speech + action

[Tim May]

On Tuesday, September 4, 2001, at 10:59 AM, mmotyka at lsil.com wrote:

> Declan McCullagh wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 31, 2001 at 10:59:54AM -0700, mmotyka at 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