Give Him A Fair Trial Before You Hang Him

[Flanders]

Would it not it be a hoot if Comey ends up the only one prosecuted!

​

http://www.americanthinker.com/images/bucket/2016-09/197130_5_.jpg

 

[Auld Phart]

persecuted, or prosecuted?

 

[Jackson]

Would it not it be a hoot if Comey ends up the only one persecuted!

​

http://www.americanthinker.com/images/bucket/2016-09/197130_5_.jpg

Loved the "bedtime" pic!

 

[Care4all]

Republican congress critters are scum of the Earth! .

May what goes around, come around, to them!!!

 

[Flanders]

persecuted, or prosecuted?

To WillHaftawaite: Thanks. I corrected it in time.

 

[Jackson]

Republican congress critters are scum of the Earth! .

May what goes around, come around, to them!!!

Well that is an objective post!

 

[320 Years of History]

Would it not it be a hoot if Comey ends up the only one prosecuted!

​

http://www.americanthinker.com/images/bucket/2016-09/197130_5_.jpg

On July 5, FBI Director James Comey announced that he was not going to recommend the filing of criminal charges against Hillary Clinton over her use of a private email server. Comey said there was insufficient evidence to show Clinton had malicious intent. Comey reasoned:

All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information, or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct, or indications of disloyalty to the United States… We do not see those things here.

Many commentators have criticized Comey’s decision, arguing the statute Clinton was accused of violating, 18 U.S.C. § 793(f), requires only “gross negligence,” not intent. Former federal prosecutor Andy McCarthy has gone so far as to say that replacing the words “gross negligence” with “intent” rewrites that statute to serve political ends.

McCarthy and others are mistaken. The issue of mens rea, or intent, is not as simple as it seems on the surface, and intent is the correct standard. Comey was right not to recommend filing charges and to base his decision on the absence of evidence that Clinton had the necessary intent.

Section 793(f) makes it a felony for any person “entrusted with… information relating to the national defense” to allow that information to be “removed from its proper place of custody” through “gross negligence.” On its face, the law does not appear to require intent, but it turns out the key phrase in 793(f) is not “gross negligence.” The key phrase is “related to the national defense.”

Section 793(f) is a subsection of the Espionage Act, a controversial statute enacted during World War I in order to combat efforts by German agents to undermine the American war effort. The Act has been amended and renumbered many times, but its core provisions have not substantively changed. The Espionage Act has only sparingly been used to file criminal charges, but when it has been used it is often in high-profile cases. Eugene Debs was jailed under the Espionage Act for anti-war activities during World War I. The Rosenbergs were charged under the Espionage Act when they sold nuclear secrets to the Soviet Union. More recently, both Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden were charged under the Espionage Act for providing classified material to WikiLeaks.

The law has been controversial since its inception and prosecutions under the Act have been challenged as unconstitutional in several instances. The most famous of these cases is probably Schenck v. United States (1919), where the government charged two men with obstructing registration for the military draft by distributing leaflets urging young men not to register. The Supreme Court heard the case and unanimously upheld the convictions and the statute. It was in Schenck that Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes famously wrote that it is not protected speech to “yell fire in a crowded theater.”

But as time went by, feeling towards the Espionage Act began to sour. Later in 1919, the Supreme Court heard Abrams v. United States. That case involved the distribution of leaflets by anarchists who urged factory workers to refuse to participate in production of war materiel. In Abrams, the Court again upheld the convictions, but this time the decision was not unanimous. Holmes, who had written the majority opinion in Schenck, was one of the dissenters. Two years later, the Sedition Act, a 1918 amendment to the Espionage Act that imposed criminal sanctions for anti-war speech, was repealed by Congress in its entirety.

The Espionage Act was left on the books, however, in the years after the war it was used only sparingly. When it was used, it was often controversial because it resulted in prosecutions that civil libertarians believed infringed on press freedom and the right to political protest. Perhaps the most famous of these cases is the prosecution of Daniel Ellsberg for leaking the Pentagon papers The courts too grew wary of the Espionage Act and as a result their readings of it narrowed the scope of the law and limited when it could be used.

This helps provide context as to why James Comey insisted that intent was required to satisfy the requirement of 793(f). Even though the plain language of the statute reads “gross negligence,” the Supreme Court has essentially rewritten the statue to require intent to sustain a conviction.

In Gorin v. United States (1941), the Supreme Court heard a challenge to a conviction of a Navy intelligence official who sold classified material to the Soviet Union on Japanese intelligence operations in the United States. In that case, the defendant was charged with selling information “relating to the national defense” to a foreign power. The defendant argued on appeal that the phrase “relating to the national defense” was unconstitutionally vague, so much so that the defendant was deprived of the ability to predetermine whether his actions were a crime.

Justice Stanley Reed wrote the majority opinion and disagreed that the law was unconstitutionally vague, but only on the very narrow grounds that the law required “intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States.” Only because the court read the law to require scienter, or bad faith, before a conviction could be sustained was the law constitutional. Otherwise, it would be too difficult for a defendant to know when exactly material related to the national defense. The court made clear that if the law criminalized the simple mishandling of classified information, it would not survive constitutional scrutiny, writing:

The sections are not simple prohibitions against obtaining or delivering to foreign powers information… relating to national defense. If this were the language, it would need to be tested by the inquiry as to whether it had double meaning or forced anyone, at his peril, to speculate as to whether certain actions violated the statute.​

In other words, the defendant had to intend for his conduct to benefit a foreign power for his actions to violate 793(f).

Without the requirement of intent, the phrase “relating to the national defense” would be unconstitutionally vague. This reading of the statute has guided federal prosecutors ever since, which is why Comey based his decision not to file charges on Clinton’s lack of intent. This is also why no one has ever been convicted of violating 793(f) on a gross negligence theory.

Only one person has even been charged under a gross negligence theory: FBI Agent James Smith. Smith carried on a 20-year affair with a Chinese national who was suspected of spying for Beijing, and Smith would bring classified material to their trysts, behavior far more reckless than anything Clinton is accused of. But Smith was not convicted of violating 793(f). He struck a plea agreement that resulted in a conviction to the lesser charge of lying to federal agents. Smith was sentenced to three months of home confinement and served no jail time.

Members of the U.S. military have been charged with the negligent mishandling of classified material, but not under 793(f). Criminal charges in military court are brought under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, not the Espionage Act (although violations of the Espionage Act can be charged under Article 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice in military court). The military has extensive regulations that govern the handling of classified material and the failure to follow these regulations is a criminal offense. Negligence can result in a conviction under Article 92 because the test is whether the service member “knew or should have known” they were violating the regulation. But these rules do not apply to any civilian personnel at the State Department and can only be applied to DoD civilians in very limited circumstances.

Despite what may appear to be the plain meaning of 793(f), the negligent mishandling of classified material is not a civilian criminal offense. A civilian can face many consequences for negligently mishandling classified material, including the loss of their clearance and probably with it their employment, but they would not face criminal charges. For anyone who thinks negligence should be a crime their argument is not with Director Comey but with Justice Reed, the author of the Gorin opinion. Because of that decision, the correct standard is intent, not gross negligence, and the director was right not to recommend a criminal case.

Source: U.S. Army Judge Advocate John Ford, War on The Rocks​

 

[Flanders]

To 320 Years of History: Very informative, except for one thing. E-mails are relatively new. Hillary & Company committed espionage, and/or treason, using modern technology and they got away with it.

One Observation:

It was in Schenck that Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes famously wrote that it is not protected speech to “yell fire in a crowded theater.”

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. said “don’t falsely shout fire in a crowded theater” yet liberals repeatedly omit the word falsely whenever they cite Schenck v. Ohio (the United States) in order to justify limits on free speech. Schenck v. Ohio was overturned by Brandenburg v. United States.

 

[Flanders]

I changed my mind. Hang him before the trial:

Former U.S. Attorney Joseph diGenova at Judicial Watch forum Sept. 29, 2016​

http://www.wnd.com/files/2016/09/digenova.jpg

“All of this people … in the military who have lost their clearances, lost their jobs, been prosecuted – that poor submarine guy who took a photograph, which he never sent to his family – the guy was prosecuted and has a year in the big. How can Comey go to sleep at night knowing about that kid?” he asked.

DiGenova said he found Comey’s continued presence in the directorship “an insult to everybody in federal law enforcement.”

“And I think he should go, and I think he has violated his oath, and I think that Congress should at least do something to manifest their outrage at this clearly political decision that he made,” diGenova said.

He said Comey’s declaration to Congress that he is offended by the suggestion that the bureau’s decision not to refer prosecution was politically motivated “shows he knows how awful his performance was as a federal law enforcement official.”

XXXXX​

“This investigation was a farce, and Comey knows it.”​

Clinton-scandal experts reveal latest on couples' 'crimes'
Posted By Paul Bremmer On 09/29/2016 @ 9:23 pm

Clinton-scandal experts reveal latest on couples’ ‘crimes’​

 

[320 Years of History]

To 320 Years of History: Very informative, except for one thing. E-mails are relatively new.

Blue:
TY

Pink:
??? I'm sorry. Can you expound a bit on what you are getting at with regard to my post, please?


P.S.
Sorry for the delay in replying with my question. I think I may have in September missed an alert or three, maybe more.

 

[Flanders]

It was in Schenck that Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes famously wrote that it is not protected speech to “yell fire in a crowded theater.”

I'm sorry. Can you expound a bit on what you are getting at with regard to my post, please?

To 320 Years of History: I was simply pointing out how ludicrous it is to deliberately misrepresent what Holmes’ said. When you omit the word “falsely” you cannot shout “Fire!” when the theater is actually on fire. Permit me to expound still further:

In the real world it is offensive speech that requires the most protection, not kissy-kissy, touchy-feely, sermons.

The things you cannot say, and the things you must say, is clearly an evolutionary step in America’s culture. In bygone decades the opponents of free speech confined their attacks to silencing speech for average Americans. The long-running debate used to be about the government shutting up people. Now, go back to Oliver Wendell Holmes’ often misquoted opinion: "Falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater.”, and come forward. You’ll see that before the Fairness Doctrine (1949 - 1987) was implemented no one was required to listen. Nowadays, freedom of speech is still as much as about making people listen as much as it is about shutting them up.

Parenthetically, Justice Holmes never told us how freedom of speech traveled from the year 1791 to the year 1919 without his opinion guiding the country. To me, “political freedom of speech” is absolute, or at least it should be. If an individual’s constitutional Rights are not as absolute as the government’s Rights the individual has no Rights at all. At best, individual’s constitutional Rights become nothing more than lawyers’ laws dressed up to look prettier than they actually are.

Fire!

It is a bit of a stretch to say that falsely yelling Fire! in a crowded theater would cause thinking humans trampling one another in a rush to the exits. Since the Fire! ruling was overturned, I have not heard that millions of American theatergoers were trampled to death every year. As a matter of fact no one was trampling each other when they knew the Twin Towers were burning.

What protected theatergoers before 1919?

My perception of the Fire restraint on free speech is that political free speech would remain absolute, but not all speech would be so blessed. At least that is what the High Court seemed to be saying at the time. That one prohibition appeared to be reasonable on the face of it, but now political free speech is no longer absolute; right along with the other kind. Would the Nifty Nine from a bygone era have made that pronouncement had they known that Intelligent Design, campaign finance reform, and banning politically incorrect speech would follow? It is impossible to say.

One unshakable fact about speech is universal. All speech, by its very nature, is most closely related to “Let the buyer beware.”

Incidentally, how many times did the words “limited speech” appear in print, commentaries, High Court decisions, etc., prior to 1919? How many times did James Madison invoke those words?

It is no secret that all governments just love protecting meaningless speech, while all governments claim the absolute Right to define “clear and present danger.” In every form of government do not falsely shout FIRE in a crowded theater becomes do not shout FIRE in an empty theater. Then it becomes do not shout FIRE! And finally do not speak at all.

Freedom Of Speech Is Not A Board Game​

 

[320 Years of History]

It was in Schenck that Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes famously wrote that it is not protected speech to “yell fire in a crowded theater.”

I'm sorry. Can you expound a bit on what you are getting at with regard to my post, please?

To 320 Years of History: I was simply pointing out how ludicrous it is to deliberately misrepresent what Holmes’ said. When you omit the word “falsely” you cannot shout “Fire!” when the theater is actually on fire. Permit me to expound still further:

In the real world it is offensive speech that requires the most protection, not kissy-kissy, touchy-feely, sermons.

The things you cannot say, and the things you must say, is clearly an evolutionary step in America’s culture. In bygone decades the opponents of free speech confined their attacks to silencing speech for average Americans. The long-running debate used to be about the government shutting up people. Now, go back to Oliver Wendell Holmes’ often misquoted opinion: "Falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater.”, and come forward. You’ll see that before the Fairness Doctrine (1949 - 1987) was implemented no one was required to listen. Nowadays, freedom of speech is still as much as about making people listen as much as it is about shutting them up.

Parenthetically, Justice Holmes never told us how freedom of speech traveled from the year 1791 to the year 1919 without his opinion guiding the country. To me, “political freedom of speech” is absolute, or at least it should be. If an individual’s constitutional Rights are not as absolute as the government’s Rights the individual has no Rights at all. At best, individual’s constitutional Rights become nothing more than lawyers’ laws dressed up to look prettier than they actually are.

Fire!

It is a bit of a stretch to say that falsely yelling Fire! in a crowded theater would cause thinking humans trampling one another in a rush to the exits. Since the Fire! ruling was overturned, I have not heard that millions of American theatergoers were trampled to death every year. As a matter of fact no one was trampling each other when they knew the Twin Towers were burning.

What protected theatergoers before 1919?

My perception of the Fire restraint on free speech is that political free speech would remain absolute, but not all speech would be so blessed. At least that is what the High Court seemed to be saying at the time. That one prohibition appeared to be reasonable on the face of it, but now political free speech is no longer absolute; right along with the other kind. Would the Nifty Nine from a bygone era have made that pronouncement had they known that Intelligent Design, campaign finance reform, and banning politically incorrect speech would follow? It is impossible to say.

One unshakable fact about speech is universal. All speech, by its very nature, is most closely related to “Let the buyer beware.”

Incidentally, how many times did the words “limited speech” appear in print, commentaries, High Court decisions, etc., prior to 1919? How many times did James Madison invoke those words?

It is no secret that all governments just love protecting meaningless speech, while all governments claim the absolute Right to define “clear and present danger.” In every form of government do not falsely shout FIRE in a crowded theater becomes do not shout FIRE in an empty theater. Then it becomes do not shout FIRE! And finally do not speak at all.

Freedom Of Speech Is Not A Board Game​

TY for the clarification.

Blue:
Um, okay. I understand what you're saying and I agree with the relevance of the distinction you highlight between "...shouting fire..." and "..falsely shouting fire..."

I have to say, however, I never would have imagined that the "falsely" element of Holme's statement be not tacitly and intrinsically understood as concomitant with the rest of the statement. I mean really. Would anyone with "the sense God gave a goose" and not seeing "falsely" in the paraphrasing of Holmes' remark imagine the Justice sought to protect clear misrepresentations of fact? I should hope not.

Purple:
I'm not sure why a rule implemented (and later repealed) to address media practices is relevant in this discussion. It seems a very narrow aspect of free speech to introduce in this context.

Since you raised the Fairness Doctrine...Was that rule not developed not to "make" people listen but rather to make it possible for people to hear varied points of view besides the dominant and most popular ones? I don't at all agree that free speech is about making people hear anything. How is it even possible to make people listen to one's expressions? For instance, I have the TV on right now and I can peripherally see the imagery. I can hear the people talking. Am I listening, paying attention, aware of and comprehending the substance of their words? No. At best, I'm "listening out" for key words that I've not heard before or that he station emphasizes enough to make me focus on the broadcast.

 

[Flanders]

Would anyone with "the sense God gave a goose" and not seeing "falsely" in the paraphrasing of Holmes' remark imagine the Justice sought to protect clear misrepresentations of fact?

To 320 Years of History: Propagandists writing for TV “entertainment” shows, and Hollywood movies, misquote Holmes all of the time. I even heard elected officials and media mouths on news shows do it.

Was that rule not developed not to "make" people listen but rather to make it possible for people to hear varied points of view besides the dominant and most popular ones?

To 320 Years of History: “. . . make it possible to hear varied points of view. . .” is a sly way of saying the government has the authority to force you to listen. Doing it with the Fairness Doctrine is only slightly less offensive than doing it to children with tax dollars in the public schools. Note that adults can turn off their television sets —— school children have no choice. Even young adults in higher education are forced to listen if they want to graduate.

Incidentally, would you hold the same views if the priesthood in an organized religion used the power of government to force non-believers to listen.

I don't at all agree that free speech is about making people hear anything.

To 320 Years of History: Then why was the Fairness Doctrine necessary in the first place? And why do Socialists work day and night trying to re-institute the FD or some variation of it?

NOTE: The Internet is forcing the government to concentrate on shutting down free speech. I am certain that handing control of the internet to the United Nations is connected to the following political objective.

Elect congenital liar, Hillary Clinton, and she is sure to adopt China’s control over the Internet where lies told by government officials cannot be questioned on the Internet; most especially the lies they tell defending their reputations:

Hillary Rodham Clinton said IN 1998 during a meeting with reporters said that "we are all going to have to rethink how we deal with" the Internet because of the handling of White House sex scandal stories on Web sites.

Clinton was asked whether she favored curbs on the Internet, after the DRUDGE REPORT made headlines with coverage of her husband's affair with a White House intern. "We are all going to have to rethink how we deal with this, because there are all these competing values ... Without any kind of editing function or gatekeeping function, what does it mean to have the right to defend your reputation?" she said.​

FLASHBACK: HILLARY CLINTON SAYS INTERNET NEWS NEEDS 'RETHINK'
Drudge Report ^ | 9/25/05 | Matt Drudge

FLASHBACK: HILLARY CLINTON SAYS INTERNET NEWS NEEDS 'RETHINK'​

Incidentally, Hillary’s goal is to lie about her reputation without fear of being exposed.

This guy puts Hillary to shame:

Just prior to his appointment as President Obama’s so-called regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein wrote a lengthy academic paper suggesting the government should “infiltrate” social network websites, chat rooms and message boards.

Such “cognitive infiltration,” Sunstein argued, should be used to enforce a U.S. government ban on “conspiracy theorizing.”

Obama czar proposed government ‘infiltrate’ social network sites
Sunstein wants agents to 'undermine' talk in chat rooms, message boards
Published: 01/12/2012 at 10:56 PM
by Aaron Klein

Obama czar proposed government ‘infiltrate’ social network sites​

Hillary Found Her Gatekeeper​

The worst part of the government forcing people to listen is giving tax dollars to the type of person who preach the message on television, in classrooms, and everywhere force can be applied. Without tax dollars, scum like that would be on a street corner scrounging for nickels from the fools who stop to listen. At least bible-thumpers with a pulpit in a physical structure get theirs from voluntary contributions.

I have the TV on right now and I can peripherally see the imagery. I can hear the people talking.

To 320 Years of History: Sad to say that subliminal messages work on most TV viewers; most especially children.

Let me remind you the sound track saved Hollywood and gave us Socialist/Communist propaganda reinforced by pictures. Political propaganda was inevitable when words replaced music as the primary audience-controlling factor in a theater.

Silent films were never silent. Even in the silent film era, musicians were hired to accompany the film being shown; in most cases they played a piano or an organ. Many of the larger theaters hired a small orchestra. Think about the cost involved when one or more musicians played at every showing in every movie house in the country. The more astute studio heads, along with the owners of the large theater chains, wanted sound added to motion pictures so they could eliminate the staggering cost of those musicians. Had sound never been added to film, the novelty of viewing moving pictures would have worn thin decades ago.

One of the most believed lies of the last century is the one that says adding a sound track to film destroyed silent screen stars. Hollywood itself promoted that falsehood for obvious reasons. Studio moguls always knew that without sound of some kind motion pictures would soon become as boring as looking at someone else’s family photo album.

The black & white social dramas made by Hollywood soon after sound was added to motion pictures are the foundation for sound & image propaganda. Television effectively built upon that prototype. In short: No picture, or pictures, ever converted anyone to anything, but the spoken word has done just that on many occasions. Pictures beguile —— sound persuades.

“Sight is the first law of sales” only comes into play when you are selling a product. Even then, “product sight” is often supported by the words of a salesperson as in the case of automobiles, real estate, etc. When you are trying to sell hot air, electronic vocal chords accompanied by a torrent of words is the tool to use. If you doubt it, try to visualize being brainwashed into accepting Socialism/Communism by pictures alone. It is not possible. By combining sound and images, and then having them seen and heard in a relaxed home atmosphere, rather than in an impersonal theater, has been a boon to collectivism and devastating to individuality.

As to your remaining views: Over the years, I covered every aspect of freedom of speech, coerced audiences, and so on. Rather than go over it for the umpteenth time every time an opposite finds me you can research my messages.

 

[320 Years of History]

Would anyone with "the sense God gave a goose" and not seeing "falsely" in the paraphrasing of Holmes' remark imagine the Justice sought to protect clear misrepresentations of fact?

To 320 Years of History: Propagandists writing for TV “entertainment” shows, and Hollywood movies, misquote Holmes all of the time. I even heard elected officials and media mouths on news shows do it.

Was that rule not developed not to "make" people listen but rather to make it possible for people to hear varied points of view besides the dominant and most popular ones?

To 320 Years of History: “. . . make it possible to hear varied points of view. . .” is a sly way of saying the government has the authority to force you to listen. Doing it with the Fairness Doctrine is only slightly less offensive than doing it to children with tax dollars in the public schools. Note that adults can turn off their television sets —— school children have no choice. Even young adults in higher education are forced to listen if they want to graduate.

Incidentally, would you hold the same views if the priesthood in an organized religion used the power of government to force non-believers to listen.

I don't at all agree that free speech is about making people hear anything.

To 320 Years of History: Then why was the Fairness Doctrine necessary in the first place? And why do Socialists work day and night trying to re-institute the FD or some variation of it?

NOTE: The Internet is forcing the government to concentrate on shutting down free speech. I am certain that handing control of the internet to the United Nations is connected to the following political objective.

Elect congenital liar, Hillary Clinton, and she is sure to adopt China’s control over the Internet where lies told by government officials cannot be questioned on the Internet; most especially the lies they tell defending their reputations:

Hillary Rodham Clinton said IN 1998 during a meeting with reporters said that "we are all going to have to rethink how we deal with" the Internet because of the handling of White House sex scandal stories on Web sites.

Clinton was asked whether she favored curbs on the Internet, after the DRUDGE REPORT made headlines with coverage of her husband's affair with a White House intern. "We are all going to have to rethink how we deal with this, because there are all these competing values ... Without any kind of editing function or gatekeeping function, what does it mean to have the right to defend your reputation?" she said.​

FLASHBACK: HILLARY CLINTON SAYS INTERNET NEWS NEEDS 'RETHINK'
Drudge Report ^ | 9/25/05 | Matt Drudge

FLASHBACK: HILLARY CLINTON SAYS INTERNET NEWS NEEDS 'RETHINK'​

Incidentally, Hillary’s goal is to lie about her reputation without fear of being exposed.

This guy puts Hillary to shame:

Just prior to his appointment as President Obama’s so-called regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein wrote a lengthy academic paper suggesting the government should “infiltrate” social network websites, chat rooms and message boards.

Such “cognitive infiltration,” Sunstein argued, should be used to enforce a U.S. government ban on “conspiracy theorizing.”

Obama czar proposed government ‘infiltrate’ social network sites
Sunstein wants agents to 'undermine' talk in chat rooms, message boards
Published: 01/12/2012 at 10:56 PM
by Aaron Klein

Obama czar proposed government ‘infiltrate’ social network sites​

Hillary Found Her Gatekeeper​

The worst part of the government forcing people to listen is giving tax dollars to the type of person who preach the message on television, in classrooms, and everywhere force can be applied. Without tax dollars, scum like that would be on a street corner scrounging for nickels from the fools who stop to listen. At least bible-thumpers with a pulpit in a physical structure get theirs from voluntary contributions.

I have the TV on right now and I can peripherally see the imagery. I can hear the people talking.

To 320 Years of History: Sad to say that subliminal messages work on most TV viewers; most especially children.

Let me remind you the sound track saved Hollywood and gave us Socialist/Communist propaganda reinforced by pictures. Political propaganda was inevitable when words replaced music as the primary audience-controlling factor in a theater.

Silent films were never silent. Even in the silent film era, musicians were hired to accompany the film being shown; in most cases they played a piano or an organ. Many of the larger theaters hired a small orchestra. Think about the cost involved when one or more musicians played at every showing in every movie house in the country. The more astute studio heads, along with the owners of the large theater chains, wanted sound added to motion pictures so they could eliminate the staggering cost of those musicians. Had sound never been added to film, the novelty of viewing moving pictures would have worn thin decades ago.

One of the most believed lies of the last century is the one that says adding a sound track to film destroyed silent screen stars. Hollywood itself promoted that falsehood for obvious reasons. Studio moguls always knew that without sound of some kind motion pictures would soon become as boring as looking at someone else’s family photo album.

The black & white social dramas made by Hollywood soon after sound was added to motion pictures are the foundation for sound & image propaganda. Television effectively built upon that prototype. In short: No picture, or pictures, ever converted anyone to anything, but the spoken word has done just that on many occasions. Pictures beguile —— sound persuades.

“Sight is the first law of sales” only comes into play when you are selling a product. Even then, “product sight” is often supported by the words of a salesperson as in the case of automobiles, real estate, etc. When you are trying to sell hot air, electronic vocal chords accompanied by a torrent of words is the tool to use. If you doubt it, try to visualize being brainwashed into accepting Socialism/Communism by pictures alone. It is not possible. By combining sound and images, and then having them seen and heard in a relaxed home atmosphere, rather than in an impersonal theater, has been a boon to collectivism and devastating to individuality.

As to your remaining views: Over the years, I covered every aspect of freedom of speech, coerced audiences, and so on. Rather than go over it for the umpteenth time every time an opposite finds me you can research my messages.

You know, when I read the post above, I was inclined initially to respond in substance to it and specific points, passages and ideas you expressed, not only out of courtesy (which is the motivation for a great deal my replies on USMB) but also because you have clearly presented an assortment of substantive thoughts, no matter whether I concur with them. Then I kept going and decided against it because as I read further, I got the distinct sense that engaging farther would take me down a "conspiracy theory rabbit hole" I have no desire to visit in these final few days of my time here. Call it "short timer's syndrome" if you want, but it is what it is, and it is real.

I will offer the following, however.

To 320 Years of History: “. . . make it possible to hear varied points of view. . .” is a sly way of saying the government has the authority to force you to listen.

If that's what I'd intended, it's what I'd have written. I wrote exactly what I meant, not more, not less.

As goes free speech, hearing it, and listening to it, well, I think of it much like shopping at H. Lorenzo. There's always stuff that I couldn't possibly have imagined mixed in with items that are quite predicable and easily approached. Some of the more esoteric stuff I like and I buy it, and some of it is there (speech made available to be heard), interesting to see (speech one hears but that's it), maybe even try on (speech one listens to, considers and thoroughly comprehends), but that just isn't me (speech one has listened to, understood and rejected).

Note that adults can turn off their television sets —— school children have no choice. Even young adults in higher education are forced to listen if they want to graduate.

Incidentally, would you hold the same views if the priesthood in an organized religion used the power of government to force non-believers to listen[?]

I've "sent" several of my non-Roman Catholic mentees to Jesuit high schools, and they most certainly had to take four years of mandatory religion class. Not one of them has converted to Roman Catholicism, yet all of them scored "As" in religion. Hearing a message -- forcibly or not -- is one thing. Understanding it is yet again something different. Accepting it is wholly another matter different from both, at least it is if, as I wrote earlier, one "has the sense God gave a goose."

Were one to read -- freely or not -- the Quran, Bible, Vedas, Buddhavacana and Sutras, Heichalot, or Sefer Yetzirah, and Zohar and other canonical texts (yes, I know some of those aren't strictly considered canonical) would one necessarily ascribe to the corresponding belief system? Not if one knows oneself, and yet one may find bits and pieces in each system of thought that are of value. So, yes, I would hold the same views regardless of whether the government forced me or everyone to listen to "this or that" dogma.
​

 

[Flanders]

Would anyone with "the sense God gave a goose" and not seeing "falsely" in the paraphrasing of Holmes' remark imagine the Justice sought to protect clear misrepresentations of fact?

To 320 Years of History: Propagandists writing for TV “entertainment” shows, and Hollywood movies, misquote Holmes all of the time. I even heard elected officials and media mouths on news shows do it.

Was that rule not developed not to "make" people listen but rather to make it possible for people to hear varied points of view besides the dominant and most popular ones?

To 320 Years of History: “. . . make it possible to hear varied points of view. . .” is a sly way of saying the government has the authority to force you to listen. Doing it with the Fairness Doctrine is only slightly less offensive than doing it to children with tax dollars in the public schools. Note that adults can turn off their television sets —— school children have no choice. Even young adults in higher education are forced to listen if they want to graduate.

Incidentally, would you hold the same views if the priesthood in an organized religion used the power of government to force non-believers to listen.

I don't at all agree that free speech is about making people hear anything.

To 320 Years of History: Then why was the Fairness Doctrine necessary in the first place? And why do Socialists work day and night trying to re-institute the FD or some variation of it?

NOTE: The Internet is forcing the government to concentrate on shutting down free speech. I am certain that handing control of the internet to the United Nations is connected to the following political objective.

Elect congenital liar, Hillary Clinton, and she is sure to adopt China’s control over the Internet where lies told by government officials cannot be questioned on the Internet; most especially the lies they tell defending their reputations:

Hillary Rodham Clinton said IN 1998 during a meeting with reporters said that "we are all going to have to rethink how we deal with" the Internet because of the handling of White House sex scandal stories on Web sites.

Clinton was asked whether she favored curbs on the Internet, after the DRUDGE REPORT made headlines with coverage of her husband's affair with a White House intern. "We are all going to have to rethink how we deal with this, because there are all these competing values ... Without any kind of editing function or gatekeeping function, what does it mean to have the right to defend your reputation?" she said.​

FLASHBACK: HILLARY CLINTON SAYS INTERNET NEWS NEEDS 'RETHINK'
Drudge Report ^ | 9/25/05 | Matt Drudge

FLASHBACK: HILLARY CLINTON SAYS INTERNET NEWS NEEDS 'RETHINK'​

Incidentally, Hillary’s goal is to lie about her reputation without fear of being exposed.

This guy puts Hillary to shame:

Just prior to his appointment as President Obama’s so-called regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein wrote a lengthy academic paper suggesting the government should “infiltrate” social network websites, chat rooms and message boards.

Such “cognitive infiltration,” Sunstein argued, should be used to enforce a U.S. government ban on “conspiracy theorizing.”

Obama czar proposed government ‘infiltrate’ social network sites
Sunstein wants agents to 'undermine' talk in chat rooms, message boards
Published: 01/12/2012 at 10:56 PM
by Aaron Klein

Obama czar proposed government ‘infiltrate’ social network sites​

Hillary Found Her Gatekeeper​

The worst part of the government forcing people to listen is giving tax dollars to the type of person who preach the message on television, in classrooms, and everywhere force can be applied. Without tax dollars, scum like that would be on a street corner scrounging for nickels from the fools who stop to listen. At least bible-thumpers with a pulpit in a physical structure get theirs from voluntary contributions.

I have the TV on right now and I can peripherally see the imagery. I can hear the people talking.

To 320 Years of History: Sad to say that subliminal messages work on most TV viewers; most especially children.

Let me remind you the sound track saved Hollywood and gave us Socialist/Communist propaganda reinforced by pictures. Political propaganda was inevitable when words replaced music as the primary audience-controlling factor in a theater.

Silent films were never silent. Even in the silent film era, musicians were hired to accompany the film being shown; in most cases they played a piano or an organ. Many of the larger theaters hired a small orchestra. Think about the cost involved when one or more musicians played at every showing in every movie house in the country. The more astute studio heads, along with the owners of the large theater chains, wanted sound added to motion pictures so they could eliminate the staggering cost of those musicians. Had sound never been added to film, the novelty of viewing moving pictures would have worn thin decades ago.

One of the most believed lies of the last century is the one that says adding a sound track to film destroyed silent screen stars. Hollywood itself promoted that falsehood for obvious reasons. Studio moguls always knew that without sound of some kind motion pictures would soon become as boring as looking at someone else’s family photo album.

The black & white social dramas made by Hollywood soon after sound was added to motion pictures are the foundation for sound & image propaganda. Television effectively built upon that prototype. In short: No picture, or pictures, ever converted anyone to anything, but the spoken word has done just that on many occasions. Pictures beguile —— sound persuades.

“Sight is the first law of sales” only comes into play when you are selling a product. Even then, “product sight” is often supported by the words of a salesperson as in the case of automobiles, real estate, etc. When you are trying to sell hot air, electronic vocal chords accompanied by a torrent of words is the tool to use. If you doubt it, try to visualize being brainwashed into accepting Socialism/Communism by pictures alone. It is not possible. By combining sound and images, and then having them seen and heard in a relaxed home atmosphere, rather than in an impersonal theater, has been a boon to collectivism and devastating to individuality.

As to your remaining views: Over the years, I covered every aspect of freedom of speech, coerced audiences, and so on. Rather than go over it for the umpteenth time every time an opposite finds me you can research my messages.

You know, when I read the post above, I was inclined initially to respond in substance to it and specific points, passages and ideas you expressed, not only out of courtesy (which is the motivation for a great deal my replies on USMB) but also because you have clearly presented an assortment of substantive thoughts, no matter whether I concur with them. Then I kept going and decided against it because as I read further, I got the distinct sense that engaging farther would take me down a "conspiracy theory rabbit hole" I have no desire to visit in these final few days of my time here. Call it "short timer's syndrome" if you want, but it is what it is, and it is real.

I will offer the following, however.

To 320 Years of History: “. . . make it possible to hear varied points of view. . .” is a sly way of saying the government has the authority to force you to listen.

If that's what I'd intended, it's what I'd have written. I wrote exactly what I meant, not more, not less.

As goes free speech, hearing it, and listening to it, well, I think of it much like shopping at H. Lorenzo. There's always stuff that I couldn't possibly have imagined mixed in with items that are quite predicable and easily approached. Some of the more esoteric stuff I like and I buy it, and some of it is there (speech made available to be heard), interesting to see (speech one hears but that's it), maybe even try on (speech one listens to, considers and thoroughly comprehends), but that just isn't me (speech one has listened to, understood and rejected).

Note that adults can turn off their television sets —— school children have no choice. Even young adults in higher education are forced to listen if they want to graduate.

Incidentally, would you hold the same views if the priesthood in an organized religion used the power of government to force non-believers to listen[?]

I've "sent" several of my non-Roman Catholic mentees to Jesuit high schools, and they most certainly had to take four years of mandatory religion class. Not one of them has converted to Roman Catholicism, yet all of them scored "As" in religion. Hearing a message -- forcibly or not -- is one thing. Understanding it is yet again something different. Accepting it is wholly another matter different from both, at least it is if, as I wrote earlier, one "has the sense God gave a goose."

Were one to read -- freely or not -- the Quran, Bible, Vedas, Buddhavacana and Sutras, Heichalot, or Sefer Yetzirah, and Zohar and other canonical texts (yes, I know some of those aren't strictly considered canonical) would one necessarily ascribe to the corresponding belief system? Not if one knows oneself, and yet one may find bits and pieces in each system of thought that are of value. So, yes, I would hold the same views regardless of whether the government forced me or everyone to listen to "this or that" dogma.
​

To 320 Years of History: I debated deniers many times from every angle possible. As sure as God made little green apples, I knew that Socialism/Communism THE RELIGION would go over your head.

Try this for my views on God and religion:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/251202-the-man-with-the-gun.html

NOTE: Ever since 9-11-2001 I’ve been saying that Islam should be legally defined as a political movement which it is, while Socialism/Communism should be defined as a religion which it is. In that way both are denied First Amendment protection. In short: Socialism violates the First Amendment because it is a religion implementing the tax collector’s morality, while Islam is NOT entitled to First Amendment protection because it is a political movement.

Finally:

Organized religions have been fighting each other for millenniums. Americans must defeat Islam as a matter of self-defense, but they must not do it for Christianity, Communism/Socialism, democracy, and certainly not for global government.

As I’ve said many times, I have no objection to killing priesthoods who want to kill me, but it makes no sense for a free people to surrender their freedoms by replacing one religion with another, and that includes Socialism-cum-global-government.

Muslims Made Occupation Obsolete​

​