Opinions please.
A US judge has just passed an opinion :-
"The United States is correct that it need not wait until people are killed before it arrests conspirators," US District Judge Victoria Roberts said in her ruling.
"But, the defendants are also correct: Their right to engage in hate-filled, venomous speech, is a right that deserves First Amendment protection."
BBC News - US 'Christian militants' released from jail on bond
Do people agree with this position?
Freedom of Speech?
Freedom of Speech?
Bryn Mawr;1307725 wrote: Opinions please.
Do people agree with this position?
Makes sense to me. I've always said that, without the negative, how can we evaluate the positive?
Besides, if hate speech was outlawed, the Tea-partiers would all be out of a job...
Do people agree with this position?
Makes sense to me. I've always said that, without the negative, how can we evaluate the positive?
Besides, if hate speech was outlawed, the Tea-partiers would all be out of a job...
-
TruthBringer
- Posts: 3567
- Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 5:39 pm
Freedom of Speech?
Depends on their definition of "conspirator".
If by "conspirator" they mean anyone who disagrees with what the government is doing, then welcome to Hitlerville.
If by "conspirator" they mean anyone who disagrees with what the government is doing, then welcome to Hitlerville.
Link removed by moderator
Freedom of Speech?
If they were muslim fundamentalists would you feel the same?
Have you not had at least one major christian fundamentalist terrorist act? Oklahoma rings a bell.
Have you not had at least one major christian fundamentalist terrorist act? Oklahoma rings a bell.
-
TruthBringer
- Posts: 3567
- Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 5:39 pm
Freedom of Speech?
gmc;1307754 wrote: If they were muslim fundamentalists would you feel the same?
Have you not had at least one major christian fundamentalist terrorist act? Oklahoma rings a bell.
So what you are saying is that their definition of "conspirator" applies only to those people who wish to harm American citizens or buildings?
If that's the case then I am completely fine with arresting those types of people before they commit some kind of a horrible act like that.
But I am not ok and will never be ok as an American citizen who believes in the rights of Americans given to us by our forefathers to arrest someone due to the fact that they disagree with certain government policies. Every American citizen should have the right to disagree with any government policy at any time. That's why we have a voting system in this country. That's why we have two parties (even if they are starting to resemble each other more and more every day).
Terrorist suspects are one thing. People who disagree with a certain policy is a completely different other. The two are not the same. How in the World could anyone ever attempt to paint both with the same brush? It would never stand up in court.
Have you not had at least one major christian fundamentalist terrorist act? Oklahoma rings a bell.
So what you are saying is that their definition of "conspirator" applies only to those people who wish to harm American citizens or buildings?
If that's the case then I am completely fine with arresting those types of people before they commit some kind of a horrible act like that.
But I am not ok and will never be ok as an American citizen who believes in the rights of Americans given to us by our forefathers to arrest someone due to the fact that they disagree with certain government policies. Every American citizen should have the right to disagree with any government policy at any time. That's why we have a voting system in this country. That's why we have two parties (even if they are starting to resemble each other more and more every day).
Terrorist suspects are one thing. People who disagree with a certain policy is a completely different other. The two are not the same. How in the World could anyone ever attempt to paint both with the same brush? It would never stand up in court.
Link removed by moderator
Freedom of Speech?
TruthBringer;1307755 wrote: So what you are saying is that their definition of "conspirator" applies only to those people who wish to harm American citizens or buildings?
If that's the case then I am completely fine with arresting those types of people before they commit some kind of a horrible act like that.
But I am not ok and will never be ok as an American citizen who believes in the rights of Americans given to us by our forefathers to arrest someone due to the fact that they disagree with certain government policies. Every American citizen should have the right to disagree with any government policy at any time. That's why we have a voting system in this country. That's why we have two parties (even if they are starting to resemble each other more and more every day).
Terrorist suspects are one thing. People who disagree with a certain policy is a completely different other. The two are not the same. How in the World could anyone ever attempt to paint both with the same brush? It would never stand up in court.
Are the political groups who are currently advocating the overthrow by force of your legally elected government terrorist conspirators?
Are the good Christians who are joining together on FaceBook to pray for the demise of your duly elected President terrorist conspirators?
If that's the case then I am completely fine with arresting those types of people before they commit some kind of a horrible act like that.
But I am not ok and will never be ok as an American citizen who believes in the rights of Americans given to us by our forefathers to arrest someone due to the fact that they disagree with certain government policies. Every American citizen should have the right to disagree with any government policy at any time. That's why we have a voting system in this country. That's why we have two parties (even if they are starting to resemble each other more and more every day).
Terrorist suspects are one thing. People who disagree with a certain policy is a completely different other. The two are not the same. How in the World could anyone ever attempt to paint both with the same brush? It would never stand up in court.
Are the political groups who are currently advocating the overthrow by force of your legally elected government terrorist conspirators?
Are the good Christians who are joining together on FaceBook to pray for the demise of your duly elected President terrorist conspirators?
"Life is too short to ski with ugly men"
-
TruthBringer
- Posts: 3567
- Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 5:39 pm
Freedom of Speech?
To take away the right to disagree with government policy is to install a tyranny over the people of a nation. There is no doubt in that statement. If people want a tyranny then that's one thing. Let the people vote for one knowingly and openly then. If the majority of American citizens voted for a tyrannical government on purpose, and because that is what they desired, then I have no other choice but to go along with their decision. As stupid as I may think it is. Because that's the definition of a true Republic. That the people of a nation get to choose what they want in a government. And that they have to live with their decisions. At least until the time comes where their system allows for them to make new choices.
Link removed by moderator
-
TruthBringer
- Posts: 3567
- Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 5:39 pm
Freedom of Speech?
AussiePam;1307757 wrote: Are the political groups who are currently advocating the overthrow by force of your legally elected government terrorist conspirators?
Are the good Christians who are joining together on FaceBook to pray for the demise of your duly elected President terrorist conspirators?
There is no reason to overthrow an elected government through force. Pressure need only be applied by people's voices for change to occur in any government system.
On the same note, do you believe it is ok for the government to crack down on it's people who voice their opinions openly through violence and force? Why would you view it as ok for the government to do such a thing to the people, but not the other way around?
I don't advocate violence in any situation. Not from the people of a nation, and not from the government of a nation. The problem is that some people enjoy violence. And those kinds of people are in both government and in society. So inevitably, at least for the moment, those people will end up clashing with eachother. And I do believe that any American citizen who calls for violence even before committing an act of violence should be arrested. But they have to call for violence first. And that doesn't include carrying their guns around as a display of the right to bare arms. Only if they called for the use of those guns against the government or any organization for that matter. Then they should be arrested immediately. The same should apply to any government agent or agency who chooses to do the same against it's people.
I believe in the right to own a weapon if you so choose to do so in America. However, I don't believe anyone (and that includes the government), has the right to use those guns for the purpose of committing violence against another Human Being just for the sake of committing violence.
Self defense and violence are not the same. If you're life is in jeopardy, you have the right to defend it by any means possible, no different than an animal would defend itself against a predator in the Wild.
But the problem with taking away right after right after right in this country, is that it might turn out one day to be the case where a wild animal such as a Squirrel actually has more freedom to live it's life by it's own decisions than does a Human Being who lives under a system of tyranny. And that's how incredibly insane things could end up becoming if reason and logic is not applied in every major decision both from the majority of the people and from the government who mirrors their wants and needs.
The real truth is that there are many different agencies of government who aren't exactly on the same page when it comes to which direction they want to take this country in. And the people of the nation are not on the same page either. If this process continues, it will be reflected in our entire system and the way it works in this country. It creates a schizophrenic situation. And the definition of schizophrenia is that it is a mental illness that can cause delusions, hallucinations, and confused thinking. And that is exactly the kind of system we will all be living under if we (the government and the people) can't come to a clear cut agreement on what kind of direction the country will be heading in. It has to be an agreement on both sides for the system to properly work.
Are the good Christians who are joining together on FaceBook to pray for the demise of your duly elected President terrorist conspirators?
There is no reason to overthrow an elected government through force. Pressure need only be applied by people's voices for change to occur in any government system.
On the same note, do you believe it is ok for the government to crack down on it's people who voice their opinions openly through violence and force? Why would you view it as ok for the government to do such a thing to the people, but not the other way around?
I don't advocate violence in any situation. Not from the people of a nation, and not from the government of a nation. The problem is that some people enjoy violence. And those kinds of people are in both government and in society. So inevitably, at least for the moment, those people will end up clashing with eachother. And I do believe that any American citizen who calls for violence even before committing an act of violence should be arrested. But they have to call for violence first. And that doesn't include carrying their guns around as a display of the right to bare arms. Only if they called for the use of those guns against the government or any organization for that matter. Then they should be arrested immediately. The same should apply to any government agent or agency who chooses to do the same against it's people.
I believe in the right to own a weapon if you so choose to do so in America. However, I don't believe anyone (and that includes the government), has the right to use those guns for the purpose of committing violence against another Human Being just for the sake of committing violence.
Self defense and violence are not the same. If you're life is in jeopardy, you have the right to defend it by any means possible, no different than an animal would defend itself against a predator in the Wild.
But the problem with taking away right after right after right in this country, is that it might turn out one day to be the case where a wild animal such as a Squirrel actually has more freedom to live it's life by it's own decisions than does a Human Being who lives under a system of tyranny. And that's how incredibly insane things could end up becoming if reason and logic is not applied in every major decision both from the majority of the people and from the government who mirrors their wants and needs.
The real truth is that there are many different agencies of government who aren't exactly on the same page when it comes to which direction they want to take this country in. And the people of the nation are not on the same page either. If this process continues, it will be reflected in our entire system and the way it works in this country. It creates a schizophrenic situation. And the definition of schizophrenia is that it is a mental illness that can cause delusions, hallucinations, and confused thinking. And that is exactly the kind of system we will all be living under if we (the government and the people) can't come to a clear cut agreement on what kind of direction the country will be heading in. It has to be an agreement on both sides for the system to properly work.
Link removed by moderator
-
TruthBringer
- Posts: 3567
- Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 5:39 pm
Freedom of Speech?
If you look at violence through sporting events such as boxing competition, then you will come to see that what is really unfolding in a case such as that is that both fighters are not engaging in violence as much as they are in self defense. The two fighters have the same goal, which is to defend against the force that they are both trying to apply to one another. In this case it is an act of self defense against self defense. The goal of the fighters is not purely to inflict violence upon each other, because if this was the case, then there would be no reason to train in self defense, which all boxers do in one way or another. This is why I have no problem with a sport such as boxing or any other sport which involves self defense.
If a government attempts to inflict physical harm upon it's people, then those people have every right to defend themselves against that violence. Self defense is something that all living creatures practice in one way or another. Likewise it is perfectly ok for any government to defend itself against any form of physical harm that it's citizens would attempt to inflict upon it.
In the case of boxing, both fighters agree to the terms to step into the ring and to defend themselves against the other. This is nothing more then self defense being practiced in the fight. Whichever fighter wins the match is the fighter who was able to display a better method of self defense, and therefore wins the match. All forms of competition are forms of self defense. Chess is a perfect example, as is any other form of competition. Violence is a means of applying force for the purpose of destruction. Self defense is the protection of oneself from a force which is intended to cause destruction. They are polar opposites, but one is something that everything alive partakes in and the other is something that only certain living things partake in. Therefore one takes precedence over the other in my opinion. Because one is Universal and the other is not.
This is why the Universe provides no Karmic consequence for the act of self defense, but it does provide a Karmic consequence for the act of inflicting violence. Only things that are Universal in nature are exempt from the laws of Karma.
If a government attempts to inflict physical harm upon it's people, then those people have every right to defend themselves against that violence. Self defense is something that all living creatures practice in one way or another. Likewise it is perfectly ok for any government to defend itself against any form of physical harm that it's citizens would attempt to inflict upon it.
In the case of boxing, both fighters agree to the terms to step into the ring and to defend themselves against the other. This is nothing more then self defense being practiced in the fight. Whichever fighter wins the match is the fighter who was able to display a better method of self defense, and therefore wins the match. All forms of competition are forms of self defense. Chess is a perfect example, as is any other form of competition. Violence is a means of applying force for the purpose of destruction. Self defense is the protection of oneself from a force which is intended to cause destruction. They are polar opposites, but one is something that everything alive partakes in and the other is something that only certain living things partake in. Therefore one takes precedence over the other in my opinion. Because one is Universal and the other is not.
This is why the Universe provides no Karmic consequence for the act of self defense, but it does provide a Karmic consequence for the act of inflicting violence. Only things that are Universal in nature are exempt from the laws of Karma.
Link removed by moderator
Freedom of Speech?
TruthBringer;1307755 wrote: So what you are saying is that their definition of "conspirator" applies only to those people who wish to harm American citizens or buildings?
If that's the case then I am completely fine with arresting those types of people before they commit some kind of a horrible act like that.
But I am not ok and will never be ok as an American citizen who believes in the rights of Americans given to us by our forefathers to arrest someone due to the fact that they disagree with certain government policies. Every American citizen should have the right to disagree with any government policy at any time. That's why we have a voting system in this country. That's why we have two parties (even if they are starting to resemble each other more and more every day).
Terrorist suspects are one thing. People who disagree with a certain policy is a completely different other. The two are not the same. How in the World could anyone ever attempt to paint both with the same brush? It would never stand up in court.
from the article
It is alleged they planned to kill a police officer in Michigan and then stage a second attack on the funeral, using landmines and roadside bombs.
Defence lawyers say it is just a case of hate-filled, irrational speech.
What I said was - if it was a muslim group rather than a christian one would you still feel the same?
If the police arrest someone for conspiracy to murder (say their neighbour) would that have been treated the same or would the accused been held pending trial? I assume the police have a bit more than some speeches to go on.
If that's the case then I am completely fine with arresting those types of people before they commit some kind of a horrible act like that.
But I am not ok and will never be ok as an American citizen who believes in the rights of Americans given to us by our forefathers to arrest someone due to the fact that they disagree with certain government policies. Every American citizen should have the right to disagree with any government policy at any time. That's why we have a voting system in this country. That's why we have two parties (even if they are starting to resemble each other more and more every day).
Terrorist suspects are one thing. People who disagree with a certain policy is a completely different other. The two are not the same. How in the World could anyone ever attempt to paint both with the same brush? It would never stand up in court.
from the article
It is alleged they planned to kill a police officer in Michigan and then stage a second attack on the funeral, using landmines and roadside bombs.
Defence lawyers say it is just a case of hate-filled, irrational speech.
What I said was - if it was a muslim group rather than a christian one would you still feel the same?
If the police arrest someone for conspiracy to murder (say their neighbour) would that have been treated the same or would the accused been held pending trial? I assume the police have a bit more than some speeches to go on.
-
TruthBringer
- Posts: 3567
- Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 5:39 pm
Freedom of Speech?
gmc;1307761 wrote: from the article
What I said was - if it was a muslim group rather than a christian one would you still feel the same?
If the police arrest someone for conspiracy to murder (say their neighbour) would that have been treated the same or would the accused been held pending trial? I assume the police have a bit more than some speeches to go on.
Unless our system changes, anyone who is accused of a crime has the current right to be proven innocent until proven guilty. If that system were to change then inevitably you would find people in prison who haven't done anything at all to deserve the punishment for the accusations placed against them. And in a system like that, nobody wins, because a loyal law abiding productive citizen would be behind bars. And loyal law abiding citizens are what keeps a country going in an overall healthy direction. Stability is not found in chaotic behavior that comes from non loyal and non law abiding citizens. And neither can it be found in a government who creates non loyal and non law abiding decisions.
We have a Constitution in this country. It serves as a launching pad for all laws to be created. If that were to be abolished, then everything would turn chaotic because there would be no underlying structure of stability from which laws would be created. Which equals nothing but chaos in the end. And chaos doesn't work for any nation. It never has. It is stability which holds all nations together. When you put chaos in it's place, you will only find destruction. If you can't find a way to install stability into that type of an environment, then that nation will end up crumbling into non existence. And in that case, there is nothing else that can be done to stop it. At least until a new nation is forged upon the old. Such as was the case with the Soviet Union.
What I said was - if it was a muslim group rather than a christian one would you still feel the same?
If the police arrest someone for conspiracy to murder (say their neighbour) would that have been treated the same or would the accused been held pending trial? I assume the police have a bit more than some speeches to go on.
Unless our system changes, anyone who is accused of a crime has the current right to be proven innocent until proven guilty. If that system were to change then inevitably you would find people in prison who haven't done anything at all to deserve the punishment for the accusations placed against them. And in a system like that, nobody wins, because a loyal law abiding productive citizen would be behind bars. And loyal law abiding citizens are what keeps a country going in an overall healthy direction. Stability is not found in chaotic behavior that comes from non loyal and non law abiding citizens. And neither can it be found in a government who creates non loyal and non law abiding decisions.
We have a Constitution in this country. It serves as a launching pad for all laws to be created. If that were to be abolished, then everything would turn chaotic because there would be no underlying structure of stability from which laws would be created. Which equals nothing but chaos in the end. And chaos doesn't work for any nation. It never has. It is stability which holds all nations together. When you put chaos in it's place, you will only find destruction. If you can't find a way to install stability into that type of an environment, then that nation will end up crumbling into non existence. And in that case, there is nothing else that can be done to stop it. At least until a new nation is forged upon the old. Such as was the case with the Soviet Union.
Link removed by moderator
Freedom of Speech?
TruthBringer;1307763 wrote: Unless our system changes, anyone who is accused of a crime has the current right to be proven innocent until proven guilty. If that system were to change then inevitably you would find people in prison who haven't done anything at all to deserve the punishment for the accusations placed against them. And in a system like that, nobody wins. because a loyal law abiding productive citizen would be behind bars. And loyal law abiding citizens are what keeps a country going in an overall healthy direction. Stability is not found in chaotic behavior that comes from non loyal and non law abiding citizens. And neither can it be found in a government who creates non loyal and non law abiding decisions.
We have a Constitution in this country. It serves as a launching pad for all laws created. If that were to be abolished, then everything would turn chaotic because there would be no underlying structure from which laws would be created. Which equals nothing but chaos in the end. And chaos doesn't work for any nation. It never has. It is stability which holds all nations together. When you put chaos in it's place, you will only find destruction. If you can't find a way to install stability into that type of an environment, then that nation will end up crumbling into non existence.
I presume then you disapprove of the patriot act.
They are charged with conspiracy to murder. My understanding is that the decision whether to bail someone to hold on remand is based on their likely danger to the public or that they might abscond. Surely that should have been the only issue. They weren't arrested for making speeches they were arrested for intending to commit murder. I presume there was a bit more
My question was if it was a fundamentalist muslim group would you feel the same I presume, from the tenor of your posts, your answer would be yes you would feel the same.
We have a Constitution in this country. It serves as a launching pad for all laws created. If that were to be abolished, then everything would turn chaotic because there would be no underlying structure from which laws would be created. Which equals nothing but chaos in the end. And chaos doesn't work for any nation. It never has. It is stability which holds all nations together. When you put chaos in it's place, you will only find destruction. If you can't find a way to install stability into that type of an environment, then that nation will end up crumbling into non existence.
I presume then you disapprove of the patriot act.
They are charged with conspiracy to murder. My understanding is that the decision whether to bail someone to hold on remand is based on their likely danger to the public or that they might abscond. Surely that should have been the only issue. They weren't arrested for making speeches they were arrested for intending to commit murder. I presume there was a bit more
My question was if it was a fundamentalist muslim group would you feel the same I presume, from the tenor of your posts, your answer would be yes you would feel the same.
-
TruthBringer
- Posts: 3567
- Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 5:39 pm
Freedom of Speech?
gmc;1307764 wrote: I presume then you disapprove of the patriot act.
They are charged with conspiracy to murder. My understanding is that the decision whether to bail someone to hold on remand is based on their likely danger to the public or that they might abscond. Surely that should have been the only issue. They weren't arrested for making speeches they were arrested for intending to commit murder. I presume there was a bit more
My question was if it was a fundamentalist muslim group would you feel the same I presume, from the tenor of your posts, your answer would be yes you would feel the same.
If the patriot act did not come from a foundation of stability (such as the Constitution) that was already in place and which serves to preserve the overall stability of the nation as a whole, than it was a law born from chaos, and therefore it can not possibly result in anything else but the chaos from which it was born from.
The American Constitution was created to protect American citizens from many different forms of chaos. If the Muslim group you are speaking of is not protected under that Constitution due to the fact that they are not American citizens (even if so on a temporary basis only), than they deserve no protection under the American Constitution. At least in my opinion. No non citizen deserves the same rights as a citizen. If that seems unfair, then the only solution would be to create a World constitution that provides every citizen under it's umbrella with the same equal protection from chaos. But I'm talking about a World constitution built upon order, not a World constitution built upon chaos as would be the case with the so called "New World Order".
They are charged with conspiracy to murder. My understanding is that the decision whether to bail someone to hold on remand is based on their likely danger to the public or that they might abscond. Surely that should have been the only issue. They weren't arrested for making speeches they were arrested for intending to commit murder. I presume there was a bit more
My question was if it was a fundamentalist muslim group would you feel the same I presume, from the tenor of your posts, your answer would be yes you would feel the same.
If the patriot act did not come from a foundation of stability (such as the Constitution) that was already in place and which serves to preserve the overall stability of the nation as a whole, than it was a law born from chaos, and therefore it can not possibly result in anything else but the chaos from which it was born from.
The American Constitution was created to protect American citizens from many different forms of chaos. If the Muslim group you are speaking of is not protected under that Constitution due to the fact that they are not American citizens (even if so on a temporary basis only), than they deserve no protection under the American Constitution. At least in my opinion. No non citizen deserves the same rights as a citizen. If that seems unfair, then the only solution would be to create a World constitution that provides every citizen under it's umbrella with the same equal protection from chaos. But I'm talking about a World constitution built upon order, not a World constitution built upon chaos as would be the case with the so called "New World Order".
Link removed by moderator
-
TruthBringer
- Posts: 3567
- Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 5:39 pm
Freedom of Speech?
If every country had a Constitution that served to protect itself from chaos, then you would find a system of order throughout every nation in the World. This is not the case today, because some countries have no system in place for protecting them against falling into chaos. And chaos consumes everything it comes in contact with. Once a nation falls into a system of chaos, then the only thing that can be done to change that system is to replace it with a system of order. You can't stop chaos from doing what it does, you can only replace it with a system that does the opposite.
Link removed by moderator
Freedom of Speech?
TruthBringer;1307765 wrote: If the patriot act did not come from a foundation of stability (such as the Constitution) that was already in place and which serves to preserve the overall stability of the nation as a whole, than it was a law born from chaos, and therefore it can not possibly result in anything else but the chaos from which it was born from.
The American Constitution was created to protect American citizens from many different forms of chaos. If the Muslim group you are speaking of is not protected under that Constitution due to the fact that they are not American citizens (even if so on a temporary basis only), than they deserve no protection under the American Constitution. At least in my opinion. No non citizen deserves the same rights as a citizen. If that seems unfair, then the only solution would be to create a World constitution that provides every citizen under it's umbrella with the same equal protection from chaos. But I'm talking about a World constitution built upon order, not a World constitution built upon chaos as would be the case with the so called "New World Order".
So you hold that America has the right to arrest foreign nationals wherever they are and hold them without trial?
The American Constitution was created to protect American citizens from many different forms of chaos. If the Muslim group you are speaking of is not protected under that Constitution due to the fact that they are not American citizens (even if so on a temporary basis only), than they deserve no protection under the American Constitution. At least in my opinion. No non citizen deserves the same rights as a citizen. If that seems unfair, then the only solution would be to create a World constitution that provides every citizen under it's umbrella with the same equal protection from chaos. But I'm talking about a World constitution built upon order, not a World constitution built upon chaos as would be the case with the so called "New World Order".
So you hold that America has the right to arrest foreign nationals wherever they are and hold them without trial?
-
Bill Sikes
- Posts: 5515
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am
Freedom of Speech?
Bryn Mawr;1307725 wrote: BBC News - US 'Christian militants' released from jail on bond
Do people agree with this position?
Seems reasonable...
"It is alleged they planned to kill a police officer in Michigan and then stage a second attack on the funeral, using landmines and roadside bombs"
So:
"I hate the USA, the police, and all, yee-haw, dag nab it, have a nice day" is OK.
"I am plotting to kill a policeman and blow up everyone at his funeral, have a nice day" is not OK.
It *used* to be similar here in the UK.
Do people agree with this position?
Seems reasonable...
"It is alleged they planned to kill a police officer in Michigan and then stage a second attack on the funeral, using landmines and roadside bombs"
So:
"I hate the USA, the police, and all, yee-haw, dag nab it, have a nice day" is OK.
"I am plotting to kill a policeman and blow up everyone at his funeral, have a nice day" is not OK.
It *used* to be similar here in the UK.
Freedom of Speech?
Bill Sikes;1307773 wrote:
"I hate the USA, the police, and all, yee-haw, dag nab it, have a nice day" is OK.
"I am plotting to kill a policeman and blow up everyone at his funeral, have a nice day" is not OK.
Way to crystalize the idea...I agree completely. You can have the most despicable and abhorrent views, but when you cross the line to death threats, you're outta there!:-2
"I hate the USA, the police, and all, yee-haw, dag nab it, have a nice day" is OK.
"I am plotting to kill a policeman and blow up everyone at his funeral, have a nice day" is not OK.
Way to crystalize the idea...I agree completely. You can have the most despicable and abhorrent views, but when you cross the line to death threats, you're outta there!:-2
Freedom of Speech?
Bill Sikes;1307773 wrote: Seems reasonable...
"It is alleged they planned to kill a police officer in Michigan and then stage a second attack on the funeral, using landmines and roadside bombs"
So:
"I hate the USA, the police, and all, yee-haw, dag nab it, have a nice day" is OK.
"I am plotting to kill a policeman and blow up everyone at his funeral, have a nice day" is not OK.
It *used* to be similar here in the UK.
Saint_;1307836 wrote: Way to crystalize the idea...I agree completely. You can have the most despicable and abhorrent views, but when you cross the line to death threats, you're outta there!:-2
Given the plot to kill the policeman and bomb the funeral how do we get to "released on bail" from the above statements?
"It is alleged they planned to kill a police officer in Michigan and then stage a second attack on the funeral, using landmines and roadside bombs"
So:
"I hate the USA, the police, and all, yee-haw, dag nab it, have a nice day" is OK.
"I am plotting to kill a policeman and blow up everyone at his funeral, have a nice day" is not OK.
It *used* to be similar here in the UK.
Saint_;1307836 wrote: Way to crystalize the idea...I agree completely. You can have the most despicable and abhorrent views, but when you cross the line to death threats, you're outta there!:-2
Given the plot to kill the policeman and bomb the funeral how do we get to "released on bail" from the above statements?
-
Bill Sikes
- Posts: 5515
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am
Freedom of Speech?
Bryn Mawr;1307858 wrote: Given the plot to kill the policeman and bomb the funeral how do we get to "released on bail" from the above statements?
Unless I'm missing something, they haven't been convicted. I don't know what conditions are applied to determine eligibility for bail.
Unless I'm missing something, they haven't been convicted. I don't know what conditions are applied to determine eligibility for bail.
Freedom of Speech?
Bill Sikes;1307862 wrote: Unless I'm missing something, they haven't been convicted. I don't know what conditions are applied to determine eligibility for bail.
As posted by gmc :-
They are charged with conspiracy to murder. My understanding is that the decision whether to bail someone to hold on remand is based on their likely danger to the public or that they might abscond. Surely that should have been the only issue. They weren't arrested for making speeches they were arrested for intending to commit murder.
In cases relating to terrorist offences (I assume that everybody here would agree to class the use of landmines and roadside bombs as terrorism) it is almost unheard of to grant bail.
As posted by gmc :-
They are charged with conspiracy to murder. My understanding is that the decision whether to bail someone to hold on remand is based on their likely danger to the public or that they might abscond. Surely that should have been the only issue. They weren't arrested for making speeches they were arrested for intending to commit murder.
In cases relating to terrorist offences (I assume that everybody here would agree to class the use of landmines and roadside bombs as terrorism) it is almost unheard of to grant bail.
-
Royd Fissure
- Posts: 152
- Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 7:04 am
Freedom of Speech?
Bryn Mawr;1307725 wrote: Opinions please.
A US judge has just passed an opinion :-
........
Do people agree with this position?
They are entitled to sit around and bang on all they like about what they would like to do. But when that banging on becomes more than verbal and they - allegedly - begin to plot then they're looking at conspiracy charges. As for the judge releasing them on bond, that's her decision and she is entitled to make it.
A US judge has just passed an opinion :-
........
Do people agree with this position?
They are entitled to sit around and bang on all they like about what they would like to do. But when that banging on becomes more than verbal and they - allegedly - begin to plot then they're looking at conspiracy charges. As for the judge releasing them on bond, that's her decision and she is entitled to make it.
-
TruthBringer
- Posts: 3567
- Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 5:39 pm
Freedom of Speech?
gmc;1307771 wrote: So you hold that America has the right to arrest foreign nationals wherever they are and hold them without trial?
Yes. If they were stupid enough to enter into the country illegally. Only within our own borders of course. Not wherever they are like you said above.
Yes. If they were stupid enough to enter into the country illegally. Only within our own borders of course. Not wherever they are like you said above.
Link removed by moderator
Freedom of Speech?
TruthBringer;1307953 wrote: Yes. If they were stupid enough to enter into the country illegally.
A different question methinks - wherever they are is not limited to within the US
A different question methinks - wherever they are is not limited to within the US
-
TruthBringer
- Posts: 3567
- Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 5:39 pm
Freedom of Speech?
Bryn Mawr;1307958 wrote: A different question methinks - wherever they are is not limited to within the US
Yeah well that's obvious. Outside America is not America. Jurisdiction is not valid in that case. America should stand down. There are bigger fish to fry within our own borders like I mentioned above.
Yeah well that's obvious. Outside America is not America. Jurisdiction is not valid in that case. America should stand down. There are bigger fish to fry within our own borders like I mentioned above.
Link removed by moderator
Freedom of Speech?
TruthBringer;1307960 wrote: Yeah well that's obvious. Outside America is not America.
If it's obvious then you've avoided the question :-
So you hold that America has the right to arrest foreign nationals wherever they are and hold them without trial?
ETA - Thank you, your later edit clarifies the position.
If it's obvious then you've avoided the question :-
So you hold that America has the right to arrest foreign nationals wherever they are and hold them without trial?
ETA - Thank you, your later edit clarifies the position.
-
TruthBringer
- Posts: 3567
- Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 5:39 pm
Freedom of Speech?
Bryn Mawr;1307964 wrote: If it's obvious then you've avoided the question :-
Look above in both instances. You were a slight bit too late.
Look above in both instances. You were a slight bit too late.
Link removed by moderator
Freedom of Speech?
The judge's logic eludes me. This wasn't about the right to free speech it was whether conspiring to commit murder is a crime or not.
"I hate the police" is free speech. Planning to kill one is conspiracy to murder if caught beforehand and murder if carried out. If a drug dealer was charged with the same offence was released on bail because he has a right to engage in hate filled speech what would be the reaction?
"I hate the police" is free speech. Planning to kill one is conspiracy to murder if caught beforehand and murder if carried out. If a drug dealer was charged with the same offence was released on bail because he has a right to engage in hate filled speech what would be the reaction?
Freedom of Speech?
gmc;1308099 wrote: The judge's logic eludes me. This wasn't about the right to free speech it was whether conspiring to commit murder is a crime or not.
"I hate the police" is free speech. Planning to kill one is conspiracy to murder if caught beforehand and murder if carried out. If a drug dealer was charged with the same offence was released on bail because he has a right to engage in hate filled speech what would be the reaction?
Thank you, this is the reason I asked the question in the first place.
"I hate the police" is free speech. Planning to kill one is conspiracy to murder if caught beforehand and murder if carried out. If a drug dealer was charged with the same offence was released on bail because he has a right to engage in hate filled speech what would be the reaction?
Thank you, this is the reason I asked the question in the first place.
-
Royd Fissure
- Posts: 152
- Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 7:04 am
Freedom of Speech?
But the judge's decision was to grant bail. The trial judge directions I think may be more important. But if I've missed the point please tell me (it's morning, I'm slowwwww)
Freedom of Speech?
Royd Fissure;1308269 wrote: But the judge's decision was to grant bail. The trial judge directions I think may be more important. But if I've missed the point please tell me (it's morning, I'm slowwwww)
If there is evidence that the accused were planning to use landmines and roadside bombs to kill people then how can the judge rule that there is no danger to the public in releasing them until the case comes to trial?
On the grounds of freedom of speech :-2
If there is evidence that the accused were planning to use landmines and roadside bombs to kill people then how can the judge rule that there is no danger to the public in releasing them until the case comes to trial?
On the grounds of freedom of speech :-2
-
Royd Fissure
- Posts: 152
- Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 7:04 am
Freedom of Speech?
Bryn Mawr;1308285 wrote: If there is evidence that the accused were planning to use landmines and roadside bombs to kill people then how can the judge rule that there is no danger to the public in releasing them until the case comes to trial?
On the grounds of freedom of speech :-2
Ah, thank you for clearing up my misunderstanding.
"The United States is correct that it need not wait until people are killed before it arrests conspirators," US District Judge Victoria Roberts said in her ruling.
"But, the defendants are also correct: Their right to engage in hate-filled, venomous speech, is a right that deserves First Amendment protection."
She said federal prosecutors failed to persuade her that the defendants must be jailed until trial, the Detroit Free News reports.
I think the report is a bit misleading. Those remarks, which are sort of in counterpoint, to me suggest that the judge is considering the allegations and their circumstances and weighing up the possibility of the defendants committing further crimes, interfering with witnesses, leaving the jurisdiction and so on. It looks like she thought the government didn't produce sufficient evidence to persuade her to remand the defendants in custody. So she must think the chances of them doing any of those three things are fairly remote. But she was careful to impose some fairly stringent restrictions.
On the grounds of freedom of speech :-2
Ah, thank you for clearing up my misunderstanding.
"The United States is correct that it need not wait until people are killed before it arrests conspirators," US District Judge Victoria Roberts said in her ruling.
"But, the defendants are also correct: Their right to engage in hate-filled, venomous speech, is a right that deserves First Amendment protection."
She said federal prosecutors failed to persuade her that the defendants must be jailed until trial, the Detroit Free News reports.
I think the report is a bit misleading. Those remarks, which are sort of in counterpoint, to me suggest that the judge is considering the allegations and their circumstances and weighing up the possibility of the defendants committing further crimes, interfering with witnesses, leaving the jurisdiction and so on. It looks like she thought the government didn't produce sufficient evidence to persuade her to remand the defendants in custody. So she must think the chances of them doing any of those three things are fairly remote. But she was careful to impose some fairly stringent restrictions.
Freedom of Speech?
Royd Fissure;1308489 wrote: Ah, thank you for clearing up my misunderstanding.
"The United States is correct that it need not wait until people are killed before it arrests conspirators," US District Judge Victoria Roberts said in her ruling.
"But, the defendants are also correct: Their right to engage in hate-filled, venomous speech, is a right that deserves First Amendment protection."
She said federal prosecutors failed to persuade her that the defendants must be jailed until trial, the Detroit Free News reports.
I think the report is a bit misleading. Those remarks, which are sort of in counterpoint, to me suggest that the judge is considering the allegations and their circumstances and weighing up the possibility of the defendants committing further crimes, interfering with witnesses, leaving the jurisdiction and so on. It looks like she thought the government didn't produce sufficient evidence to persuade her to remand the defendants in custody. So she must think the chances of them doing any of those three things are fairly remote. But she was careful to impose some fairly stringent restrictions.
Can you think of a case involving comparable levels of threatened violence where bail was granted?
As has been said, if they were Muslin fundamentalists rather then Christian fundamentalists, do you imagine bail would have been granted?
"The United States is correct that it need not wait until people are killed before it arrests conspirators," US District Judge Victoria Roberts said in her ruling.
"But, the defendants are also correct: Their right to engage in hate-filled, venomous speech, is a right that deserves First Amendment protection."
She said federal prosecutors failed to persuade her that the defendants must be jailed until trial, the Detroit Free News reports.
I think the report is a bit misleading. Those remarks, which are sort of in counterpoint, to me suggest that the judge is considering the allegations and their circumstances and weighing up the possibility of the defendants committing further crimes, interfering with witnesses, leaving the jurisdiction and so on. It looks like she thought the government didn't produce sufficient evidence to persuade her to remand the defendants in custody. So she must think the chances of them doing any of those three things are fairly remote. But she was careful to impose some fairly stringent restrictions.
Can you think of a case involving comparable levels of threatened violence where bail was granted?
As has been said, if they were Muslin fundamentalists rather then Christian fundamentalists, do you imagine bail would have been granted?
-
Bill Sikes
- Posts: 5515
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am
Freedom of Speech?
Bryn Mawr;1308492 wrote: Can you think of a case involving comparable levels of threatened violence where bail was granted?
That's rather beside the point. There will always be odd circumstances. Everything is not average.
That's rather beside the point. There will always be odd circumstances. Everything is not average.
Freedom of Speech?
Bill Sikes;1308604 wrote: That's rather beside the point. There will always be odd circumstances. Everything is not average.
Very true, but when circumstances are that unusual they are normally made explicit in the judgement by way of an explanation. In this judgement the mitigating circumstances were given as freedom of speech.
Very true, but when circumstances are that unusual they are normally made explicit in the judgement by way of an explanation. In this judgement the mitigating circumstances were given as freedom of speech.
-
Bill Sikes
- Posts: 5515
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am
Freedom of Speech?
Bryn Mawr;1308607 wrote: In this judgement the mitigating circumstances were given as freedom of speech.
Do you know a place where the Judge's remarks are recorded verbatim?
Do you know a place where the Judge's remarks are recorded verbatim?
Freedom of Speech?
Bill Sikes;1308613 wrote: Do you know a place where the Judge's remarks are recorded verbatim?
No, do you know any reason why a major part of her remarks would have been deliberately not reported?
No, do you know any reason why a major part of her remarks would have been deliberately not reported?
-
Bill Sikes
- Posts: 5515
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am
Freedom of Speech?
Bryn Mawr;1308620 wrote: No, do you know any reason why a major part of her remarks would have been deliberately not reported?
Yes.
1) To put a twist on them;
2) There isn't room in most newspapers;
3) Many people won;t be interested in judging for themselves.
However, I shall be surprised if the transcript isn't somewhere in the public domain.
Yes.
1) To put a twist on them;
2) There isn't room in most newspapers;
3) Many people won;t be interested in judging for themselves.
However, I shall be surprised if the transcript isn't somewhere in the public domain.
-
Royd Fissure
- Posts: 152
- Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 7:04 am
Freedom of Speech?
Bryn Mawr;1308492 wrote: Can you think of a case involving comparable levels of threatened violence where bail was granted?
As has been said, if they were Muslin fundamentalists rather then Christian fundamentalists, do you imagine bail would have been granted?
No, I can't think of a case but then cases are always individual, there are so many variables that it's difficult to compare sometimes. I would think the judge would have referred to legislation or some other form of guidelines in making the decision.
I would hope that bail would be granted or refused on the basis of relevant factors. I don't see the religion of the defendant as being relevant.
As has been said, if they were Muslin fundamentalists rather then Christian fundamentalists, do you imagine bail would have been granted?
No, I can't think of a case but then cases are always individual, there are so many variables that it's difficult to compare sometimes. I would think the judge would have referred to legislation or some other form of guidelines in making the decision.
I would hope that bail would be granted or refused on the basis of relevant factors. I don't see the religion of the defendant as being relevant.
Freedom of Speech?
Royd Fissure;1308767 wrote: No, I can't think of a case but then cases are always individual, there are so many variables that it's difficult to compare sometimes. I would think the judge would have referred to legislation or some other form of guidelines in making the decision.
I would hope that bail would be granted or refused on the basis of relevant factors. I don't see the religion of the defendant as being relevant.
The point was would muslim terrorists have been treated differently? these are terrorists who were prevented from carrying out an atrocity.
I would hope that bail would be granted or refused on the basis of relevant factors. I don't see the religion of the defendant as being relevant.
The point was would muslim terrorists have been treated differently? these are terrorists who were prevented from carrying out an atrocity.
-
Royd Fissure
- Posts: 152
- Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 7:04 am
Freedom of Speech?
gmc;1308796 wrote: The point was would muslim terrorists have been treated differently? these are terrorists who were prevented from carrying out an atrocity.
We'll never know will we? The question is, necessarily, hypothetical. If the law says that Muslim defendants should be treated differently from Christian defendants then we'd have an answer.
We'll never know will we? The question is, necessarily, hypothetical. If the law says that Muslim defendants should be treated differently from Christian defendants then we'd have an answer.
Freedom of Speech?
Royd Fissure;1309007 wrote: We'll never know will we? The question is, necessarily, hypothetical. If the law says that Muslim defendants should be treated differently from Christian defendants then we'd have an answer.
Somewhat disingenuous however as the answer is self evident in the current emotional climate.
Somewhat disingenuous however as the answer is self evident in the current emotional climate.
Freedom of Speech?
One's affiliation with a group that has shown their prominence in physical aggression above the level of 50%, in relation to their "speech", more than justifies a preemptive response.
Freedom of Speech?
TruthBringer;1307760 wrote: If you look at violence through sporting events such as boxing competition, then you will come to see that what is really unfolding in a case such as that is that both fighters are not engaging in violence as much as they are in self defense. The two fighters have the same goal, which is to defend against the force that they are both trying to apply to one another. In this case it is an act of self defense against self defense. The goal of the fighters is not purely to inflict violence upon each other, because if this was the case, then there would be no reason to train in self defense, which all boxers do in one way or another. This is why I have no problem with a sport such as boxing or any other sport which involves self defense. "Self-defense" can only be defined when one party chooses not to fight. This term is then defined by the one that chooses not to fight.
Willingly placing one's self in a situation they know would not lead to a fight if they chose not to participate can never rightly claim self defense because that claim would come had they chosen not to fight in the beginning. They'd then missed their chance to defend themselves correctly. They don't have the desire to defend themselves, they have every desire to kill the other either consciously or subconsciously. The difference is the time between their realization of that fact compared to their inability to realize their virtue is divinely wrong.
Willingly placing one's self in a situation they know would not lead to a fight if they chose not to participate can never rightly claim self defense because that claim would come had they chosen not to fight in the beginning. They'd then missed their chance to defend themselves correctly. They don't have the desire to defend themselves, they have every desire to kill the other either consciously or subconsciously. The difference is the time between their realization of that fact compared to their inability to realize their virtue is divinely wrong.
-
Royd Fissure
- Posts: 152
- Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 7:04 am
Freedom of Speech?
Bryn Mawr;1309008 wrote: Somewhat disingenuous however as the answer is self evident in the current emotional climate.
If the answer is obvious then the question must be redundant.
If the answer is obvious then the question must be redundant.
Freedom of Speech?
Royd Fissure;1309238 wrote: If the answer is obvious then the question must be redundant.
No, it make its point
No, it make its point
-
Royd Fissure
- Posts: 152
- Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 7:04 am
Freedom of Speech?
Bryn Mawr;1309312 wrote: No, it make its point
Indeed it has
Indeed it has
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Freedom of Speech?
Bill Sikes;1308613 wrote: Do you know a place where the Judge's remarks are recorded verbatim?
Found it.
Freep.com
Found it.
Freep.com
Freedom of Speech?
Accountable;1326526 wrote: Found it.
Freep.com
Damnit - I cannot access the site from this machine.
I'll get a copy tomorrow - many thanks for finding it.
Freep.com
Damnit - I cannot access the site from this machine.
I'll get a copy tomorrow - many thanks for finding it.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Freedom of Speech?
I downloaded the pdf and uploaded it here.
C415696453.pdf
C415696453.pdf
Freedom of Speech?
Accountable;1337964 wrote: I downloaded the pdf and uploaded it here.
C415696453.pdf
Many thanks, that make it far easier.
OK, if we look at the overview we see, on Page two at the end of the second para and the start of the third that the government is relying on the argument of danger to the public as its prime objection to bail. In the next two sentences of para 3 it is stated that the secondary argument of danger of flight is not found to be persuasive, that this judgement does not apply to the prime objection is shown in the fourth sentence.
After this, the prime objection is not mentioned again, at no point does it say why this has been rejected. The whole of the rebuttal appears to be around the first amendment protection for the defendants to use hate filled language, not about whether they constitute a danger to the public.
Moving to the detail, in the last para of section II.A it is stated that for two of the accusations against the defendants there is a standard presumption in law that no set of bail conditions are sufficient safeguard to the safety of the community. The judgement states that the original remand hearing interpreted this as no bail should be given whereas it is not absolute and the defendants argument should have been heard and that the government must prove, in each case, that no set of bail conditions are a sufficient safeguard.
(Note the error in logic at the end of page seven where it says that the government must prove the no bail conditions can reasonably assure the defendants appearance in court *AND* the no bail conditions can reasonable assure the safety of the community - the only need to prove one of those conditions and the conjunction should be *OR*).
The report then goes on to relate that, although the defendants were recorded planning to kill "them" (including judges and other officials) and carried arms (including illegal weapons) and had been involved in military style training, the facts that the government had not proven that they possessed explosives, that it was all of ten years since one of them had killed his cat and that the courts had released defendants charged with this kind of thing before (a KKK Grand Dragon twenty three years ago) means that the government have not proven without doubt that there is no set of conditions that would assure that the defendants return for the hearing and that they are not a danger to the community therefore we'll release them.
Any alternative readings?
Personally, the judge sounds biassed to me. Given that she admits that the conspiring to kill took place and that the training took place and that the links to other para-military organisations were there and that the group were well armed, including some illegal arms then the standard presumption in law for cases of this nature means that a strong indication is needed that the group are not a danger to the community before bail can be agreed rather than a failure to prove conclusively that they are.
C415696453.pdf
Many thanks, that make it far easier.
OK, if we look at the overview we see, on Page two at the end of the second para and the start of the third that the government is relying on the argument of danger to the public as its prime objection to bail. In the next two sentences of para 3 it is stated that the secondary argument of danger of flight is not found to be persuasive, that this judgement does not apply to the prime objection is shown in the fourth sentence.
After this, the prime objection is not mentioned again, at no point does it say why this has been rejected. The whole of the rebuttal appears to be around the first amendment protection for the defendants to use hate filled language, not about whether they constitute a danger to the public.
Moving to the detail, in the last para of section II.A it is stated that for two of the accusations against the defendants there is a standard presumption in law that no set of bail conditions are sufficient safeguard to the safety of the community. The judgement states that the original remand hearing interpreted this as no bail should be given whereas it is not absolute and the defendants argument should have been heard and that the government must prove, in each case, that no set of bail conditions are a sufficient safeguard.
(Note the error in logic at the end of page seven where it says that the government must prove the no bail conditions can reasonably assure the defendants appearance in court *AND* the no bail conditions can reasonable assure the safety of the community - the only need to prove one of those conditions and the conjunction should be *OR*).
The report then goes on to relate that, although the defendants were recorded planning to kill "them" (including judges and other officials) and carried arms (including illegal weapons) and had been involved in military style training, the facts that the government had not proven that they possessed explosives, that it was all of ten years since one of them had killed his cat and that the courts had released defendants charged with this kind of thing before (a KKK Grand Dragon twenty three years ago) means that the government have not proven without doubt that there is no set of conditions that would assure that the defendants return for the hearing and that they are not a danger to the community therefore we'll release them.
Any alternative readings?
Personally, the judge sounds biassed to me. Given that she admits that the conspiring to kill took place and that the training took place and that the links to other para-military organisations were there and that the group were well armed, including some illegal arms then the standard presumption in law for cases of this nature means that a strong indication is needed that the group are not a danger to the community before bail can be agreed rather than a failure to prove conclusively that they are.