In article
,
Mike wrote:

On Jun 6, 3:29?am, Telamon
wrote:


Again, what law did Hal break? It is definitely poor form to threaten
someone publicly but it is not against the law.


Incitement to violence is one area where we do not free speech. Eugene
V. Debs served several years in prison in the early 1900's for
advocating that young men drafted into WW1 not show up for induction.
The myth that the Fist Amendment covers all speech is prevalent among
those who have never actually studied Constitutional Law. Other areas
not covered by the 1st A include libel, slander, release of national
secuirty info and conspiracy to committ a crime. You can suffer civil
and criminal penalties for speech in those areas.

You should actually study the Constitution before so blanketly
condemning how other people might interpret it.

Before you open your big mouth you should take your own advice. There
is a difference between criminal and civil law. This is not about a
civil suit where one can be sued for just about anything.

I should sue you for posting stupid and in general lowering the IQ of
the news group, which affects all that read it.

What Hal wrote on the web will have to be found as "Incitement to
violence" by the court. Speaking before a crowd that then commits
violent acts or property destruction is not the same thing as blogging
on the web. The court will need to find a violent act that directly ties
to Hal's page. I don't expect that to happen because as I have not heard
of any claim to that effect.

I doubt Hal has blogged any nonpublic national security information.

Spock has informed me that blogging about a conspiracy and then
committing one is at best incongruous. Try again Mikey.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California