RadioBanter - View Single Post - While we're on the subject of funny and entertaining websites.....

April 14th 05, 02:55 PM

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 17:13:37 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:
:29 -0400,
Once again you base your mistaken opinion
on technicalities and semantics. Someone
who murders someone is still guilty of a
criminal act regardless if he's been caught yet.
Being pronounced guilty is only a formality.

The same holds true for the FCC rules.

(Here we go again. DAVE, is Michael Jackson guilty? )

I don't know. But whether or not the court

pronounced him as such doesn't change the

acts that he may or may not have done.

Once one is found not guilty in the US by a court of law and/or a jury
of their peers, you can not claim he is guilty, regardless of what he
may have done as relating to his case. Do so and you'll be broke after
being sued for defamation of character along with anything else
concerning libel or slander laws.

I educated you once before on the conditions of libel cases. I'll be
glad to provide the links again. But the long and short of it is that
you can't just sue someone for libel unless you can prove that damages
were sustained as a result of the alleged libel claim.

(Doesn't change the acts he may or may not done? If he's done something
wrong, found guilty then he's a criminal. If he done nothing wrong, went
to court and was found not guilty, he should still be labeled a criminal
because he's being accused? )

What if he's done the acts he was accused of,
.but because of an inability for the state to
prove it, or the credibility of the witnesses
becomes cloudy and he walks, what does
THAT make him?

Depends on the verdict. There are only three possibilities,,,,,innocent,
not guilty, and guilty.

Technically, innocent and not guilty are the same thing. Most criminal
case verdicts are declared either guilty or not guilty.

(Think before you answer, are you there? sitting in the jury box?
listening to the testimony? following the judges orders concerning what
type of evidence you are going to hear? not formulating any opinion
until you and the rest of your fellow jurors are deliberating the case?
Of course not, so how can you say because someone here is running a 1000
watts and talking on the freeband is a criminal? )

If you witness someone killing another, do you
need a jury verdict before you know that that

person is a murderer?

You can "know" (translated in your case to being a simile for "believe")
anything you wish, but even if you witnessed such an act, you are not
permitted to publicly call him such IF he was tried and found other than
guilty. Your belief is irrelevent.

The truth is irrelevant? What a warped world you live in. A world
where labels mean more than the truth.

-
(I heard someone on 2 meters last night, swearing, threating people, is
he guilty of violating FCC rules? )

Absolutely!

If the law defines a particular act as criminal,
then if you engage in that act, you are
engaging in a criminal activity. Being labeled
as such by a court is only a formality and a
convenient excuse for people who want to
thumb their nose at the law, and wish to ease
their guilty conscience, by trying to convince
themselves that their activities aren't really
criminal because they haven't been caught
yet..

(chuckle),,you go on trying to convince *yourself" you have the right to
call one a criminal for what you perceive constitutes such. If you were
to publicly refer to one with their proper name as as a criminal, based
only what you present here and erroneously believe constitutes such
criminal activity (such as maintaining, on more than one occasion, that
one's posts in this group you -think- may belong to a certain identity,
is "proof" enough (for you) to refer to the person as a criminal), a
small filing fee would be paid (AFTER your criminal charges) and you
would be buried in civil court by someone versed in what you mistakenly
perceive as the law.

What criminal charge would I be liable for? There is no "crime" for
stating that someone is a criminal. There is that little thing called
the 1st amendment. You know, that little provision that allows
nutcases and fruitcakes alike to spew all sorts of hate, rhetoric and
nonsense. There might be a civil action depending on the conditions
and the people involved. The National Enquirer and other tabloids are
full of people who would like to sue, but for some reason don't. Why
is that, do you suppose? Of course, as always you are more than
welcome to provide some examples of case law to back yourself up.

After the criminal charges were applied you, the
civil matter would be only a formality, based on your guilt from the
outcome of the criminal trial based on your libel/slander/defamatory
comments, which are in turn based on -your- erroenous beliefs.

What crime would I be guilty of?

Speeding is not considered a criminal offense.

Neither is dxing

Ah, there's a difference. If you are operating a legal part 95 type
certified CB radio on authorized CB channels, and you talk some DX, I
would be inclined to agree with you. You would be in violation of a
minor rule, which would amount to a slap on the wrist.

However, once you set foot on the freeband, you lose your
authorization by rule to operate a transmitter, and you are no longer
considered a CB'er, but an unlicensed pirate radio transmitter.
Operating an unlicensed transmitter on a frequency which you are not
authorized for, is a far more serious offense, than simply DXing. It's
not the DX'ing that will get you popped on the freeband, it's
operating an unlicensed transmitter.

The you should have no problem citing an example where one of these
mystery people you are always invoking claimed they thought stealing
from a cable TV service was legal/acceptable/non-criminal.

When you give me your name first.

Until the law changed and got some

teeth. Now people who sell cable theft devices
face serious jail time.

But not dxers.

Not all DX'ers are guilty of criminal behavior. Those who freeband
are.

Anyways, those who sell illegal cable boxes are a much different
scenario than the first you invoked. Selling illegal converters carries
a much harsher charge than merely using one, but it does illustrate how
far off topic you are wliling to run.

It was used as an illustration of how some people view such
"victimless" crimes as somehow less than serious enough to consider
criminal.

(You can't, you are not a sheriff, judge & jury, to which is the only
way someone can be classified a criminal, after being convicted, before
that they are only a suspect. )

Maybe in a legal sense,

LOL,,as opposed to what? The legal sense is the only manner in which you
may legally refer to one a criminal. Do it ay other way and you are
opening yourself to penalties.

Such as?

Using your own warped logic (admitting
something on the internet is the same as a guilty plea in a court of
law) concerning what is said among internet babble, the mere fact that
you were informed of the law on many occasion, yet continue to refer to
certain proper names as a criminal, can enhance your penalties because
you continued to break said laws. Even though you may correctly plead
ignorance, such is never held in a court of law as a valid excuse for
one breaking the law.

So go ahead, sue me.

And only a court of law can determine such proof, not you, not your
observational skills, not your "knowing" based on beliefs, and certainly
not your (mis)interpretations of the law.

You are guilty. You know it, and I know it. The fact that you get away
with it in a legal venue, doesn't change that. You are simply playing
semantics games.

But you know as well as I do
that the system is flawed, and many times
guilty people walk for various reasons.

Irrelevant.
You continue to express extreme difficulty in comprehending that you
may not refer to these people as criminals.

I can and I will. Sue me if you think you can. But you won't because
you'd have to reveal your identity, and your anonymity means more to
you.

Conversely, some innocent people are
wrongly convicted. But if I witness a crime, I
don't need a jury to tell me that the perp is a
criminal.

You most certainly do if you wish to say it publicly or to another.

I can say anything I wish. The 1st amendment protects that.

Did the alleged "child molester" brag to a
bunch of people on an internet forum that he
did indeed molest children?

More of your ignorance. I can say I shot Kennedy....it means ****,
except to you.

Why would you admit to a crime you didn't commit?

More revealing is your admittance to the likelihood that you tend to
lie frequently.

Admitting to an unlawful activity is the same
thing in principle to pleading guilty in a trial.

Good gawd oh mighty. Here's where you get schooled again. not only do
you have no clue who one is on the internet, you are incompetently and
incorrectly claiming hearsay is the same thing as pleading guilty. Your
ignorance of the law has no bounds,

So, basically, you summed it up quite nicely, and anonymous non-person
admits to partaking in a criminal activity. So where's the problem? Is
this non-person engaging in criminal activity or not? The fact that he
hasn't been tagged by a court is irrelevant.

It may be "unofficial" but that's all I need to see
to make up my mind.

Of course, you do. You have been mispronouncing people on the internet
as "federal criminals" as long as you have been spoon-fed carefully
scripted information.

They deserve what they get. If people want to pretend to be things
that they are not, then they can make no charge of libel, since these
"cartoon characters" do not really exist.

You can't have it both ways. Anonymity cuts both ways.

Now that you shout to the world your mistaken
belief that what one posts on the internet is tantamount to an admission
of guilt in a US court of law, all one can do is laugh at you or feel
pity.

I'm the one laughing. At you for getting your panties in a knot
defending the non-words to non-people over the internet.

Besides, your position can get you sued, should you exercise it as you
claim,

Nope. Not a chance. You'd have to prove actual damages. But first
you'd have to prove that "twistedhed" (or whatever other sock name you
use) is a real entity and subject to defamation.

Your anonymity is your enemy at that point.

Do you think tabloid newspapers would be in business if it was THAT
easy to win a libel case?

You know nothing about the reality of law. You, like Frank, read
words, but can't apply them in the real world.

You have no way of knowing what someone, such as myself, does or
doesn't.

No, I don't. But if you admit to operating on the freeband, then you
deserve to wear the badge of federal criminal. Only you (And your
hairdresser) knows for sure.

Because you mistakenly believe everyone that posts from webtv
is the twisted who rang your bell and a sock puppet, doesn't make it so.

No, but in this case it does. You can change your name, but not your
"personality".

Wrong again. I can sit here and tell you I robbed banks, killed Kennedy,
was single-handedly responsible for the theft of the Star of India, and
broker counterfeit Monets,,,it means ****,,,,,,of course,,,except to
you, who has these warped beliefs regarding legalities responsible for
so many errors in your comments.

I can't convict you in a court of law, but that doesn't mean the court
of public opinion won't be influenced. The degree of proof in much
different. You can hide from the law, but you can't hide from yourself
or God. Your excuse that a court of law hasn't convicted you, is a
truly feeble excuse and poor justification for your anti-social
behavior, and won't protect you in the court of public opinion.

Typical of all slackers and scofflaws.

And your comments are typical of those consumed with hate and those of
little tolerance for all but your own beliefs.

If you are saying that I have a problem with people who disregard the
law at their own personal whim, and then fabricate weak excuses for
it, then you'd be correct.

What you profess as sound moral principles, ranks right there with your
denial the legality of roger beeps, the denial the existence of the
federal DOT, and your claim there is no federal speed limit (there is,
and it governs all commercial vehicles).

And until you can prove those claims, you are still ****ing in the
wind.

But the fact that you claim internet babble is the same thing as a
guilty plea in a court of law, most certainly governs when you may or
may not publicly refer one as a criminal.

This is not a court of law. This is the court of public opinion. The
standards of guilt are much different. As long as we have imaginary
identities, committing alleged crimes, I will call them on it as long
as I need to. You don't like it? Too bad.

Dave
"Sandbagger"
http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj