Deadrat wrote:
> "_ Prof. Jonez _" <theprof@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
>> Deadrat wrote:
>>> "_ Prof. Jonez _" <theprof@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
>>>> Deadrat wrote:
>>>>> "_ Prof. Jonez _" <theprof@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote
>>>>>> Deadrat wrote:
>>>>>>> "Reality_Check©" <Reality@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
>>>>>>>> "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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How about if an actor shouts the line "FIRE!" during the play
>>>>>>> but he really believes the theater is on fire?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Only if he does so in Ford's Theatre ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How about if he doesn't believe it, but it really is on fire?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> His mens rea would make him culpable, the coincident unknown
>>>>>> fire notwithstanding.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Behoove this: how much dumber than a bag of ball-peen hammers
>>>>>>> do you have to be to write 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>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What part don't you comprehend?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'd call that some "immediate evacuation."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now tell us again how free speech doesn't
>>>>>> cover "shouting fire in a crowded theater".
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> <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 instructing us on free speech.
>>>>
>>>> Now tell us again how free speech doesn't cover "shouting fire in a
>>>> crowded theater".
>>>
>>> You're the self-proclaimed legal eagle.
>>
>> You're lying again, rodent. Have you caught the Lyin' Larry disease ?
>
> This isn't about Larry.
Why do you lie?
>
> <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 ?
|
