Is Assange being framed?

Is Assange being framed?

  • Total voters
    12
  • Poll closed .
"Supreme Court justices have not resolved the question of “whether, in cases where information has been acquired unlawfully by a newspaper or by a source, government may ever punish not only the unlawful acquisition, but the ensuing publication as well,” concludes a Congressional Research Service analysis of the issue
 
Yurt said:
then you support speech that is likely to incite a riot or violence or yelling fire in a crowded theater?
Click to expand...

laws that make speech that could incite a riot are among the worst abominations of law there are. If someone has that little control that they can't react non violently to words, no matter how hateful, then the speaker isn't the problem. The yelling fire in a crowded theater example is almost as bad because it legitimizes prior restraint, which is also a violation of free speech. In other words, hell yes I can yell fire in a crowded theater, especially if there's a fire.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
laws that make speech that could incite a riot are among the worst abominations of law there are. If someone has that little control that they can't react non violently to words, no matter how hateful, then the speaker isn't the problem. The yelling fire in a crowded theater example is almost as bad because it legitimizes prior restraint, which is also a violation of free speech. In other words, hell yes I can yell fire in a crowded theater, especially if there's a fire.
Click to expand...

of course you can if there is a fire....but yelling fire when there is no fire will cause a panic and most likely injuries....

free speech is not unlimited, your "free" speech ends when it can cause harm like above
 
Mojo said:
Jesus, I thought this was a place to discuss current events.

WTF??
Click to expand...

You will have to forgive Yurt.

Oftentimes when he finds himself losing a debate, he will fixate on some middling personal detail, which allows him to ignore all the facts presented earlier that show him to be wrong and instead obsesses over the previously mentioned tiny bit of personal info.
 
Yurt said:
of course you can if there is a fire....but yelling fire when there is no fire will cause a panic and most likely injuries....

free speech is not unlimited, your "free" speech ends when it can cause harm like above
Click to expand...

if you yell fire in a crowded theater and people get hurt, are you charged with the crime of yelling fire in a crowded theater?
 
SmarterThanYou said:
if you yell fire in a crowded theater and people get hurt, are you charged with the crime of yelling fire in a crowded theater?
Click to expand...

i don't know what the charge would be....but i do know that such speech is not protected

you want to protect speech that physical harms people...we just disagree on the limits of freedom, i believe freedom is not absolute, if it was, it would be anarchy
 
Ice Dancer said:
So some dopey Canadian professor uses ridiculous statements engaging in obvious hyperbole about this guy and you translate it that people are calling for him to be assainated? Stupid.
Click to expand...

Mojo said:
http://www.theatlantic.com/internat...the-shameful-attacks-on-julian-assange/67440/
Click to expand...

Mojo said:
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLDE6B21O820101203
Click to expand...

Whoops...I guess ID doesn't want to discuss more calls for Assange's assassination.
 
Yurt said:
i don't know what the charge would be....but i do know that such speech is not protected
Click to expand...
the charge would certainly not be yelling fire in a crowded theater, because that would violate free speech. You would most likely be charged with disorderly conduct for warranting alarm in people and you could be charged with any resulting injuries.

Yurt said:
you want to protect speech that physical harms people...we just disagree on the limits of freedom, i believe freedom is not absolute, if it was, it would be anarchy
Click to expand...

it's not anarchy to hold idiots responsible for their misuse of their rights. If rights are not absolute, then they are not rights, they are merely extended privileges.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
the charge would certainly not be yelling fire in a crowded theater, because that would violate free speech. You would most likely be charged with disorderly conduct for warranting alarm in people and you could be charged with any resulting injuries.

it's not anarchy to hold idiots responsible for their misuse of their rights. If rights are not absolute, then they are not rights, they are merely extended privileges.
Click to expand...

Apparently it is not protected speech if the utterance is false.

"Shouting fire in a crowded theater" is a popular metaphor and frequent misquoting of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s opinion in the United States Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States in 1919. The misquote fails to mention falsely shouting fire to highlight that speech which is merely dangerous and false which can be distinguished from truthful but also dangerous. The quote is used as an example of speech which serves no conceivable useful purpose and is extremely and imminently dangerous so that resort to the courts or administrative procedures is not practical and expresses the permissible limitations on free speech consistent with the terms of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
 
Ice Dancer said:
Apparently it is not protected speech if the utterance is false.

"Shouting fire in a crowded theater" is a popular metaphor and frequent misquoting of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s opinion in the United States Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States in 1919. The misquote fails to mention falsely shouting fire to highlight that speech which is merely dangerous and false which can be distinguished from truthful but also dangerous. The quote is used as an example of speech which serves no conceivable useful purpose and is extremely and imminently dangerous so that resort to the courts or administrative procedures is not practical and expresses the permissible limitations on free speech consistent with the terms of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
Click to expand...

holmes, one of the worst justices to sit on the bench.

we the people really need to start demanding that these judges uphold the constitution as it is written, instead of chipping away at it to form society to their own ideals.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
holmes, one of the worst justices to sit on the bench.

we the people really need to start demanding that these judges uphold the constitution as it is written, instead of chipping away at it to form society to their own ideals.
Click to expand...

So you think yelling fire in a crowded theater just for the fun of it or the hell of it-which causes a stampede of frightened audience members, should be protected speech?

I think the idea that constitutional law cannot be intelligent; that there is not a reasonable ability to acknowledge that certain speech is in need of censure (specifically speech that is likely to cause death) is moronic!
 
Ice Dancer said:
So you think yelling fire in a crowded theater just for the fun of it or the hell of it-which causes a stampede of frightened audience members, should be protected speech?
Click to expand...
again, IF someone yells fire in a crowded theater, are they being charged for yelling in a crowded theater? No. They are charged if doing so results in panic, alarm, or even injury. If I were to run in to a theater and yell fire and every one turned and laughed at me, there would be no crime.

Ice Dancer said:
I think the idea that constitutional law cannot be intelligent; that there is not a reasonable ability to acknowledge that certain speech is in need of censure (specifically speech that is likely to cause death) is moronic!
Click to expand...
this is the slippery slope we've been on for decades, that an action that COULD cause damage is illegal. This is called prior restraint and is no different than states that require a license to carry a firearm.

rights are rights and only actions that DO cause harm should be punished.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
again, IF someone yells fire in a crowded theater, are they being charged for yelling in a crowded theater? No. They are charged if doing so results in panic, alarm, or even injury. If I were to run in to a theater and yell fire and every one turned and laughed at me, there would be no crime.


this is the slippery slope we've been on for decades, that an action that COULD cause damage is illegal. This is called prior restraint and is no different than states that require a license to carry a firearm.

rights are rights and only actions that DO cause harm should be punished.
Click to expand...

let's take your absolutist view a step further....

do you have the right to threaten someone with imminent bodily harm or death? if all speech is protected, do you believe that speech should also be protected? do you have the right to threaten the president of the united states with death?
 
Yurt said:
let's take your absolutist view a step further....

do you have the right to threaten someone with imminent bodily harm or death? if all speech is protected, do you believe that speech should also be protected? do you have the right to threaten the president of the united states with death?
Click to expand...

lets take your rights have limits view a step further.....

can you threaten someone with imminent bodily harm and not be charged unless they are a government official????

yes, you can. i've been threatened numerous times when i was younger and everytime i reported it to the police......nada. but guarandamntee you, threaten obama or pelosi and you'll be visited by SS and FBI PDQ.

so who has more rights? who has limited rights?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top