Reese:
[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?
Verbatim.
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?
No, Reese, I didn't want to expose an agent to Googling.
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?
A modern version: "I disagree with bomb recipes, but support your right to provide bomb recipes, as long as I am not standing next to you, or associated with you in any way." Things work differently now, see?
I take it you have no interest in dealing with this topic seriously, it's evident you are having too much fun clowning around.
:) ~Aimee
At 01:03 AM 8/17/01, Aimee Farr wrote:
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?
No, Reese, I didn't want to expose an agent to Googling.
Are court records public documents, or not? Why wasn't that info sealed if there was a problem with releasing it?
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?
A modern version: "I disagree with bomb recipes, but support your right to provide bomb recipes, as long as I am not standing next to you, or associated with you in any way." Things work differently now, see?
No, I don't *see*. There is no reason why they should work differently, the relevant passages of the Constitution have not changed - the activism in the courtrooms is telling though.
I take it you have no interest in dealing with this topic seriously, it's evident you are having too much fun clowning around.
:)
~Aimee
participants (2)
-
Aimee Farr -
Reese