Amusing, Aimee -- or is it "Amusing Aimee"? But the real discussion was about protected speech, was it not? You previously posted a piece on "842" as if that were an actual statute forbidding the "teaching" of info on explosives and bombs. Where is that law, actually? This case is about someone selling pipe bombs, something totally different in the first place -- but protected activity under the 2nd, nonetheless. And yes, we are aware that undercover LEO's often act as agent provocateur. So what's your point? We also know, from the Judy Barri case that LEO's (FBI in this case) even teach bomb making them selves, and, quite possibly, even plant bombs in the cars of citizens they have under surveillance, even try to kill them. So what's your point? bombmonger
[BLR has recently been the subject of media attacks and poison pen letters.] "Bombmonger" wrote:
Amusing, Aimee -- or is it "Amusing Aimee"? But the real discussion was about protected speech, was it not? You previously posted a piece on "842" as if that were an actual statute forbidding the "teaching" of info on explosives and bombs. Where is that law, actually?
See United States Code, Title 18, Ch. 40, Section 842. Also see Section 844. Lookee here: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/842.html United States v. Progressive, 467 F.Supp. 990 (W.D. Wis. 1979), was a long time ago. I recognize that successful prosecution is probably a long-shot.
This case is about someone selling pipe bombs, something totally different in the first place -- but protected activity under the 2nd, nonetheless. And yes, we are aware that undercover LEO's often act as agent provocateur. So what's your point? We also know, from the Judy Barri case that LEO's (FBI in this case) even teach bomb making them selves, and, quite possibly, even plant bombs in the cars of citizens they have under surveillance, even try to kill them. So what's your point?
bombmonger
My point is that I'm sitting here talking to somebody named "bombmonger." Go back to playing with sparklers and blowing things up in the microwave. If you have any real bombs, I bet the ATF has a toll-free help-line, offering friendly and immediate assistance to assist you through the "bomb registration process." ...."quite possibly" ...FBI "Black Ops Blow-Em-Up" teams? Uh-uhm. If had to guess, I would bet that explosives take a lot of paperwork. Bombs are not efficient investigative tools for law enforcement. They blow up the evidence and the criminal. It's hard to run surveillance on a blown-up target. That would be LEA "disintermediation." They also make a lot of noise. [Some cpunk] wrote:
US v. "DUMB BOMB GUY," No 5555 (...in this country, recently.) [*FN1]
<snip entertaining, probably fictional account>
(1) These clubs describe themselves as outlaw motorcycle clubs because they "live outside the law."
You are familiar with the terms "FUD" and "Propaganda" aren't you, Aimee? Is there a real case that can be cited properly?
Accusing me of trickery on the tribunal? Himf. See US v. EATON, No 00-1276 (10th Cir. August 14, 2001).
How is discussing bomb recipes the same as discussing bomb deployment with stated intention to deploy?
Never said it was. However, talking about bombs and arms trafficking along with crypto is like turning on a "UC bugzapper." You're talking about the courtroom. Agents make the facts. AGENT: "Oh, he's just talking about bomb recipes. If ONLY he would just state his 'intention to deploy' so I could investigate and [...] to see just what the heck he's doing over there." AGENT: "Oh, they are talking about bombs, again. Oh, I would I could just make them stop! Damn this free speech stuff!" Bzzt. I am aware of the long-standing, oft-debated, legal analogy between crypto and bombs related to the First Amendment. (Heck, it's even in court pleadings.) AN ANALOGY. For some reason, I think crypto + bomb talk = bad things, and it's a mischaracterization of this forum. ~Aimee
At 08:48 PM 8/16/01, Aimee Farr wrote:
[BLR has recently been the subject of media attacks and poison pen letters.]
Let me hear you say it. Does a part of you hurt?
[Some cpunk] wrote:
You are familiar with the terms "FUD" and "Propaganda" aren't you, Aimee? Is there a real case that can be cited properly?
Accusing me of trickery on the tribunal? Himf. See US v. EATON, No 00-1276 (10th Cir. August 14, 2001).
Skimmed it. So the account was more real than not? You are obviously willing and able to provide the real citation, so what purpose was served by changing all the names and obscuring the real cite, if trickery was not a factor?
How is discussing bomb recipes the same as discussing bomb deployment with stated intention to deploy?
Never said it was. However, talking about bombs and arms trafficking along with crypto is like turning on a "UC bugzapper." You're talking about the courtroom. Agents make the facts.
AGENT: "Oh, he's just talking about bomb recipes. If ONLY he would just state his 'intention to deploy' so I could investigate and [...] to see just what the heck he's doing over there."
AGENT: "Oh, they are talking about bombs, again. Oh, I would I could just make them stop! Damn this free speech stuff!"
Bzzt.
I am aware of the long-standing, oft-debated, legal analogy between crypto and bombs related to the First Amendment. (Heck, it's even in court pleadings.) AN ANALOGY. For some reason, I think crypto + bomb talk = bad things, and it's a mischaracterization of this forum.
Talking about yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater is not the same as doing it, no matter how "is" is defined, talking about bombs and making them is no different. Who was it? Said "I disagree with what you say but support your right to say it" or words to that effect? I take it you have no interest in dealing with this topic seriously, it's evident you are having too much fun clowning around. Reese
participants (3)
-
A. Melon -
Aimee Farr -
Reese