Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: one_less who wrote (19744)	8/24/2002 3:35:34 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

Actually, by "legal" I meant "the gov't can take action against it". However, speech can be legally slanderous and that should be included even though it is a civil matter. A charge of lying? Technically slanderous, although I doubt you could get a guilty verdict from a jury on that alone. SOB? While in theory that a statement regarding fact, clearly it can apply to no human. It is an expression of opinion and is not subject to legal penalty, being protected free speech. Language that is used only to provoke another to hostility should be categorized as harrassment and should be actionable. "Should be"? That's a matter of opinion- -and law. My opinion is that such statements are protected by the 1st Amendment and should be. Current legal and court opinions agree with me. "How about if I say that about Bush? Clinton?" ...as for one, so for all. Not so under current law. Bush and Clinton are public figures, in particular public political and a different standard applies- -the public figure standard. It is close to impossible, but not actually impossible, to slander them. Having chosen the public arena in a nation where free speech is held to be valuable and important, they must expect their opponents to throw everything, including the kitchen sink, at them. If they are not willing to tolerate that, they shouldn't play- -as Colin Powell chose not to. (To a large extent. Being Sec'y of State, he would legally be a public figure; however, he ducked the mudslinging of a Presidential campaign.) <<"If I say Clinton lied about having sex with Monica, is that verbal assault?">> I consider that a statement of fact. The purpose of making such a statement should be to set the record straight and to call bill to an accounting for his behavior. > I'm sure TP would argue that with you. If you accept the limited definition of sex that they want, then he did not. Also, he was given a definition by the court and it can be argued that under that definition he did not. I would consider it abusive if you simply followed him around making this statement hoping to provoke some hostile reaction from him. But the law would likely not, considering that he accepted such a possibility by becoming a very high-profile public political figure- -and that I was simply exercising my Constitutionally granted free speech rights. "How about one of Vidrine's harangues against Jews? I only know about this as legend. I do not read his posts. He is in the business of retailing every charge ever made against Jews. Much as I may dislike it, that is covered by the 1st Amendment too. 1) When I read one that is clearly based on myth or ignorance, I try to post accurate competing information. Excellent. Exactly the right response. 2)When I read one that is clearly posted to provoke hatred and hostility based on bigotry I say so. Again the right response. I consider this a hate crime that should be actionable. No. It should not be. Your remedy is to counteract lies with truth. Who is to judge what speech is actionable and what is not? The President? Then those who made those charges against Clinton would be in jail. The courts? Suppose the charge is against a judge? Is it not likely they will try to protect one of their own? Suppose it is against the entire judicial system? Is that structure holy and ordained by God and not to be questioned by mere mortals? Not slippery. Slippery. If the gov't is allowed to determine what speech is permitted and what is not, there will be no speech against the gov't. Currently most speech is free. If a question arises as to slander or libel, the matter at some point ends up in the hands of a jury who are not part of the gov't. They decide if the slander or libel laws have been violated, not the gov't. And saying someone is a jerk and an idiot is not going to be sufficient to get them to convict you. Some times speech can be devastatingly destructive (gossip, rumors, lies, etc). That depends on the gossip, rumors, or lies. If someone says I am an idiot, I am going to have to grin and bear it. If they claim I ran someone down and took off, leaving on the street to die, that is slander and I am entitled to take them to court and win. JLA has clearly stated that he intends to destroy TPs posting priveleges and why he believes that is a just cause. I respect that. I basically agree with JLA's case. What I won't do is violate the terms of the header to accomplish it. And on the free speech issue in regard to TP, free speech does not give you the right to demand that your local paper publish your letter to the editor. I see no conflict here. TP has plenty of other threads to make his views known on- -and he does so.

To: one_less who wrote (19744)	8/24/2002 3:44:01 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

Another nut off the streets. cnn.com Florida man plotted mosque attacks, feds say August 23, 2002 Posted: 11:19 PM EDT (0319 GMT) SEMINOLE, Florida (CNN) -- A Florida doctor arrested after police found more than 15 homemade explosive devices in his home drafted a detailed plan to blow up a Muslim educational center, investigators said Friday. A search of Robert J. Goldstein's residence also turned up a list of about 50 Islamic worship centers in the Tampa-St. Petersburg area and other locations in Florida, according to a court papers. Goldstein, who was taken into custody after his wife called police Thursday night, has been charged with one count of possessing destructive devices and one count of attempting to damage and destroy buildings by means of explosive devices. Attached to the criminal complaint against Goldstein was a three-page "mission template" for an attack on an unidentified "Islam education center," which included a map of the center showing where bombs would be placed. The document said the objective was to "Kill all 'rags' at this Islamic Education Center -- ZERO residual presence -- maximum effect." Deputies from the Pinellas County Sheriff's Department were summoned to the Goldstein home Thursday night, after his wife, Kristi, called to report that he had threatened to kill her, according to the court affidavit. She authorized agents to search the premises, where they found more than 15 homemade bombs. Goldstein surrendered to officers and was taken to a local hospital for psychiatric evaluation, the sheriff's department said. Friday afternoon, he made an initial appearance in U.S. District Court and was being held in federal custody, said Special Agent Carlos Baixaulia of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. In addition to the 15 and 20 explosive devices that were found, there were also enough bomb components in the home to to make 30 to 40 more devices, Baixaulia said. Deputies also found books on how to make explosives and devices that could be used to explode bombs by remote control, along with homemade C-4 -- a type of explosive -- hand grenades and homemade military mines, the sheriff's department said. Authorities also recovered 30 to 40 weapons, including semi-automatic weapons and a .50-caliber sniper rifle, the sheriff's department said.