21–30 of 50 posts
Obligatory: http://www.popehat.com/2013/02/05/crime-whale-sushi-sentence...
Obligatory: http://www.popehat.com/2013/02/05/crime-whale-sushi-sentence...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So if I should find out someone is HIV positive and looking for employment, I should be able to type out the preceding sentence to the HR departments of all prospective employers due to my First Amendment rights? How about inciting a lynch mob (you know, the kind that hang 'uppity' persons off of trees)? It's just speech, right?
Neither of those actions are 'just speech', quite in fact they are punishable through the existing legal framework and in neither case is the crime specifically the speech. The crime is what you use the speech to do , whether it is oppress someone, punish them, or bring harm to them. Pasting a link to the stratfor archive - content that was already available in lots of places - does not do measurable harm to anyone.…
Obligatory: http://www.popehat.com/2013/02/05/crime-whale-sushi-sentence...
Ridiculous max sentences which almost never happen do not work well together with plea bargains.
So the take away from this is security by obscurity is now officially protected by law and linking to leaked information is illegal according to the government.
My America how far you have fallen.
These types of articles are depressing to me because they mask what could be a good moral and legal question behind claims which border on dishonest. Saying that the Feds are charging Barrett for the crime of "posting a URL" is like saying that the Norwegian police would be charging Breivik for "pulling a metal lever" hundreds of times. I mean sure, he did that, but that's not what the claimed "crime" is. Imagine a g…
Bullshit. Typing out http://some.website should never be a crime. Period. Look up the first amendment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So if I should find out someone is HIV positive and looking for employment, I should be able to type out the preceding sentence to the HR departments of all prospective employers due to my First Amendment rights? How about inciting a lynch mob (you know, the kind that hang 'uppity' persons off of trees)? It's just speech, right?
Inciting a lynch mob is conspiracy to commit murder, so it's not a restriction on free speech that would prevent you from doing so. Telling everyone an applicant has HIV is disgustingly immoral but I don't know if/why you should be barred from doing it. That's a much better question than the lynch mob.
On the contrary! The inciter doesn't explicitly call for the killing, rather they froth the crowd up into a frenzy by lies and emotion and then ask what that crowd is going to do about it... right about the time that a convenient victim from the "oppressor group" (Jews/blacks/etc.) comes into the scene.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_excep...
Obligatory: http://www.popehat.com/2013/02/05/crime-whale-sushi-sentence...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So if I should find out someone is HIV positive and looking for employment, I should be able to type out the preceding sentence to the HR departments of all prospective employers due to my First Amendment rights? How about inciting a lynch mob (you know, the kind that hang 'uppity' persons off of trees)? It's just speech, right?
Jesus. What do either of those situations have to do with this case? (Spoiler: nothing at all.)
In short, the comment implied that the First Amendment has an absolute and total protection of speech as a way of saying my larger point is ridiculous.
But speech doesn't enjoy total protection, even in the U.S. And most people would identify some category of thing that they simply wouldn't let people say about another, whether it's stuff like personal and private IM/emails, information useful for identity theft, financial information, etc.
Almost everyone has something that they would say the First Amendment doesn't protect. So now the question people should ask themselves is what kind of other speech would they say warrants no protection? They've already agreed to prostitute their absolute protection of speech, now they need only negotiate on the 'cost'.