Re: FOR WHOM THE BELL TOLLS
Duncan wrote:
At 10:41 PM 6/4/96 -0700, Bruce Baugh wrote:
I think there's a non-trivial chance that this list could be shut down and anyone who's made interested sounds in the idea brought in to assist the police in their inquiries.
Yeah and they busted Jack London for publishing "The Assassination Bureau, Ltd".[...]
Advocating the general practice of killing one's opponents is as legal as church on a Sunday. The War College (or is it the NDU these days) does it all the time.
As long as that person is not the President of the United States (at least for U.S. citizens.) This was the issue which initiated this thread, the implied threat made by our favorite nutcase. jim
Jim McCoy wrote:
Duncan wrote:
At 10:41 PM 6/4/96 -0700, Bruce Baugh wrote:
I think there's a non-trivial chance that this list could be shut down and anyone who's made interested sounds in the idea brought in to assist the police in their inquiries.
Yeah and they busted Jack London for publishing "The Assassination Bureau, Ltd".[...]
Advocating the general practice of killing one's opponents is as legal as church on a Sunday. The War College (or is it the NDU these days) does it all the time.
As long as that person is not the President of the United States (at least for U.S. citizens.) This was the issue which initiated this thread, the implied threat made by our favorite nutcase.
Are you sure? Can you cite references? From my readings on the 1st amendments, any general kind of speech is legal, even if it advocates killing certain officials, including us presidents. *If* instead of general advocacy a person gave specific orders or concrete requests to kill the prez, then it would not be speech. Please correct me if I am wrong.
From my scarce reading of jimbell, his messages were fairly abstract and were likely just a protected speech.
- Igor.
participants (2)
-
ichudov＠algebra.com -
mccoy＠communities.com