Deadrat wrote:
> "_ Prof. Jonez _" <theprof@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote
>> Deadrat wrote:
>>> "_ Prof. Jonez _" <theprof@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote
>>>> Deadrat wrote:
>>>>> "_ Prof. Jonez _" <theprof@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote
>>>>>> Deadrat wrote:
>>>>>>> "_ Prof. Jonez _" <theprof@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
>>>>>>>> Larry wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Reality_Check©" <Reality@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "Larry" <x@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>> "Reality_Check©" <Reality@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Deadrat" <a@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Reality_Check©" <Reality@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Larry" <x@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "_ Prof. Jonez _" <theprof@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Larry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> richard <member@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 22:40:56 -0600, "Reality_Check©"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Reality@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Obscenity trial suspended after judge said he posted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ***ually explicit materials
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alex Kozinski, who is presiding over an obscenity
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trial in L.A., admits he posted ***ually explicit
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> photos and videos. He says he didn't think the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> public could see the site, which is now blocked.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WTF is "criminally obscene?"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That would be obscenity that is a crime, Richard. As
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defined by the Supreme Court.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just because some jackass finds beastiality
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disgusting, does not make it illegal. Please post
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the law where it specifically states this. I don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think their is such a law.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There (or their) is such a law. SCOTUS has ruled that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> obscenity is not protected by the first amendment.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So the 1st Amendment is essentially worthless, as the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gov't can restrictively define what is or isn't "free
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> speech".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There have always been limits on what speech is free.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Up until slavery was abolished, they're had always been
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> slavery.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What's your point?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> National security,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **** your perception of security.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> secrets,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, if I know about it, then it ain't a "secret" now is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it numbnuts?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yelling fire in a crowded theater,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bull****. Not only can one yell FIRE in a theater,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> crowded or otherwise, one has a moral obligation to do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so if the theater is in fact on fire, or if immediate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evacuation is needed for the health or safety of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> occupants, based upon the reasonable belief of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> person(s) doing the yelling, you stump-stupid imbecile.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Who are ya callin' stump-stupid, you cloth-eared moron? I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> suppose you're
>>>>>>>>>>>>> gonna tell us now that it's also legal if "FIRE!" is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> line in the play being performed in the theater.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater is the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> canonical example of speech that the government may
>>>>>>>>>>>>> criminalize.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Funny, the mouth-breathing stump-stupid illiterate
>>>>>>>>>>>> knuckle-draggin' Neanderthals
>>>>>>>>>>>> like lyin' Larry always leave out the critical qualifier
>>>>>>>>>>>> *FALSELY* ... which
>>>>>>>>>>>> still
>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't criminalize the speech if the shouter BELIEVED
>>>>>>>>>>>> there was a fire, even
>>>>>>>>>>>> if that belief, like most held by Larry and Kent, turned
>>>>>>>>>>>> out to be false.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If your debating the semantics of law, it'd behoove you to
>>>>>>>>>>>> have a basic comprehension of English.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Except everyone knows that your qualifier is present.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Except of course when inbred imbeciles like you attempt to
>>>>>>>>>> recite the axiom and like some drooling ****tard can't get it
>>>>>>>>>> right.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Which would be true, except it's widely known as "yelling fire
>>>>>>>>> in a crowded theater," as much as you wish otherwise.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Only to drooling inbred imbeciles like you, Larry.
>>>>>>>> Which might help explain your incessant posting
>>>>>>>> of idiocies --
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think you might be getting a little of your own drool splashed
>>>>>>> on yourself. Which might explain why someone dumber than a bag
>>>>>>> of ball-peen hammers wrote this:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <quote>
>>>>>>> Bull****. Not only can one yell FIRE in a theater, crowded or
>>>>>>> otherwise, one has a moral obligation to do so if the theater is
>>>>>>> in fact on fire, or if immediate evacuation is needed for the
>>>>>>> health or safety of the occupants, based upon the reasonable
>>>>>>> belief of the person(s) doing the yelling.
>>>>>>> </quote>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So what part don't you comprehend?
>>>>>
>>>>> So you think there's some part I don't comprehend?
>>>>
>>>> The do tell, which part do you claim is in error ?
>>>>
>>>> Keep in mind the context was lyin' Larry, the stammering
>>>> legal imbecile who claimed that the right to free speech does
>>>> not allow someone "to yell fire in a crowded theater".
>>>>
>>>> Then tell us how the law prohibits people from writing checks ...
>>>
>>> Still making noise like stones rattling around in an iron pot.
>>
>> Why do you attempt to defend Larry's lies?
>>
>> Tell us again how the 1st Amendment does not
>> protect someone "yelling FIRE in a crowded theater"
>> and why a ****eating rodent would attempt to defend lyin' Larry's
>> stump-stupid misquoting of the simple axiom ?
>
> Take your simple axiom and fly up your own ass for all I care.
So sad that you've started drinking again ...
>
> <quote>
> Bull****. Not only can one yell FIRE in a theater, crowded or
> otherwise, one has a moral obligation to do so if the theater is in
> fact on fire, or if immediate evacuation is needed for the health or
> safety of the occupants, based upon the reasonable belief of the
> person(s) doing the yelling, ....
> </quote>
>
> -- The Prof
Come on Ratzo, tell us why you would even attempt to defend
lyin' Larry's false statements ?
|
