(03-21-2024 07:30 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(03-20-2024 11:54 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Or say that a highly followed person tells the public to drink or inject bleach to ward off a viral infection in a thread on X. Should the government have the ability to step in and urge (again in the manner that the lawsuit is about) X to ixnay that thread, or remove it entirely?

Who/what is this "government" that you speak of, that has sufficient authority to tell even the President what he can and can't say publicly? Is this "government" not a part of the executive branch? Which branch, then?

Government action that interacts with the social media in a censorship role, or a quasi-censorship role. That is the context of the case, and I think that is a good foundation to discuss.

One would assume that such a 'mcGuffin' (a general term in the movie industry saying the 'center of the issue, which can be of any form, since the form really isnt set in stone) could not would not be able to restrict the President, as the function would be housed in the Exec branch, and subject to Executive order.

The issues are pretty subtle in this case. And Brown's comment, although widely reported as horrific, touch on a pretty sharp issue when the context of the case is put out -- as opposed to the pithy (and not so great optics) original partial phrase being disseminated.

(03-21-2024 11:00 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

Quote:Pretty sure my very first line, quoted above for clarity... addressed that.

It doesnt. Making some form of speech illegal is still government action. The logic is circular.

Not at all.

FIrst, I note that you created the hypothetical... nothing in what I said lead directly to that outcome... and your example is demonstrably false.

If you want to regulate speech, then pass a law that allows you to do so and don't simply ask 5 people on the court to give you a power that you don't already have. Brown should never ever be asked this question, and if she ever is, she should side with the people... not the government.

Look... If the people want to let government pass a bill to ban free speech, they can do that... there is a process... It takes a very one-sided electorate, but it exists.

Quote:The issue *is when* such government action (imposed moderation, deeming speech illegal) improper. In the case of the issue at hand

Asked and answered. When that speech is illegal.

Quote:By your rationale "unmoderated (other than illegal content)" is all fair game.

Absolutely. That's what the 1st amendment says.

Quote:By your test, the short circuit is to simply make a law deeming the targeted speech illegal. Thus circular in nature. The issue is *what* (if any) government action (including censor request channels, *and* laws making certain speech illegal) is something that is proper *when* the speech is rolled through a social media means -- that is the 'town square' but simply on steroids.

If by circular you mean that all powers not granted to the feds in the Constitution or its amendments are reserved to the states or the people... and yet people can vote to amend the constitution to grant it new powers OR to take them away, then yes... it is circular... by design.

If you mean anything else then at the very least you have to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the people that what you want to make illegal should be illegal.... AND... no ex-post-facto laws... hence such a determination should only impact future speech, not past once the law is passed.

Quote:Specifically, I assume you *are* for 'censor request portals' (the very specific issue, a subset of the broader issue) when it comes to "those things that are already and presently deemed illegal". The party pitted against the government says that such 'censor request portals' should *never* be implemented. And Brown is using the extreme cases to bring up the issue that 'the government would be hamstrung' in actually dealing with dissemination of troop movements *through social media mechanisms* if they cannot even interact with the media by legal ruling.

The specifics of this case and her overall comments, I did not mention... intentionally. I only responded to the 'hamstrung' comments... and I stand by it. Absolutely, our right to free speech hamstrings the government.... as it should.

What should happen is that should someone put troop movement on the internet, no different than any other crime... that their post be ordered taken down with a court order of SOME sort... no different than if someone put up a billboard doing so... and then a hearing held and a decision to prosecute that crime done.... and if they choose not to prosecute, (barring of course a settlement) then the post goes back up. We prosecute criminals in this country... or we should... and if you lose, you lose.

Quote:Conspiracy theories are not the extreme cases that Brown was addressing, Ham. She was addressing items that *are real in nature* and *pose an immediate threat*. I am not going to let you change what she was talking about or addressing to a milder form for your own purposes.

Lets deal with the *exact* form of the question. Not a watered down one.

Let's back up a second, Tanq.

I dealt with the *exact* hypothetical you gave... and you now change the argument on me from your hypothetical to this one. You have absolutely NO grounds to accuse ME of 'changing what she was talking about' when I directly addressed the hypothetical that YOU presented. Your 'I'm not going to let you...' comment only makes your actions all the worse.... because I didn't set the terms of the hypothetical. YOU did.

I'll address this comment though the same way as I already have.

First let me ask... have you ever been a moderator of speech on a website?

Honest people can differ on where they draw the lines on something posing 'an immediate threat'... and certainly one that is worthy of denying someone their rights should be a high bar... aka hamstringing the courts... I mean, if I threaten to beat you at poker, I wouldn't think that worthy of losing constitutional rights over. If I threaten to beat you WITH a poker, I'd say that might be...

The court has already decided plenty of cases involving 'pornography' and even now 'hate speech'... and I suspect it will continue to do so.

SOME websites will decide for their own protection to limit certain speech broadly... as in there are certain words on this forum that you simply cannot type.... but beyond passing a law that makes such words illegal, it should NEVER be up to the government to pressure, much less 'make' corporations do (limit speech) what they do not ALREADY have the legal authority to do themselves.... only what they already DO have the authority to do... aka making something illegal.... but again, not ex post facto.

If you don't like what someone is doing and think it should be illegal but it currently is not, what do you do? Lobby someone to make it illegal... and if you win and they don't stop, you report them and have them arrested or file suit or whatever is appropriate for the offense

(03-21-2024 02:28 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  [quote='tanqtonic' pid='19530572' dateline='1711036816']

Quote:The issue *is when* such government action (imposed moderation, deeming speech illegal) improper. In the case of the issue at hand

Asked and answered. When that speech is illegal.

But that trusts government to decide what is or isn't "illegal."

(03-21-2024 03:59 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-21-2024 02:28 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  [quote='tanqtonic' pid='19530572' dateline='1711036816']

Quote:The issue *is when* such government action (imposed moderation, deeming speech illegal) improper. In the case of the issue at hand

Asked and answered. When that speech is illegal.

But that trusts government to decide what is or isn't "illegal."

True... but on a legislative basis meaning they are subject to elections... as opposed to having the court do it... which is what I see them trying to do (more and more on many issues).

The abortion issue is the best example... the supreme court in 1972 didn't just decide that states could regulate abortion... they 'created' a federal right to an abortion (for some period) that the legislature had no chance of passing.... and rather than take responsibility for passing such legislation (if they have the votes to do so) they attack the court.... probably because they specifically lack the votes.

I do not want to see that happen with free speech. If you don't have the votes to regulate any given speech as illegal, then you should not be pressuring companies to censor them nor allowing the courts to do what you don't have the votes to do.

I don't think you can make it a state by state issue... maybe, but I doubt it because media/the internet knows no/few boundaries really... so to me this is probably a federal issue...

ETA about the Roe decision... Had this been a framework of the states/many states... or even a Constitutional amendment I wouldn't have a problem with it... My problem comes from the court essentially determining that there is somehow a specific date certain in the Constitution when the state MAY, but does not have to regulate abortion... so a baby MAY, but is not assured to have rights. I don't remember anything like that in my classes on the Constitution.

(03-21-2024 02:28 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-21-2024 11:00 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

Quote:Pretty sure my very first line, quoted above for clarity... addressed that.

It doesnt. Making some form of speech illegal is still government action. The logic is circular.

Not at all.

FIrst, I note that you created the hypothetical... nothing in what I said lead directly to that outcome... and your example is demonstrably false.

What is “demonstrably false”? Please be specific.

Quote:If you want to regulate speech, then pass a law that allows you to do so and don't simply ask 5 people on the court to give you a power that you don't already have. Brown should never ever be asked this question, and if she ever is, she should side with the people... not the government.

I don’t think you have the issues straight in this particular case.

Quote:

Quote:By your rationale "unmoderated (other than illegal content)" is all fair game.

Absolutely. That's what the 1st amendment says.

So any attempt by the government, in any manner, to have an input to stop a clear and present danger from being spread in social media mechanisms should be prohibited, That sounds fairly stupid. Just as stupid as allowing full and unfettered censorship by the government over items *not* a clear and present danger. Both extremes are equally as dangerous it might appear.

Quote:

Quote:Specifically, I assume you *are* for 'censor request portals' (the very specific issue, a subset of the broader issue) when it comes to "those things that are already and presently deemed illegal". The party pitted against the government says that such 'censor request portals' should *never* be implemented. And Brown is using the extreme cases to bring up the issue that 'the government would be hamstrung' in actually dealing with dissemination of troop movements *through social media mechanisms* if they cannot even interact with the media by legal ruling.

The specifics of this case and her overall comments, I did not mention... intentionally.

Perhaps you should. That is the context of her ‘hamstring’ comment.

[quote
I only responded to the 'hamstrung' comments... and I stand by it. Absolutely, our right to free speech hamstrings the government.... as it should.

Quote:Generally speaking your last sentence is correct. Generally speaking you are *also* responding to generalized “hamstring” comment without any background, reference, or context to either the situation from which it arose, or the specific context that it is asked in.

In essence you aren’t even responding to *her* comment at that point, mind you.

Quote:Conspiracy theories are not the extreme cases that Brown was addressing, Ham. She was addressing items that *are real in nature* and *pose an immediate threat*. I am not going to let you change what she was talking about or addressing to a milder form for your own purposes.

Lets deal with the *exact* form of the question. Not a watered down one.

Let's back up a second, Tanq.

I dealt with the *exact* hypothetical you gave...

One of a few to show the context. Yes, yes you did immediately in the post I am responding to. But not any of the others designed to be non-criminal, and an immediate danger.

And no, posting that you saw a train full of troops is *not* a criminal act, nor is posting that the carrier John Stennis is in port. So your broad stroke effort does *not* deal with the issue at hand.

Quote:and you now change the argument on me from your hypothetical to this one. You have absolutely NO grounds to accuse ME of 'changing what she was talking about' when I directly addressed the hypothetical that YOU presented. Your 'I'm not going to let you...' comment only makes your actions all the worse.... because I didn't set the terms of the hypothetical. YOU did.

You answered my set (not one, a set) of hypos by launching into some wild discourse on conspiracy theories. The issue presented by her question that included “hamstring” *isnt* non-harmful (for the most part) conspiracy theories which your multi paragraphs focused on —. Instead the question *specifically* asked about items of a clear, present, and impactful danger. My hypos tried to demonstrate that. But undeterred you decided to answer in a manner that suited you generally, and not to either the context I tried to emphasize for you, nor to the context that Brown asked.

You simply fixate on the verb ‘hamstring’ and studiously avoid the context of the question, and thus the question itself. Dodge it in the same general manner that the solicitor general of LA evaded at least three times in hearing.

Quote:I'll address this comment though the same way as I already have.

First let me ask... have you ever been a moderator of speech on a website?

Honest people can differ on where they draw the lines on something posing 'an immediate threat'... and certainly one that is worthy of denying someone their rights should be a high bar... aka hamstringing the courts... I mean, if I threaten to beat you at poker, I wouldn't think that worthy of losing constitutional rights over. If I threaten to beat you WITH a poker, I'd say that might be...

The court has already decided plenty of cases involving 'pornography' and even now 'hate speech'... and I suspect it will continue to do so.

SOME websites will decide for their own protection to limit certain speech broadly... as in there are certain words on this forum that you simply cannot type.... but beyond passing a law that makes such words illegal, it should NEVER be up to the government to pressure, much less 'make' corporations do (limit speech) what they do not ALREADY have the legal authority to do themselves.... only what they already DO have the authority to do... aka making something illegal.... but again, not ex post facto.

If you don't like what someone is doing and think it should be illegal but it currently is not, what do you do? Lobby someone to make it illegal... and if you win and they don't stop, you report them and have them arrested or file suit or whatever is appropriate for the offense

Unfortunately it does not answer the issue in play in Browns question.

(03-21-2024 03:59 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-21-2024 02:28 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  [quote='tanqtonic' pid='19530572' dateline='1711036816']

Quote:The issue *is when* such government action (imposed moderation, deeming speech illegal) improper. In the case of the issue at hand

Asked and answered. When that speech is illegal.

But that trusts government to decide what is or isn't "illegal."

The issue doesn’t hinge on illegal speech per se.

But the question above posed by #s is valid even with that caveat.

(03-21-2024 05:00 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-21-2024 03:59 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-21-2024 02:28 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  [quote='tanqtonic' pid='19530572' dateline='1711036816']

Quote:The issue *is when* such government action (imposed moderation, deeming speech illegal) improper. In the case of the issue at hand

Asked and answered. When that speech is illegal.

But that trusts government to decide what is or isn't "illegal."

The issue doesn’t hinge on illegal speech per se.

But the question above posed by #s is valid even with that caveat.

The distinction between “banned” and “illegal” is less than a hair’s width, for these purposes (i.e., censorship). You suggest the government should exploit that distinction to circumvent the 1st amendment. This would be an unprecedented action. The government has never asked more than voluntary compliance with guidelines.

(03-21-2024 04:57 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  What is “demonstrably false”? Please be specific.

I was and did.

I said... 'other than illegal content' and you came back with an example of disclosing 'troop movements during a time of war'... which IS illegal.

Quote:I don’t think you have the issues straight in this particular case.

You have a history of creating 'issues' that are not in the pleadings... so if you think I'm not addressing the issues, maybe that's simply because you see different issues than I do.

I'm not a scotus justice and neither are you. I'm responding SOLELY to her 'hamstringing' comment... because that comment is the entire intent of the Constitution.

You don't solve the government's problem of being 'hamstrung' by the court ignoring the Constitution to make their jobs easier. If you can't Constitutionally pass a law to accomplish your goals then that's likely because your goals are unconstitutional.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:By your rationale "unmoderated (other than illegal content)" is all fair game.

Absolutely. That's what the 1st amendment says.

So any attempt by the government, in any manner, to have an input to stop a clear and present danger from being spread in social media mechanisms should be prohibited, That sounds fairly stupid.

Of course it sounds stupid... so why did you say it? I certainly didn't. Just another example of you saying something stupid and assigning it to me... and then acting 'offended' when I more directly call you stupid.

If there is a clear and present danger, like yelling 'fire' in a crowded theatre... then such speech is already prohibited. The problem for the government here is that there is very little that anyone can put on the internet that would in any way resemble the 'fire in a crowded theatre' statement. At best, they have situations where 'unreasonable' people might react improperly... and 'how unreasonable people might react' has never been the bar set for our conduct.

Quote:

Quote:The specifics of this case and her overall comments, I did not mention... intentionally.

Perhaps you should. That is the context of her ‘hamstring’ comment.

I don't care what the context is. Hamstringing the government is precisely the JOB of the Constitution.

Note that I haven't chastised her in any way... other than to note that what she is complaining about, regardless of the context is a feature of our Constitution, not a flaw.

Quote:Generally speaking your last sentence is correct. Generally speaking you are *also* responding to generalized “hamstring” comment without any background, reference, or context to either the situation from which it arose, or the specific context that it is asked in.

In essence you aren’t even responding to *her* comment at that point, mind you.

Precisely. Hence I didn't really mention her name... just the comment.

If you want to give it context and talk about that, why don't you give it context... rather than your pattern of telling other people to read stuff that YOU want them to care about but they don't??

It's not my job to decipher your point. It's yours to make it clear... and you have not.

to wit....

Quote:

Quote:Let's back up a second, Tanq.

I dealt with the *exact* hypothetical you gave...

One of a few to show the context. Yes, yes you did immediately in the post I am responding to. But not any of the others designed to be non-criminal, and an immediate danger.

You didn't give me any others for two paragraphs in post 3715.... and 'non-criminal, immediate danger' is a rather broad stroke. If you're suggesting that providing false information during a pandemic presents an immediate danger, you are ignoring that the declaration of a state of emergency grants broad temporary powers... including the power to suspend all sorts of constitutional rights.... vastly more broad than 'everyday' for the government.

So if you want me to address a specific issue on the VERY limited context that I've given that people's rights generally come BEFORE making things easy for the government... then you're going to have to give me a specific situation... and not direct me to 2 1/2 hours of legal debate to find it for myself.

Said simply... I don't think I need to do that because there are 9 justices... and most of them seem to generally agree with me on most things... but I am somewhat concerned about what I see as an increasing number of attempts by the left to accomplish through the courts what they cannot through the legislature.... and 'enabling' (the opposite of hamstringing) the government to limit constitutional rights, regardless of context would be one of those concerns. As I've suggested all along... pass a bill that makes 'providing minority dissenting opinions' illegal... or 'posting anything that disagrees with the official government position' and the government can censor whatever they want.... But that's going to be a tall order... by design.

Quote:[quote]
And no, posting that you saw a train full of troops is *not* a criminal act, nor is posting that the carrier John Stennis is in port. So your broad stroke effort does *not* deal with the issue at hand.

In a time of war, assuming it poses the immediate threat that has been clearly mentioned.... yes it (generally) is. That (time of war) was the context YOU gave. We are of course speaking broadly. MOST things like troop movements these days are easily followed by satellites. I am presuming you mean in the historical, 'secretive' sense. John Stennis in port is another thing that in modern times wouldn't actually be much of a disclosure.

Again, the declaration of a state of emergency (pandemic, war) changes the powers of the government to regulate speech. Of course not ALL mentions of troop movements would be illegal... and by illegal we really mean, subject to censor... the 'crime' if any would depend on lots of other facts not in evidence.... like 'my Johnny is home' probably doesn't divulge any dangerous information... but obviously disclosing President Biden's plans to visit a war zone WOULD be in almost any situation... and saying 'my son's seal team getting ready to take it to Putin this weekend' absolutely would be.

Quote:You answered my set (not one, a set) of hypos by launching into some wild discourse on conspiracy theories.

I responded directly to your hypothetical. Stop trying to spin it. The 'set' you gave mentioned no specifics was not specific to my comments.

As to 'illegal' let me be clear... because you often get lost in such weeds.... It is my understanding that numerous things can be illegal and have little to no penalty other than a correction... as in someone writes 'I'm going to kick your ass' and the cops determine that the person didn't mean that literally so no action is taken, but the post is probably still censored because it is a threat.

As to conspiracy theories...

I can't think of much speech that isn't already illegal (or couldn't easily be determined to be so) because it poses a credible, imminent threat... I even used the 'beat you WITH a poker' obvious threat which is illegal... and of course, libelous comments are illegal... and child porn... etc... or disclosure of national secrets, especially during war time... all things that have been otherwise discussed...

So I used 'conspiracy theories' as a means of broadly capturing something that does not meet those already discussed criteria. Things like 'Trump is calling for a blood bath' or how someone's speech (or even mere presence) somehow 'brings violence' on someone... or other such recent attempts to improperly 'characterize' free speech as meeting those 'illegal' criteria so that they can be censored.

Quote:The issue presented by her question that included “hamstring” *isnt* non-harmful (for the most part) conspiracy theories which your multi paragraphs focused on —. Instead the question *specifically* asked about items of a clear, present, and impactful danger. My hypos tried to demonstrate that. But undeterred you decided to answer in a manner that suited you generally, and not to either the context I tried to emphasize for you, nor to the context that Brown asked.

Post 3715... here is what you wrote...

Quote:In that manner, the government should not be able to regulate speech about troop movements during time of war, either by the media or by talk amongst private individuals?

That is what your black and white statement yields Ham. And that is precisely the limit that Brown was invoking. That is, what happens at the extreme edge.

Two complete paragraphs directly relating to me. I responded to that.... because you addressed that one specifically to me.... in response to something I said.

Yes, you later added :

Quote:Or in a lesser mode, lets say a Logan Paul video appears in which he urges people to get into a closet, close the door, and mix a pound of bleach with a quart of ammonia in that enclosed space. Or a the same personality does a video where he 'double dares' people to quaff 24 oz of antifreeze.

Should the government have the ability to step in and urge (in the manner that the lawsuit is about) the popular video carriers to ixnay those videos?

Or say that a highly followed person tells the public to drink or inject bleach to ward off a viral infection in a thread on X. Should the government have the ability to step in and urge (again in the manner that the lawsuit is about) X to ixnay that thread, or remove it entirely?

Let's start with this... You noted these were lesser modes... so less important than the one addressed to me and that I responded to.

Now to the point... The government can URGE anything it wants. What it can't to is demand, pressure or compel anything it wants. The entire phrase 'step in and urge' is an oxymoron. They can step in, or they can urge. They can't do both.

As to these specifics, which to me I generally intended to capture by 'conspiracy theories' since most videos urging people to inject bleach also include some rant about 'why the government (or big pharma) doesn't want you knowing this'.... so pass a law.

But you're ignoring the over-arching point I made... Very clearly and very simply.

There should NEVER be a time or conditions under which the court should NOT be hamstrung by the constitution in trying to remove enumerated rights.

The conditions and examples you put forth don't change that premise. You must DEMONSTRATE that there is a real, credible and imminent threat.... and that is not an easy thing to do, nor should it be.

I don't know how much more clear or simply I can state that.

Quote:You simply fixate on the verb ‘hamstring’ and studiously avoid the context of the question, and thus the question itself. Dodge it in the same general manner that the solicitor general of LA evaded at least three times in hearing.

Again... there is absolutely NO context where the Constitution should make it easy/NOT hamstring the government from removing someone's rights.... and I answered the question numerous times. The court should not do for the legislature what the legislature is called to do for itself.

If you want to make those things illegal then pass laws that make them illegal... and have them meet Constitutional muster... which generally means that the state has a compelling interest in this issue and that this is the 'least restrictive' means of accomplishing the goal.

Hint... being hamstrung just means its not easy... it's made more difficult. It doesn't mean 'prevented'. If she had meant 'prevented' she would have used that word, or one with a similar definition.






Now... what's REALLY funny to me is that you are HAPPY and even ARGUMENTATIVE in support of the prospect of letting politicians get away with crimes because we can't prove 'intent'... but that doesn't even occur to you when it comes to free speech and the populace?? I can't think of a more clear example of someone who supports the government over the people.

The 'dares' or whatever you want to call them are no different from some of the games that we played as kids. You held your breath until you passed out... you rolled down the hill in a tire... you shot an arrow into the air and had to be the last one to move.... you 'ate' a spoon full of cinnamon... heck, I made nitro-glycerine... just with a much larger audience. Often no crimes.. just stupid kids.... who sometimes died. Drug dealers though who encourage/pressure you to try their drug?? Crimes.

If you want to charge someone with a crime, then do so. Prove that they KNEW what they were doing was harmful (or illegal) and that they encouraged/pressured/you name it people to do it anyway.... because they wanted to see the carnage.

PROVE 'intent'.

Do that and you can remove the post... NOT because you pressured the host, but because you followed due process of the poster. Don't and you can't... even if you KNOW that what these people did was 'wrong'. Hamstrung.

I don't even think you'd need to pass a new law to do this... If you can prove that someone intended to bring harm someone else by their words and harm actually came to them from someone acting reasonably... that seems obviously actionable.

Ham - I have a basic understanding of what 'hamstringing' means. Even before and regardless of your comment on the issue, mind you.

The application of the Constitution is clear --- when there exists a danger to people, to property, or other selected issues -- the government actually has an interest in 'stepping in' to prevent that. And can do so. Even without the imprina

Brown asked a question down this line --- and which may be pertinent because the *mechanism* of social media adds to the velocity of the message, and to the width of and breadth of the message.

Jackson's comments were fairly benign in context, and were actually echoed by Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. Perhaps most ironically, her remark spoke fundamentally to the crux of the case: The government, of course, does not have the right to punish someone criminally for the vast majority of speech. But does it have the right to persuade? Can it have a direct link to platforms to directly urge them to moderate an item that is highly dangerous in nature.

Quote:Now... what's REALLY funny to me is that you are HAPPY and even ARGUMENTATIVE in support of the prospect of letting politicians get away with crimes because we can't prove 'intent'... but that doesn't even occur to you when it comes to free speech and the populace?? I can't think of a more clear example of someone who supports the government over the people.

I do enjoy your foot shuffling. My stance is that in order to charge, and try someone, there needs to be a reasonable issue to think that intent can be proven. Someone. Not politicians specifically -- anyone. Further, I have zero issue in acquitting someone for an intent based crime when that cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. again -- Someone. Not politicians specifically -- anyone.

In the cases that you harp on, the record is replete that while much of the substantive 'action elements' can be shown, you go out of your way to falsely equate the cases -- falsely because there is simply insufficient 'evidence' of the required intent element to charge. Let me repeat -- the *required* intent element.

I also recognize that in terms of 1st Amendment in this instance, 'intent' has nothing to do with the issue at hand --- notwithstanding your invocation of it as some magic sword.

In this case, the exemplary issues are already clear. The government *can* ask media to forestall issues of national security and danger --- notwithstanding your comment that they are 'already illegal'.

A dude posting the John Stennis at dock, and identifying where it is -- simply is not breaking a law per se. Even in wartime. No matter how much you claim to the opposite mind you. And honestly, during a time of urgency, yes -- I wholly support the issue of government interaction to stop that type of posting. Apparently you do not. That is fine.

You seem to have fixated on 'crime' and now 'intent'. Any one of my stated examples has no crime associated with it. Taking your now proposed solution -- the *only* interaction the government can have is for a 'crime', and not only a 'crime' one with 'intent' behind it.

Quote:PROVE 'intent'.

I see that is your new fixation now. Hate to tell you you are mixing and matching disparate issues in terms of this case. Or, perhaps you actually think that that only time a government may interact with *any* widely spread and potentially dangerous issue is in the context of a "crime", not just a crime but a specific intent crime (in that 'intent' seems to be the bee in your bonnet now).

Quote:If you want to give it context and talk about that, why don't you give it context... rather than your pattern of telling other people to read stuff that YOU want them to care about but they don't??

Maybe *you* figure out the context of *the precise* statement, and make a comment on *that*? Imagine that.
Or, alternatively, perhaps you should just talk generally without regard to *the context* of *the statement* in the slightest. Seems to me OO asked about *the comment*, and *the comment* was made in a very specific context. All of which you now admit to ignoring, I guess perhaps because you dont want to be bothered about that specific context. Sounds fun.

Thank you for telling us your responses do not have any grounding in the slightest in the context in which Brown said them, and instead decided to enthrall us on what the term 'hamstring' means to you in generally with zero context to the issue at the forefront.

(03-24-2024 05:49 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Ham - I have a basic understanding of what 'hamstringing' means. Even before and regardless of your comment on the issue, mind you.

The application of the Constitution is clear --- when there exists a danger to people, to property, or other selected issues -- the government actually has an interest in 'stepping in' to prevent that. And can do so. Even without the imprina

Tanq - I have a basic understanding of the Constitution and the powers that government has and does not have. Even before and regardless of your comment on the issue, mind you.

I specifically mentioned numerous detailed caveats to your comment above... including words like 'compelling' and 'least restrictive'....

I have no clue as to what your intent is in telling me something I had already clearly articulated. Just because I mention something that is a fact, doesn't mean that I don't think you know it. It usually just means that I want to emphasize its significance to the point I'm making.... often because your position seems to have downplayed it.

Quote:Brown asked a question down this line --- and which may be pertinent because the *mechanism* of social media adds to the velocity of the message, and to the width of and breadth of the message.

So free speech is only allowed if it is slow and narrow in its audience? I never read that in any of my classes dealing with the Constitution.

Sounds to me like another power to regulate speech that the government does not have but wants... the power to regulate velocity, width and breath.

Quote:Jackson's comments were fairly benign in context, and were actually echoed by Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. Perhaps most ironically, her remark spoke fundamentally to the crux of the case: The government, of course, does not have the right to punish someone criminally for the vast majority of speech. But does it have the right to persuade? Can it have a direct link to platforms to directly urge them to moderate an item that is highly dangerous in nature.

This comment has nothing to do with anything I said... other than to agree with it.

As I said, 'stepping in' and 'persuading' are not remotely the same thing. The government can ASK them to do anything they want... They simply cannot MAKE them... and of course, SOME 'urging' like excessive incentives etc is tantamount to 'making' them.

But her comment was 'hamstring'... and the government is NEVER hamstrung from 'urging' anyone to do anything.

Quote:I do enjoy your foot shuffling. My stance is that in order to charge, and try someone, there needs to be a reasonable issue to think that intent can be proven. Someone. Not politicians specifically -- anyone.

Foot shuffling? I noted a clear and obvious fact. You are happy and even eager to point this out when it comes to protecting (especially) anyone who is an 'enemy' of 'he who shall not be named'... yet the concept of 'intent' in your hypotheticals (which was the topic at the time) never mentioned anyone's intent. You just sort of seem to have assumed it.... because you were SPECIFICALLY giving examples where you thought the government would have clear authority to censor speech.... and yet 'intent' was oddly not part of that authority.

I stand by my observation... with my feet firmly planted.

Quote:In the cases that you harp on, the record is replete that while much of the substantive 'action elements' can be shown, you go out of your way to falsely equate the cases -- falsely because there is simply insufficient 'evidence' of the required intent element to charge. Let me repeat -- the *required* intent element.

Talk about foot shuffling. Once again, when we bring up these other cases, you immediately go to 'intent'.... and you completely ignored it in your hypotheticals.

I couldn't make up a better example. Apparently you think it more important for the government to protect some moron who is going to take a 'double dare' on Tik Tock than for members of that same government to protect our national secrets from our enemies.

Quote:I also recognize that in terms of 1st Amendment in this instance, 'intent' has nothing to do with the issue at hand --- notwithstanding your invocation of it as some magic sword.

Actually... though you may recognize it, you clearly don't recognize the irony... that a citizen, endowed by his creator with certain rights... including these, could be denied those rights without the requirement of intent... WITHOUT specific due process... but a politician who has sworn to uphold and protect the Constitution that codifies this somehow gets both specific due process and needs intent to be proven.

Quote:In this case, the exemplary issues are already clear. The government *can* ask media to forestall issues of national security and danger --- notwithstanding your comment that they are 'already illegal'.

By 'notwithstanding' you mean, I've already clearly addressed it by noting that things that are 'already illegal' address 'national security'.... at least when it comes to citizens, but obviously not politicians. There is apparently some debate for Biden and Trump regarding the Presidential Records Act... not one I support, but debate nonetheless... Hillary falls under no such act.... and yet SHE still got the benefit of the requirement of 'intent' when it came to matters of national security.

Your unwillingness to see this clear irony is truly mind boggling.

And it is also noted that you added the word 'danger'... which is not a valid reason on its own for state action. If it were, the state could easily ban guns.

Quote:[A dude posting the John Stennis at dock, and identifying where it is -- simply is not breaking a law per se. Even in wartime. No matter how much you claim to the opposite mind you. And honestly, during a time of urgency, yes -- I wholly support the issue of government interaction to stop that type of posting. Apparently you do not. That is fine.

What a truly ignorant representation of my comments.

Let's start with this... I said it was illegal, and yet you claim here that I don't support the government stopping such things? False on its face... even in your own words here.

Second, Having had a father stationed overseas during military actions... though not formal wars... and written letters and recorded messages back and forth, that were censored/edited, I think I have a slightly better idea than average of what is allowed and not. I've certainly used the term 'illegal' to more broadly define 'actions the government could 'step in' to regulate and not merely 'urge'... and I even further said 'It is my understanding that numerous things can be illegal and have little to no penalty other than a correction...' which speaks to a broad application of the use of the word. My family was not penalized... but our tapes and letters WERE censored for National Security reasons... a compelling national interest.

I mean, the fact that you add the term 'per se'... when the whole issue was once again, brought up by you... is telling. Maybe you've forgotten what that word means.

Here is what I wrote...

Quote:In a time of war, assuming it poses the immediate threat that has been clearly mentioned.... yes it (generally) is. That (time of war) was the context YOU gave. We are of course speaking broadly. MOST things like troop movements these days are easily followed by satellites. I am presuming you mean in the historical, 'secretive' sense. John Stennis in port is another thing that in modern times wouldn't actually be much of a disclosure.

Quit trying to backtrack on the hypothetical that you created. 'Disclosing troop movements during a time of war' which was the EXACT hypothetical that you began with is 100% an issue of vital national interest that is (or used to be) LITERALLY a TEXTBOOK example of an exception to free speech.

I'm sorry you gave a bad example that you keep trying to rehabilitate at my expense, but that's your problem, not mine.

Quote:You seem to have fixated on 'crime' and now 'intent'. Any one of my stated examples has no crime associated with it. Taking your now proposed solution -- the *only* interaction the government can have is for a 'crime', and not only a 'crime' one with 'intent' behind it.

Another complete fabrication. I don't think I said 'crime' at all, but even if I did... I also wrote... in the comment you are responding to but edited out...

Quote:As to 'illegal' let me be clear... because you often get lost in such weeds.... It is my understanding that numerous things can be illegal and have little to no penalty other than a correction... as in someone writes 'I'm going to kick your ass' and the cops determine that the person didn't mean that literally so no action is taken, but the post is probably still censored because it is a threat.

So the 'illegal' comment allows the government to take action regulating free speech... but the only action is limited censorship.

That said... to the bold...

ABSO-FREAKING-LUTELY... the only time the government can limit free speech is when there is a compelling national interest, like illegal/disallowed actions....

as to intent... another lie. I never REMOTELY said the government has to prove intent... I have repeatedly argued very loudly the exact opposite... that 'intent' should not matter when it comes to the handling of classified documents.... and you have been the one resisting that...

I just found it odd that you repeatedly insist on intent as a requirement for action against opponents of Trump... even dismissing the argument that the destruction of evidence is evidence of intent.... and yet with Trump, you accepted specious examples (like the proximity of his passport to classified documents) as 'proof' and then make no requirement of intent whatsoever when it comes to citizens.

Your definitions of 'evidence' and your bars for 'proof' seem to always favor the establishment.

Quote:[quote]Or, alternatively, perhaps you should just talk generally without regard to *the context* of *the statement* in the slightest. Seems to me OO asked about *the comment*, and *the comment* was made in a very specific context. All of which you now admit to ignoring, I guess perhaps because you dont want to be bothered about that specific context. Sounds fun.

I'm literally laughing at this...

First, I DID speak generally without meaningful regard to 'the context' of 'the statement' in the slightest... and have repeatedly said so. It is YOU who has repeatedly tried to insert context from the start, and you continue to do so.
I am not OO. If you want to argue context with him, have at it.

and the really funny part...

Yes... I do not want to be bothered by the specific context, and have repeatedly said so... hence I only intended to speak generally about the comment (paraphrasing) that the inability to censor free speech hamstrings the government... to which my simple response was...

AS IT SHOULD, BY INTENT.

For some reason, you took issue with this.

Quote:Thank you for telling us your responses do not have any grounding in the slightest in the context in which Brown said them, and instead decided to enthrall us on what the term 'hamstring' means to you in generally with zero context to the issue at the forefront.

And than you for your ignorant interpretation of my responses.
Her use of 'hamstrung' and mine are identical. The GENERAL context of her comment is that the inability to moderate speech creates a challenge for government... and that is IMO 100% correct.

I made no assumption about HER intentions by her comment... She made a statement... and I simply pointed out that this was a feature, not a challenge of the Constitution.

STACI BARBER, Plaintiff,
vs.
KATY INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT;
BRYAN SCOTT ROUNDS, Principal of Cardiff Junior High sued in his individual and official )
capacities, Defendants


Go get the anti-Constitutional SOBs.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/george...5c55&ei=67

I agree with the signs.

(03-25-2024 09:26 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Brown asked a question down this line --- and which may be pertinent because the *mechanism* of social media adds to the velocity of the message, and to the width of and breadth of the message.

So free speech is only allowed if it is slow and narrow in its audience? I never read that in any of my classes dealing with the Constitution. [/quote]

Please point out where the idea of 'only allowed' is implicated. There is a big difference between your "only allowed" and the latitude afforded the government based on certain criteria.

But, hey, why let that get in the way of your patented rhetorical overstatements....

Quote:Sounds to me like another power to regulate speech that the government does not have but wants... the power to regulate velocity, width and breath.

They are brought up as factors to be considered. But leave it to you to misstate it as to the bolded, and particularly to the italicized strawman you create.

Quote:

Quote:As I said, 'stepping in' and 'persuading' are not remotely the same thing.

They absolutely can be Ham. Or maybe in your mind there is no governmental action in persuading -- that is all done via ESP and telepathic methods.

Quote:But her comment was 'hamstring'... and the government is NEVER hamstrung from 'urging' anyone to do anything.

Funny, that is the question in the case. Again, had you bothered to read on the case, or read the context of Brown's question -- that is precisely the question being asked by Brown.

Quote:[quote]
I do enjoy your foot shuffling. My stance is that in order to charge, and try someone, there needs to be a reasonable issue to think that intent can be proven. Someone. Not politicians specifically -- anyone.

Foot shuffling? I noted a clear and obvious fact. You are happy and even eager to point this out when it comes to protecting (especially) anyone who is an 'enemy' of 'he who shall not be named'...

I 'protect' anyone who is under the legal scrutiny and the govt requires this step, mind you. But leave it to you to make the base implication that it is selective above. Imagine that.

I 'protect' those aforementioned people in the same manner that you selflessly 'protect' 'he who shall not be named' in any and every legal question that catches you r eye, mind you. I dont think that there ahs been a *single* legal question faced by that person that you havent characterized as a 'misjustice' in some form.

Had that person had the same evidence on intent on issues that the two others showed (actually three, but you funnily dismiss that exception to your 'nothing but party line' level of scrutiny) -- I would be as opposed to the prosecutions going on as I understand the non-prosecution of the other three (not two). But leave it to you to make an aspersion that wholly omits that. Again, imagine that.

Quote:yet the concept of 'intent' in your hypotheticals (which was the topic at the time) never mentioned anyone's intent. You just sort of seem to have assumed it.... because you were SPECIFICALLY giving examples where you thought the government would have clear authority to censor speech.... and yet 'intent' was oddly not part of that authority.

If you read my hypos, intent is not necessary in any of those. So no, I did not assume it as you you wing flap above. Any and all of them may occur with or without intent of the speaker. But leave it to you to not understand that, and now try to furiously shoehorn that into my comments.

Maybe go back and read them *without* your preconceptions.

Quote:

Quote:In the cases that you harp on, the record is replete that while much of the substantive 'action elements' can be shown, you go out of your way to falsely equate the cases -- falsely because there is simply insufficient 'evidence' of the required intent element to charge. Let me repeat -- the *required* intent element.

Talk about foot shuffling. Once again, when we bring up these other cases, you immediately go to 'intent'.... and you completely ignored it in your hypotheticals.

I would assume that the you might understand the difference between talking about intent based crimes on the one hand, and the role lack of intent plays in them -- and actions that dont require intent to analyze an issue of first amendment.

Hillary's lack of of evidence on intent has zero to do with the current discussion. But please bang that drum some more.

Quote:I couldn't make up a better example. Apparently you think it more important for the government to protect some moron who is going to take a 'double dare' on Tik Tock than for members of that same government to protect our national secrets from our enemies.

Wow, talk about a king of false equivalence there. Good grief, that statement above is stupid beyond years.

Quote:

Quote:I also recognize that in terms of 1st Amendment in this instance, 'intent' has nothing to do with the issue at hand --- notwithstanding your invocation of it as some magic sword.

Actually... though you may recognize it, you clearly don't recognize the irony... that a citizen, endowed by his creator with certain rights... including these, could be denied those rights without the requirement of intent... WITHOUT specific due process... but a politician who has sworn to uphold and protect the Constitution that codifies this somehow gets both specific due process and needs intent to be proven.

And strike two there. And the above seems to jumble a whole bunch of issues.

Quote:

Quote:In this case, the exemplary issues are already clear. The government *can* ask media to forestall issues of national security and danger --- notwithstanding your comment that they are 'already illegal'.

By 'notwithstanding' you mean, I've already clearly addressed it by noting that things that are 'already illegal' address 'national security'.... at least when it comes to citizens, but obviously not politicians. There is apparently some debate for Biden and Trump regarding the Presidential Records Act... not one I support, but debate nonetheless... Hillary falls under no such act.... and yet SHE still got the benefit of the requirement of 'intent' when it came to matters of national security.

Lol. A mishmash of stuff to rival none other.

Quote:Your unwillingness to see this clear irony is truly mind boggling.

Maybe try the simple fact that an analysis of First Amendment intervention by a government has *zero* to do with intent based crimes, the Presidential records Act, and a whole slew of other random mind offerings offered up above. That effort to mix them is what really should seemingly be mind boggling. Kind of a legal version offering of Queen's 'Bohemian Rhapsody' --

Quote:And it is also noted that you added the word 'danger'... which is not a valid reason on its own for state action. If it were, the state could easily ban guns.

The context is 1st Amendment analysis Ham. You do understand that an analysis of one section of the Constitution may indeed have a different framework of analysis, right?

But leave it to you to throw something else entirely different into the mix. And now apparently attempt to throw the 2nd Amendment into the smorgasbord of ideas that seems to emanate from your quarter. My advice is to re-conduct that exercise of reading about the principles of the Constitution in your self-laudatory styled paragraphs at the beginning of your previous reply. Hint: 2nd does not equal 1st in numbering, and as an added bonus 1st amendment does not require principles of due process requiring an intent element.

At this point you have tossed 'intent', Hillary and Biden in contrast with Trump, Presidential Records Act, and now something else entirely. Kind of shotgunning ethereal concepts rather Willy Billy here, I take it?

Quote:

Quote:[A dude posting the John Stennis at dock, and identifying where it is -- simply is not breaking a law per se. Even in wartime. No matter how much you claim to the opposite mind you. And honestly, during a time of urgency, yes -- I wholly support the issue of government interaction to stop that type of posting. Apparently you do not. That is fine.

What a truly ignorant representation of my comments.

Not in light of your derision of KBs question regarding government action to dissuade social media from such posts. Think about it.

Quote:Let's start with this... I said it was illegal,

You said it should/could be stopped due to it being illegal. It is not per se. Your 'rationale' is simply incorrect.

*Nothing* prevents some schmo from taking a pic of the John Stennis at anchor in any port, and posting it.

Quote:and yet you claim here that I don't support the government stopping such things? False on its face... even in your own words here.

Maybe stop and think what KB was asking, Ham.

Quote:Second, Having had a father stationed overseas during military actions... though not formal wars... and written letters and recorded messages back and forth, that were censored/edited, I think I have a slightly better idea than average of what is allowed and not. I've certainly used the term 'illegal' to more broadly define 'actions the government could 'step in' to regulate and not merely 'urge'... and I even further said 'It is my understanding that numerous things can be illegal and have little to no penalty other than a correction...' which speaks to a broad application of the use of the word. My family was not penalized... but our tapes and letters WERE censored for National Security reasons... a compelling national interest.

See the issue as framed above. And as generally framed before. But please feel free to change the context to military personnel who *are*, as a matter of course, subject to government censorship on those matters per their oath, per the CMJ, and chain of command.

I will restate -- "A dude posting the John Stennis at dock, and identifying where it is -- simply is not breaking a law per se. Even in wartime. No matter how much you claim to the opposite mind you." Much as I said in response to your first comment.

And no -- quit with your schtick of "illegal == government could 'step in' to regulate and not merely 'urge' ". That shabby definition hardly touches the issue of 'legal' vs. illegal.

Quote:I mean, the fact that you add the term 'per se'... when the whole issue was once again, brought up by you... is telling.

It means exactly the context it was brought up. Period. Without Encyclopedia Brown Junior Wordsmith Detective making hay on it.

Quote:Maybe you've forgotten what that word means.

In this case it means exactly as intended. The act of telling the world *where* the John Stennis is anchored, even during time of war, is not per se an illegal act by a normal person. That is -- on its own.

The hypo dealt with some schmo who posts that pic and info on social media. That is, the type of instant, broad, and revealing statement that could create a danger. That is the type of action KBs comments were directed at.

Feel free to change the hypo. Or fixate on the nits and nats, and tell us long stories of how your father's correspondence was censored and how this gives you some weird special insight into the hypo of someone in general snapping a pic of the Stennis. Feel free to tell us how intent is somehow at the core the simple hypo above -- and at the core of all First Amendment ananlysis.....

Quote:Quit trying to backtrack on the hypothetical that you created. 'Disclosing troop movements during a time of war' which was the EXACT hypothetical that you began with is 100% an issue of vital national interest that is (or used to be) LITERALLY a TEXTBOOK example of an exception to free speech.

I dont see a backtrack. I see you going off the rails on all sorts of odd extraneous stuff.

Quote:

Quote:Thank you for telling us your responses do not have any grounding in the slightest in the context in which Brown said them, and instead decided to enthrall us on what the term 'hamstring' means to you in generally with zero context to the issue at the forefront.

And than you for your ignorant interpretation of my responses.
Her use of 'hamstrung' and mine are identical. The GENERAL context of her comment is that the inability to moderate speech creates a challenge for government... and that is IMO 100% correct.

Seriously, read her specific question. She asked a *specific* question. One that you think is readily answered without regard to the the *specifics* of here question. That is the ignorant aspect of the issue, notwithstanding your whine above.

Tanq... I'm not playing this stupid game with you. I have enough stupid prizes.

One of the BIGGEST things that you and I argue about is my pontifications about how I think things should work (but don't) and your insistence on telling me that things don't work that way.

The documents case is a perfect example. You keep telling me that the way the law is written... intent is required for prosecution... and I keep telling you that I think that is a demonstrably flawed practice... exacerbated by the fact that the people who most often get away with this crime are the people who wrote the law (and loophole). Get Trump for obstruction all you want... but the vastly larger concern should be that which the President of the US described as (paraphrasing from memory) 'wholly irresponsible, putting lives at risk'.... which was not the obstruction. You have yet to present an argument that reasonably demonstrates to me why intent would be required to prosecute someone for possessing top secret documents outside of an authorized scenario... but is NOT required to prosecute someone for possessing private medical records outside of an authorized scenario.

That just makes zero sense to me.

1) I am STILL unaware of any exceptions to free speech based on speed or breadth of that speech.... or really any of our rights.

2) I never said disclosure of troop movements was 'per se' illegal. You even quote me saying 'could/should'...and though you didn't quote the part where I said that such things in this day and age are hardly 'secrets' anymore... the concept still holds.

We both know that when YOU brought up the hypothetical of 'posting troop movements during wartime' that you were not making the nuanced argument that you're making now.... that ships in port are not really secrets anymore... no matter how hard you try and rehabilitate it

Oh... and MY speech (as a child) was also censored to my father... in addition to his to me. An insignificant aside to my point, but directly counter to your opinion that it only applied to him. I once said something like 'I can't wait to see you at Christmas' and that was censored.... as was a 'Tommy's dad is coming home in a few weeks'.... Troop/ship movements.... My story was actually the topic of an 'AP equivalent' civics course in High School near DC in the 70's.

2) the following statement of yours regarding posting ship positions is demonstrably false :
And honestly, during a time of urgency, yes -- I wholly support the issue of government interaction to stop that type of posting. Apparently you do not.

You're literally arguing that I called it 'per se' illegal (which I did not, but I did say it was illegal) while at the same time arguing that I don't support government interaction from stopping it.

You can't dance around that clear misrepresentation.

3) The government is in no way nor at any time hamstrung from 'urging' people to regulate their speech any more than to turn in their guns.... as in sponsoring 'inclusion' initiatives or a gun buy-back program. They ARE hamstrung from forcing such actions through legal enforcement... by the Constitution (as they should be)


4) The comparison of free speech to national security is one that YOU brought in via your 'troop movements' hypothetical. My use of it here is intentionally an apples:oranges comparison... because they are. One is vitally important to enforce and the other is vitally important to allow... yet the more important one to enforce is harder to 'prosecute' than the one that is more important to allow.

I find that ironic, and don't give a rats ass if you don't.

and though these are not the only things I could respond to... I just don't care anymore...

(03-28-2024 01:19 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Tanq... I'm not playing this stupid game with you. I have enough stupid prizes.

One of the BIGGEST things that you and I argue about is my pontifications about how I think things should work (but don't) and your insistence on telling me that things don't work that way.

The documents case is a perfect example. You keep telling me that the way the law is written... intent is required for prosecution... and I keep telling you that I think that is a demonstrably flawed practice...

You think what you want to. No skin off my back. Demonstrably? In your opinion.

Quote:exacerbated by the fact that the people who most often get away with this crime are the people who wrote the law (and loophole).

Care to back that up actual numbers or is this another lack of substance, empty, rhetorical comment?

Quote: Get Trump for obstruction all you want... but the vastly larger concern should be that which the President of the US described as (paraphrasing from memory) 'wholly irresponsible, putting lives at risk'.... which was not the obstruction.

The vastly larger concern deals with the possession of documents, coupled with the acts that show intent -- which happen to be obstruction.

I am a firm believer in the concept of state of mind being the drawline for almost all criminal punishment. Not your concept of strict liability.

Quote: You have yet to present an argument that reasonably demonstrates to me why intent would be required to prosecute someone for possessing top secret documents outside of an authorized scenario...

Because the vast base of criminal law is based on the state of mind -- you seemingly think that shouldnt be the case, and strict liability should rule the roost.

Quote:That just makes zero sense to me.

If you dont think a moral underpinning of criminal intent is important in charging criminal offenses -- that is you. If that doesnt make sense to you in a simple moral sense, well..... that is you.

Quote:1) I am STILL unaware of any exceptions to free speech based on speed or breadth of that speech.... or really any of our rights.

It isnt an exception "based on speed or breadth", mind you. Content is the exception. The issue is whether in this avenue that 'speed and breadth' have a factor in whether the government has an entry to suggest to the media sites that an issue may be broached.

The fact that a single actor can make a video that absolutely *could* present a very widespread, and very quick across that widespread front, issue is one that is seemingly unique in our day and time.

If you think that is a non-issue -- go for it. I think that there could be an avenue for direct government interaction for such issues.

Quote:Oh... and MY speech (as a child) was also censored to my father... in addition to his to me. An insignificant aside to my point, but directly counter to your opinion that it only applied to him. I once said something like 'I can't wait to see you at Christmas' and that was censored....

Not my opinion. The communications with him as a party were censored as a measure of your father's position in the military. Nice misconstrual of the issue.

Quote:as was a 'Tommy's dad is coming home in a few weeks'.... Troop/ship movements.... My story was actually the topic of an 'AP equivalent' civics course in High School near DC in the 70's.

Awesome dawesome on the AP civics course. The basis is simply your father's position, the Code of Military Justice, and simple contracts. Not the subject at hand, mind you.

That basis does *not* grant you the "I think I have a slightly better idea than average of what is allowed and not" medal based on "Having had a father stationed overseas during military actions". It gives you a better idea of what can and is not monitored and censored as a result of correspondence to and from a military person. It does not give you a "better idea .... if what is allowed or not" on aother forms of communication.

Quote: I've certainly used the term 'illegal' to more broadly define 'actions the government could 'step in' to regulate and not merely 'urge'... and I even further said 'It is my understanding that numerous things can be illegal and have little to no penalty other that

2) the following statement of yours regarding posting ship positions is demonstrably false :
And honestly, during a time of urgency, yes -- I wholly support the issue of government interaction to stop that type of posting. Apparently you do not.

You're literally arguing that I called it 'per se' illegal (which I did not, but I did say it was illegal) while at the same time arguing that I don't support government interaction from stopping it.

You can't dance around that clear misrepresentation.

Ham, your original representation was off base in noting as illegal. General comments on troop movements by third parties, even in time of war -- is not ilelgal. No matter haw far down the fing rabbit hole you want to take it. It was brought up as an example of something that is not generally illegal, that the government could very well have a more than average interest in stifling --- even more so in time of war -- when broadcast to the world at large via social media.

Notwithstanding your vaunted AP essay on the issue of you and your father's communications.

Quote:3) The government is in no way nor at any time hamstrung from 'urging' people to regulate their speech any more than to turn in their guns.... as in sponsoring 'inclusion' initiatives or a gun buy-back program. They ARE hamstrung from forcing such actions through legal enforcement... by the Constitution (as they should be)

And again you simply decide to stray well and afar from the details of the case, and the context that KB introduces in here question. Score another point for the 'answer any question *you* decide to bring up'.

Quote:4) The comparison of free speech to national security is one that YOU brought in via your 'troop movements' hypothetical. My use of it here is intentionally an apples:oranges comparison... because they are. One is vitally important to enforce and the other is vitally important to allow... yet the more important one to enforce is harder to 'prosecute' than the one that is more important to allow.

The concept of generalized otherwise legal comments is the issue. Which *you* have decided is about Clinton, intent in crimes, your AP essay, and whole fkload of other ancillary issues.

And each of the hypos I put forward demonstrate that aspect. I care that each of those hypos is the type of issue KB asked in the context of the question. While you just want to seemingly regale us with general comments and your AP essay.

I actually give a rat's ass on *all* the hypos, for the same underlying common characteristics they share. That is -- the context of KBs question, and the types of issues she explicitly referred to in her queries. That is, the stuff you simply dont want to be bothered (and explicitly havent bothered, mind you) to really know before sermonizing.

I can't believe you're still on this. Get another hobby.

YOU created the 'troop movement' hypothetical (and numerous others) and then you try and attack me for responding to them? What you're doing... whether you admit it or are aware of it or not.... is beginning with what she said, and then demanding that I accept numerous hypotheticals that YOU created... each of which requires that I expand my agreement with you... to the point where you claim I am agreeing with things that SHE didn't mention, and I don't agree with.

I won't walk your path, counselor.

The facts remain that you claimed 'apparently you (meaning me) do not' support the issue of government intervening to stop posting of things like troop movements during times of war.... when I demonstrably do... since I said it was illegal. That's just a blatant falsehood and an example of you walking me down a path

Your immaterial aside as to whether this is ACTUALLY 'illegal' or not (which of course ignores my numerous comments to the same effect) is a red herring by you... because if the government can 'intervene to stop posting things like troop movements during a time of war' (which we both apparently support their right to do so on a limited and targeted basis) then it IS for all intents and purposes 'against the law'.... what most people would call 'illegal'.

So enough about that crap.

Does this hamstring government as The Justice said??? Absolutely. As it should. That's what I said and you have yet to address this to the contrary, choosing to instead take issue with 'how' I say things or what the voices in your head tell you I meant (as opposed to what I said I meant) and not address the very simple comment that I made... that free speech is ABSOLUTELY a right we have for the specific (but not sole) intent of 'hamstringing' the government. It is notable (to me anyway) that every item listed in the BOR is specifically articulated to do this very thing.... 'in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers'... aka 'hamstringing them'.

Can they get around such a hamstring? Absolutely. Obvious ones like the War powers act... States of National Emergency... other such broad strokes that don't immediately come to my mind all provide all but unlimited ability for the government to suspend or inhibit (aka, make illegal) the free exercise of all sorts of Constitutionally protected rights. Beyond that, they are bound by laws. If they want to infringe upon our rights otherwise, they can pass a (Constitutionally allowed) law.... like they did for machine guns etc.... the list of such is long...

Although they are generally protected, NO rights are without potential limits... and when those limits are enacted, the court has similarly held that they should reflect the sort of infringement that is as narrow and limited as possible.... which of course, is ALSO a way of saying the government is 'hamstrung'.

That freaking simple.

(04-01-2024 10:56 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I can't believe you're still on this. Get another hobby.

YOU created the 'troop movement' hypothetical (and numerous others) and then you try and attack me for responding to them?

The facts remain that you claimed 'apparently you do not' support the issue of government intervening to stop posting of things like troop movements during times of war.... when I demonstrably do.

Your immaterial aside as to whether this is 'illegal' or not is a red herring by you... because if the government can 'intervene to stop posting things like troop movements during a time of war (which we both apparently support their right to do so on a limited and targeted basis) then it IS for all intents and purposes 'against the law'.... what most people would call 'illegal'.

Does this hamstring government?? Absolutely. As it should. That's what I said and you have yet to address this in the contrary, choosing to instead take issue with 'how' I say things or what the voices in your head tell you I meant (as opposed to what I said I meant) and not address the very simple comment that I made... that free speech is ABSOLUTELY a right we have for the specific (but not sole) intent of 'hamstringing' the government.

Can they get around such a hamstring? Absolutely. War powers act... States of National Emergency... other such broad strokes that don't come to my mind all provide all but unlimited ability for the government to suspend or inhibit (aka, make illegal) the free exercise of all sorts of Constitutionally protected rights. Beyond that, they are bound by laws. If they want to infringe upon our rights otherwise, they can pass a (Constitutionally allowed) law.... like they did for machine guns etc.... like 'fire' in a crowded theatre.

Although they are generally protected, NO rights are without potential limits... and when those limits are enacted, the court has similarly held that they should reflect the sort of infringement that is as narrow and limited as possible.... which of course, is ALSO a way of saying the government is 'hamstrung'.

That freaking simple.

No Ham, the issue is maybe for once -- address *the* issue on the table. Not whatever rando stuff that KBs comments are not directed at. Not what you regurgitate in a general manner, not what rabbit hole idea enters your mind -- how about *the* subject and *the* context that her questions were asked on. But feel free to sermonize on the josannas of your massive generalization theory without the aid of the specific issues at hand.

It is that simple. Yet apparently that hard.

Quote: Your immaterial aside as to whether this is 'illegal' or not is a red herring by you

Yes such an immaterial aside when I try to parallel *her* question. Imagine that. My issues that are put up were put up *because* they are generally legal nature Ham. If you do not understand that, and because you are too vain to actually address KBs actual question -- leave it to that combination to get that comment from you. Wonderful.

It isnt an aside at all -- you were the person to make the issue of it being legal or not a main presence -- in fact it led to a whole fing diatribe and thesis from you on trials and intent and the proud beating of your chest on your vaunted AP essay on that, and how that made you the expert of some sort on all things about communications *between* military personnel and others, but not necessarily on the side topic there. Do you not remember that?

Cant wait for your next random thought excursion exercise, and the pride (I guess) in not wishing to address the exact topic that KB addressed in light of your very generalized comments that happen to use the same word.

(04-01-2024 12:58 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  No Ham, the issue is maybe for once -- address *the* issue on the table.

No, Tanq. The issue is you lying about what I said and then repeatedly ignoring me pointing it out. You can pretend that I didn't say that the government had some limited power to regulate free speech, but that doesn't make it true.

Since you yourself have danced around the specific query with your own *immaterial asides*, perhaps YOU should stick to the facts at issue.

The ONLY thing I said was that absolutely... the first amendment hamstrings the government... and this is a feature, not a flaw.

As to the specific facts at issue... I mean, if you want to give context, why don't you actually START with the actual context??

Justice Jackson offered a hypothetical: suppose “someone started posting about a new teen challenge that involved teens jumping out of windows at increasing elevations.” It becomes a fad, and kids start dying. Can the government “declare those circumstances a public emergency and encourage social media platforms to take down the information that is instigating this problem?”

So even she noted that this required a declaration of a 'public emergency' which of course expands the power of the government.... just as I said.

The question is... do any of us really see a 'public emergency' from such an event such that the least restrictive (again, a big part of CONSTITUTIONAL restrictions on things like free speech) response is to ban posts?

Justice Jackson herself hit on all these same ideas. A 'COMPELLING INTEREST"

She then came in with a hypothetical that is self-serving.... it was a trend where kids are being encouraged to jump out of windows and they are dying and the state declares this a 'national emergency'. I have REPEATEDLY said that 'national emergencies' give the state vastly more power to regulate.

The problem comes in because her hypothetical is such a low bar. By that measure they could claim that 'not taking your statin or diabetes medication' kills people and thus the state can declare a 'national emergency' and suspend our rights to 'not' take prescribed medication.

Here is a quote I agree with... emphasis mine...

...arguing that the court has previously upheld speech restrictions if they are narrow and advance a compelling state interest. She told attorneys for Missouri, “So my biggest concern is that your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the government in significant ways in the most important time periods.”

Well that's not MY biggest concern, nor should it be the biggest concern of ANY citizen. The biggest concern of ANY citizen (and the explicit purpose of the BOR, I might add) is to keep the government from over-stepping its powers.

and of course, by setting the bar for 'compelling state interest' at 'stupid people might do stupid things' is just well, stupid.

Quote:Yes such an immaterial aside when I try to parallel *her* question. Imagine that. My issues that are put up were put up *because* they are generally legal nature Ham. If you do not understand that, and because you are too vain to actually address KBs actual question -- leave it to that combination to get that comment from you. Wonderful.

As usual, you reflect yourself on to me. Your arrogance knows no bounds.

I find it telling that you didn't use HER actual hypothetical, but instead chose your own, flawed ones... talk about vain... lol.... and then projected my valid responses to your hypotheticals on to her hypothetical, which was NOT the same as hers.

I don't think many... even you would argue that a 'time of war' was also a time where the government might declare something a 'national emergency'.

I find it more funny that you ignored her declaration of this trend as a 'national emergency' in order to justify the suppression of free speech.... and yet when I say we have laws to address this, you ignore that.

so you may have TRIED to parallel her idea, but you failed.... and I responded to your failures.

(04-01-2024 04:14 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(04-01-2024 12:58 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  No Ham, the issue is maybe for once -- address *the* issue on the table.

No, Tanq. The issue is you lying about what I said and then repeatedly ignoring me pointing it out. You can pretend that I didn't say that the government had some limited power to regulate free speech, but that doesn't make it true.

Since you yourself have danced around the specific query with your own *immaterial asides*, perhaps YOU should stick to the facts at issue.

The ONLY thing I said was that absolutely... the first amendment hamstrings the government... and this is a feature, not a flaw.

As to the specific facts at issue... I mean, if you want to give context, why don't you actually START with the actual context??

Justice Jackson offered a hypothetical: suppose “someone started posting about a new teen challenge that involved teens jumping out of windows at increasing elevations.” It becomes a fad, and kids start dying. Can the government “declare those circumstances a public emergency and encourage social media platforms to take down the information that is instigating this problem?”

So even she noted that this required a declaration of a 'public emergency' which of course expands the power of the government.... just as I said.

The question is... do any of us really see a 'public emergency' from such an event such that the least restrictive (again, a big part of CONSTITUTIONAL restrictions on things like free speech) response is to ban posts?

Justice Jackson herself hit on all these same ideas. A 'COMPELLING INTEREST"

She then came in with a hypothetical that is self-serving.... it was a trend where kids are being encouraged to jump out of windows and they are dying and the state declares this a 'national emergency'. I have REPEATEDLY said that 'national emergencies' give the state vastly more power to regulate.

The problem comes in because her hypothetical is such a low bar. By that measure they could claim that 'not taking your statin or diabetes medication' kills people and thus the state can declare a 'national emergency' and suspend our rights to 'not' take prescribed medication.

Here is a quote I agree with... emphasis mine...

...arguing that the court has previously upheld speech restrictions if they are narrow and advance a compelling state interest. She told attorneys for Missouri, “So my biggest concern is that your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the government in significant ways in the most important time periods.”

Well that's not MY biggest concern, nor should it be the biggest concern of ANY citizen. The biggest concern of ANY citizen (and the explicit purpose of the BOR, I might add) is to keep the government from over-stepping its powers.

and of course, by setting the bar for 'compelling state interest' at 'stupid people might do stupid things' is just well, stupid.

Quote:Yes such an immaterial aside when I try to parallel *her* question. Imagine that. My issues that are put up were put up *because* they are generally legal nature Ham. If you do not understand that, and because you are too vain to actually address KBs actual question -- leave it to that combination to get that comment from you. Wonderful.

As usual, you reflect yourself on to me. Your arrogance knows no bounds.

I find it telling that you didn't use HER actual hypothetical, but instead chose your own, flawed ones... talk about vain... lol.... and then projected my valid responses to your hypotheticals on to her hypothetical, which was NOT the same as hers.

I don't think many... even you would argue that a 'time of war' was also a time where the government might declare something a 'national emergency'.

I find it more funny that you ignored her declaration of this trend as a 'national emergency' in order to justify the suppression of free speech.... and yet when I say we have laws to address this, you ignore that.

so you may have TRIED to parallel her idea, but you failed.... and I responded to your failures.

If you don’t see the significant parallels between my hypos and hers, you have a serious comprehension issue. Maybe go over them a tad. Or just jump on the next iridescent bug to ***** at.

Two of them track her hypo pretty much item for item you might note.

At least you read the fing context this time around before bloviating. Good grief.

The problem with you Ham, is if someone doesn’t repeat what you say syllable for syllable, you ***** and fing scream about their lying.

All the while mangling other people’s words and issues in the same manner. In fing credible on the hypocrisy.

And no, many things I don’t bother to repeat with your fing rabbit hole trail of ideas. As in your complaint in your second sentence. Seriously, everyone here knows that the govt has some power in regulating speech. I’m not ignoring it —- it’s too trivial of a basic point to address. The issue isn’t that —- the issue is *where* and *how* that application is appropriate.

But leave it to you to ***** and whine that the point you made there, and assume made elsewhere, isn’t the god smoking insight you seemingly wish people to exult and paean to like Sophocles.

Apologies I didn’t blush and gurgle over that Hamsight. JFC.

But again, glad you finally fing figured out the context of the term as KB asked. But leave it to you after many general as fk comments not knowing the context, broadly proclaim the added hypos as ‘failures’. Got it. Life as usual in Hamworld I surmise.

(04-01-2024 05:45 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  If you don’t see the significant parallels between my hypos and hers, you have a serious comprehension issue.

lol...

Your arrogance and hypocrisy on full display.

No matter how significant the parallels, they are not the same... and yet you try and chastise ME for not responding directly to HER hypothetical? It was you who took us off course. If you weren't so frequently a pedantic twit, I could let that slide... but I won't. You earned this derision.

Quote:The problem with you Ham, is if someone doesn’t repeat what you say syllable for syllable, you ***** and fing scream about their lying.

Lol... You're such a victim

You lied, Tanq. Clear as day.

You said that I didn't support something that I quite obviously do. That's not 'repeating syllable for syllable', but a clear misrepresentation of the truth, aka a lie. You are literally arguing simultaneously that I am 'wrong' that 'disclosing troop movements during a time of war is a crime' and then arguing that I 'don't support government intervention to stop people from disclosing troop movements during a time of war.'

You did both of those things in a single post...

And those aren't situations where you didn't go 'word for word'.

Quote:Seriously, everyone here knows that the govt has some power in regulating speech. I’m not ignoring it —- it’s too trivial of a basic point to address. The issue isn’t that —- the issue is *where* and *how* that application is appropriate.

Now you're just copying what I've said all along... literally from post 1

What you leave off is her example where she has declared a form of a 'state of emergency' as a result of idiots on the internet.

I'm sorry, but while I am perfectly fine with the government suggesting that the website take down that post and others like it, I do not in any way see how you get from 'daring people to jump out of windows at increasing heights' to some sort of 'national emergency' that justifies a suspension of our FIRST amendment right. The FIRST item listed in an articulated effort to ' extend(ing) the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

THAT was her hypothetical that you keep ignoring... That this somehow became a national emergency... and my response to that from the start was that such declarations make all sorts of things that were previously legal, illegal (and don't give me your patented pedantic quip about how such things aren't really 'illegal'... If the government can force you against your will, your action is 'not lawful). But more, as I specifically said to your 'danger' comment... if THAT is where you set the bar, then suddenly the second amendment is easily off the table, because guns are inherently dangerous.

So you can ***** and moan like a $2 hooker about my rabbit trails, but I have been consistent. It's not my fault that you arrogantly insisted that I respond to YOUR hypotheticals as opposed to hers.

Quote: Life as usual in Hamworld I surmise.

Yep... Hamworld.... where liars get called out.