Ninth Circuit ruling re webpage threats

[Jim Choate]

On Thu, 29 Mar 2001 keyser-soze at hushmail.com wrote:

> You're right AP might not be protected.  But suppose the activity is different. 
>  Suppose its publically stated purpose is some uncontroversial legit activity,
>  such as psychic prediction contests.  Shouldn't the same sorts of protections 
> should apply as in the ruling? The fact that terrorists unknown to the psychics 
> might use the contests for illegal purpose (maybe specifically prohibited 
> by the contest organizers) should cover the majority participants.

Why wouldn't the 'betting' part simply be another aspect of 'speech'? It
demonstrates POV only, neither the lottery operator or the party placing
the bet are acting alone or together to initiate harm to any individual.

There is also no clear mechanism to guarantee the winner is the same party
as the 'executer' of the act. So the lottery operation itself can't as a
result of its operation be shown to contribute to the executer.

So why isn't it 'speech'?

    ____________________________________________________________________

         If the law is based on precedence, why is the Constitution
         not the final precedence since it's the primary authority?

       The Armadillo Group       ,::////;::-.          James Choate
       Austin, Tx               /:'///// ``::>/|/      ravage at ssz.com
       www.ssz.com            .',  ||||    `/( e\      512-451-7087
                           -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
    --------------------------------------------------------------------