| Pages:
1
2 |
LSD25
Hazard to Others
Posts: 239
Registered: 29-11-2007
Member Is Offline
Mood: Psychotic (Who said that? I know you're there...)
|
|
Extradition
Due to the nature of a fellow poster, their inability to win a serious argument and their willingness to incite others into degrading a serious topic
into an off-topic and ultimately locked thread, I have chosen to post this here:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,943526-2,00...
Extradition law is based upon international treaties and the decision as to whether or not extradition takes place is often made by the executive (not
the judiciary - judicial review is often seen, but the original decision is one for the executive).
Now, Sauron has asserted time and time again that US citizens would not face 'justice' for their publications in foreign jurisdictions, which is,
particularly in light of both Gutnick v Dow JJones and Berezovsky v Forbes, patently false. The protection afforded them for publications originally
made in the US by the first amendment was nullified by the jurisdictional issues arising from where the publications were accessed.
Next he asserts that extradition treaties require that the offence be an offence in both jurisdictions, which is normally accepted as factual, yet
when push comes to shove, there are numerous extraditions that can be pointed to which show the fallacy inherent in this argument. Extradition
treaties exist so that individuals that seek to hide in a second country can be removed to face justice in the country in which they have committed
criminal offences. If the offence need be an offence in both jurisdictions then the extradition cited above and the KNO3 extradition would never have
arisen, in neither event was the alleged offence an offence in the country of origin/sanctuary.
Sauron in inciting others to take the original topic off-topic, has ignored the very basic principles he accused me of failing to comprehend - in fact
the most basic of all, that the accused need only assert a reason for what they did, it is for the prosecution to prove otherwise to beyond a
reasonable doubt. It has not yet been proven that KNO3 'knew' that the chemicals they exported to the USA were for the purpose of making
methamphetamine, in fact, given that the only occassion it is asserted that they were 'told' the same is the same as the sale that did not actually
occur, I would suggest this may be less than the slam dunk prosecutor's suggest.
Finally, as to whether individuals from the USA will end up facing Australian Courts for having committed offences of the type suggested, it would be
interesting to see what your Supreme Court made of it, the question has never yet been asked. If you are the unfortunate who gets to ask them that
question, make damn sure you have set aside a couple of million dollars for legal fees because you will need every cent of it and the outcome is far
from assured - the question asked is whether US citizens are free to hide behind the US Constitution in order to commit crimes in other jurisdictions.
I rather imagine that the answer would be far more likely to be no than yes.
Whhhoooppps, that sure didn't work
|
|
|
Polverone
Now celebrating 21 years of madness
Posts: 3186
Registered: 19-5-2002
Location: The Sunny Pacific Northwest
Member Is Offline
Mood: Waiting for spring
|
|
Don't accuse Sauron of dragging the other thread down. It was not closed because of him.
The burden of proof is on you to show that US citizens will be extradited for publishing material that is illegal in other jurisdictions. There's no
precedent for it that I'm aware of. Many other nations have criminalized Holocaust-denial writings but it's still completely legal and
non-extraditable for US citizens to publish such material. A civil suit filed overseas is not extradition no matter how hard you squint at it.
PGP Key and corresponding e-mail address
|
|
|
MagicJigPipe
International Hazard
Posts: 1554
Registered: 19-9-2007
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Suspicious
|
|
Certainly it was not closed because of me? I was just replying to Sauron and other's posts. If it was closed because of my post, I'm sorry.
What Sauron said is technically true. Unfortunately, lately, when a government agency really wants to get someone, they don't exactly have to follow
the rules. Or they just fabricate something to make it appear like they are following the rules.
So, in effect, I would not doubt that something like this could happen in an extreme circumstance. Certainly, not on a wide scale that would make
people take notice and cause investigations.
We can barely use the Constitution as a defence anymore, much less hide behind it. My point is, I suspect if what you were doing pissed off the
respective governments enough, they would find a way to get you. Don't believe me? You can run the experiment, not me 
[Edited on 5-6-2008 by MagicJigPipe]
"There must be no barriers to freedom of inquiry ... There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any
question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors. ... We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it and
that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. And we know that as long as men are free to ask what they must, free to say what they think,
free to think what they will, freedom can never be lost, and science can never regress." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
|
|
|
LSD25
Hazard to Others
Posts: 239
Registered: 29-11-2007
Member Is Offline
Mood: Psychotic (Who said that? I know you're there...)
|
|
Yet that was the suggested exception to both Australian and UK defamation laws, that US publisher's, who published from the US, were not subject to
it. That is patently wrong, they are not protected by the 1st amendment, so why should the position be different under criminal law?
To add to this, there is the rapid development of a 'drug-related' exclusion to ordinary exdradition laws which, while not exactly without precedent,
is of some interest...
Oh by the way, before too many sprout about extradition law, here is a good article on the same:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/journals/MelbJ...
Now, the most important thing to remember is that while Judicial review of the decision to extradite is available, in many cases the Judges cannot
substitute their opinion for that of the decision maker, they can merely seek to ensure that the decision maker dotted all their i's and crossed all
their t's.
But I think you may be in for one hell of a suprise if you intend to rely upon the supposed protection of the first amendment against any and all
criminal prosecutions which may in future arise from overseas jurisdictions in which this board is accessible. More pertinantly, do you really want to
be the person who has to raise such an argument in your Supreme Court (the quesiton being Constitutional, that is where it would end up)?
But to your assertion that I bear an onus of proof, I most assuredly do not, although I will own to a persuasive onus. Personally I would prefer not
to have to raise the spectre, but the time is here. What I predict will come first will be some poor benighted fuckwit who preaches hatred and/or
sedition in the name of allah, within some country with close ties to the US and then attempts to hide behind the 1st amendment. In the current
climate this could happen, literally, any day now - when it does and they lose, where will you stand then?
Whhhoooppps, that sure didn't work
|
|
|
Sauron
International Hazard
Posts: 5351
Registered: 22-12-2006
Location: Barad-Dur, Mordor
Member Is Offline
Mood: metastable
|
|
LSD25 was inciting paranoia with his sky-is-falling bogus legal balderdsh in the now closed ENTRAPMENT thread (inaccurately titled), and he now wishes
to continue doing so in this thread.
This thread should also be closed. I for one will not sully my hands with it.
[Edited on 7-5-2008 by Sauron]
Sic gorgeamus a los subjectatus nunc.
|
|
|
Polverone
Now celebrating 21 years of madness
Posts: 3186
Registered: 19-5-2002
Location: The Sunny Pacific Northwest
Member Is Offline
Mood: Waiting for spring
|
|
US citizens have been publishing material that would be illegal to publish in Australia, Austria, Germany, Canada, and many other nations for many
decades, and they haven't been extradited for it. That's why the burden of proof is on you to show that this has actually happened or will happen;
extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.
I would consider it a great distinction to be party to proceedings attempting to extradite me for speech that is legal in the US and illegal in
Australia. I don't think I would need millions of dollars either. In such a precedent-setting First Amendment case I'm sure there are top-notch
lawyers who would argue the case pro bono.
PGP Key and corresponding e-mail address
|
|
|
chemrox
International Hazard
Posts: 2961
Registered: 18-1-2007
Location: UTM
Member Is Offline
Mood: LaGrangian
|
|
He should at least attempt using English grammar. "Their" is plural for "his." That confusing the two is a common mistake of the TV generation
doesn't make it correct or less dissonant. More importantly, this is a thinly veiled ad hominem attack on Sauron and should have been sent to
Detritus. Obviously constitutional rights are a serious concern right now. It's a disservice to the real issues to use them this way.
"When you let the dumbasses vote you end up with populism followed by autocracy and getting back is a bitch." Plato (sort of)
|
|
|
LSD25
Hazard to Others
Posts: 239
Registered: 29-11-2007
Member Is Offline
Mood: Psychotic (Who said that? I know you're there...)
|
|
So sorry, it is way too hard to engage in a decent argument on this forum, people refuse to obey even the most simple rules that govern the conduct of
the same.
For the 'Free Speech Absolutist's' who say that the sky which they rely upon can never fall -
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/4th/962412p.html
| Quote: | | Thus, in a case indistinguishable in principle from that before us, the Ninth Circuit expressly held in United States v. Barnett , 667 F.2d 835 (9th
Cir. 1982), that the First Amendment does not provide pub- lishers a defense as a matter of law to charges of aiding and abetting a crime through the
publication and distribution of instructions on how to make illegal drugs. In rejecting the publisher's argument that there could be no probable cause
to believe that a crime had been committed because its actions were shielded by the First Amendment, and thus a fortiori there was no probable cause
to support the search pursuant to which the drug manufacturing instructions were found, the Court of Appeals explicitly foreclosed a First Amendment
defense not only to the search itself, but also to a later prosecution... |
The Case? What else, Rice v Paladin Enterprises, Inc. (1997)
Certiorari was denied.
As to making attacks on Sauron, he attacked me and I am entitled to respond in kind. As to alarmism - I look forward to reading the reports... I will
feel for the loss of the resource, but not at all for those who suffer.
As to the supposed fact that high profile first-amendment sorts will pull your irons out of the fire, I'd like to suggest that you read this,
carefully:
http://www.loompanics.com/Articles/FirstAmend.htm
Also perhaps this one:
http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentI...
(Also the links provided)
http://lawreview.kentlaw.edu/articles/76-1/Fagan%20macro2.pd...
You may not like the fact but the first amendment was never designed to allow American citizen's to publish material in other countries (especially
where that material is illegal to publish in those countries) with impunity. As the internet allows you to publish material in other countries, I'd
suggest that you exercise a little restraint in order to avoid being targeted - HOW THE FUCK IS THAT A MISUSE OF ANYTHING
But nah, just go ahead - feel free, of course I know nothing and of course the world is safe for fucking yanks to do as they please, where they please
and to whom they please. The world loves this about amerikans. See your bill of rights allows you to do as you please to all the lesser peoples of the
world and that is how it should be, yeah? So don't worry about an idea as otiose as prevention being better than cure, don't worry about anything, the
people who control the rest of the planet will protect you...
Of course they will:
http://www.erowid.org/freedom/civil_rights/speech/speech_inf...
Fuck me, ain't it amazing how well people with no legal training know the law? I once had an employer at a warehouse who could shout down even law
professor's - so of course he knew more than them, eh? It's alright, no-one expected the Spanish Inquisition either...
[Edited on 7-5-2008 by LSD25]
Whhhoooppps, that sure didn't work
|
|
|
Sauron
International Hazard
Posts: 5351
Registered: 22-12-2006
Location: Barad-Dur, Mordor
Member Is Offline
Mood: metastable
|
|
Polverone:
This thread is yet another round of troublemaking and paranoia mongering by the thread author. It deserves trashing, he deserves thrashing.
He is a hypocrite because since he signed on here, he has done little except post about illegal drugs himself.
Now he wants us to believe that you personally are at legal risk and so is everyone who has posted about how to make illegal drugs.
The assertion is ridiculous, his agenda is shit-stirring. I am starting to wonder which Ozzie LE agency he misrepresents?
[Edited on 7-5-2008 by Sauron]
Sic gorgeamus a los subjectatus nunc.
|
|
|
Sauron
International Hazard
Posts: 5351
Registered: 22-12-2006
Location: Barad-Dur, Mordor
Member Is Offline
Mood: metastable
|
|
I just looked up Rice v.Paladin Enterprises (1977)
This was a civil, not criminal action and had nothing whatsoever to do with "instructions for making illegal drugs". The suit concerned Paladin's
publication of a book entitled HITMAN: A guide for Independent Contractors. Paladin was not criminally accused of aiding and abetting a murder, but
rather was civilly sues for damages on the theory that as publisher of this "murder manual" (which apparently was physically found in the possession
of assailant) Paladin bore partial liability for the ensuing death.
Once again LSD25 tries to use civil case law improperly in a criminal context.
There is no criminal statute I am aware of in the US Code or the criminal code of any state that makes publication of "instructions on making illegal
drugs" a crime.
You may well ask why not? but the answer is self evident. Because no such law would be held to be constitutional.
Very likely, the outcome of Rice v.Paladin Enterprises if the judgement against defendant was upheld, is probably also unconstitutional. But a prior
case against my other good friend Robert K.Brown of Soldier of Fortune Magazine, also held him liable for publishing a classified ad in which an
individual advertised as a killer for hire. Not that this has anything to do with the issue at hand. Again it was a civil suit. Again it was a matter
of going for a deep pocket.
LSD25 is in short, attempting to baffle us with bullshit.
Actually there is an old lawyer's maxim:
If you can't win on the law, argue the facts.
If you can't win on the facts, argue the law.
If you can't win on either, baffle them with bullshit.
So perhaps LSD25 is being "lawyerly" after all.
Sic gorgeamus a los subjectatus nunc.
|
|
|
Pulverulescent
National Hazard
Posts: 793
Registered: 31-1-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: Torn between two monikers ─ "hissingnoise" and the present incarnation!
|
|
The last thread was a casualty of my wanderings.
Mea culpa! Momentary lapse(s)!
P
|
|
|
LSD25
Hazard to Others
Posts: 239
Registered: 29-11-2007
Member Is Offline
Mood: Psychotic (Who said that? I know you're there...)
|
|
The case cited in Rice v Paladin was Barnett (United States v. Barnett , 667 F.2d 835 (9th Cir. 1982) cited above) which was most fucking assuredly a
criminal case - it dealt with the claim to first amendment protection raised by the defendant who had, inter alia, published a recipe for PCP. He was
held to have no protection under the Constitution and was convicted.
Please explain to poor lil' ol' me how the fuck you can distinguish that one?
PS Are you in Thailand for the lady-boys or the underage prostitutes? Don't like it - then don't even insinuate that I'm a fucking cop, cos personally
I regard that as only slightly less offensive than being called a kiddie-fucker.
[Edited on 7-5-2008 by LSD25]
Whhhoooppps, that sure didn't work
|
|
|
Pulverulescent
National Hazard
Posts: 793
Registered: 31-1-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: Torn between two monikers ─ "hissingnoise" and the present incarnation!
|
|
LSD25, that last comment was uncalled for; you should take it back!!!
P
|
|
|
7he3ngineer
Harmless
Posts: 33
Registered: 13-1-2008
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Member Is Offline
Mood: above average
|
|
Sauron said:
| Quote: |
So perhaps LSD25 is being "lawyerly" after all.
|
This does not mean a cop... so that really was uncalled for... don't like it... talk about something else
Josh
Engineers aren\'t boring people, we\'re just interested in boring things!
|
|
|
LSD25
Hazard to Others
Posts: 239
Registered: 29-11-2007
Member Is Offline
Mood: Psychotic (Who said that? I know you're there...)
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Sauron
Polverone:
This thread is yet another round of troublemaking and paranoia mongering by the thread author. It deserves trashing, he deserves thrashing.
He is a hypocrite because since he signed on here, he has done little except post about illegal drugs himself.
Now he wants us to believe that you personally are at legal risk and so is everyone who has posted about how to make illegal drugs.
The assertion is ridiculous, his agenda is shit-stirring. I am starting to wonder which Ozzie LE agency he misrepresents?
[Edited on 7-5-2008 by Sauron] |
He didn't huh? Words don't break bones, pinch bars do, in my previous life I have used the same in response to such statements. I find this
insinuation personally offensive and as such, my response is both appropriate and to my view, measured.
PS For those who fail to understand the immensely difficult concept of a 'devil's advocate' I encourage you to look up the term.
[Edited on 7-5-2008 by LSD25]
Whhhoooppps, that sure didn't work
|
|
|
Sauron
International Hazard
Posts: 5351
Registered: 22-12-2006
Location: Barad-Dur, Mordor
Member Is Offline
Mood: metastable
|
|
US v.Barrett was indeed a criminal case some 26 years ago. The defendant did publish a recipe for PCP. He was not prosecuted for publishing such
recipe, as LSD25 would like us to assume. He was prosecuted because in fact he was making PCP himself. His lawyers attempted to have the search
quashed and evidence from search excluded on a flimsy argument that Barrett's First Amendment rights were violated by the police reliance on his
publication as partial basis for probable cause in obtaining search warrant. This was laughed out of court.
In short, LSD25, if you are going to read cases, read the ehole cases, and not just convenient snippets on the Internet.
BTW if it walks like a narc, and talks like a narc, then it's a narc, even on the wrong side of the equator, mate.
I have no interest in kiddies nor in ladyboys, but there are beaucoup Australians here that take up the slack left by my absence. Actually in the case
of underage prostitutes, I suspect you are thinking of Cambodia, because the cops are hell of pedophiles in Thailand. Lots of Aussies in Ban Kwang
prison as a result.
[Edited on 7-5-2008 by Sauron]
Sic gorgeamus a los subjectatus nunc.
|
|
|
Sauron
International Hazard
Posts: 5351
Registered: 22-12-2006
Location: Barad-Dur, Mordor
Member Is Offline
Mood: metastable
|
|
Oh, my. I do believe this fellow has threatened me with physical reprisal.
Is that proper forum conduct, I wonder?
Someone else apparently wonders the same because the threat has been removed.
There's still the little bon mot where LSD25 accuses me of homosexuality and/or paedophilia.
Not likely, kiddo, My Thai wife is age 54. And a mother, so demonsrably female.
[Edited on 7-5-2008 by Sauron]
Sic gorgeamus a los subjectatus nunc.
|
|
|
LSD25
Hazard to Others
Posts: 239
Registered: 29-11-2007
Member Is Offline
Mood: Psychotic (Who said that? I know you're there...)
|
|
Jesus H Fucking Christ - I ain't even going to mention the 'ehole' cases shit, despite the fact that such fun was had with my spelling and punctuation
when writing in a hurry, but I would point out that there are a lot more yanks than ozzies in jail in Thailand.
What he was prosecuted for and what the case is authority for are two different things as well you know, as is shown by Rice v Paladin, Inc. The
length of time that has elapsed is of no relevance whatever, the case has yet to be overruled by a Court with the capacity to so do. In short,
instructions on how to commit a crime do not, either on the whole, or even in the majority of cases, attract automatic protection under the 1st
amendment.
What suprises me is the level of denial and even hysteria one encounters when trying to point this out. Even those who are strongly in favour of first
amendment rights seem to be incapable of accepting that this is not the cure-all they seem to imagine it to be. This is disturbing considering that
some of these individuals appear to think that they are protected by something which will most certainly afford them limited if any protection.
While I personally can see numerous routes through which to either escape or defend such a proceeding, that is a very different thing to avoiding the
drama in the first place and a long way from the majority of members here level of comprehension in law. You have now seen the laws that pose the
problem, I have shown at least one case where the protection claimed under the 1st amendment was illusory when raised in defence of the publication of
recipes (and you can split that particular hair in as many strips as you like - if the protection did not protect the search and would not rpovide a
defence at trial, in relation to the publication - the defence did not apply to the publication of step-by-step instructions for the preparation of a
prohibited, dangerous drug - that conclusion is unavoidable and indeed what the Case has been held to stand for). As this is the opinion of a senior
Court, you would have to go to at least that level and convince the Justices of the Court to reconsider the opinion, given the wording of the same,
I'd say your chances are slim at best. The fact remains, that the opinion is based upon a line of authority, it is consistent with the same and has
been followed - thus the Court is unlikely to consider overruling the judgement. In order to convince them to do so, you will need Constitutional Law
experts, eminent professor's, etc. to provide the Court with some reason why they should so do. Given the spectre of legislation that expressly
prohibits the publication of 'bomb' recipes and the apparent 'imminent crisis' posed by domestic terrorism, you would face an uphill battle and would
need, at least, to set a serious precedent.
Insofar as an argument to avoid extradition, you would face a serious problem insofar as an extradition hearing is not a mini-trial, which provides a
Court with a possible out - allowing them to avoid the looming Constitutional argument by reference to the question I cited above - does the
protection afforded American citizen's when publishing in the USA, extend to protecting them from the consequences of their publishing illegal
material in other jurisdictions? Given the extent of right-wing appointments to the Bench of your Supreme Court in the last decade, I'd be very
suprised (real world) if they didn't take this convenient out, thereby imposing limits upon inconvenient Constitutional Rights (Guantanamo Bay springs
to mind as an example of this & no, I really ain't interested in arguing the rights or wrongs of the issues surrounding that).
Whhhoooppps, that sure didn't work
|
|
|
woelen
Super Administrator
Posts: 7977
Registered: 20-8-2005
Location: Netherlands
Member Is Offline
Mood: interested
|
|
May I do a suggestion? Continue this "discussion" through U2U. Both of you have censored your messages a little bit I now see, but still....
|
|
|
Pulverulescent
National Hazard
Posts: 793
Registered: 31-1-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: Torn between two monikers ─ "hissingnoise" and the present incarnation!
|
|
I agree, woelen! These guys are so entertai. . .er, I mean incorrigible!
P
|
|
|
Sauron
International Hazard
Posts: 5351
Registered: 22-12-2006
Location: Barad-Dur, Mordor
Member Is Offline
Mood: metastable
|
|
Extradition is impossible unless the crime is also a crime in USA. Since it is not, extradition is not going to happen. Period.
Paladin was not prosecuted criminally for aiding and abetting a crime, such a prosecution has no basis in criminal law, civil law is not applicable.
The requisite prosecutorial burden is totally different.
Barrett was not prosecuted for publishing anything, he was prosecuted for being caught redhanded with PCP he manufactured. His lawyers tried a
longshot First Amendment defense to impugn the search, a tactic they must have expected to fail. It did. The decision does not criminalize such
publication, it merely denies extending First Amendment protection to someone as silly as Barrett who after calling attention to himself by publishing
instructions of making an illegal drug, then follows his own instructions and gets caught with his product. Who would suggest that Barrett was
constitutionally immunized? Not the US courts obviously.
Neither case has the slightest thing to do with criminalizing publication of instructions on making ANYTHING. No US criminal statute does so, and no
US criminal statute can do so. Lacking such, no extradition under the bilateral US-Australia extradition treaty (or agreement) is possible. Same is
true of bilateral US-UK extradition.
Were this NOT the case, quite a few people in US, UK, and Australia might, as Polverone already pointed out, be extradictable to Germany or Austria
for publishing material in print and/or the Internet advocating neonazism, denying the Holocaust, and similar "thought crimes" that are criminalized
in former Nazi territory. The Germans and Austrians feel a need to suppress such opinion. The United States deplores such opinions but protect same
under the First Amendment (so far.) In my opinion we will continue to do so, while holding our noses. In the words of B.Franklin "We must hang
together else we hang seperately." Protected speech need not be popular to be protected.
I suggest a peek at the Brandenberg decision, which holds that abstract advocacy of criminal activity IS constitutionally protected. In making the
Paladin decision the appels court decided that Paladin's own statements established that they went far beyond abstract advocacy of professional murder
for hire and in doing so, stripped themselves of what First Amendment protections they might have otherwise enjoyed. And let me reiterate that this
was still a state-law, civil action wrongful death suit and not a criminal matter at all.
So it is clear that even in a civil case, there is a clear legal distinction between what is abstract advocacy and protected, and what is properly
proscibable and not protected. Had Paladin been a bit less verbose, perhaps Peder Lund would have saved fome money.
Sic gorgeamus a los subjectatus nunc.
|
|
|
Sauron
International Hazard
Posts: 5351
Registered: 22-12-2006
Location: Barad-Dur, Mordor
Member Is Offline
Mood: metastable
|
|
No, woelen, he is still calling me a cocksucker and/or a child abuser. I have no interest in communicating with this cowardly cretinout shite for any
reason. And I still think he is carrying out some official agenda that he carries in his pocket next to his warrant card and his Dick Tracy radio
watch. Or Lil Orphan Annie decoder ring. Or whatever.
Sic gorgeamus a los subjectatus nunc.
|
|
|
LSD25
Hazard to Others
Posts: 239
Registered: 29-11-2007
Member Is Offline
Mood: Psychotic (Who said that? I know you're there...)
|
|
Sauron, I don't make threats - they are pointless and merely serve to warn thus making any subsequent action more easily countered. To the extent that
you refer to my statement as to my previous responses to such insinuation, that is not intended to be threatening, it is merely provided by way of
illustration so as to illustrate the relatively benign nature of my actual response.
However, if you are going to engage in vicious and nasty name calling - be aware that I have no fear of the same, despite the fact that I consider it
improper and childish. I am forced to do so on occassion where more 'adult' approaches fail to draw an appropriate and/or measured response.
If you are prepared to either deal with the points made in argument or leave the thread to those who are capable of understanding the same, I am more
than happy to deal with your arguments in kind. This is a serious issue, made more so by the incredible lack of comprehension as to the serious limits
which the Courts have read into the 1st Amendment in the USA, which given that this would be the first and quite probably only line of defence that
would be raised in any future proceeding, is shocking to say the least.
The simple fact is that forewarned is forearmed, certain individual's would be well advised to seek legal advice as to the actual legal consequences
and the options open to them in relation to what they write and what they allow others to publish. Certain high profile agencies would like nothing
better than to make headlines by shutting sites like this (and others) down, there are good defences which should be raised and there are actions
which they can take now and in the future which would serve to minimise their exposure to the same. Not to mention what should be said, immediately at
the outset of any and every interview if the worst does come to pass.
What I do find interesting is the number of individuals who are willing to assert that there are no problems and that everything is rosy and
peachy-keen. It isn't. Sweeping the problems under the carpet doesn't prevent them from doing harm. There is a serious threat here, you may not like
that, but there is. Denying it ain't gonna change that fact (nb. if you really intend to assert that given the limits on freedom of speech when raised
as a defence to publishing drug-recipes, given the consequences of Internet publication law and the jurisdictional issues raised by the same, given
the existence of laws which make criminal such publications, etc. that this CANNOT happen, I call you a FOOL).
Whhhoooppps, that sure didn't work
|
|
|
Pulverulescent
National Hazard
Posts: 793
Registered: 31-1-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: Torn between two monikers ─ "hissingnoise" and the present incarnation!
|
|
I need to go to the toilet real bad but I can't get out of my chair.
On top of that, my sides are aching something awful!
Please stop!?!
P
|
|
|
Sauron
International Hazard
Posts: 5351
Registered: 22-12-2006
Location: Barad-Dur, Mordor
Member Is Offline
Mood: metastable
|
|
You must be paid by the word.
More lies from a demonstrated liar.
You don't make threats? Then why did you most definitely so do?
If you say it was not a threat I say you are a liar and many here will agree.
As to your 'points' I don't discern anything but gibberish and hogwash. Not worthy of using as sheepdip. Though it may well prove fatal to ticks.
You continue to pander to paranoia and fearmongering. You have the legal knowledge of a comatose chimpanzee. Algonquin J.Calhoun could run circles
round you on his worst day. (He was in case you do not know, the incompetent but comical Negro attorney on Amos 'n Andy.) You have made no argument;
you have littered the thread with disjointed and off-point psuedolegal factoids and failed miserably at linking these into anything cohesive, logical,
or convincing. None has stodd the slightest scrutiny. Polverone pointed this out about your use of civil defamation cases etc early on in the prior,
closed thread. He also brought you up short when you gratuitously and inaccurately tried to lay the closing of that threat at my door. Wrong! So you
are a liar. Go peddle your lies elsewhere. Here they are neither needed nor wanted and no one is buying any.
Sic gorgeamus a los subjectatus nunc.
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2 |
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
