|
|
|
If the Supreme Court holds in the Heller case that the Second
Admendment Right is an individual right to bear arms, will that have
any effect on the federal felon firearm laws? The blogger over at the
Sentencing Law and Policy blog seems to think it's very possible.
http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/
|
| |
| |
kristinvandoran@yahoo.com wrote:
If the Supreme Court holds in the Heller case that the Second
Admendment Right is an individual right to bear arms, will that have
any effect on the federal felon firearm laws? The blogger over at the
Sentencing Law and Policy blog seems to think it's very possible.
It's a lot more complicated than if there's an individual right to bear
arms. Assuming there is, that doesn't mean that firearms can't be
regulated.
Stu
|
| |
| |
On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 07:23:10 -0400, kristinvandoran@yahoo.com wrote:
If the Supreme Court holds in the Heller case that the Second
Admendment Right is an individual right to bear arms, will that have
any effect on the federal felon firearm laws? The blogger over at the
Sentencing Law and Policy blog seems to think it's very possible.
http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/
It will depend on whether the Court decides the right (that appears to
be coming) is subject to regulation. The Solicitor General did his
best to warn the Court about this, but I'm not sure they were
listening.
Daniel Reitman
|
| |
| |
Stuart Bronstein <spamtrap@lexregia.com> wrote in
news:9197u3hbrts28here7e8jtl757l1l0bcuv@4ax.com:
kristinvandoran@yahoo.com wrote:
It's a lot more complicated than if there's an individual right to bear
arms. Assuming there is, that doesn't mean that firearms can't be
regulated.
Stu
How can a regulated right remain uninfringed?
|
| |
| |
Joe Steel <JoeSteel@NoSpam.com> wrote:
Stuart Bronstein <spamtrap@lexregia.com> wrote
How can a regulated right remain uninfringed?
A regulated right can't remain unaffected. But "infringe" has become a
term of art meaning improperly restricted.
The First Amendment prohibits infringing the right of free speech. But
many restrictions on speech have been approved by the courts.
Stu
|
| |
| |
Joe Steel <JoeSteel@NoSpam.com> wrote in
news:cthhu3plssqvchdgj5c0inm909hbvsi41l@4ax.com:
Stuart Bronstein <spamtrap@lexregia.com> wrote in
news:9197u3hbrts28here7e8jtl757l1l0bcuv@4ax.com:
How can a regulated right remain uninfringed?
Infringe means to break. So regulations that bend but not to the breaking
point would be OK.
How come the state can't pass "any law" abridging freedom of speech, but
contract to murder is still illegal?
|
| |
| |
On Mar 26, 7:15 am, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
Infringe means to break. So regulations that bend but not to the breaking
point would be OK.
How come the state can't pass "any law" abridging freedom of speech, but
contract to murder is still illegal?
seems you're asking two questions that aren't necessarily related, or
at least not as closely as you may believe
freedom of speech is a regulated right
freedom of contract is also a regulated right
in both regulatory schemes, there is a commonality of protecting the
rights of others
all individual freedoms are carved out of the freedoms of other
individuals
you can't expect the courts to uphold a contract for murder because
that would deprive the would-be victim of his right to security in his
life and liberty, etc
individual rights are only true freedoms if you think of them as also
being the rights of others ... think of someone who wants to yell
"fire" in a theatre and have you trampled - should he have that right?
-c
*the above post is for discussion purposes only*
|
| |
| |
c <smalltalkingchicken@gmail.com> wrote:
Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
How come the state can't pass "any law" abridging freedom of
speech, but contract to murder is still illegal?
freedom of speech is a regulated right
freedom of contract is also a regulated right
in both regulatory schemes, there is a commonality of protecting
the rights of others
Sure, in answering the question you are buying into a false reality and
not seeing the forest for the trees.
Making a contract to murder has nothing to do with free speech. You
can say "murder my wife" all day long and there's nothing wrong with it
as long as you have no present intent, and do not do it in a way that a
reasonable person might think would actually lead to her death.
The real crime is the intent and the conspiracy. Conspiracies are not
just words. They are partnerships to commit a crime. And when more
than one person is involved, it is much more likely that the crime will
be committed (or at least attempted).
Stu
|
| |
| |
Stuart Bronstein <spamtrap@lexregia.com> wrote in
news:5aesu3humednutoc006kg6tfqpb0gu2ce8@4ax.com:
c <smalltalkingchicken@gmail.com> wrote:
How come the state can't pass "any law" abridging freedom of
speech, but contract to murder is still illegal?
Sure, in answering the question you are buying into a false reality and
not seeing the forest for the trees.
Making a contract to murder has nothing to do with free speech.
But that's a pointless argument by definition. Laws against contract
murder abridge freely speaking, but we allow them by defining free speech
to not include contract murder.
But that doesn't change what a contract is -- words, and the fact that
these words aren't protected by the 1st Amendment is directly to the
point: the state gets to abridge some speech without finding itself
abridging freedom of speech. And the state could infringe on having some
arms without it infringing the right to bear arms.
You
can say "murder my wife" all day long and there's nothing wrong with it
as long as you have no present intent, and do not do it in a way that a
reasonable person might think would actually lead to her death.
Thanks for sharing.
The real crime is the intent
Sorry, this is wrong. There's no crime in solely intending to kill your
wife. How would anyone even know? I'm sure this happens every day with
no legal consequences.
and the conspiracy. Conspiracies are not just words.
Conspiracies require a concrete step toward commission, and in the
example, that step is exchanging words. So tell me again how this
particular conspiracy is not just words.
They are partnerships to commit a crime.
In the case of contract murder, the partnership agreement, i.e., the
words, are enough to commit a crime.
And when more
than one person is involved, it is much more likely that the crime will
be committed (or at least attempted).
Interesting. Do you have any evidence to back up this aside?
Stu
|
| |
| |
Sun, 30 Mar 2008 07:58:30 -0400 from Deadrat <a@b.com>:
But that's a pointless argument by definition. Laws against contract
murder abridge freely speaking,
I don't see how that's true. Unless I'm mistaken,(*) I can say "I've
got $10,000 here and I'd like to hire someone to kill my wife", but
if I have no intent of actually doing it and I take no action to make
it happen, it's not conspiracy to commit murder.
There is one little "gotcha". As I understand conspiracy law, if even
one of the conspirators takes action, all who discussed it are
guilty. But if I'm taking out a contract on someone, the hitman(**)
isn't going to do anything about it without some money up front.
(*) Always a possibility. :-)
(**) Or should I now say "hitperson"? :-)
--
If you e-mail me from a fake address, your fingers will drop off.
I am not a lawyer; this is not legal advice. When you read anything
legal on the net, always verify it on your own, in light of your
particular circumstances. You may also need to consult a lawyer.
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
|
| |
| |
Deadrat <a@b.com> wrote:
And when more
than one person is involved, it is much more likely that the
crime will be committed (or at least attempted).
Interesting. Do you have any evidence to back up this aside?
Just what they told me in law school. I haven't had occasion to
inquire into it further since.
Stu
|
| |
| |
In article <110vu3lhk7k7rkr7gqd8pkr3dflikre01u@4ax.com>,
Deadrat <a@b.com> wrote:
Stuart Bronstein <spamtrap@lexregia.com> wrote in
news:5aesu3humednutoc006kg6tfqpb0gu2ce8@4ax.com:
Making a contract to murder has nothing to do with free speech.
But that's a pointless argument by definition. Laws against contract
murder abridge freely speaking, but we allow them by defining free speech
to not include contract murder.
But that doesn't change what a contract is -- words, and the fact that
these words aren't protected by the 1st Amendment is directly to the
point: the state gets to abridge some speech without finding itself
abridging freedom of speech.
The words are protected: consider a mystery author reading from his
novel. He speaks precisely the same string of words as the wannabe
murder-purchaser, yet there's nothing illegal about doing so. It's
the contract that's illegal, not the speaking of the words. (The
contract is the meeting of the minds.)
Seth
|
| |
| |
sethb@panix.com (Seth) wrote in
news:tp4cv3h47matgmj2g72rdh03celu49qm1f@4ax.com:
In article <110vu3lhk7k7rkr7gqd8pkr3dflikre01u@4ax.com>, Deadrat <a@b.com> wrote: Making a contract to murder has nothing to do with free speech. The words are protected: consider a mystery author reading from his novel. He speaks precisely the same string of words as the wannabe murder-purchaser, yet there's nothing illegal about doing so. It's the contract that's illegal, not the speaking of the words. (The contract is the meeting of the minds.) Seth
that the contract boils down to words (unless the contracting parties are
clairvoiyant). Likewise, the exact same string of words can constitute
incitement to riot. Or not.
|
| |
| |
Deadrat <a@b.com> wrote:
sethb@panix.com (Seth) wrote
I'm not arguing that the situation doesn't matter. It does. I'm
saying that the contract boils down to words (unless the
contracting parties are clairvoiyant). Likewise, the exact same
string of words can constitute incitement to riot. Or not.
A contract is not the words, it is the mutual obligation of the
parties. The words are just evidence of what the obligations of the
parties are. There is nothing wrong with the words themselves, or even
saying them out loud. It is the intent and surrounding circumstances
that makes them dangerous, and thus criminal.
Stu
|
| |
| |
In article <e9pev3l9dv29ksos4lis3dsmeqkkpdggdr@4ax.com>,
Deadrat <a@b.com> wrote:
sethb@panix.com (Seth) wrote in
news:tp4cv3h47matgmj2g72rdh03celu49qm1f@4ax.com:
The words are protected: consider a mystery author reading from his
novel. He speaks precisely the same string of words as the wannabe
murder-purchaser, yet there's nothing illegal about doing so. It's
the contract that's illegal, not the speaking of the words. (The
contract is the meeting of the minds.)
I'm not arguing that the situation doesn't matter. It does. I'm saying
that the contract boils down to words (unless the contracting parties are
clairvoiyant). Likewise, the exact same string of words can constitute
incitement to riot. Or not.
My point is that a contract does _not_ "boil down to words". A
contract is a *meeting of the minds*. Use of those same words might
or might not create such a meeting, hence might or might not cause a
contract to exist; it's the creation of the contract that's illegal,
not the use of the words.
Seth
|
| |
| |
Stuart Bronstein <spamtrap@lexregia.com> wrote in
news:3iihv3h5amulmmreqgn97gak4ehjvi3e2g@4ax.com:
Deadrat <a@b.com> wrote:
A contract is not the words, it is the mutual obligation of the
parties. The words are just evidence of what the obligations of the
parties are. There is nothing wrong with the words themselves, or even
saying them out loud. It is the intent and surrounding circumstances
that makes them dangerous, and thus criminal.
Stu
For any but contrived situations, speech isn't simply a set of sounds.
Speech carries meaning, involves the intent of the speaker, and has a
situation in which the speaker speaks. It's this package that the 1st
Amendment addresses, and certain packages are protected while others are
not.
Here's some speech:
I PLAN TO complain about the fact that I KILL time playing video games,
and and MY WIFE objects.
I'm sure you'll tell me that although the speaker has pronounced "I PLAN
TO KILL MY WIFE," those words are protected by the 1st Amendment. And
for some reason, I gather you'll think I disagree.
It isn't the words qua words that are the issue, and it isn't simply the
intent. As I've said, it's perfectly legal to intend to kill your wife.
It's the words in context, as it always is for meaningful speech.
|
| |
| |
sethb@panix.com (Seth) wrote in
news:5iihv3t48bnq2md1sghj3ltgbd2b950rvs@4ax.com:
In article <e9pev3l9dv29ksos4lis3dsmeqkkpdggdr@4ax.com>, Deadrat <a@b.com> wrote: The words are protected: consider a mystery author reading from his novel. He speaks precisely the same string of words as the wannabe murder-purchaser, yet there's nothing illegal about doing so. It's the contract that's illegal, not the speaking of the words. (The contract is the meeting of the minds.) My point is that a contract does _not_ "boil down to words". A contract is a *meeting of the minds*. Use of those same words might or might not create such a meeting, hence might or might not cause a contract to exist; it's the creation of the contract that's illegal, not the use of the words.
speech addressed by the 1st Amendment isn't a set of isolated phonemes. In
all but contrived hypotheticals, there really isn't speech without context,
and that package is either protected or it isn't.
Seth
|
| |
| |
Deadrat <a@b.com> wrote:
Here's some speech:
I PLAN TO complain about the fact that I KILL time playing video
games, and and MY WIFE objects.
I'm sure you'll tell me that although the speaker has pronounced
"I PLAN TO KILL MY WIFE," those words are protected by the 1st
Amendment. And for some reason, I gather you'll think I disagree.
Could it be made illegal for someone with intent to say that? I
don't know. Most of these situations deal with conspiracies. When
more than one person is involved it's generally considered not
protected by the First Amendment. I do believe, however, that it has
been made illegal to say, "I plan to Kill The President of the United
States." I don't know whether intent is necessary for conviction for
that, but it may not be.
Freedom of speech really means freedom of communication. I've never
heard of anyone being prosecuted for talking to himself, but I don't
think it's due to the First Amendment.
It isn't the words qua words that are the issue, and it isn't
simply the intent. As I've said, it's perfectly legal to intend
to kill your wife. It's the words in context, as it always is for
meaningful speech.
When it comes to a conspiracy, the mere intent to violate a criminal
law in collaboration between more one or more people is sufficient to
violate the law. I've never heard that a First Amendment claim has
succeeded in any conspiracy prosecution.
Stu
|
| |
| |
sethb@panix.com (Seth) wrote in
news:5iihv3t48bnq2md1sghj3ltgbd2b950rvs@4ax.com:
In article <e9pev3l9dv29ksos4lis3dsmeqkkpdggdr@4ax.com>, Deadrat <a@b.com> wrote: The words are protected: consider a mystery author reading from his novel. He speaks precisely the same string of words as the wannabe murder-purchaser, yet there's nothing illegal about doing so. It's the contract that's illegal, not the speaking of the words. (The contract is the meeting of the minds.) My point is that a contract does _not_ "boil down to words". A contract is a *meeting of the minds*. Use of those same words might or might not create such a meeting, hence might or might not cause a contract to exist; it's the creation of the contract that's illegal, not the use of the words.
have found out when attempting to hire an undercover cop as a hitman.
Seth
|
| |
| |
Deadrat <a@b.com> wrote:
No meeting of the minds or a contract need exist, as some hapless
spouses have found out when attempting to hire an undercover cop
as a hitman.
Exactly, and that's an argument against your contention that the First
Amendment would apply in cases like this.
In your example the crime consists of two elements - intent and an
action taken to carry it out. Yes, the action includes words, but it
does not consist solely of words.
Take a paralell example. Your hapless spouse for some reason thinks
there's a magic genie in the toaster. So intending her spouse to die
she asks the toaster to have the deed done. While this couples both
intent and an action to carry it out, it is not an objectively
realistic attempt, so it will probably not be prosecuted. But that has
nothing to do with the First Amendment.
Stu
|
| |
| |
Stuart Bronstein <spamtrap@lexregia.com> wrote in
news:b6mmv3t8jn6l8ijroioqem9equ24i81hgk@4ax.com:
Deadrat <a@b.com> wrote:
Could it be made illegal for someone with intent to say that? I
don't know.
Really? You don't know whether it could be made illegal for someone to
say, "I plan to complain about the fact that I kill time playing video
games, and and my wife objects"?
Sure you do.
<snip>
When it comes to a conspiracy, the mere intent to violate a criminal
law in collaboration between more one or more people is sufficient to
violate the law.
This is simply untrue. Although conspiracy is often defined in a
circular fashion ("two or more persons conspiring together"), it is not
a thought crime. There must be some participation in the planning of a
crime. "Mere intent" is a mental state; you're gonna have to say
something.
I've never heard that a First Amendment claim has succeeded in any
conspiracy prosecution.
Pretty much my point. Although a concrete act toward commission of the
planned crime is required, not everyone charged in the conspiracy has to
join in the act. In fact, not all the people charged in a conspiracy
have to know each other. William Sloane Coffin and four others were
indicted in 1968 for conspiracy to abet draft resistance, and he had to
be introduced to some of his co-defendants at trial prep.
So simply talking about committing a crime with someone else can garner
you a criminal indictment, and this isn't considered an abridgement of
freedom of speech.
Stu
|
| |
| |
On 2008-03-29 05:47:21 -0700, Stuart Bronstein <spamtrap@lexregia.com> said:
The real crime is the intent and the conspiracy. Conspiracies are not
just words. They are partnerships to commit a crime. And when more
than one person is involved, it is much more likely that the crime will
be committed (or at least attempted).
What's more, if free speech were unconditional, it would be OK to go
around shouting, "Kill everybody who wants to bear arms! Kill all the
gun nuts!"
|
| |
| |
In article <c6mmv3lfq89hipqrunai6kkp6rk6odo7n1@4ax.com>,
Deadrat <a@b.com> wrote:
sethb@panix.com (Seth) wrote in
news:5iihv3t48bnq2md1sghj3ltgbd2b950rvs@4ax.com:
My point is that a contract does _not_ "boil down to words". A
contract is a *meeting of the minds*. Use of those same words might
or might not create such a meeting, hence might or might not cause a
contract to exist; it's the creation of the contract that's illegal,
not the use of the words.
No meeting of the minds or a contract need exist, as some hapless spouses
have found out when attempting to hire an undercover cop as a hitman.
But on the one side, there's an _attempt_ at making a contract. It's
that attempt (and one-sided state of mind) that's the crime, not the
words.
Seth
|
| |
| |
Stuart Bronstein wrote:
Deadrat <a@b.com> wrote:
Could it be made illegal for someone with intent to say that? I
don't know. Most of these situations deal with conspiracies. When
more than one person is involved it's generally considered not
protected by the First Amendment. I do believe, however, that it has
been made illegal to say, "I plan to Kill The President of the United
States." I don't know whether intent is necessary for conviction for
that, but it may not be.
[SNIP]
Yes, Stu, there is such a law. Intent does not appear to be a factor.
According to this law -- 18 USC Sec. 871 -- which reads, in part:
"...Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits for conveyance in the mail
or for a delivery from any post office or by any letter carrier any
letter, paper, writing, print, missive, or document containing any
threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon
the President of the United States, the President-elect, the Vice
President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office
of President of the United States, or the Vice President-elect, or
knowingly and willfully otherwise makes any such threat against the
President, President-elect, Vice President or other officer next in the
order of succession to the office of President, or Vice President-elect,
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years,
or both."
Bill
|
| |
| |
In article <b6mmv3t8jn6l8ijroioqem9equ24i81hgk@4ax.com>,
spamtrap@lexregia.com says...
Deadrat <a@b.com> wrote:
Here's some speech:
I PLAN TO complain about the fact that I KILL time playing video
games, and and MY WIFE objects.
I'm sure you'll tell me that although the speaker has pronounced
"I PLAN TO KILL MY WIFE," those words are protected by the 1st
Amendment. And for some reason, I gather you'll think I disagree.
Could it be made illegal for someone with intent to say that? I
don't know. Most of these situations deal with conspiracies. When
more than one person is involved it's generally considered not
protected by the First Amendment. I do believe, however, that it has
been made illegal to say, "I plan to Kill The President of the United
States." I don't know whether intent is necessary for conviction for
that, but it may not be.
Yes, my understanding is that, presidential death threats are
specifically illegal in the US. And I recall, a case in which
someone was apparently arrested and charged for similar words in
a private, one-to-one email. Although I don't know how it played
out in court.
As far as intent, I would expect that the US Secret Service would
view your above "I plan to..." as being obviously for
illustration, and without reason to hassle you. But there are
plenty of situations where it is impossible to get a clear,
agreed-upon grasp of "intent."
Prosecution can be impaired by lack of practical ability of the
accused. If someone makes highfalutin threats which are outside
of his/her intellectual or physical abilities, then it isn't all
that much of a threat. Ranting that you are going to set off a
nuke, when you clearly lack the ability to obtain or construct
one, will most likely just get you thrown into a psych ward.
I seem to recall that as being a suggested defence for the Jose
Padilla case. His lack of practical ability to carry out the
alleged "dirty bomb" terrorist conspiracy.
Also note that, in some countries, verbal threats can potentially
be criminal. For example, here in New Zealand, it is possible to
be charged/convicted of, "Threatening To Kill." And it isn't
restricted to politicians - it can be any target.
It isn't automatic on any utterance of relevant words. For
example, "I'm gonna kill my husband Joe if he keeps favouring
televised rugby over paying attention to me," doesn't necessarily
qualify.
However, confronting a neighbour, and swinging a tyre wrench
around, while screaming, "I'm gonna kill you!" can result in a
"threatening" charge. It seems to be based upon the big picture,
and the chance of the target feeling legally "reasonable" fear of
the threat being carried out.
However, my impression is that, "Threatening To Kill" is
basically just a sort of padding. Mostly just used when the
person is already being charged with other offences, like
assault, or smashing someone's car window, etc.
Freedom of speech really means freedom of communication. I've never
heard of anyone being prosecuted for talking to himself, but I don't
think it's due to the First Amendment.
Talking to one's self could only be prosecuted if someone else
overheard that talking. For example, some sort disorderly
conduct charge.
It isn't the words qua words that are the issue, and it isn't
simply the intent. As I've said, it's perfectly legal to intend
to kill your wife. It's the words in context, as it always is for
meaningful speech.
When it comes to a conspiracy, the mere intent to violate a criminal
law in collaboration between more one or more people is sufficient to
violate the law. I've never heard that a First Amendment claim has
succeeded in any conspiracy prosecution.
If someone is privately thinking about spousal murder, inside
his/her own head, then there isn't any way to prove that "intent"
in court. Even purchasing the life insurance policy on your
spouse, and also buying gun on the same day, isn't necessarily
legal proof of anything. As long as you keep your mouth shut,
then there might not be any crime, until you actually make the
physical attempt.
Although I would be curious to know the legal situation for a
private diary, containing murderous-intent statements. Like if
it were seized in some unrelated matter. Say, the Feds grab your
business records for a tax investigation, and your diary got
grabbed, too. And then they see the private statements about the
spousal murder plan.
"Conspiracy" is a whole different, two-pronged deal. It requires
at least two people. At least one of whom must communicate,
"Let's rob the petrol station at Fifth and Main streets." PLUS,
at least one person must do some physical act, in the furtherance
of the plan, such as obtaining the gun and ski masks.
The mouthing off isn't necessarily a crime, in the US. It is the
physical act that generates grounds to prosecute a "conspiracy."
Including guilt for the person who agreed to the plan, but who
didn't actually do anything. And including situations where the
conspirators were busted before carrying out the ultimately
planned crime.
--
Get Credit Where Credit Is Due
http://www.cardreport.com/
Credit Tools, Reference, and Forum
|
| |
| |
On Apr 10, 8:09 am, William Brenner <wbren...@nospamplease.net> wrote:
I do believe, however, that it has
been made illegal to say, "I plan to Kill The President of the United
States." I don't know whether intent is necessary for conviction for
that, but it may not be.
Yes, Stu, there is such a law. Intent does not appear to be a factor.
According to this law -- 18 USC Sec. 871 -- which reads, in part:
The speaking of the above words would not violate 18 USC 871; nor,
IMHO, would a mailed letter containing those words because they are
insufficiently specific to constitute a "threat". Statements of
illegal plans are not constitutionally protected just because they are
expressions, not are they categorically unprotected. There is an
implied intent element in crimes of threatened violence:
"Put simply, the First Amendment was not intended to protect every
oral or written utterance. Beauharnais v. People of State of Ill., 343
U.S. 250, 266 (1952). Threats -- including threats of extortion -- are
not constitutionally protected simply because they are verbalized or
written. United States v. Marchetti, 466 F.2d 1309, 1314 (4th Cir.
1972); see also R.A.V. v. St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377, 388 (1992)
(concluding that threats of violence are outside First Amendment
protection). True threats have been characterized by the Supreme Court
as statements made by a speaker who "means to communicate a serious
expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a
particular individual or group." Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343, 359
(2003). Although the First Amendment does not protect true threats, it
does protect statements that constitute political hyperbole. See Watts
v. United States, 394 U.S. 705, 705-08 (1969)." U.S. v. Bly, 510 F.3d
453 (4th Cir. 2007) (slip op. at 7-8).
|
| |
| |
On Apr 10, 8:09 am, Don <dwz...@telus.net> wrote:
The real crime is the intent and the conspiracy. Conspiracies are not
just words. They are partnerships to commit a crime. And when more
than one person is involved, it is much more likely that the crime will
be committed (or at least attempted).
What's more, if free speech were unconditional, it would be OK to go
around shouting, "Kill everybody who wants to bear arms! Kill all the
gun nuts!"
Actually, that *would* be constitutionally protected speech in many
cases. Exceptions would be noise violations (which are content-
neutral) or shouting it at an NRA rally (which would make them
"fighting words"), for example.
|
| |
| |
In article <jm0sv3tn0ptv25fq3ernlpm67f97e6tpvu@4ax.com>,
William Brenner <wbrenner@nospamplease.net> wrote:
According to this law -- 18 USC Sec. 871 -- which reads, in part:
"...Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits for conveyance in the mail
or for a delivery from any post office or by any letter carrier any
letter, paper, writing, print, missive, or document containing any
threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon
the President of the United States, the President-elect, the Vice
President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office
of President of the United States, or the Vice President-elect, or
knowingly and willfully otherwise makes any such threat against the
President, President-elect, Vice President or other officer next in the
order of succession to the office of President, or Vice President-elect,
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years,
or both."
So if someone makes such a threat, and a newspaper article includes a
copy of the threat, it's illegal to mail that newspaper?
Seth
|
| |
| |
In article <b6mmv3t8jn6l8ijroioqem9equ24i81hgk@4ax.com>,
Stuart Bronstein <spamtrap@lexregia.com> wrote:
Could it be made illegal for someone with intent to say that? I
don't know. Most of these situations deal with conspiracies. When
more than one person is involved it's generally considered not
protected by the First Amendment. I do believe, however, that it has
been made illegal to say, "I plan to Kill The President of the United
States." I don't know whether intent is necessary for conviction for
that, but it may not be.
I don't think anybody would be criminally convicted for reading your
posting out loud.
Seth
|
| |
| |
In article <pt1kv350g4f2lv3uf7gan24mm6ggn6r3bn@4ax.com>,
Deadrat <a@b.com> wrote:
sethb@panix.com (Seth) wrote in
news:5iihv3t48bnq2md1sghj3ltgbd2b950rvs@4ax.com:
My point is that a contract does _not_ "boil down to words". A
contract is a *meeting of the minds*. Use of those same words might
or might not create such a meeting, hence might or might not cause a
contract to exist; it's the creation of the contract that's illegal,
not the use of the words.
Let me try again. There's no meeting of the minds without the words.
There certainly can be. It would be hard to convince a third party in
any particular instance, but there have been any number of cases where
it happened (e.g. boy meets girl in noisy bar, conduct a conversation
via facial expressions alone, and they leave together).
Seth
|
| |
| |
In article <cm0sv3dn5jolhhk4vifr5gckh6bqmou2t8@4ax.com>,
Stuart Bronstein <spamtrap@lexregia.com> wrote:
Take a paralell example. Your hapless spouse for some reason thinks
there's a magic genie in the toaster. So intending her spouse to die
she asks the toaster to have the deed done. While this couples both
intent and an action to carry it out, it is not an objectively
realistic attempt, so it will probably not be prosecuted. But that has
nothing to do with the First Amendment.
Let's try another case.
Man wants his wife killed, so he meets someone in a bar at 5 PM and
attempts to contract her murder. What he doesn't know is that at 4:50
PM she was in an automobile accident and died on the spot.
Seth
|
| |
| |
In article <fm0sv3tiscg2mjtcinp19maalobf5b1694@4ax.com>,
dwzimm@telus.net says...
On 2008-03-29 05:47:21 -0700, Stuart Bronstein <spamtrap@lexregia.com> said:
What's more, if free speech were unconditional, it would be OK to go
around shouting, "Kill everybody who wants to bear arms! Kill all the
gun nuts!"
My understanding of that, in the US, the focus is on the
viability of the instructions. Meaning whether there is a
"reasonable" expectation or risk of other people doing something
physical in response. Especially if they might do so
immediately.
I recall once hearing a recording of one of Louis Farakhan's
associates, in a public speech, sometime in the 90s. And he
explicitly exhorted the audience to "Kill all the Jews."
However, it was about what he wanted them to generally happen,
to a generalised group, over a long time-frame. Which, while
offensive, seems to still fall under the US First Amendment.
It is a rather different deal when the speaker encourages the
listeners to do something physical right now in a specific sense.
If you say to a group of twenty people, "Hey, there are a couple
of such-and-such minority members over there! Let's bash them!"
then your speech is probably illegal, in the sense that it
relates to that immediate, specific crime.
Although prosecution would probably hinge upon whether the
audience did or didn't follow the instructions. I expect that
that is the proof that there was a reasonable expectation or risk
of something bad actually happening in relation to the spoken
words.
On a larger scale, it is called, "Incitement To Riot." But that
is still about having an immediate, specific plan. One case that
comes to mind was when Axl Rose was charged over an audience
trashing a theatre, after he stood onstage and suggested that
they should express their displeasure over a shortened concert.
Other countries, notably Canada and Germany, don't require
anything physical. Because they are inclined prosecute over the
generalised social bad vibe spread by so-called "hate speech."
--
Get Credit Where Credit Is Due
http://www.cardreport.com/
Credit Tools, Reference, and Forum
|
| |
| |
| | |
