In article
,
Mike wrote:

On Jun 6, 3:34?pm, Telamon :

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.


1. The Debs case was a criminal case.
2. Release of classified info is a criminal penalty.
3. Courts have even said you can be criminally prosecuted for
screaming "fire" in a crowded theatre, particularly one that is not on
fire.

Please note blogging on the web is not the same thing as being
physically present on the scene. Your quoted case is a stretch.

He didn't release classified information.

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

1. No explanation of what I said that was wrong.
2. Please mark the first one to embrace the ad hominem style of
debate.

Now you have your explanation.

What Hal wrote on the web will have to be found as "Incitement to
violence" by the court.

1. Keep up, Telamon. Hal called for someone's murder. Read the news,
dude.
2. Why wouldn't the court find a call to murder to be incitement?
3. This isn't just me. Law enforcement and prosecutors made the call.
I think they understand the law better than do you. Or I.


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.


1. WRONG. The crime doesn't have to be committed or completed.
2. The legal standard is "with reckless disregard for public health
and/or safety". I guess we'll see what the jury decides.

Wrong, he was arrested for what he posted on his blog not conspiracy.

I doubt Hal has blogged any nonpublic national security information.


Nope. But shows that there are criminal penalties against some forms
of speech.

We will see what happens here. I for one hope he beats the charge.

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


Telly, ask him what Captain Kirk's opinion is, OK? I can now see that
the discussion of legal issues with someone who has no knowledge of
how the Constitution has been interpreted is likely to devolve to
insults quickly.

Chill dude, it was a joke OK. I thought it was funny. My layman's
knowledge does not equate to no knowledge OK Mikey.

Captain Kirk says set phasers to stun and not hurt Mikey if it can be
avoided.

It's falls under incitement, unless law enforcement
has more info than what we're aware of.

An arrest is not proof of wrongdoing. We will see what happens in court.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California