Slashdot Mirror

It's a long read, but please teach yourself about the origins of "Fire in a crowded theatre" before using it to try and hack down the First Amendment again.

https://www.popehat.com/2012/0...

the rest under RICO.

It's never RICO.

IT'S NOT RICO, DAMMIT

It's not really a First Amendment issue though.

Why can't you shout "fire" in a theatre?

Censorious trope two. Who says that you can't shout "fire" in a theater, especially when it's true?

The Pentagon Papers case did not allow for suppression of true information where the consequences of that speech were "dire." The Federal government agreed that this information was not within the scope of ITAR and that it could not prohibit publication. The judge in issuing this very injunction admitted that "Regulation under the AECA means that the files cannot be uploaded to the internet, but they can be emailed, mailed, securely transmitted, or otherwise published within the United States."

Note: personally I support DD here, I'm just refuting the argument that it's a simple 1st Amendment issue.

Then why are you attempting to justify the outrage here using exception-to-the-first-amendment arguments?

Freedom of speech is not the same thing as freedom to do whatever the hell you want. Honestly, this is probably not in the interest of the public.

Censorious tropes six and five. A ground rule double.

Please boil this all down into a trope.

In United States v. Buttorff,70 cited with approval by Barnett, the Eighth Circuit denied free speech protection to the leaders of a tax protest group.7' Gordon S. Buttorff and Charles A. Dodge were convicted by a jury of aiding and abetting several people in filing false or
fraudulent income tax returns.72 They had both addressed several gatherings of John Deere employees and discussed "the Constitution, the Bible, and the unconstitutionality of the graduated income tax."73
"Only one principal testified to an affirmative action, other than speaking, by either defendant."N Thus, as the court summarized:
The problem here, of course, is that each defendant's only participation in the allegedly illegal activity of the principals, except with regard to [one principal], was to talk about his ideas before gatherings of disgruntled Americans. What this court must decide is whether the first amendment [sic]... prohibit[s] the convictions of these defendants ....
The court found that while "the speeches here [did] not incite the type of imminent lawless activity referred to in criminal syndicalism cases, the defendants did go beyond mere advocacy of tax reform. 7
Therefore, the court concluded that the speeches were not entitled to First Amendment protection and affirmed the convictions.77

https://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?httpsredir=1&article=1286&context=mulr

I'll repeat what the first guy said, freedom of speech is not the same thing as freedom to do whatever the hell you want.

You have a right to blather, but it's a limited right. I'm correct on this, you can pretend to be a lawyer but you can't refute this fact.

Censorious trope three with the twist of unspecified limits. The blather is not obscenity, fraud, incitement, or speech integral to criminal conduct, and neither are the 3d printing files. Care to cite an applicable limit, or have you simply retreated to a "I'm right about an irrelevant fact so I must be right about everything else" fallacy?

Freedom of speech is not the same thing as freedom to do whatever the hell you want. Honestly, this is probably not in the interest of the public.

Censorious tropes six and five. A ground rule double.

Sorry blatheroo, there are things related to speech that our system of laws puts restrictions on. You seem to think the 1st amendment is unlimited, lol. How silly of you. Back to civics class kiddo. No right is unlimited.

Censorious trope three.

I don't need to go back to civics class, I studied constitutional law, passed the bar, and everything. You, on the other hand... not so much.

Yeah, no. Inciting of any sort is only an offense insofar as the incitement succeeded or reasonably would have succeeded without mitigation or curtailment. Free speech still applies. There are no exceptions in the First Amendment and dragging out the fire in a theater quote is long-debunked total bullshit that indicates you have no idea what you are talking about. Using speech can have consequences, but that is a separate matter from the freedom to speak. If you shout "fire!" in a crowded theater today, you are extremely unlikely to trigger a panicked mob trying to flee, and because of that there would be no consequences other than some scowling and name-calling and possibly getting ejected from the premises for being a jackass. It's interesting how people that hate "right-wingers" seem to think the unconstitutional notion of restrictions on free speech are awesome when it might help shut them up, yet they can't think four years ahead and realize that the same rules will bite them in the ass once the cycle reaches the opposite side.

https://www.popehat.com/2012/0...

Then it's time to hit Oracle with a RICO Act . . .

In general whenever you think about doing anything with the RICO act to an organisation, just slap yourself in the face a few times, and then actually go through a normal list of federal crimes or civil contract law. RICO was designed to bring down the kind of organisation that didn't exist on paper. If you could throw a RICO book at Oracle, they'd already not exist, be paying a long backlock of federal fines, and Larry Ellison would be donating his net worth to as many people as possible to stay out of prision.

So no, it's never time to hit a corporation with a RICO Act: https://www.popehat.com/2016/0...

You still don't get it, do you?

Did you ever look in a mirror to see just how hard you got played? We didn't spy on Trump! became we spied on Trump to protect him! The election can't be hacked became Russia hacked the election. It's funny how Comey briefed Trump on the dossier, which provably puts people in the wrong countries and asks such important questions as whether prostitutes peed on Obama's bed, just to give CNN a hook to report it and the OIG showed us the emails that prove it, not that you've even read those reports. Heck, I wonder if you know what an OIG is? Hurr durr, that's a blog! Sure, it gives you the actual Congressional records or legal rulings as sources and analyzes the law in great detail, but it's not real media unless it cites anonymous sources familiar with someone's thinking! How dare anyone else try to analyze the law but CNN!

This "idiot" president played you all like a fiddle and you still won't admit it no matter how many times we watch the CNN & WaPo headlines spin around in circles. It's not rigged, you're just losing.

2012 called. It wants its "last mile monopolies" rant back.

Ajit Pai is on point that CDNs and walled gardens are a bigger threat. Google kicked all the gun videos off Youtube as part of their consensus pogrom against the NRA, and continues to put videos they don't have sufficient excuse to censor but whose views they don't like in "Youtube Jail," something they invented to thwart as many as possible of the political goals of free speech without technically censoring the video. Twitter is outsourcing censorship to (((SPLC and ADL))). Die Luegenpresse is constantly talking about "the line between free speech and hate speech," a nonsense excuse for demanding "evil" tech monopolies do more to shut down non-Luegenpresse news. Edgy bloggers are worried they will be banned from registering domain names, renting housing, hiring taxis, and buying food as retaliation for their political speech. At the same moment publishing is more democratized than it's ever been in the history of the world, free speech is in worse shape than it's ever been in the United States's history.

The Chinese idea of censorship for social harmony, decided by the "consensus" of a thin, elite, isolated caste of party insiders, is now mainstream within the tech monopsonies that are the gatekeepers of political discourse, and they relentlessly pursue anyone who slips through their fingers once they start to get an audience through DDoS, registrar fuckery, BGP tricks, recursive DNS poisoning, any means at their disposal regardless of mandate or due process. Look at their actions, not their words, and when someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time.

I don't expect much out of the media when it comes to law. For example, how much has been said about the new defamation lawsuit by Stormy Daniels?

Now talk to a liberal expert in first amendment law about it and you find out that it's pretty bogus and highly vulnerable to an anti-SLAPP countersuit in Texas.

Conversely, Republicans and the Nazis have already decided that nothing is hate speech.

Hate speech is 100% legal in the USA. It's protected by the first amendment. Here's a longer first amendment explanation by an expert lawyer:

https://www.popehat.com/2015/0...

Of course, as a company facebook doesn't have to allow hate speech on their platform, but that's another story...

that's still smells like fruit of the forbidden tree to me.

Here. Educate yourself.

When you're done reading that explanation (which is written by an actual lawyer), please go over to Khan Academy and check out their grammar videos.

> Several Republicans have been indicted for colluding with Putin and Russian hackers.

Umm, no, please read the damned indictments. A group of Russian nationals was arrested for ID theft and trolling Twitter, but not hacking.

Another few people got 18 USC 1001 charges for talking to the FBI. You might think I'm kidding, but that's actually pretty much how it works in practice. What's worse is that FBI interviews are not recorded by policy (a very BAD policy, mind you) and instead agents write reports called 302s. So you can get indicted for basically talking to them. Period. Full stop. If you read some of those indictments, you'll see that some of the "lies" were essentially that the FBI didn't believe that they didn't remember the exact timing of a meeting from months ago and such. If you're forced to talk, you want a lawyer and you want to answer every question in writing after reviewing every available source of information exhaustively.

There's no mention of Russian "hacking" as of yet, nor Putin, nor have you identified WTF they hacked. Hint: most of your go-to stories have been RETRACTED, so be sure to read the back page 3 weeks after every bombshell.

So please give links and quotes of actual bits of indictments if you're going to say random things like that. They're online and you have zero excuse for not going to direct sources. No, I do not want a link to the WaPo. Original sources only. Anything less and you're just another tool who reads the headlines and stories from anonymous sources that don't bother to link to public docs.

RICO? You think it's RICO?

https://www.popehat.com/2016/06/14/lawsplainer-its-not-rico-dammit/

Double it or more and it's still inadequate.

This type of blatant fraud seems to never get adequately punished. This saga of what appears to be ongoing habitual fraud finally came to an end and the guy got only 108 months.

Double it or more and it's still inadequate.

This type of blatant fraud seems to never get adequately punished. This saga of what appears to be ongoing habitual fraud finally came to an end and the guy got only 108 months.

The inability of law enforcement authorities to gain convictions due to legal rights is an “urgent public safety issue,” FBI Director Christopher Wray said on Tuesday in remarks that sought to renew a contentious debate over privacy and security.

The FBI was unable to force convictions of nearly data from nearly 7% of the accused in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, despite possessing proper legal authority to lie, trick, and deceive, a figure that impacts every area of the agency's work, Wray said during a speech at a cyber security conference in New York.

“This is an urgent public safety issue,” Wray added, while saying that a solution is “not so clear cut.”

PS. If you get arrested, say "I want to speak to a lawyer," and then stop talking. Seriously. Make your mouth be still. It's your life, don't screw around.

Popehat (Ken White, former federal prosecutor) has said this many times: Shut the Fuck Up.

It all comes down to The Rule of Goats: even if you say you're only fucking goats ironically, you're still a goatfucker.

https://twitter.com/popehat/st...
https://www.popehat.com/2017/0...

I'm not going to watch binny boy's pr0n stash, I don't care if the CIA says it is the good stuff. For the same reason I wouldn't click on an image link from slashdot. I don't care if it is an ironic goat.

IIRC, the FBI raided his house three times. Once, when he pissed off the dentist for informing him of a vulnerability. Not sure why that should provide a raid by law enforcement - they really needed to tell the dentist to send a "thank you". Anyway, the guy started gathering information on the FBI agent; he was quite public about this, and it was all public information. But the agent didn't like it, so the FBI raided his house again. He got pissed, and wrote to the FBI agent (and separately to his wife) something like "when can I get the videos of my kids back?". So the FBI raided him a third time.

Federal law enforcement in the US is just out of control. These people have no sense of humor, and think that they, themselves, are empowered to do anything they want. Piss them off, and they'll abuse their powers to make your life miserable.

For more information, see the Popehat article.

https://www.popehat.com/2017/10/24/in-which-my-identity-is-sought-by-federal-grand-jury-subpoena/

But are other things the equivalent of yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theatre?

The "shouting fire in a crowded theater" is a bullshit statement from a bullshit case because of a bullshit law.

Holmes used his statement to justify the imprisonment of draft dissenters during world war one in clear contradiction of the first amendment which even he admitted, eventually. I will say it again, this is bad law, and anyone who wants to have a serious discussion about free speak should not utter it in polite company.

That being said, yeah the quality of advertising and accuracy of advertisers statements is something to look at. It does seem like many sites allow these snake oil salesmen to set up shop on their doorstep through frames or whatever. And they want to keep their reputation while blaming the advertisers without admitting responsibility for letting them in. Shame on them, they own the site, police the content.

The fact that you expect successful RICO charges is how I know the reports you rely upon are the ignorant ravings of the clueless:

https://www.popehat.com/2016/06/14/lawsplainer-its-not-rico-dammit/

A few points:

* As part of the US Code, it's still subject to First Amendment scrutiny. The courts have to decide if, in the context of some case, prosecution under that statute would violate someone's First Amendment rights even if the statute itself is considered constitutional in general.
* Cases that truly satisfy it would fall generally under the "true threat" exemption, not "fighting words", because as I've just said, "fighting words" are face-to-face rather than "interstate or foreign commerce." These are legal terms and the distinction is important. "Fighting words" has a precise legal meaning and is in no way a synonym for "true threat."

You can find more information here and here on what "true threat" means, both described by a respected first amendment lawyer. Here's a snippet that more or less summarizes things. Note that the writer of the quote below was referring to then-President Obama, who was in power at the time these articles were written:

In short, much of the stupid and racist venting on Twitter does not constitute a true threat. The statements that are, at least, closer to true threats are the ones in which the writer says they will personally harm the President, but even those are unlikely to be taken as true threats unless the context shows that a reasonable person would take the threat seriously, rather than as hyperbole (and in some jurisdictions, also that the person meant for it to be taken seriously). Few pass that test.

This might seem like a minor quibble, but it's actually very important to get things like this straight in law. The two exemptions have different elements and mean very different things that should not be conflated. This kind of stuff is why you should always hire a lawyer if you're reading this for something other than idle curiosity, rather than doing internet research on your own. You will come to incorrect legal conclusions if you fail this kind of distinction.

A few points:

* As part of the US Code, it's still subject to First Amendment scrutiny. The courts have to decide if, in the context of some case, prosecution under that statute would violate someone's First Amendment rights even if the statute itself is considered constitutional in general.
* Cases that truly satisfy it would fall generally under the "true threat" exemption, not "fighting words", because as I've just said, "fighting words" are face-to-face rather than "interstate or foreign commerce." These are legal terms and the distinction is important. "Fighting words" has a precise legal meaning and is in no way a synonym for "true threat."

You can find more information here and here on what "true threat" means, both described by a respected first amendment lawyer. Here's a snippet that more or less summarizes things. Note that the writer of the quote below was referring to then-President Obama, who was in power at the time these articles were written:

In short, much of the stupid and racist venting on Twitter does not constitute a true threat. The statements that are, at least, closer to true threats are the ones in which the writer says they will personally harm the President, but even those are unlikely to be taken as true threats unless the context shows that a reasonable person would take the threat seriously, rather than as hyperbole (and in some jurisdictions, also that the person meant for it to be taken seriously). Few pass that test.

This might seem like a minor quibble, but it's actually very important to get things like this straight in law. The two exemptions have different elements and mean very different things that should not be conflated. This kind of stuff is why you should always hire a lawyer if you're reading this for something other than idle curiosity, rather than doing internet research on your own. You will come to incorrect legal conclusions if you fail this kind of distinction.

Three points:

• Fighting words must be "face-to-face insults likely to provoke a reasonable person to violent retaliation."
• Online speech isn't face-to-face.
• There's serious doubt about whether the exemption itself is still valid.

Here's a more complete explanation written by an actual first amendment lawyer:

Trope Seven: "Fighting words"

Example: "There are two exceptions from the constitutional right to free speech – defamation and the doctrine of “fighting words” or “incitement,” said John Szmer, an associate professor of political science and a constitutional law expert at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte." McClatchy.com, May 4, 2015.

No discussion of controversial speech is complete without some idiot suggesting that it may be "fighting words."

In 1942 the Supreme Court held that the government could prohibit "fighting words" — "those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace." The Supreme Court has been retreating from that pronouncement ever since. If the "fighting words" doctrine survives — that's in serious doubt — it's limited to face-to-face insults likely to provoke a reasonable person to violent retaliation. The Supreme Court has rejected every opportunity to use the doctrine to support restrictions on speech. The "which by their very utterance inflict injury" language the Supreme Court dropped in passing finds no support whatsoever in modern law — the only remaining focus is on whether the speech will provoke immediate face-to-face violence.

That's almost always irrelevant to the sort of speech at issue when the media invokes the trope.

Source: https://www.popehat.com/2015/05/19/how-to-spot-and-critique-censorship-tropes-in-the-medias-coverage-of-free-speech-controversies/

I notice that the very first bullet point of evidence submitted by prosecutors is "Statements made by Hutchins after he was arrested." As Popehat has said, when the police interview or arrest you, shut up. Don't explain, don't offer reasons or excuses, just shut the hell up and get a lawyer.

Inaccurate and untrue speech is still protected by the First Amendment.

No, not in all cases. Yell fire in a crowded theatre or slander someone and you are not protected. Is this really news to you?

Uh, it's been known for *years* that the "fire in a crowded theater" thing is BS.

https://www.popehat.com/2012/0...

> Which, in the case of this administration, would have lead to you dismissing a lot of accurate news reports. Anonymous sources should be treated with caution yes, but not immediate dismissal.

That's irrational. You should believe things because you have proof, rather than demanding proof before you'll stop believing. A horoscope might be right some of the time, too, but when it's right, it's for the wrong reasons. Otherwise, someone can just point out that anonymous rumors say that you're a creep who does unmentionable things in private. And we're all going to believe that now because you have no way to disprove it. Also, we can dismiss any evidence you do give us because you're a creep. See how that works? Believing things like this just makes people into tools: sad, pathetic, easily-manipulated losers.

> Which is why CNN only reported on the existence of the dossier, they didn't break it.

CNN reported that they had evidence they wouldn't show us. Buzzfeed actually showed us the dossier that CNN wouldn't, allowing people to understand just how unreliable the "evidence" CNN was working from was. Honestly, CNN was less ethical here, because they gave the viewers no opportunity to verify anything and they reported absurd rumors they were unable to verify instead of keeping their mouth shut.

CNN never should have reported on anything but the items they were able to verify from the dossier and never mentioned the rest. Instead they kept telling us how they had secret evidence they weren't going to show us. Then Buzzfeed showed everyone that it was a pile of garbage. It goes right up there with the story that hit Slashdot about the "secret communication with Russian banks" that turned out to be stray DNS queries from a 3rd party marketing server caused by Russian spam (also, who the hell was tapping their DNS...!?)

> Because there's nothing to retract, it hasn't been falsified.

The dossier puts one person in the wrong country because they confused him with someone who had the same name. It's true that some of the items are not falsifiable, because no evidence exists whatsoever, but again, it's not rational to believe things that cannot be falsified.

You might as well tell us that you saw all of this in your crystal ball, it's just as reliable. It's up to you to prove the claims you make. Trying to shift the proof onto others to disprove your claims is not rational. Hearsay is not evidence.

Again, they should not have reported anything they could not independently validate. Hearsay is not news. Any "journalist" who publishes such--about any person whatsoever--is a disgusting creep who deserves public scorn.

> CNN published one legitimately inaccurate story, and fired everyone involved.

CNN's Chris Cuomo, a licensed attorney with an ethical obligation to know better and not to misinform us, falsely told us that Wikileaks was illegal. More credible lawyers quickly told us that was absolute BS.

CNN ended their association with Donna Brazille, but they never identified the person who actually leaked the questions, let alone did they fire them.

By all means, hold all of them to that standard. But demand documented proof of everything, on all sides. No, the person CNN blackmailed was not 15, at least according to their Reddit history. No, Trump's commission did not demand non-public voter roll data, you can read the damned letter on NPR. It's amazing how many lazy scumbag "journalists" couldn't be bothered to link the damned thing, including the article that Slashdot linked to.

It's damned pathetic that supposedly professional "journalists" are so lazy that they're not as good at providing sources as Slashdot comments.

Slander is spoken, libel is written. If you need to speak in general, you should use the word "defamation." Also, you should use a legal dictionary when talking about law.

Here are some actual first amendment lawyers talking about whether calling something "fake news" is defamation. Spoiler alert: their answer is "no."

DAMMIT NPR THAT'S NOT HOW THIS WORKS. THAT'S NOT HOW ANY OF THIS WORKS.

Only provably false statements of fact can be defamatory. "Fake news" is not a provably false statement of fact [...]

They could publish or not as they wish, what they can't do is use the threat of publishing to control someone. It's bad for society to allow that behavior, irrespective of what's beneficial to him.

> I remember "Fake News" used to mean "News that was fabricated, with maybe a sprinkle of facts to give it legitimacy".

It was first used against CNN for things like the clip where Cuomo, a lawyer, gives a completely false statement about the law with respect to reading Wikileaks. But here, listen to an actual lawyer call him out on that one.

Also, I have many serious doubts about the widespread use of anonymous-sourced stories. Something that can persist for years even at ostensibly reputable outlets.

Top Obama-era officials have told me that anonymously sourced stories are often fabricated whole cloth to tell people whatever they want to hear.

Also, the "fire in a crowded theater" argument was made in a landmark case that allowed the suppression of purely political, anti-war speech.

It was ultimately on the losing side, but for a while the official position was that opposing the US entering WWI was akin to shouting fire in a crowded theater and therefore not protected speech.

Amazing how language and history can be misappropriated and forgotten. Here's a Ken White screed on the topic.

The classic yelling fire in a crowded theater is a good example.

The line was actually "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic." which would be more akin to immediately inciting a riot than mere words on facebook. But even at that the quote was part of a decision in Schenck vs. United States which justified imprisonment of Socialist protesters of the draft during World War I.

If we were to apply the logic and decisions of that court case to the modern times every member of Code pink would be serving ten years in prison and Bernie Sanders would have long been sent to the gallows. While that quote is the goto response for people supporting censorship people should look into the circumstances, least they find themselves supporting a very terrible decision.

In the United States, there are some exceedingly narrow limitations on the freedom of expression outside the public airwaves (which I will not address because frankly I don't know much about them). One of the exceptional few them is outlined by Ohoio v. Brandenburg: "Freedoms of speech and press do not permit a State to forbid advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."

In order for speech to not be protected by the first amendment under Brandenberg, it must pass both requirements present in the last few words of the quote. You will note that generic death threats almost never pass this test. You will further note that this is nothing nearly like the overused "fire in a crowded theater" platitude that is quite wrong.

The correct response to speech you dislike is more speech (i.e. your own) or taking advantage of the numerous technologies available to personally block out speech you find disagreeable (freedom of expression does not require that other people listen).

I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. You have to pay for that. If however you are an interested layman, like myself, I encourage you to read several articles published by noted First Amendment advocate and actual lawyer for same (in addition to his usual criminal defense gig) Ken White, who operates the lawblog "Popehat".

In the United States, there are some exceedingly narrow limitations on the freedom of expression outside the public airwaves (which I will not address because frankly I don't know much about them). One of the exceptional few them is outlined by Ohoio v. Brandenburg: "Freedoms of speech and press do not permit a State to forbid advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."

In order for speech to not be protected by the first amendment under Brandenberg, it must pass both requirements present in the last few words of the quote. You will note that generic death threats almost never pass this test. You will further note that this is nothing nearly like the overused "fire in a crowded theater" platitude that is quite wrong.

The correct response to speech you dislike is more speech (i.e. your own) or taking advantage of the numerous technologies available to personally block out speech you find disagreeable (freedom of expression does not require that other people listen).

I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. You have to pay for that. If however you are an interested layman, like myself, I encourage you to read several articles published by noted First Amendment advocate and actual lawyer for same (in addition to his usual criminal defense gig) Ken White, who operates the lawblog "Popehat".

In the United States, there are some exceedingly narrow limitations on the freedom of expression outside the public airwaves (which I will not address because frankly I don't know much about them). One of the exceptional few them is outlined by Ohoio v. Brandenburg: "Freedoms of speech and press do not permit a State to forbid advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."

In order for speech to not be protected by the first amendment under Brandenberg, it must pass both requirements present in the last few words of the quote. You will note that generic death threats almost never pass this test. You will further note that this is nothing nearly like the overused "fire in a crowded theater" platitude that is quite wrong.

The correct response to speech you dislike is more speech (i.e. your own) or taking advantage of the numerous technologies available to personally block out speech you find disagreeable (freedom of expression does not require that other people listen).

I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. You have to pay for that. If however you are an interested layman, like myself, I encourage you to read several articles published by noted First Amendment advocate and actual lawyer for same (in addition to his usual criminal defense gig) Ken White, who operates the lawblog "Popehat".

In the United States, there are some exceedingly narrow limitations on the freedom of expression outside the public airwaves (which I will not address because frankly I don't know much about them). One of the exceptional few them is outlined by Ohoio v. Brandenburg: "Freedoms of speech and press do not permit a State to forbid advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."

In order for speech to not be protected by the first amendment under Brandenberg, it must pass both requirements present in the last few words of the quote. You will note that generic death threats almost never pass this test. You will further note that this is nothing nearly like the overused "fire in a crowded theater" platitude that is quite wrong.

The correct response to speech you dislike is more speech (i.e. your own) or taking advantage of the numerous technologies available to personally block out speech you find disagreeable (freedom of expression does not require that other people listen).

I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. You have to pay for that. If however you are an interested layman, like myself, I encourage you to read several articles published by noted First Amendment advocate and actual lawyer for same (in addition to his usual criminal defense gig) Ken White, who operates the lawblog "Popehat".

In the United States, there are some exceedingly narrow limitations on the freedom of expression outside the public airwaves (which I will not address because frankly I don't know much about them). One of the exceptional few them is outlined by Ohoio v. Brandenburg: "Freedoms of speech and press do not permit a State to forbid advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."

In order for speech to not be protected by the first amendment under Brandenberg, it must pass both requirements present in the last few words of the quote. You will note that generic death threats almost never pass this test. You will further note that this is nothing nearly like the overused "fire in a crowded theater" platitude that is quite wrong.

The correct response to speech you dislike is more speech (i.e. your own) or taking advantage of the numerous technologies available to personally block out speech you find disagreeable (freedom of expression does not require that other people listen).

I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. You have to pay for that. If however you are an interested layman, like myself, I encourage you to read several articles published by noted First Amendment advocate and actual lawyer for same (in addition to his usual criminal defense gig) Ken White, who operates the lawblog "Popehat".

Yeah, filing thousands of penny-ante lawsuits worked out so well for Prenda Law.

Actually it did. Perjury, outright fraud and trying to mess a judge around are what brought Prenda to an end.

Yeah, filing thousands of penny-ante lawsuits worked out so well for Prenda Law.

That's why, for example, judges and jurors are sought to be impartial.

There you are! Justifying Trump's dismissing a judge as "biased" because he was of Mexican descent...Racist, racist, racist!

Of course, attacking a judge because of his ancestry is indeed, racist, and Trump's admissionsa actually showed his own realization of the bias and animus he had been demonstrating.

That is what Trump chose to do. He picked a deliberate course of racial antagonism to attack a judge in a lawsuit where it was immaterial. In the media. Nothing more. Remember, Trump University? It didn't get filed as a request for recusal in court, it was merely engaging in political aggrandizement. You don't get a judge to act in a case just because you go on CNN and pout like a crybaby.

You do know this, right? Trump was whining about a judge. He chose to do it with an included racist spin, so it only reflects on Trump. Not the judge. In the realm of public opinion. At least, until it becomes relevant to a legal matter. Now personally, I blame Trump's political advisers, who should have at least made Trump temper his remarks, but he still has a problem with running his mouth. Or twitter fingers, as the case may be. But he's not the only one with a problem with that in his administration. That sort of thing can reflect on you.

Which was why when somebody takes your statements, applies them to you, in a legal case, and submits them to court, well, then you have a judge rule on it.

Now if you want to see a judge who got in trouble because of their own actions, let's try one. That's one where a

> How do you know its just 'ONE'?

Because actual lawyers told us CNN was full of crap? Cuomo can't even do simple math right on air, so I don't exactly trust his legal skills, even if he does have a license.

Yes, we've looked into these, including looking for responses. But those are a bit hard to find. It's more in vogue to shout "racist, sexist, misogynist" regardless of any facts instead of presenting any kind of actual argument about why someone is wrong these days.

Can we say RICO?

No.
No we can't.

But if he truly thinks he's innocent, he's got nothing to lose.

I think he does. For the same reason that good lawyers tell you to never speak to the police when you've been arrested.

More the reverse, I look for evidence that something is true. That's how the burden of proof works and some hearsay they've published isn't going to change that. But feel free to jump at every new rumor, there's going to be a steady drip of those for years, FYI.

Is there a single non-anonymous source there? Some random "US official," really? Because unless they have something that can be corroborated, the whole thing is just a rumor. We were told us they had attacks like that planned months ago.

And no, I don't believe them when they tell me things I want to hear, either. It's just a stupid game they play in the press that only fools those who don't know how it works. Read this article for how not to get fooled. And note that the source of that is actually a fairly partisan Democrat.

Personally I try to read what everyone is saying and look out for the "unimportant" facts that certain outlets like to gloss over. Lies of omission are the favorite tactic of the more 'reputable' papers when they want to shape opinions rather than reporting facts.

I tend to read news with a method similar to this one, because it's required in this day and age. You can't just assume that these are neutral reporters trying their best to give you all the facts, because I have a hard time finding any of those anywhere. They all find certain truths inconvenient. They all focus on different areas and give you an incomplete picture of what's going on.