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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tom Clarke who wrote (367744)	6/7/2010 6:31:55 AM
From: FJB	1 Recommendation Respond to of 793868

I see what you are saying now. Yeah, they would already be covered by conspiracy to commit murder. Congress isn't happy unless they are creating more superfluous laws...

To: Tom Clarke who wrote (367744)	6/7/2010 9:07:49 AM
From: goldworldnet	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793868

>>>I guess I'm having a hard time understanding "terror" as a crime. I mean, if you shoot someone or blow something up, there are already remedies for that. It strikes me as too vague, like "hate crime."<<< I'm reminded of Justice Stewart... To the general public, Stewart may be best known for a quotation, or a fragment thereof, from his opinion in the obscenity case of Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964). Stewart wrote in his short concurrence that "hard-core pornography" was hard to define, but that "I know it when I see it."[9] Usually dropped from the quote is the remainder of that sentence, "and the motion picture involved in this case is not that." Justice Stewart went on to defend the movie in question against further censorship. One noted commentator opined that: "This observation summarizes Stewart's judicial philosophy: particularistic, intuitive, and pragmatic."[9] Justice Stewart later recanted this view in Miller v. California, in which he accepted that his prior view was simply untenable. en.wikipedia.org * * *