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.

Politics : Moderate Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Thomas M. who wrote (5856)	1/18/2004 2:49:40 AM
From: cosmicforce	Respond to of 20773

There are regulations limiting free speech on the topic of troop movements already and these have been supported by the courts. I wouldn't want to (on many levels) see acts undermining American interests. That would only harm American soldiers and citizens. If such acts were tactically and strategically meaningful, then it seems to be an act of treason but other laws being applied to the situation are far more suitable and Constitutionally problem free because they don't infringe on Freedom of Thought (FOT). Simply discussing the acts (as you just did) would be considered by some to be treason. Since, IMO, you have no intent or capability to announce troop locations in a time of military hostility and it was in a rhetorical context, I would defend your right to say such things pretty much without restriction. It is your opinion. You are entitled to it. However, as soon as someone took that kind of action, there is a fundamental change in the way most utilitarians feel. My whole point, is that treason, like hate crimes, involve legal assessments of intent. I think other laws that focus on action keep the U.S. on the side of FOT. Without FOT, no other right or freedom means anything. For example, if I manipulate 200 million Americans via a weak and uncritical media to make them vote a particular way, they do not have FOT, IMO. The U.S. is getting a bit scary in this area, certainly with regard to the mainstream media and the Public Interest. I just want to make sure that the law stays very conservative on the matter of FOT. Historically, there have been many cases of alledged treason that later were considered suspect on several levels, usually involving some (wrong) attribution of intent by prosecutors.