Erollisi Marr - The Nameless

Go Back   Erollisi Marr - The Nameless > NON EQ Stuff (Real life, other games, etc.) > Steam Vent


Reply
 
Add/Share Add/Share Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-14-2004, 10:44 AM   #51
Trith
The lesser of two weevils
 
Trith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Shreveport, Louisiana
Posts: 3,490
Send a message via MSN to Trith
It is free speech. But you and your Ashcroftian principals wouldn't understand anything about free speech would you?
Ok so what you are saying is it's now legal for me to plaster to walls of buildings with flyers that say "We need to kill Bumbleroot". It would be legal for me to make a commercial saying "Let's kill Bumbleroot". I'm within my rights to run newspaper articles that say "Let's put a gun to Bumbleroot's head and blow his brains out"....

all of this is now ok...no legal issues huh..?


You are dillusional.
Trith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2004, 11:42 AM   #52
bumbleroot
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 7,756
I'm sorry, but all of you cons on this thread are turning into ideological idiots. There is NO THREAT here. It isn't even implied.

Here is another case of exactly the same type of thing---
http://www.strange-loops.com/politicskillthepres.html
It might say the world would be better off if he was shot. It might even give a fictional account of the president's assassination. Yet all the while the artist may not wish any actual harm on Bush, and certainly the lyrics alone would not possibly suggest a real plan to kill Bush or cause his death; such a song is more likely nothing but a form of political speech, an artistic way to express outrage at the president's policies.
From CNN
http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/Musi...ics/index.html
"It would be saying too much to make too big a deal out of this," one Secret Service official said.
Gee even the Secret Service says you guys are wrong! So why should I admit something that you guys are so off base about?

Now here is a Federal Court's ruling on a threat to the Presidency
http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache...hl=en&ie=UTF-8
this Court has applied an objective test for willfulness (“The intent which establishes the offense is that expressed in the language of the declaration, not the intent locked in the mind of the declarant.” United States v. Greig,
Some more on threats
http://www.soonerthought.com/archives/000273.html

Sorry guys, no plan was in place or expression of a plan to kill Rumsfeld. This is not a threat. Dream on and keep being ideologues. This is not about politics, but about law. You cons can take all of your idiotic beliefs throw them into a barrell and believe that because you all think the same way and have a ganging up mentality that you are winning. I'm sorry, but law is not based upon popular consent, but upon justice. Your gang mentality does not preclude you are right. YOU LOSE AGAIN!
bumbleroot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2004, 11:46 AM   #53
bumbleroot
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 7,756
"We need to kill Bumbleroot".
NEED and SHOULD are not the same words.
Need implies a necessity, Should implies a choice.
bumbleroot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2004, 11:54 AM   #54
bumbleroot
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 7,756
However in this specific case they called for the shooting of a public figure,
Crimson- in this case they did not call for the shooting of a public figure. They said that someone should be shot. That does not tell people nor ask them to kill anyone. There is no means or plan to kill that public figure. Saying someone deserves to die is not calling for their death. It merely says you want them to be dead. Want is not Need. Want is only a desire. And a desire exists in the minds of a person.
Now if you were a good little patriot and read the court case (which is highly doubtful for intellectually lazy conservatives) I put before you, you would realize that a desire is not a "true threat" and therefore does not constitute the letter of 871.
bumbleroot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2004, 12:08 PM   #55
crimsonedge
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 767
Originally Posted by bumbleroot
Now here is a Federal Court's ruling on a threat to the Presidency
http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache...hl=en&ie=UTF-8
I cant really lose when you dont even read the case you linked. It happens to be the one I linked in which the court agreed that the naval recruit made a threat to the president and affirmed the decision of the lower court in upholding the recruits dishonorable discharge and year in prison.

I think I know why you call yourself Bumble now.
crimsonedge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2004, 12:13 PM   #56
AresProphet
Priest of Hiroshima
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,932
Send a message via MSN to AresProphet
From what I can infer, bumble linked that case again to show that there is a test for willfulness, and that it is not automatically assumed every threat is indeed intended to be carried out. In that particular case it was, but you can hardly expect that to always be the way it turns out..
__________________
One of the wonders of the world is going down
It's going down I know
It's one of the blunders of the world that no-one cares
No-one cares enough


Attachment 181

Last edited by AresProphet; 04-15-2004 at 10:43 PM.
AresProphet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2004, 12:34 PM   #57
bumbleroot
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 7,756
Thank you- that is my point exactly.
It appears that any NUANCE is impossible for conservatives to understand.

I know the sailor's conviction was upheld. The case also dealt with the letter of the law and expressed what Willful intent and True Threats were.
bumbleroot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2004, 12:36 PM   #58
crimsonedge
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 767
The court in the described case made points on both objective and subjective test that could be used to determine intent. In that case, they affirmed the lower courts ruling that his statements were enough to constitute a threat. The one point that stands out in those arguments to me is this :

While application of a subjective test might deter actual
assaults on the President, it might not deter a
subjectively neutral declarant from inciting others to
action, or from disrupting the President’s activities where
the Secret Service does not have the luxury of knowing
actual intent. For these reasons, § 871(a) does not
require that the trier of fact, or the Secret Service, look
into the mind of the declarant to determine actual intent.

Basically I feel they can be accused of inciting others to action by using this "We should" quote seems to ask or direct others to consider action against Rumsfield. While I am sure that if they had fully understood the possible ramifications of what they printed, they would have been more judicious in the selection of their phrasing of the advertisment, ignorance of the law is no defense.

Edit
Lawyer friend of mine just sent me this:

Quick rule of thumb that most lawyers should agree with, try not to joke
about killing anyone (excluding enemies of the state). Seems to generate
unpleasant consequences, no matter the forum.
crimsonedge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2004, 01:26 PM   #59
bumbleroot
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 7,756
actual assaults
Enough said right there.

And I agree with your lawyer friend. Why even do something as stupid as those people in Florida did. It can never help theirs or anyone's cause
bumbleroot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2004, 01:37 PM   #60
Trith
The lesser of two weevils
 
Trith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Shreveport, Louisiana
Posts: 3,490
Send a message via MSN to Trith
the Secret Service does not have the luxury of knowing actual intent
Enough said right there. That's why this should become a legal issue quickly.
Trith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2004, 07:26 PM   #61
AresProphet
Priest of Hiroshima
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,932
Send a message via MSN to AresProphet
You can't arrest someone for simply saying "Ashcroft should be shot".

First amendment applies. Does this, however, count as one of the exceptions? Declaration does not imply intent, first of all. The court case argues that it still may "incite others to action", which is reasonable. But, does that warrant an arrest (no pun intended)?

I'm almost inclined to say yes, for a very strange reason. Consider how, initially, this came from a very obscure source. But the media caught wind of it, and now are blowing it out of proportion. Suddenly there is a much larger audience that the message reaches, not by any fault of the original speaker (who may have even used it figuratively, in some cases; not this one it seems), but because of the larger media.

Still, free speech does protect the speaker. While it might merit some investigation into the intent and seriousness of the threat, you cannot arrest anyone with the only evidence being a single quote.

Not only that but the investigation is the domain of the Secret Service. Nobody else needs to take action, or indeed acknowledge the remark. Everyone has their own opinion and you cannot try to say that, by not denouncing the remark, any liberal supports it.

He probably just thinks the person that said it is a wacko.
__________________
One of the wonders of the world is going down
It's going down I know
It's one of the blunders of the world that no-one cares
No-one cares enough


Attachment 181
AresProphet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2004, 08:53 PM   #62
bumbleroot
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 7,756
That's why this should become a legal issue quickly.
I am sorry, but you cons have stated that if this were towards Ted Kennedy we would have a different view on the liberal side. We would not.
The only reason you say this should be a legal issue is your bloodthirst towards Democrats.

Oh here are some quotes from you cons conspiring to kill people according to your views. These are in your words- DIRECT THREATS

Martigan from
http://www.erollisimarr.com/forum/sh...=death+penalty
The man who kidnapped that 11-year-old girl and killed her...and probably molested her...deserves nothing less than a long painful death.
Rehaton- same thread
I couldnt agree more. Maybe even skin him then cover him in gas... Beat him with baseball bats, then torch his ass.
bumbleroot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2004, 04:04 AM   #63
Wildane
Psychopath w/a conscience
 
Wildane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Hospitality State, asshole!
Posts: 10,540
Gee even the Secret Service says you guys are wrong!
Yeah, and we all know that the Secret Service always tells us exactly what they're doing! They couldn't possibly have already acted and are just trying to downplay the incident to the press. But then, if they did that, they would be LIEING!!!11!!!
__________________
"I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth." - Umberto Eco

"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." - Thomas Jefferson
Wildane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2004, 03:14 PM   #64
Codsan
The Codfather
 
Codsan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Alabama
Posts: 278
My apologies for the bait. It seems that nobody's sarcasometers are working here in the "Straw Man" forum. I felt guilty about it today so I'll give you a better fucked up thought to play with.

You guys still haven't addressed the fact that this very well could have been a plant by the Neocons to stir up extremist fervor before the Florida primaries.
This is entirely hypothetical of course.

It's kinda like how John McCain had an illegitimate black baby in South Carolina in 2000, except smarmier.

Have fun with that one and remember my disclaimer.
Codsan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2004, 05:35 PM   #65
Zolmaz Zo'Boto
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Texas
Posts: 3,040
Originally Posted by Codsan
You guys still haven't addressed the fact that this very well could have
been a plant by the Neocons to stir up extremist fervor before the Florida primaries.
This is entirely hypothetical of course.
Oh no. You've caught us. Someone call the RNC and ruin this jokers life.

Originally Posted by Codsan
It's kinda like how John McCain had an illegitimate black baby in South Carolina in 2000, except smarmier.
I remember that. LOL



God Bless America
God Bless our Troops
Zolmaz Zo'Boto (My tax folders weigh almost 10 carpal-tunnel pounds, ack)
Zolmaz Zo'Boto is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:09 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.