FBI director blames the internet

[Quantum Windbag]

It was all speech, you are just stupid.

>Insurrection to revolution

Then this site must be illegal, yet there it sits.

>yelling fire in a crowded theater

People keep quoting this like it means something. Funny things is that it is legal to yell fire in a crowded theater if the theater is on fire.

>child abuse

Child abuse, while illegal, is not speech. In fact, I have never heard anyone, other than you, try to argue that it is, and you are doing so trying to prove it is illegal. Do you even realize how stupid that makes you look? Should I just put you into the rdean group and treat you with total contempt because you are just trolling in the hope that someone will get upset?

>conspiracy

Conspiracy is only illegal if I conspire to commit a crime, and not always then. If, for example, I conspire to throw a surprise party for someone's birthday that is not only legal, but is actually protected speech.

>criminal activity

Criminal activity is not speech.

>slander

Almost true, but still missing some crucial details.

In 1964, the United States Supreme Court heard the case of The New York Times v. Sullivan, and the law of defamation changed drastically. For the first time, the Supreme Court recognized that the First Amendment, which protects an individual's freedom of speech and expression, protects even speech and expression that is defamatory. In Sullivan, the plaintiff was a public official who sued The New York Times for libel after the newspaper published certain unfavorable allegations about him. The Supreme Court discussed the First Amendment to the Constitution, which states in part that "Congress shall pass no law abridging freedom of speech or of the press." The First Amendment exists, according to the Court, to help protect and foster the free flow and exchange of ideas, particularly on public or political issues. The Founding Fathers of the United States valued open debates regarding political issues or governments, determining that citizens in a democracy need a free marketplace of ideas in order to become informed and make good decisions. Open debates often become caustic and emotional, with opponents sharply attacking one another in the effort to persuade others. Sanctioning defamatory speech or expression would put an end to such attacks, but sanctions would also jeopardize the free marketplace of ideas by effectively censoring free and open debate. The Court saw the need for balancing an individual's right to be protected from false and defamatory accusations with the country's right to be informed via a free marketplace of ideas. It determined that in the case of a public official, such as the police official in Sullivan, the First Amendment rights of free speech and expression outweigh the public official's rights unless the public official can prove that the defendant acted with actual MALICE. Actual malice means that the defendant who communicates a defamatory statement does so knowing that the statement is false or very likely false. The defendant need not harbor ill will toward the plaintiff for the public official to recover in an action for slander or libel; the public official need only prove that the defendant knew that the defamatory statement was false or had serious doubts as to its truth.

Libel And Slander: Encyclopedia of Everyday Law

Look at that, slander is protected speech if I slander a public official.

>threatening a public official

You seem to have got that one right.

>release of classified info

While releasing classified information is illegal, it is not a free speech issue, and never has been. They get you on this because, if you are releasing the information, you had to sign a legally binding agreement not to talk about it.

>pornography

OMG, all those Playboys in my closet are illegal.

Just an FYI, pornography is protected by free speech. Maybe you should read about all the times Larry Flynt got arrested and ended up beating the case because pornography is protected speech.

>harassment

We seem to be harassing each other without anyone getting arrested.

can all occur in the form of speech. And all of that and more is prohibited.

You not only lose the argument you lose so badly that your ass will forever burn.

Learn to shut up while you are only slightly behind.

If only you would take your own advice.

 

[Ravi]

I kid you not. The top law-enforcement head thinks that hate-speech on the internet was a primary cause of the shooting in Arizona. In other words (correct me if I'm wrong) the federal government thinks that Americans are unable to deal with the flood of information on the internet. What's the solution? Control information. It's a good time to control the internet and next the print media and hollywood and talk radio. Who do we blame for JFK's assassinatoin or Bobby's or the attempted assassination of Jerry Ford and Ronald Reagan? Hollywood promoted a foreign made movie depicting the assassination of a sitting president, George Bush a couple of years ago. The NY Times often quoted the radical left wing hate speech from Cindy Sheehan's anti-war group and printed hate speech by Al-Jazzera as if it was real news. The FBI director should be fired if his investivative abilities are limited to blaming the internet.

I looked again this morning for something to back up your assertion and again found nothing.

Neg on its way for lying.

 

[zeitgeist2012]

Want to talk about hate and violence...

LaRouche:
`Obama Is Now Impeachable'
For His T4 Plan

LaRouche: `Obama Is Now Impeachable' for His T4 Plan

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0NicBfs5Ok[/ame]

 

[BenNatuf]

you are not capable of having this discussion.

There are myriad examples of speech that is not free. I listed about 8 examples, I win, big. You lose.

Case closed.

Odd, my reply seems to have disapeared?


if what you mean by I'm not capabe of having this conversation is that you are incapabnle of making a salient point that one could possibly make a reasoned reply to... you may be right. You have listed no examples, nerver mind myriad ones. All you have done is name some crimes that are not speech (like chlid abuse and soliciting a minor--- freudian? perhaps) and claim they are speech. How does one respond to someone who claims an apple is an orange and stubornly (or stupidly) adhere's to such nonsence? It is obvious that you have no ability to discern meaning from law and so project meaning into it instead... sorry, but it doesn't work that way. You can not make the law mean what you want it to, it means what it does, and niether insurection nor conspiracy are speech in the first place never mind examples of limittations on speech. Apparently the only thing thats been closed was your mind in civics class. You win?

 

[BenNatuf]

It was all speech, you are just stupid.

LOL.... BWAHAHAHAHHAHAHA. I think your dinner is ready, run along upstairs and get a plate.

>Insurrection to revolution

Insurection dumbass is "taking up arms" it is not speech, it is not possible for it to be speech.

>yelling fire in a crowded theater

is not speech, its public endangerment

>child abuse

is not speech

>conspiracy

is a fucking plan of action dumbass, not speech

>criminal activity

are you fucking serious?

>slander

can be sued for civily dumbass, its not illegal

>threatening a public official

can be speech, and if so would be protected. If on the other hand the threat is REAL, it would not be speech and would not be protected.

>release of classified info

is espionage moron, not speech. And during a time of war should be punishable by death

>pornography

can be speech so long as its not obcene... at which point it would no longer be speech at all

>harassment

How stupid are you? Do you actually think moving your lips and making noises is "speech"? It would appear so.

can all occur in the form of speech. And all of that and more is prohibited.

You not only lose the argument you lose so badly that your ass will forever burn.

Learn to shut up while you are only slightly behind.

learn... something. Anything will do really. You seem to have some sort of adolescent understanding of what "speech" is, is it a matter of age or mental capcity?