tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4841866593898210279.post6435291565011525943..comments2023-10-31T03:54:17.210-05:00Comments on Thus Blogged Anderson: Post terrorist pamphlet online, get 17 years in prison - UPDATEDAndersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02325205512110155291noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4841866593898210279.post-74994393639529789282012-04-23T08:10:11.090-05:002012-04-23T08:10:11.090-05:00Well Pug, truth is I've been kinda busy since ...Well Pug, truth is I've been kinda busy since my glimpse of <i>Phineas & Ferb</i> Saturday morning.<br /><br />Granted, America's First Amendment is a better law than the speech codes in Europe, which I <a href="http://thusbloggedanderson.blogspot.com/2012/02/european-limits-on-free-speech.html" rel="nofollow">posted on</a> a few weeks ago.<br /><br />As for conspiracy theories about the creation of Israel, the truth is depressing enough.<br /><br />... Thanks for the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/22/opinion/sunday/a-dangerous-mind.html?_r=1&hp" rel="nofollow">link</a>, Jane!Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02325205512110155291noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4841866593898210279.post-73084704531105311112012-04-22T17:35:18.971-05:002012-04-22T17:35:18.971-05:00That should read 20April, not September.That should read 20April, not September.Pugnaciousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4841866593898210279.post-70528410690700776572012-04-22T16:04:38.067-05:002012-04-22T16:04:38.067-05:00I could never divide myself from any man upon the ...<i>I could never divide myself from any man upon the difference of an opinion, or be angry with his judgement for not agreeing with me in that, from which perhaps within a few days I should dissent myself.</i>~Thomas Browne <br /><br />In the spirit of truth. Thank for not taking it down.Pugnaciousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4841866593898210279.post-14455316798616126212012-04-22T13:39:22.493-05:002012-04-22T13:39:22.493-05:00http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/22/opinion/sunday/a...http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/22/opinion/sunday/a-dangerous-mind.html?hpJanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17809134895299617143noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4841866593898210279.post-6723218147377163412012-04-22T09:54:00.364-05:002012-04-22T09:54:00.364-05:00But surely we have not come to the point where we ...<i>But surely we have not come to the point where we lock people up for nearly two decades for translating a widely available document?</i>~Anderson<br /><br />This is everyday at the office in the post-WWII New Europe where they lockup historians for publishing the inconvenient facts of WWII. I think that it was coincidental(the historic date being Hitler's birth anniversary,20 September), but Irving has posted to his website the translation of a letter from Chaim Weizmann to Winston Churchill, reminding him of efforts of the elder American Jews of Zion in convincing Wilson to intervene on the side of the Brits in WW1, and promising to do the same for the Brits in the coming WW2. The prize for their efforts was awarded at the 1919 Paris Peace Conference with Brandeis, Frankfruter, Weizmann and Ben Victor Cohen(World Zionist Organization legal counsel)being granted deed and title to Palestine and permitted to draw the boundries for Der Judenstat. Ben Victor Cohen was later to redraw the post-war map for Germany at the Postdam Conference. Weizmann's letter is dated 10SEPT1941, one day before Commander-In-Chief FDR ordered the US Navy and Army Air Force to attack German military vessels in international waters. And one day before Charles Lindberg gave his historic America First "peace" speech at Des Moines, Iowa. And one day before ground-breaking ceremonies for construction of the Pentagon were conducted in DC.<br /><br />What is it about 11September?<br /><br />I wonder how this will play at the <b>New Republic</b>? <br /><br /><br />http://www.fpp.co.uk/History/Churchill/Weizmann_Zionists/WSC_100941.htmlPugnaciousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4841866593898210279.post-20914515328172442882012-04-20T11:41:24.548-05:002012-04-20T11:41:24.548-05:00The narrowing of the definition of free speech is ...The narrowing of the definition of free speech is concerning, but I think there's precedent to be used to bring it back to where it ought to be. What about the broadening of the definition of "terrorism," though? Every single regime involved in the Arab spring immediately labeled all protesters "terrorists." Isn't the real danger that all dissent will eventually be labeled "terrorism"? <br /><br />Someone once said that, the way people's minds work, "unprecedented" equals "unlikely," but that is not necessarily true. Just because you've never had your door kicked in by storm troopers, it doesn't mean it can't happen. If you have something of value, and you do not protect it, it will be taken from you. <br /><br />If you ignore the health of your democracy, and fail to work to maintain it, it will fall apart. It's no different than a garden that isn't weeded and watered, or a business that doesn't adapt to a constantly changing environment. Bacon said "Things alter for the worse spontaneously, if they be not altered for the better designedly." Or, put another way, "entropy happens." <br /><br />I'm not saying the US government is anything like this. Just because I pull onto I55, it doesn't mean I'm going to New Orleans. I'm just saying, if I'm headed to New Orleans, that is the first step I would take. (or second, after getting some beer)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4841866593898210279.post-6857214177491244822012-04-20T11:37:59.769-05:002012-04-20T11:37:59.769-05:00Judge Mental, I really think this will be seen as ...Judge Mental, I really think this will be seen as a series of decisions made after World War II to accept greater and greater "security state" and executive power. The mid-to-late 20th Century may be our heyday for First Amendment rights and probably civil rights in general. Perhaps the pendulum can swing back on some of this but I don't see how on executive power-- it's the sort of thing that's "sticky." <br /><br />I've read the briefs on the first amendment arguments in this case and am going to try to post them later. The charges divide easily into groups:<br /><br />1) Clear first amendment activity that does not incite violence (the translation, lending and borrowing dvds. YES THERE ARE COUNTS CLAIMING LENDING AND BORROWING DVDS IS TERRORIST ACTIVITY, internet chat about jihad)<br /><br />2) Stuff that could produce a conspiracy charge because it is so easy to charge conspiracy in federal court and it probably does cross the line (trying to procure guns for a domestic terrorist act, going to Pakistan to try to get training, going to Yemen for the same purpose, all three of which were obviously deeply ineffectual and failed). .<br /><br />I'm curious whether the FBI tried a sting on these guys and couldn't pull it off, or what, because these seem to be the sorts they'd have tried that on. <br /><br />If I were the judge, I'd say "you can prosecute them on group 2 but not group 1, although you can prove all the speech stuff to show they were trying to be jihadiis on a mission as a part of getting a conviction for the group 2 stuff. But the speech stuff itself is not a crime." <br /><br />The Government brief essentially says over and over "speech can too be a crime. And furthermore: CONSPIRACY CONSPIRACY CONSPIRACY." It doesn't really grapple with the issue. But then given the "prosecution wins" presumption in criminal cases, they never seem impelled to try very hard.NMissChttp://nmisscommentor.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4841866593898210279.post-13278934976160597032012-04-20T08:52:10.232-05:002012-04-20T08:52:10.232-05:00That is a plausible proposition. In the case of t...That is a plausible proposition. In the case of the First Amendment, however - and my grades in Con Law would militate against your taking this very seriously - I thought that speech protections were very weak until rather late in the history of our republic. <br /><br />(Holmes himself had upheld a not much less obnoxious conviction in <i>Schenck</i>, which he not very convincingly distinguished in his dissent, while also admitting he'd had a change of mind on the subject.)Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02325205512110155291noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4841866593898210279.post-14171806544747378732012-04-20T08:25:08.279-05:002012-04-20T08:25:08.279-05:00From a philosophical standpoint, this kind of conv...From a philosophical standpoint, this kind of conviction seems to bear out one of my suspicions (meaning that I have not researched it) that as societies grow older and more comfortable, they become more willing to sacrifice freedom in favor of a perceived increase in security.Judge Mentalnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4841866593898210279.post-72505592987815891342012-04-20T08:12:12.958-05:002012-04-20T08:12:12.958-05:00The Holder decision held that donations, which as ...The <i>Holder</i> decision held that donations, which as we know from the "corporations are people" cases are "speech," could be "material support" for terrorism, despite the First Amendment.<br /><br />DOJ is now taking that holding to the logical next step, which is that there's no free speech whatsoever if it "materially supports" terrorism.<br /><br />By this point, it's unsurprising that Obama lacks principles, but it's still disappointing. Of course, a Romney administration would do the same or worse, plus appointing the kind of judges who would affirm this conviction.Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02325205512110155291noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4841866593898210279.post-5992265904304655142012-04-20T08:07:10.538-05:002012-04-20T08:07:10.538-05:00This is strange. Hard to understand the law here. ...This is strange. Hard to understand the law here. Wonder what kind of case his lawyer presented to defend him? Any more info out there?JLAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com