Amerika

[Reveilled]

Oh also here:

 

An 18-year-old Mill Creek man accused of threatening to detonate bombs at Jackson High School last fall was charged yesterday with threatening to bomb or damage property, a felony.

 

Course, Ender's ignoring me, isn't he...

[metadigital]

No, I think he covered that by saying that the perp was permitted to say anything, but threatening action (that happened to be verbal) had consequences. It's a semantic debate.

[Reveilled]

No, I think he covered that by saying that the perp was permitted to say anything, but threatening action (that happened to be verbal) had consequences. It's a semantic debate.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

So why did he have a problem with Walsingham saying that people who advocate removing people's rights and killing a race of people should be arrested for saying these things? Surely that logic applies there also?

[Lucius]

Denmark too tolerates extreme Islamofascists preaching hatred (for now), and Neonazies too of course. I personally believe that people advocating the destruction of a democracy ought to be expelled, they do NOT deserve to live in one.

 

Is that seeing thigns too black and white? :ph34r:

[metadigital]

One of the dilemmas of a free society is knowing when to police the elements. It is a rich vein for philosophical study, and therefore there is no "right" answer.

 

I personally believe that anyone who threatens the society they live in deserves to be controlled, whether that is by expulsion (preferable) or death (state-anctioned murder is another can of worms).

 

(Normally the argument for the death penalty is centred on cost. Studies have shown that the cost of the USA death row inmates is roughly similar (and sometime more) than the cost of converted prison sentences.)

 

I think the best solution (from a philosophical standpoint) is to expel those not obliged or fit enough to live in the society to a place where they can do no harm to others, like their own desert isle. Not very practical, though.

 

Nice as this is, the biggest hurdle is deciding when free speech becomes sedition (as we have all been discussing).

[metadigital]

No, I think he covered that by saying that the perp was permitted to say anything, but threatening action (that happened to be verbal) had consequences. It's a semantic debate.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

So why did he have a problem with Walsingham saying that people who advocate removing people's rights and killing a race of people should be arrested for saying these things? Surely that logic applies there also?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's a semantic debate, because now (if I understand correctly) Ender is arguing that free speech is an absolute right (guaranteed under the US Constitution's First Amendment) that is inalienable. But, after making a free speech, the person can be called to task in the usual civil way (sue) but they have not committed an unlawful act in esse.

 

I also note that the benefit of this meathod is that it can be (and is) enshrined in a lexa scripta, so there can be no misapprehension.

 

The difference in Britain, for example, is that the speech can be judiciously analyzed for motive and effect.

 

In practice, I think this just gives the UK an extra level of line crossing, so that it is easier to catch a would-be seditionist before his followers run out and commit crimes of hatred, whereas the US laws are a reactionary "big hammer", after the effect.

 

The US preserves absolute free speech at the risk of civil values and safety, whereas the UK preserves the peace at the risk of free speech.

 

I think I've got that right ...

[Calax]

yeah, we do. we have both libel and slander laws but they are VERY DIFFICULT to implement...

 

I can say that we have limited free speach. From personal experiance primairly.

 

Ender you say that we have absolute free speech. Well then why can't I say that the easiest way to get the highest "kill count" in a school shooting is to pull the fire alarm before you start? I wrote that and the local poliece got hold of it and had a choice, either send me to county mental health or to write me up and toss me into court for a "terrorist act" now wouldn't i be able to say that and not be driven off in a poliece car if we had absolutely free speech?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's pretty clever, actually, Calax (in a ghastly psycho-killer kind of way). What was the context? Were you writing a "how to" ..?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

actually it was an offhand statement at the top of a very depressed/suicidal letter. I was called in and the only reason the cops didn't jail me was because of the letter...

[Walsingham]

I think that's a fair summary. It seems to jibe well with the fact that the social contract is not so binding in teh US. for example, most citizens seem to feel it is both a right and a necessity to protect their health and property, be it with guns, mace, or whatever. Whereas however dimly Brits view the police the default is to rely on the State to protect us. Thus, having deferred the burden of protecting ourselves to the govt we get especially annoyed when the govt appears to be dodging its responsibility.

 

I also wonder if there is not some mileage in considering this from a utilitarian perspective. It MAY be an unconscionable philosophical error to abrogate some nutter's freedom to organise and lead his tacky band of fethwits, but should I really care?

[Reveilled]

No, I think he covered that by saying that the perp was permitted to say anything, but threatening action (that happened to be verbal) had consequences. It's a semantic debate.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

So why did he have a problem with Walsingham saying that people who advocate removing people's rights and killing a race of people should be arrested for saying these things? Surely that logic applies there also?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's a semantic debate, because now (if I understand correctly) Ender is arguing that free speech is an absolute right (guaranteed under the US Constitution's First Amendment) that is inalienable. But, after making a free speech, the person can be called to task in the usual civil way (sue) but they have not committed an unlawful act in esse.

 

I also note that the benefit of this meathod is that it can be (and is) enshrined in a lexa scripta, so there can be no misapprehension.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The problem there is that according to those articles I posted, merely threatening to bomb someone's property is a felony, and therefore something for criminal prosecution, instead of civil law. Which would suggest to me, that even semantically, there is no difference between the US and UK's laws on free speech in this regard (other than the object of the threat, obviously).

[metadigital]

I think that's a fair summary. It seems to jibe well with the fact that the social contract is not so binding in teh US. for example, most citizens seem to feel it is both a right and a necessity to protect their health and property, be it with guns, mace, or whatever. Whereas however dimly Brits view the police the default is to rely on the State to protect us. Thus, having deferred the burden of protecting ourselves to the govt we get especially annoyed when the govt appears to be dodging its responsibility.

 

I also wonder if there is not some mileage in considering this from a utilitarian perspective. It MAY be an unconscionable philosophical error to abrogate some nutter's freedom to organise and lead his tacky band of fethwits, but should I really care?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well the problem is: when do you start to call them a nutter organising and leading a band of terrorists?

 

For my part, the reduction down to the individual being responsible for their own rights and defence seems to be the best method for reliability. It certainly doesn't scale well, but then a comprehensive disaster plan would probably be on a similar scale anyway, if it were effective, and it would necessarily involve a leap of faith into a trust model. (The UK is unique in Europe in not having had its instituions fail it, like in Germany with the Nazis, Mussolini's camicie nere, and the R

[metadigital]

No, I think he covered that by saying that the perp was permitted to say anything, but threatening action (that happened to be verbal) had consequences. It's a semantic debate.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

So why did he have a problem with Walsingham saying that people who advocate removing people's rights and killing a race of people should be arrested for saying these things? Surely that logic applies there also?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's a semantic debate, because now (if I understand correctly) Ender is arguing that free speech is an absolute right (guaranteed under the US Constitution's First Amendment) that is inalienable. But, after making a free speech, the person can be called to task in the usual civil way (sue) but they have not committed an unlawful act in esse.

 

I also note that the benefit of this meathod is that it can be (and is) enshrined in a lexa scripta, so there can be no misapprehension.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The problem there is that according to those articles I posted, merely threatening to bomb someone's property is a felony, and therefore something for criminal prosecution, instead of civil law. Which would suggest to me, that even semantically, there is no difference between the US and UK's laws on free speech in this regard (other than the object of the threat, obviously).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

True. (I wonder if it is a federal or state crime?)

 

It must be in breach of the First Amendment, unless the right isn't absolute, and there is small print.

[Walsingham]

The point is, as I say, that acts of crime and or violence of a certain sophistication require groups of people to act in concert. Motivating and mobilising such groups requires speech. Making it difficult to motivate such people makes the acts more difficult to arrange.

 

I'm not just arguing for the sake of it. Al Qaeda just released one of their cute little propaganda videos from one of the london bombers. The families of the dead are justly concerned that it is getting aired all over the place. They say it gives oxygen to the lies contained in it.

[metadigital]

I couldn't agree more. I think (putting words into Ender's mouth and arguing the Free Speech side for a moment) that the counter position is that the airing of such a view should be accompanied by editorial comment to the effect of what the faults are and placing the alternative viewpoint simulataneously, with appropriate emphasis on the correctness (or otherwise) of the views.

[Walsingham]

We should make a non-terrorist video on the same lines, culminating in a carefully planned operation where we travel to London and kill no-one.

[metadigital]

What would we be advocating?

 

Wearing of bowler hats on Wednesday?

 

(I think this is already being done, but NOT-GODAMMIT-BY-ENOUGH-PEOPLE!)

[Walsingham]

I was thinking maybe the democrats video. Where we 'dress up' in civvies and make a tedious but obviously hilarious funny and poignant comment or two on how we feel certain ways about things, condemn terrorism, and say how we are about ot NOT give up our lives, nor take anyone elses.

 

this will rely on three things:

 

1) a video camera

2) a sense of humour

3) talent

4) technical editing skills

5) a face that doesn't turn stomachs.

 

I have none of these.

Edited September 3, 2005 by Walsingham

[metadigital]

Submit it to the BBC, they turn such ideas into little talent exercises (that's talent exercises of small scale, not exercises of little talent) for budding media students-cum-tv-careerists.

 

[Walsingham]

Well, anyone else is free to use the idea. I'm too busy. Or rather, I'm time wasting now, but if I start making videos my colleageus may realise and catch me red handed.

[metadigital]

Just email it in. You'll even get writing credit. (Probably)

[EnderAndrew]

Mets is right. Any law that abridges your right to free speech is unconstitutional. These laws do get passed from time to time. For instance, I recall in the 90's when Florida passed a law forbidden the sale or purchase of 2 Live Crew albums, which was against Free Speech. New Jersey passed a law forbidding Marilyn Manson from performing there.

 

A good lawyer however will argue these cases as being unconstitutional and have such laws overturned.

[Calax]

And yet the patriot act allows the poliece to arrest anyone who even says "I'm going to kill somthing"...

[EnderAndrew]

And yet the patriot act allows the poliece to arrest anyone who even says "I'm going to kill somthing"...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Where does the Patriot Act say that?

[Calax]

I'm not going through ove 1000 pages of legalese to please you ender. But immedeatly after 9/11 people were getting hammered because they joked about shooting one another (like I kinda did in my note from the earlier posts) and instantly got written up for ti.

[EnderAndrew]

The Patriot Act checks in at 97 pages. You could do a search of the document. But I went ahead and did that for you, and I can't find ANYTHING even remotely related to what you're talking about.

 

Even if that clause did exist, it wouldn't change my previous post. If and when a law is passed that abridges the rights protected by the Constitution, then the law is unconstitutional, and should not be upheld in a court of law. Any lawyer worth their salt could EASILY argue the case.

 

Domestic terrorism "involve(s) acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State" (from section 802)

 

It has the following provisions it makes:

 

Sec. 101. Counterterrorism fund.

Sec. 102. Sense of Congress condemning discrimination against Arab and Muslim Americans.

Sec. 103. Increased funding for the technical support center at the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Sec. 104. Requests for military assistance to enforce prohibition in certain emergencies.

Sec. 105. Expansion of National Electronic Crime Task Force Initiative.

Sec. 106. Presidential authority.

Sec. 201. Authority to intercept wire, oral, and electronic communications relating to terrorism.

Sec. 202. Authority to intercept wire, oral, and electronic communications relating to computer fraud and abuse offenses.

Sec. 203. Authority to share criminal investigative information.

Sec. 204. Clarification of intelligence exceptions from limitations on interception and disclosure of wire, oral, and electronic communications.

Sec. 205. Employment of translators by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Sec. 206. Roving surveillance authority under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.

Sec. 207. Duration of FISA surveillance of non-United States persons who are agents of a foreign power.

Sec. 208. Designation of judges.

Sec. 209. Seizure of voice-mail messages pursuant to warrants.

Sec. 210. Scope of subpoenas for records of electronic communications.

Sec. 211. Clarification of scope.

Sec. 212. Emergency disclosure of electronic communications to protect life and limb.

Sec. 213. Authority for delaying notice of the execution of a warrant.

Sec. 214. Pen register and trap and trace authority under FISA.

Sec. 215. Access to records and other items under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Sec. 216. Modification of authorities relating to use of pen registers and trap and trace devices.

Sec. 217. Interception of computer trespasser communications.

Sec. 218. Foreign intelligence information.

Sec. 219. Single-jurisdiction search warrants for terrorism.

Sec. 220. Nationwide service of search warrants for electronic evidence.

Sec. 221. Trade sanctions.

Sec. 222. Assistance to law enforcement agencies.

Sec. 223. Civil liability for certain unauthorized disclosures.

Sec. 224. Sunset.

Sec. 225. Immunity for compliance with FISA wiretap.

Sec. 301. Short title.

Sec. 302. Findings and purposes.

Sec. 303. 4-year congressional review; expedited consideration.

Sec. 311. Special measures for jurisdictions, financial institutions, or international transactions of primary money laundering concern.

Sec. 312. Special due diligence for correspondent accounts and private banking accounts.

Sec. 313. Prohibition on United States correspondent accounts with foreign shell banks.

Sec. 314. Cooperative efforts to deter money laundering.

Sec. 315. Inclusion of foreign corruption offenses as money laundering crimes.

Sec. 316. Anti-terrorist forfeiture protection.

Sec. 317. Long-arm jurisdiction over foreign money launderers.

Sec. 318. Laundering money through a foreign bank.

Sec. 319. Forfeiture of funds in United States interbank accounts.

Sec. 320. Proceeds of foreign crimes.

Sec. 321. Financial institutions specified in subchapter II of chapter 53 of title 31, United States code.

Sec. 322. Corporation represented by a fugitive.

Sec. 323. Enforcement of foreign judgments.

Sec. 324. Report and recommendation.

Sec. 325. Concentration accounts at financial institutions.

Sec. 326. Verification of identification.

Sec. 327. Consideration of anti-money laundering record.

Sec. 328. International cooperation on identification of originators of wire transfers.

Sec. 329. Criminal penalties.

Sec. 330. International cooperation in investigations of money laundering, financial crimes, and the finances of terrorist groups.

Sec. 351. Amendments relating to reporting of suspicious activities.

Sec. 352. Anti-money laundering programs.

Sec. 353. Penalties for violations of geographic targeting orders and certain recordkeeping requirements, and lengthening effective period of geographic targeting orders.

Sec. 354. Anti-money laundering strategy.

Sec. 355. Authorization to include suspicions of illegal activity in written employment references.

Sec. 356. Reporting of suspicious activities by securities brokers and dealers; investment company study.

Sec. 357. Special report on administration of bank secrecy provisions.

Sec. 358. Bank secrecy provisions and activities of United States intelligence agencies to fight international terrorism.

Sec. 359. Reporting of suspicious activities by underground banking systems.

Sec. 360. Use of authority of United States Executive Directors.

Sec. 361. Financial crimes enforcement network.

Sec. 362. Establishment of highly secure network.

Sec. 363. Increase in civil and criminal penalties for money laundering.

Sec. 364. Uniform protection authority for Federal Reserve facilities.

Sec. 365. Reports relating to coins and currency received in nonfinancial trade or business.

Sec. 366. Efficient use of currency transaction report system.

Subtitle C--Currency Crimes and Protection

Sec. 371. Bulk cash smuggling into or out of the United States.

Sec. 372. Forfeiture in currency reporting cases.

Sec. 373. Illegal money transmitting businesses.

Sec. 374. Counterfeiting domestic currency and obligations.

Sec. 375. Counterfeiting foreign currency and obligations.

Sec. 376. Laundering the proceeds of terrorism.

Sec. 377. Extraterritorial jurisdiction.

Sec. 401. Ensuring adequate personnel on the northern border.

Sec. 402. Northern border personnel.

Sec. 403. Access by the Department of State and the INS to certain identifying information in the criminal history records of visa applicants and applicants for admission to the United States.

Sec. 404. Limited authority to pay overtime.

Sec. 405. Report on the integrated automated fingerprint identification system for ports of entry and overseas consular posts.

Sec. 411. Definitions relating to terrorism.

Sec. 412. Mandatory detention of suspected terrorists; habeas corpus; judicial review.

Sec. 413. Multilateral cooperation against terrorists.

Sec. 414. Visa integrity and security.

Sec. 415. Participation of Office of Homeland Security on Entry-Exit Task Force.

Sec. 416. Foreign student monitoring program.

Sec. 417. Machine readable passports.

Sec. 418. Prevention of consulate shopping.

Sec. 421. Special immigrant status.

Sec. 422. Extension of filing or reentry deadlines.

Sec. 423. Humanitarian relief for certain surviving spouses and children.

Sec. 424. `Age-out' protection for children.

Sec. 425. Temporary administrative relief.

Sec. 426. Evidence of death, disability, or loss of employment.

Sec. 427. No benefits to terrorists or family members of terrorists.

Sec. 428. Definitions.

Sec. 501. Attorney General's authority to pay rewards to combat terrorism.

Sec. 502. Secretary of State's authority to pay rewards.

Sec. 503. DNA identification of terrorists and other violent offenders.

Sec. 504. Coordination with law enforcement.

Sec. 505. Miscellaneous national security authorities.

Sec. 506. Extension of Secret Service jurisdiction.

Sec. 507. Disclosure of educational records.

Sec. 508. Disclosure of information from NCES surveys.

Sec. 611. Expedited payment for public safety officers involved in the prevention, investigation, rescue, or recovery efforts related to a terrorist attack.

Sec. 612. Technical correction with respect to expedited payments for heroic public safety officers.

Sec. 613. Public safety officers benefit program payment increase.

Sec. 614. Office of Justice programs.

Sec. 621. Crime victims fund.

Sec. 622. Crime victim compensation.

Sec. 623. Crime victim assistance.

Sec. 624. Victims of terrorism.

Sec. 711. Expansion of regional information sharing system to facilitate Federal-State-local law enforcement response related to terrorist attacks.

Sec. 801. Terrorist attacks and other acts of violence against mass transportation systems.

Sec. 802. Definition of domestic terrorism.

Sec. 803. Prohibition against harboring terrorists.

Sec. 804. Jurisdiction over crimes committed at U.S. facilities abroad.

Sec. 805. Material support for terrorism.

Sec. 806. Assets of terrorist organizations.

Sec. 807. Technical clarification relating to provision of material support to terrorism.

Sec. 808. Definition of Federal crime of terrorism.

Sec. 809. No statute of limitation for certain terrorism offenses.

Sec. 810. Alternate maximum penalties for terrorism offenses.

Sec. 811. Penalties for terrorist conspiracies.

Sec. 812. Post-release supervision of terrorists.

Sec. 813. Inclusion of acts of terrorism as racketeering activity.

Sec. 814. Deterrence and prevention of cyberterrorism.

Sec. 815. Additional defense to civil actions relating to preserving records in response to Government requests.

Sec. 816. Development and support of cybersecurity forensic capabilities.

Sec. 817. Expansion of the biological weapons statute.

Sec. 901. Responsibilities of Director of Central Intelligence regarding foreign intelligence collected under Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.

Sec. 902. Inclusion of international terrorist activities within scope of foreign intelligence under National Security Act of 1947.

Sec. 903. Sense of Congress on the establishment and maintenance of intelligence relationships to acquire information on terrorists and terrorist organizations.

Sec. 904. Temporary authority to defer submittal to Congress of reports on intelligence and intelligence-related matters.

Sec. 905. Disclosure to Director of Central Intelligence of foreign intelligence-related information with respect to criminal investigations.

Sec. 906. Foreign terrorist asset tracking center.

Sec. 907. National Virtual Translation Center.

Sec. 908. Training of government officials regarding identification and use of foreign intelligence.

Sec. 1001. Review of the department of justice.

Sec. 1002. Sense of congress.

Sec. 1003. Definition of `electronic surveillance'.

Sec. 1004. Venue in money laundering cases.

Sec. 1005. First responders assistance act.

Sec. 1006. Inadmissibility of aliens engaged in money laundering.

Sec. 1007. Authorization of funds for dea police training in south and central asia.

Sec. 1008. Feasibility study on use of biometric identifier scanning system with access to the fbi integrated automated fingerprint identification system at overseas consular posts and points of entry to the United States.

Sec. 1009. Study of access.

Sec. 1010. Temporary authority to contract with local and State governments for performance of security functions at United States military installations.

Sec. 1011. Crimes against charitable americans.

Sec. 1012. Limitation on issuance of hazmat licenses.

Sec. 1013. Expressing the sense of the senate concerning the provision of funding for bioterrorism preparedness and response.

Sec. 1014. Grant program for State and local domestic preparedness support.

Sec. 1015. Expansion and reauthorization of the crime identification technology act for antiterrorism grants to States and localities.

Sec. 1016. Critical infrastructures protection.

 

Please tell me which provision is actually infringing upon your rights. And don't make claims about the Patriot Act if you know absolutely nothing about it, and aren't willing to make any effort to back up your claims.

[Commissar]

Hey, is anyone else a little worried that Bush is going to try to nominate Jesus H. Christ to the Chief Justice position?