lot of time talking about how government officials should be
>>> assassinated, you may reasonably expect those statements to be used
>>> against you during your trial.
>>>
I think the speech, irrelevant as it was, was used to increase the
perceived severity of the actions.
king out loud. Just musing on how the
> letter of the law, its constitutionality, enforcement and even the
> reasoning behind its creation are not always lined up so well.
>
> 18 U.S.C. 23 1 contains the seeds of the speech+action idea.
>
Please explain. You made the first asse
s lined up so well.
18 U.S.C. 23 1 contains the seeds of the speech+action idea.
Mike
On Fri, 31 Aug 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Where I think you misread me is this : I don't think that the government
> *has* this power, I think the way the laws are written and discussed,
> this degree of power is something for which they reach.
Which must be continously tested by 'controv
Tim May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote :
>Which is why I asked for you some actual cases. I pointed out that--so
>far as I have heard--there have been _no_ prosecutions for "paramilitary
>training." (There may have been some paramilitary types busted for
>firing AK-47s, for trespassing, whatever. T
On Thursday, August 30, 2001, at 10:20 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Tim,
>
> It's not easy to find great links but I still say that speech + action
> is something that a prosecutor can use to the disadvantage of the
> accused even if the speech is legal and the
Tim,
It's not easy to find great links but I still say that speech + action
is something that a prosecutor can use to the disadvantage of the
accused even if the speech is legal and the action appears to be
ineffectual or undirected. Look at how AP was used. 18 U.S.C. 23 1 seems
to link s
