://www.cnn.com/US/9607/02/arizona.militia/
Bell's AP was not one of the charges in his case.
Sure, I mention it because despite its being non-functional and unpunishable it seemed to have been brought into the courtroom with the purpose of spicing up the case.
No point in going round and round. I don't think even the U.S.G. has this power that you think it does, and I cite the non-prosecution of many right-wing groups as evidence. When busts have occurred, other alleged crimes were involved, like trespassing, violations of gun laws, etc.
You are absolutely right. Where I think you misread me is this : I don't think that the government *has* this power, I think the way the laws are written and discussed, this degree of power is something for which they reach. Mike
On Fri, 31 Aug 2001 mmotyka@lsil.com wrote:
Where I think you misread me is this : I don't think that the government *has* this power, I think the way the laws are written and discussed, this degree of power is something for which they reach.
Which must be continously tested by 'controversial' speech through mechanisms like mailing lists, anonymous remailers, data havens, etc. The question is not what they do about it, but rather if they do anything at all. Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
On Fri, Aug 31, 2001 at 10:59:54AM -0700, mmotyka@lsil.com wrote:
Sure, I mention it because despite its being non-functional and unpunishable it seemed to have been brought into the courtroom with the purpose of spicing up the case.
Sure. If you commit unacceptable-to-the-gvt *actions* and also spend a lot of time talking about how government officials should be assassinated, you may reasonably expect those statements to be used against you during your trial. But that is a far cry from your earlier government-has-this-power position, from which you're now backtracking. -Declan
Declan McCullagh wrote:
On Fri, Aug 31, 2001 at 10:59:54AM -0700, mmotyka@lsil.com wrote:
Sure, I mention it because despite its being non-functional and unpunishable it seemed to have been brought into the courtroom with the purpose of spicing up the case.
Sure. If you commit unacceptable-to-the-gvt *actions* and also spend a lot of time talking about how government officials should be assassinated, you may reasonably expect those statements to be used against you during your trial.
But that is a far cry from your earlier government-has-this-power position, from which you're now backtracking.
-Declan
Not so much backtracking as thinking out loud. Just musing on how the letter of the law, its constitutionality, enforcement and even the reasoning behind its creation are not always lined up so well. 18 U.S.C. 23 1 contains the seeds of the speech+action idea. Mike
On Tuesday, September 4, 2001, at 10:59 AM, mmotyka@lsil.com wrote:
Declan McCullagh wrote:
On Fri, Aug 31, 2001 at 10:59:54AM -0700, mmotyka@lsil.com wrote:
Sure, I mention it because despite its being non-functional and unpunishable it seemed to have been brought into the courtroom with the purpose of spicing up the case.
Sure. If you commit unacceptable-to-the-gvt *actions* and also spend a lot of time talking about how government officials should be assassinated, you may reasonably expect those statements to be used against you during your trial.
But that is a far cry from your earlier government-has-this-power position, from which you're now backtracking.
-Declan
Not so much backtracking as thinking out loud. Just musing on how the letter of the law, its constitutionality, enforcement and even the reasoning behind its creation are not always lined up so well.
18 U.S.C. 23 1 contains the seeds of the speech+action idea.
Please explain. You made the first assertion of this, then "backslid" as people poked holes in your argument, now you appear to be swinging back in the other direction merely by asserting something about "seeds." Could you give a cite for any prosecutions, or are you just speculating that "Happy Fun Court" will not be "amused" by free speech? Comment: It seems to me we are seeing way too many people hitting the panic button, speculating about some of us getting shot by agents of happy fun courts, claiming that merely using secrecy methods is spoliation, arguing that speech is being criminalized, and that, in essence, we'd all better just slink away from these free speech and crypto thoughtcrimes. Fuck that. Don't let the wuss ninnies scare you off. --TIm May
participants (4)
-
Declan McCullagh -
Jim Choate -
mmotyka＠lsil.com -
Tim May