A Monument to Courage is Being Planned

Where no two people are likely to agree.
bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19375
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Tom Palven is an idiot 2

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Dec 06, 2018 10:34 am

Are we to take it that you agree with everything you don't contest?


Matthew Ellard wrote:
Thu Dec 06, 2018 4:18 am
Matthew Ellard wrote: Have you read the act?
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:No. I assume its like all other acts? It makes some behavior illegal?
Nope. Some Acts are about appeals, jurisdiction, which courts, and so on. Didn't you know? That's why lawyers actually read the acts. :lol: :lol:
Some are thats true. Are you saying this applies to the referenced act? If not...…...how can anyone be "charged" under it? You post nonsense when shown to be wrong rather than own up to it. Its a character flaw.
Matthew Ellard wrote:
Thu Dec 06, 2018 4:18 am
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:But I have read the Constitution/Bill of Rights that OVERRULES any act.
Unless there is a Supreme court ruling or obiter that says otherwise. You don't seem to know what "judge made" (common law) is. and how it defines black letter law.
More complete moronic nonsense. Recasting what you say in its best light: yes, there are supreme court ruling that uphold statutes that have been contested on first amendment issues. That does NOT MEAN the statute controls. It only means the Statute does not violate the First Amendment and so it can be enforced as written/interpreted. The CONSTITUTION/BILL OF RIGHTS/FIRST AMENDMENT===>remain supreme. Silly and ignorant to post otherwise.
Matthew Ellard wrote:
Thu Dec 06, 2018 4:18 am
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:You have your rank order priorities===BACKWARDS.
You are an idiot who doesn't even know what judge made (common) law is. We have been through this before. :lol: :lol:
No, we didn't. We went through the source and application of common law in the USA in general litigation/court room procedures. We did not discuss any conflict between common law and Statutory Law much Less CONSTITUTIONAL provisions. (Hint: written, aka Statutory Law controls) Lots of overlap, but each conflict has its own analysis.
Matthew Ellard wrote:
Thu Dec 06, 2018 4:18 am
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:I SAID PENTAGON PAPERS.
Which still fails the Espionage Act (1971) as they weren't released for the benefit of a foreign government.
Well, thats really stupid I must say. Lots of noise from Free Speech/TRUTH haters at the time wanting to put Ellsberg in jail for the aid and comfort to our enemies that said release gave. Follow your own advice: read what you are referencing....aka the History of the PENTAGON PAPERS

DO YOU THINK THE VIETNAM WAR SHOULD HAVE CONTINUED?....AIDED BY ONE SERIAL LIE AFTER ANOTHER BY THE USA GUBMENT? You do appear to be that mindlessly hawkish...…...chicken hawk no doubt.
Matthew Ellard wrote:
Thu Dec 06, 2018 4:18 am
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Why does a minion like yourself argue against your own interests?
You are an idiot Bobbo. You should volunteer to be Assange's defense lawyer against Mueller. Just tell the judge you never bothered to read the actual law. That will speed things up. :lol: :lol: :lol:
I'm not at all qualified nor interested in representing anyone at trial, but in ellardworld If I were representing Assange, I would have read all the applicable law...and understood it.....AND.....I wouldn't lie about having read it either. Know what I mean?
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Tom Palven is an idiot 2

Post by Matthew Ellard » Fri Dec 07, 2018 12:11 am

Matthew Ellard wrote: Nope. Some Acts are about appeals, jurisdiction, which courts, and so on. Didn't you know? That's why lawyers actually read the acts. :lol: :lol:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Some are thats true.
It is all true. It's how legislation works.

/////////////
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:But I have read the Constitution/Bill of Rights that OVERRULES any act.
Matthew Ellard wrote:Unless there is a Supreme court ruling or obiter that says otherwise. You don't seem to know what "judge made" (common law) is. and how it defines black letter law.
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: More complete moronic nonsense.
No Bobbo. The courts interpret the black letter law and the higher court establishes the precedent. That is the whole basis of appeals at law. You don't appeal the facts. You can only appeal the interpretation of the law. The top court of appeal is the Supreme court. Didn't you know this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_interpretation

United States free speech exceptions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... exceptions

//////////////////////////
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:DO YOU THINK THE VIETNAM WAR SHOULD HAVE CONTINUED?....AIDED BY ONE SERIAL LIE AFTER ANOTHER BY THE USA GUBMENT?
1) Australia left the Vietnam war three years before the USA as debated openly in parliament.
2) The Vietnam War has nothing to do with the USA Espionage Act (1917) where a person who distributes stolen documents, detrimental to the USA's military, for the benefit of a foreign government may be executed or gaoled for up to thirty years.

Matthew Ellard wrote: You should volunteer to be Assange's defense lawyer against Mueller. Just tell the judge you never bothered to read the actual law. That will speed things up. :lol: :lol: :lol:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: I'm not at all qualified nor interested in representing anyone at trial, but in ellardworld If I were representing Assange, I would have read all the applicable law...and understood it.....AND.....I wouldn't lie about having read it either. Know what I mean?
Yes. It means you are an idiot as I actually read the law and you didn't. That's why I quoted the exact legislation in this thread.

If you think I'm wrong, then imagine how easy it will be for Assange's defense lawyer to get him off. Obviously Assange has a different opinion to you. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Tom Palven
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6270
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 12:29 am

A Monument to Courage is Being Planned

Post by Tom Palven » Fri Dec 07, 2018 9:04 am

Brennan, Clapper, and their ilk can lie to Congress with impunity; the deep state wants Assange for releasing the truth.
Latest update:
https://news.antiwar.com/2018/12/06/ecu ... e-embassy/
If one can be taught to believe absurdities, one can commit atrocities. --Voltaire
I may not agree with the what you say, but I will defend your right to say it. --Voltaire
Mankind will not be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest. --Denis Diderot
I haven't abandoned my vices. My vices have abandoned me. --Denis Diderot

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19375
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: A Monument to Courage is Being Planned

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Dec 07, 2018 4:46 pm

Matthew: Pentagon Papers. Applies in all respects. You simply don't know what you are talking about....although your last post is so entirely a side step, there is no point in continuing a discussion with what you have written.

There are those who support the TRUTH.....more than they support forces who oppose it. Those who support the TRUTH in the main do so for all the evil ills TRUTH exposes; WAR, corruption, bad policies, defective products/laws etc. Those who support laws that suppress the TRUTH generally are making money off those same negatives.

Choose you own camp.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Tom Palven is an idiot 2

Post by Matthew Ellard » Fri Dec 07, 2018 10:32 pm

Tom Palven wrote:
Fri Dec 07, 2018 9:04 am
Brennan, Clapper, and their ilk can lie to Congress with impunity; the deep state wants Assange for releasing the truth.
Latest update:
https://news.antiwar.com/2018/12/06/ecu ... e-embassy/
You are the most stupid person on the forum ever. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Brennan and Clapper, are Americans and retired years ago. They have nothing to do with this.

Mueller has done a deal with the UK government and Ecuadorian government that Assange will not face execution under the USA Espionage Act (1917). However Assange refuses to go to the USA as he still faces up to thirty years in US federal prison. However, as the Ecuadorians are going throw Assange out , Assange's lawyers are going to have to keep negotiating a plea bargain for Assange. As Flynn got no gaol time for fully cooperating, Assange is probably negotiating that he doesn't get a year in Reading Gaol in the UK for skipping bail and gets a reduced sentence in the USA.

This negotiation has already been going on for two months. :lol: :lol:

We will finally learn about the Russian control of Wikileaks.

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Tom Palven is an idiot 3

Post by Matthew Ellard » Fri Dec 07, 2018 10:35 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Matthew: Pentagon Papers. Applies in all respects.
What was the foreign government the activity was taken, for their benefit? (There was no foreign government) I already pointed this out. You failed to read the legislation again, didn't you? :lol: :lol:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:You simply don't know what you are talking about....
Read the legislation before making another post on this. You will look less like an idiot. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Do you now accept you were wrong, and that the Supreme Court can overrule and make exceptions to the freedom of speech and this is specifically legislated in the USA Espionage Act 1917.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19375
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Tom Palven is an idiot 3

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Dec 08, 2018 2:27 am

Jeebus Matt: give me your post office box so I can mail you a clue.
Matthew Ellard wrote:
Fri Dec 07, 2018 10:35 pm
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Matthew: Pentagon Papers. Applies in all respects.
What was the foreign government the activity was taken, for their benefit? (There was no foreign government) I already pointed this out. You failed to read the legislation again, didn't you? :lol: :lol:
the context for this discussion "should be" the pros and cons legally, morally, pragmatically of FREE SPEECH rights/protection to publish information the gubment would rather have kept secret vs Not. Its not about finding dozens of side issues and distinctions with dozens of other situations with some kind of overlap. This is the higher scrutiny you are under: BEING RELEVANT. Its fair I think to assume that Ellsberg acted on his own for his own political/moral purpose to have the Pentagon Papers published. As posted already, I can accept the notion that Assange acted exactly the same and such action just happens to correspond to the interests of Russia/Putin/GRB and any other adversary of the USA which was also true with Ellsberg. Its a difference that does not apply to the Free Speech vs censorship issues that are most relevant to the issue before us. I agree that the Russian connection may expose Assange to additional violations of law that while they could mandate jail time for Assange, they still remain secondary to the Main Issue.
Matthew Ellard wrote:
Fri Dec 07, 2018 10:35 pm
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Matthew: Pentagon Papers. Applies in all respects.
What was the foreign government the activity was taken, for their benefit? (There was no foreign government) I already pointed this out. You failed to read the legislation again,
I already said so. Its not relevant to the main issue.
Matthew Ellard wrote:
Fri Dec 07, 2018 10:35 pm
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:You simply don't know what you are talking about....
Read the legislation before making another post on this. You will look less like an idiot. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
How so? This is an irrelevant side issue you want to substitute for the main issue. FREE SPEECH is always contesting against laws that prohibit it. The Espionage Act is just one of several secrecy acts that apply and ALL SUCH LAWS have a potential First Amendment defense. The Pentagon Papers raised all the same issues but was in the context of trying to stop the papers from being published (aka: prior restraint) whereas Wikileaks is about the very same kind of information already being published. FREE SPEECH took precedence in the Pentagon Papers and by all the same reasoning should control in Wkileaks. The "motives" if any of the publisher are irrelevant.
Matthew Ellard wrote:
Fri Dec 07, 2018 10:35 pm
Do you now accept you were wrong, and that the Supreme Court can overrule and make exceptions to the freedom of speech and this is specifically legislated in the USA Espionage Act 1917.
No. and here you continue to make an error in appreciating what the framework of the US legal system is. How the Constitution is Supreme and controlling over legislation. You make errors that an educated high schooler in the USA should not make......and in fact, I'm not surprised a non-USA attorney make the kind of basic error you are here. It could be simply in the terminology, but your's goes towards the substance of it as well. The Supremes CANNOT "MAKE EXCEPTIONS to the Freedom of Speech set forth in the First Amendment. They can and do make exceptions to the non-legal formulation of what could be called "unlimited/unrestrained" free speech but that is not the same thing. The First Amendment is subject to restriction by virtue of being part of the Constitution that sets forth other important freedoms ALL OF WHICH are balanced off against one another. They are NOT balanced off against legislation which must CONFORM to the Constitution, and they are not balanced off any notion of Judge Made common law. OF COURSE: people who don't like some outcome will claim all of the above and more. They are simply wrong.

You are unskilled and incompetent to make any claims otherwise.

And I continue, more confidentally now, that that which you do not contest, you admit to. So.....why do you think the Vietnam War should have continued and why are you for continuation of American murders under the claim of combat necessity in Iraq and Syria. Have you no decency?
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Tom Palven
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6270
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 12:29 am

A Monument to Courage is Being Planned

Post by Tom Palven » Sat Dec 08, 2018 6:42 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Fri Dec 07, 2018 10:32 pm
Tom Palven wrote:
Fri Dec 07, 2018 9:04 am
Brennan, Clapper, and their ilk can lie to Congress with impunity; the deep state wants Assange for releasing the truth.
Latest update:
https://news.antiwar.com/2018/12/06/ecu ... e-embassy/
You are the most stupid person on the forum ever. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Brennan and Clapper, are Americans and retired years ago. They have nothing to do with this.

Mueller has done a deal with the UK government and Ecuadorian government that Assange will not face execution under the USA Espionage Act (1917). However Assange refuses to go to the USA as he still faces up to thirty years in US federal prison. However, as the Ecuadorians are going throw Assange out , Assange's lawyers are going to have to keep negotiating a plea bargain for Assange. As Flynn got no gaol time for fully cooperating, Assange is probably negotiating that he doesn't get a year in Reading Gaol in the UK for skipping bail and gets a reduced sentence in the USA.

This negotiation has already been going on for two months. :lol: :lol:

We will finally learn about the Russian control of Wikileaks.

The First Amendment in the Bill of Rights reads:

Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging freedom of freedom of speech or of the press..."

Ratified on December 15, 1791, these amandments began to be abridged before the ink was dried, and are void where prohibited by law, as is the case for the Seven Commandments for Animals in Animal Farm:
https://www.reference.com/art-literatur ... 601f9d0f40

More enduring are statements by Voltaire that one doesn't need to agree with what's what being said while believing in a person's right to say it.
If one can be taught to believe absurdities, one can commit atrocities. --Voltaire
I may not agree with the what you say, but I will defend your right to say it. --Voltaire
Mankind will not be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest. --Denis Diderot
I haven't abandoned my vices. My vices have abandoned me. --Denis Diderot

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Tom Palven is an idiot 2

Post by Matthew Ellard » Sun Dec 09, 2018 12:16 am

Tom Palven wrote:
Sat Dec 08, 2018 6:42 am
The First Amendment in the Bill of Rights reads:
Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging freedom of freedom of speech or of the press..."
As you are as stupid as Bobbo, you two forgot that the Supreme Court of the United States interprets the law under stare decisis. There is the constitution and and then there is the court's interpretation of the meaning and intent of that legislation (Constitution).

I had already linked you two twits to a web page that showed the Supreme Courts exemptions to the First Amendment and neither of you understood what it meant.


United States free speech exceptions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... exceptions

Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919), is a United States Supreme Court case concerning enforcement of the Espionage Act of 1917 during World War I.
Justice Holmes : "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent"


The US Espionage Act (1917) specifically sets aside the first amendment if certain conditions exist. This is the act Assange is being charged with. This is why Assange was agreeing to go to the USA if execution was removed from sentencing options. Assange is now making a decision if to start giving Mueller details to further reduce, through plea bargaining, the maximum gaol time of 30 years.

I have no idea why you and Bobbo think Assange can't be charged under the USA Espionage Act 1917, when he has specifically been indicted under that Act.

Why are you against his defense lawyers arguing against the case in open court?

Tom Palven
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6270
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 12:29 am

A Monument to Courage is Being Planned

Post by Tom Palven » Sun Dec 09, 2018 10:38 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Sun Dec 09, 2018 12:16 am
Tom Palven wrote:
Sat Dec 08, 2018 6:42 am
The First Amendment in the Bill of Rights reads:
Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging freedom of freedom of speech or of the press..."
As you are as stupid as Bobbo, you two forgot that the Supreme Court of the United States interprets the law under stare decisis.

Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919), is a United States Supreme Court case concerning enforcement of the Espionage Act of 1917 during World War I.
Justice Holmes : "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent"

The US Espionage Act (1917) specifically sets aside the first amendment if certain conditions exist.

I have no idea why you and Bobbo think Assange can't be charged under the USA Espionage Act 1917, when he has specifically been indicted under that Act.


Justice Holmes was a statist warmonger who employed fallacious logic in arguing that yelling “fire” in a crowded theatre is a free speech issue, a statement that has been quoted by authoritarians to limit free speech ever since.

People entering theatres have an implied contract not to interfere with the show. They have no right to yell “This is a great play! I love this
play!” either.

The 1917 Espionage Act, as stated in my previous comment about creeping authoritarianism, was a modern effort by the state to sabotage the Bill of Rights guarantees of free press and free speech.

Holmes used the “fire in a crowded theatre” argument in the Schenck case regarding enforcement of the Espionage Act that was used to convict and imprison Socialist Presidential candidate Eugene Debs for speaking out against US entry into WW I, and especially speaking out against the military draft.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_V._Debs

Arguing against the military draft was not the equivalent of yelling “fire” in a crowded theatre, but Debs was sentenced to prison.
If one can be taught to believe absurdities, one can commit atrocities. --Voltaire
I may not agree with the what you say, but I will defend your right to say it. --Voltaire
Mankind will not be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest. --Denis Diderot
I haven't abandoned my vices. My vices have abandoned me. --Denis Diderot

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19375
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Tom Palven is an idiot 2

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Dec 09, 2018 5:53 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Sun Dec 09, 2018 12:16 am

As you are as stupid as Bobbo, you two forgot that the Supreme Court of the United States interprets the law under stare decisis. There is the constitution and and then there is the court's interpretation of the meaning and intent of that legislation (Constitution).
Heh, heh. Words. I know exactly what you mean to say, and that is more correctly said by SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT WORDS. Subtleties of expression. I get it...………….YOU DON'T. SCOTUS does not interpret the law "under" stare decisis. All the lower courts do....the Supreme is supreme because while they reference stare decisis, and anything and everything else they care to, they are not BOUND by it, which is the normal understanding of what being "under" something means. so...right off the bat, you are wrong...……………...BUT I do assume you mean what I just posted, so I'll let that pass...…….and agree with you.
Matthew Ellard wrote:
Sun Dec 09, 2018 12:16 am
I had already linked you two twits to a web page that showed the Supreme Courts exemptions to the First Amendment and neither of you understood what it meant.
Again Matt: we are using different "terminology" to express ideas that I think we basically agree on. Certain speech "is not protected" by the First Amendment. This is just a restatement of what I posted just above that the First Amendment is not absolute and it is balanced with all the other Constitutional provisions. This goes not to the concept of the application of Free Speech but rather "unlimited/unrestricted" free speech. Free Speech, or FREE SPEECH referring to speech protected by the First Amendment. Free speech, lower case, goes to various different kinds of speech that have different levels of protection including none at all. What makes you think I don't understand this? iow: there are NO EXCEPTIONS to Free Speech. There are only exceptions to unlimited/unrestricted speech......actually you link lays it out quite nicely and in conformity to what I earlier posted and repeat in this paragraph. Try not to be repetitive.
Matthew Ellard wrote:
Sun Dec 09, 2018 12:16 am
The US Espionage Act (1917) specifically sets aside the first amendment if certain conditions exist. This is the act Assange is being charged with. This is why Assange was agreeing to go to the USA if execution was removed from sentencing options. Assange is now making a decision if to start giving Mueller details to further reduce, through plea bargaining, the maximum gaol time of 30 years.
Words again. In the most appropriate representation of the relationship between SUPREME CONSTITUTIONAL LAW and lesser statutory law...……..the Espionage Act does NOT SET ASIDE THE FIRST AMENDMENT. No law can legitimately do that...………...THAT IS WHY THE CON IS SUPREME AND CONTROLLING. What it does do is set forth circumstance where people can be charged with crimes and such provision must CONFORM to FREE SPEECH requirements. Now...…..I know and agree the process you are misconstruing can be seen exactly as how you describe....but for the CONSTITUTION to be SUPREME the words have to be slightly different than those you use.

Ideas are made up with words. We think with words. Use the wrong words, and you come up with the wrong ideas. ain't that a kick in the head?

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Sun Dec 09, 2018 12:16 am
have no idea why you and Bobbo think Assange can't be charged under the USA Espionage Act 1917, when he has specifically been indicted under that Act.
STRAW MAN SILLINESS. I've never said anything close to that, in fact, what I've posted is consistent and assumes he can certainly be charged. Thats what calling the First Amendment a DEFENSE TO THE CHARGES means. You do get wrapped up in your own limited/twisted view of things and what other people clearly say. Its a bad lazy habit.
Matthew Ellard wrote:
Sun Dec 09, 2018 12:16 am
Why are you against his defense lawyers arguing against the case in open court? [/color]
As already stated ((do you not remember or chose to spin the facts/posts against you????)) THE CONCERN, as illustrated by what happened to Manning is that the Court will not allow the First Amendment defenses to be introduced. It will be a limited review based only on whether or not the terms of the Statute were violated. A kangaroo court if you will.

BACK TO: What is the IMPORT of all this? A tempest in a teapot?? Word game niceties about what words are capitalized or not? NO.

NO!!!!!
Its about whether or not you value truth or lies. Its about whether or not you are more comfortable dealing with unpleasant realities that send 1000's in combat to kill and be killed or MILLIONS in collateral damage and effects in meaningless politically motivated for profit wars or you are will to take the medicine and deal with your gubment being "wrong."


The Pentagon Papers were found to be protected FREE SPEECH. I challenge you to find any RELEVANT difference between them and Wikileaks. Please don't regurgitate your true but irrelevant Russian connection. Its TRUTH vs LIES. Who do you play for Matt?
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Tom Palven
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6270
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 12:29 am

A Monument to Courage is Being Planned

Post by Tom Palven » Mon Dec 10, 2018 4:31 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Sun Dec 09, 2018 12:16 am
Tom Palven wrote:
Sat Dec 08, 2018 6:42 am
The First Amendment in the Bill of Rights reads:
Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging freedom of freedom of speech or of the press..."
As you are as stupid as Bobbo,

The US Espionage Act (1917) specifically sets aside the first amendment if certain conditions exist. This is the act Assange is being charged with.

I have no idea why you and Bobbo think Assange can't be charged under the USA Espionage Act 1917, when he has specifically been indicted under that Act.


Of course the Bill of Rights is void where pohibited by law.

We already know that.

The 1917 Espionage Act was used to convict and imprison Socialist Presidential candidate Eugene Debs for speaking out against the US WW I military draft.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_V._Debs

That why we say that Assange and Debs acted heroically.
If one can be taught to believe absurdities, one can commit atrocities. --Voltaire
I may not agree with the what you say, but I will defend your right to say it. --Voltaire
Mankind will not be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest. --Denis Diderot
I haven't abandoned my vices. My vices have abandoned me. --Denis Diderot

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Tom Palven is an idiot 2

Post by Matthew Ellard » Mon Dec 10, 2018 4:39 am

Tom Palven wrote:Justice Holmes was a statist warmonger who employed fallacious logic in arguing that yelling “fire” in a crowded theatre is a free speech issue, a statement that has been quoted by authoritarians to limit free speech ever since.
1) You don't have a clue who Justice Holmes is. You are lying again.

2) Justice Holmes was on the Supreme Court of the USA, joining a unanimous majority ruling with other members of the Supreme Court, whereas you are a retarded, senile, forest ranger who lied about studying economics and supports Taliban and Osama Bin Laden. .

Majority
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. (Author)
Justice Edward Douglass White
Justice Joseph McKenna
Justice William Rufus Day
Justice Willis Van Devanter
Justice Mahlon Pitney
Justice James Clark McReynolds
Justice Louis Dembitz Brandeis
Justice John Hessin Clarke

3) Julian Assange can engage the best defense lawyer in the world, as is his right. It is you and Bobbo the other idiot, who forgot that the USA has a adversarial court system to protect Assange's rights. However, you two clowns don't believe in due legal process and simply want to let Assange off with no judicial review. :lol: :lol:

( I realise you don't know what a supreme court majority is and that's why you think only Justice Holmes made the decision.

Why are you so stupid? ).
:lol: :lol: :lol:
Last edited by Matthew Ellard on Mon Dec 10, 2018 6:41 am, edited 1 time in total.

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Tom Palven is an idiot 2

Post by Matthew Ellard » Mon Dec 10, 2018 4:44 am

Tom Palven wrote: Of course the Bill of Rights is void where pohibited by law. We already know that.
Tell Bobbo, your fellow idiot friend. He didn't know that.

(PS the correct spelling of "pohibited" is "prohibited" and you still didn't use the correct word. You meant "legislated". :lol: :lol: :lol:

Why are you so stupid?

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Tom Palven and Bobbo are idiots

Post by Matthew Ellard » Mon Dec 10, 2018 9:19 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Words again.
I will assume that you and Tom Palven are slightly intellectually retarded, right? :lol: :lol:


Primary Holding
If speech is intended to result in a crime, and there is a clear and present danger that it actually will result in a crime, the First Amendment does not protect the speaker from government action.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/249/47/

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19375
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Tom Palven and Bobbo are idiots

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Dec 10, 2018 5:22 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Mon Dec 10, 2018 9:19 am
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Words again.
I will assume that you and Tom Palven are slightly intellectually retarded, right? :lol: :lol:
Pure ab hominem attack as you have NO RESPONSE to any of the counterpoints made to your naïve and uninformed postings.....to me. I haven't followed your contest with Plaven all that closely. My quiet reaction....as always....you are right on some points, but refuse to moderate your position when shown to be wrong. Dog with a bone.

Primary Holding
If speech is intended to result in a crime, and there is a clear and present danger that it actually will result in a crime, the First Amendment does not protect the speaker from government action.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/249/47/[/quote] I'm in general agreement with that depending on what the crime is. Words and ideas are protected under FA.....urging criminal ACTION is not. Schenck is about criminal action. NOTHING TO DO WITH PP or WIKILEAKS. As demonstrated repeatedly in this thread, your failure to address the RELEVANT ISSUES is tacit admission YOU ARE WRONG. Worse: you recognize that fact, but refuse to own up to it. As stated before: a character flaw. Good news: you can choose to correct this anytime you want TRUTH to be your guide rather than ego. Dog with a bone.

Matthew Ellard: demonstrating the strongest of intellects will err by hubris. Dog with a bone.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Tom Palven
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6270
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 12:29 am

A Monument to Courage is Deserved

Post by Tom Palven » Mon Dec 10, 2018 9:24 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Sun Dec 09, 2018 12:16 am
Tom Palven wrote:
Sat Dec 08, 2018 6:42 am
The First Amendment in the Bill of Rights reads:
Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging freedom of freedom of speech or of the press..."
As you are as stupid as Bobbo

The US Espionage Act (1917) specifically sets aside the first amendment if certain conditions exist.


I thought I was being ironic when I said that the Bill of Rights is Void Where Prohibited by Law, but actually it's true, and we have creeping deep state authoritarianism despite what we were taught in grade school here in non-Australia; that it requires a Constitutional amendment ratified by the States in order to change the Constitution.
If one can be taught to believe absurdities, one can commit atrocities. --Voltaire
I may not agree with the what you say, but I will defend your right to say it. --Voltaire
Mankind will not be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest. --Denis Diderot
I haven't abandoned my vices. My vices have abandoned me. --Denis Diderot

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19375
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: A Monument to Courage is Being Planned

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Dec 10, 2018 10:03 pm

…….....securing constitutional rights...…….is a constant battle...…...one side or the other gaining advantage thru error or payoffs or a system (Court) loaded with revisionists of all strips.

Always an argument.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Tom Palven and Bobbo are idiots

Post by Matthew Ellard » Tue Dec 11, 2018 3:18 am

Tom Palven wrote: I thought I was being ironic when I said that the Bill of Rights is Void Where Prohibited by Law, but actually it's true,
You mean, you are such an idiot, you didn't know your Constitution allows for the Supreme Court to set aside the Constitution if it allowed for a inequitable or absurd result ( Equity Law)

So let me have another real big laugh at yourself and Bobbo. I want you two clowns, to contact each other, to consider and set out your best legal arguments against the unanimous ruling from Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919)..

Primary Decision
If speech is intended to result in a crime, and there is a clear and present danger that it actually will result in a crime, the First Amendment does not protect the speaker from government action.

Now apply that to the US Espionage Act (1917) which details the crimes covered by that act and the activities of Julian Assange. How would you two idiots argue his defense pleadings? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Tom Palven and Bobbo are idiots

Post by Matthew Ellard » Tue Dec 11, 2018 3:28 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: Schenck is about criminal action. NOTHING TO DO WITH PP or WIKILEAKS.
The USA Espionage Act 1917 sets out the crimes Assange has been charged with. You didn't think for a nanosecond, to actually read the Act did you? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Here is the Act's long Title under "Title 18" ( Criminal Code of the USA)

The USA Espionage Act 1917 : An Act to punish acts of interference with the foreign relations, and the foreign commerce of the United States, to punish espionage, and better to enforce the criminal laws of the United States, and for other purposes."

You and Tom Palven are made for each other., :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Tom Palven is an idiot 3

Post by Matthew Ellard » Tue Dec 11, 2018 3:59 am

Tom Palven wrote:.......... we were taught in grade school that it requires a Constitutional amendment ratified by the States in order to change the Constitution.
You made it as far as grade school! Amazing. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Obviously, no one mentioned to you that there were these things called "Judges" and "courts" back then.
You must have been really confused when Fox News was talking about that Brett Kavanaugh person.
:lol: :lol:

"Judicial interpretation refers to different ways that the judiciary uses to interpret the law, particularly constitutional documents and legislation. ... As a result, how justices interpret the constitution, and the ways in which they approach this task has a political aspect".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_interpretation

Tom Palven
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6270
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 12:29 am

A Monument is Merited

Post by Tom Palven » Tue Dec 11, 2018 10:32 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Mon Dec 10, 2018 4:39 am
Tom Palven wrote:Justice Holmes was a statist warmonger who employed fallacious logic in arguing that yelling “fire” in a crowded theatre is a free speech issue, a statement that has been quoted by authoritarians to limit free speech ever since.
You don't have a clue who Justice Holmes is. You are lying again.

Julian Assange can engage the best defense lawyer in the world, as is his right. It is you and Bobbo the other idiot, who forgot that the USA has a adversarial court system to protect Assange's rights. :lol: :lol:

Why are you so stupid? :lol: :lol: :lol:
US Socialist Party Presidential candidate Eugene Debs stood trial for speaking out against the WW I military draft, which Chief Justice Holmes claimed was the equivalent of yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre, and was convicted under the then new 1917 Espionage Act which Julian Assange is now accused of violating.

Debs was sentenced to ten years in prison, which began on April 13, 1919, with President Woody Wilson calling him "a traitor."

President Warren Harding commuted Debs' sentence, and he was released from prison on Christmas day, 1921.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_V._Debs

Do you think that Eugene Debs' First Amendment rights were protected, and that justice was served, Matthew?

Debs should be in the monument to courage, too.
If one can be taught to believe absurdities, one can commit atrocities. --Voltaire
I may not agree with the what you say, but I will defend your right to say it. --Voltaire
Mankind will not be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest. --Denis Diderot
I haven't abandoned my vices. My vices have abandoned me. --Denis Diderot

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19375
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Tom Palven and Bobbo are idiots

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Dec 11, 2018 1:47 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Tue Dec 11, 2018 3:28 am
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: Schenck is about criminal action. NOTHING TO DO WITH PP or WIKILEAKS.
The USA Espionage Act 1917 sets out the crimes Assange has been charged with. You didn't think for a nanosecond, to actually read the Act did you? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Well Matty Boy: you continue to be just too irrelevant. In form, the Espionage Act sets forth the law and to be charged under it, specific facts that fall under that act must be made. No one is charged by mere reference to the Act. I haven't followed the Assange case but I'd be surprised if a Non USA citizen acting outside the USA can be charged under the Espionage Act. Is that what they do in Australia?

And if memory serves...…...last I heard during some report of the termination of the Swedish Charges for rape while Assange was in Sweden....the USA case against Assange is under seal? How have you gained access to that sealed file to find out Assange has been charged with violating USA law?

Stupid doesn't quite cover your bone.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19375
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: A Monument to Courage is Being Planned

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Dec 11, 2018 4:53 pm

Tom: thanks for the thanks...……..but I will risk your displeasure by asking you to defend what seems illfounded in what you post as well:
Tom Palven wrote:
Justice Holmes was a statist warmonger who employed fallacious logic in arguing that yelling “fire” in a crowded theatre is a free speech issue, a statement that has been quoted by authoritarians to limit free speech ever since.
Can you state what is fallacious logic in the statement? It is a cornerstone understanding/universally accepted statement on the limitation of unfettered free speech that falls outside the Protection of the First Amendment. Why would you want any other position? Anarchy???

LEARN FROM MATT. Don't let your own winning position of several points made lead you astray on points that could be sharpened, or are simply wrong. I did enjoy first reading your sarcasm re First Amendment: don't like it, just pass a law. THEN you subsequent postings made me not sure what you meant by that. Its MATT thinks you can just pass a law. Love the sarcasm, hate the ambiguity. A good example that all too often sarcasm doesn't make it through the intertubes.

You are right about Debs....others points as well. Make your BEST arguments...…..even with Matt.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Tom Palven
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6270
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 12:29 am

A Monument is Merited

Post by Tom Palven » Tue Dec 11, 2018 6:39 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Tue Dec 11, 2018 4:53 pm
Tom: thanks for the thanks...……..but I will risk your displeasure by asking you to defend what seems illfounded in what you post as well:
Tom Palven wrote:
Justice Holmes was a statist warmonger who employed fallacious logic in arguing that yelling “fire” in a crowded theatre is a free speech issue, a statement that has been quoted by authoritarians to limit free speech ever since.
Can you state what is fallacious logic in the statement? It is a cornerstone understanding/universally accepted statement on the limitation of unfettered free speech that falls outside the Protection of the First Amendment. Why would you want any other position? Anarchy???

Firstly, yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre is more a property rights issue than a free speech issue. When you purchase a theatre ticket you are making a tacit agreement that you will not impair the performance. You can no more yell "I love this play! This play is terrific! than you can yell "fire," although yelling "fire" in order to create panic is admittedly more reprehensible.

Secondly, opposing the WW I military draft to try to prevent American boys from being slaughtered in the trenches of Europe, what Eugene Debs was convicted of, is not equivalent to yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, the specious comparison that Holmes made.

Lastly, the US Constitution was a radical document which Madison, Jefferson, and other founding fathers knew full well when they agreed with their contemporary, Voltaire, with regard to free speech, making it first in their list of rights. Back in Europe slandering a king or a pope could be punishable by torture and death, as in Saudi Arabia today.

(BTW, although Voltaire strongly believed in the ethical necessity of unfettered speech, it's questionable that he actually said the oft-quoted "Although I may disagree with what you say, I will defend to the death your right to say it." I believe that Voltaire's biographer admitted that she was taking a bit of poetic license when she used those words, but I will have to check that out.)
If one can be taught to believe absurdities, one can commit atrocities. --Voltaire
I may not agree with the what you say, but I will defend your right to say it. --Voltaire
Mankind will not be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest. --Denis Diderot
I haven't abandoned my vices. My vices have abandoned me. --Denis Diderot

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19375
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: A Monument is Merited

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Dec 11, 2018 7:26 pm

Tom Palven wrote:
Tue Dec 11, 2018 6:39 pm
Firstly, yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre is more a property rights issue than a free speech issue.
Thats exactly correct. Which means that Free Speech concepts don't apply, or they do but are found inapplicable===>otherwise it would be a Free Speech issue>>>>>typically as found in Public Spaces.....not private ones just as you note. So here, you agree with Justice Holmes.
Tom Palven wrote:
Tue Dec 11, 2018 6:39 pm
Secondly, opposing the WW I military draft to try to prevent American boys from being slaughtered in the trenches of Europe, what Eugene Debs was convicted of, is not equivalent to yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, the specious comparison that Holmes made.
That was Deb's goal but he tripped up in urging the action of draft dodging. ACTION is not speech so Free Speech defenses don't work. So here, you agree with Justice Holmes.
Tom Palven wrote:
Tue Dec 11, 2018 6:39 pm
Lastly, the US Constitution was a radical document which Madison, Jefferson, and other founding fathers knew full well when they agreed with their contemporary, Voltaire, with regard to free speech, making it first in their list of rights. Back in Europe slandering a king or a pope could be punishable by torture and death, as in Saudi Arabia today.
And yet Justice Holmes and the two points above show that even in USA the right to speak freely is not unlimited. You Know....pragmatic good common sense.

Are you going to address why Holmes statement is a logical fallacy next?
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Tom Palven
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6270
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 12:29 am

Re: A Monument is Merited

Post by Tom Palven » Tue Dec 11, 2018 8:18 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Tue Dec 11, 2018 7:26 pm
Are you going to address why Holmes statement is a logical fallacy next?
First, claiming that yelling anything in a crowded theatre is a free speech issue is red herring fallacy. It is a disturbing the peace issue, not a free speech issue.

Secondly, equating yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre with speaking out against a military draft is a false equivalence fallacy.

Btw,I liked your question as to how non-US citizen Assange, who published accurate information, can be tried as a traitor to the US.
If one can be taught to believe absurdities, one can commit atrocities. --Voltaire
I may not agree with the what you say, but I will defend your right to say it. --Voltaire
Mankind will not be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest. --Denis Diderot
I haven't abandoned my vices. My vices have abandoned me. --Denis Diderot

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Tom Palven and Bobbo are idiots

Post by Matthew Ellard » Wed Dec 12, 2018 1:54 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: Schenck is about criminal action. NOTHING TO DO WITH PP or WIKILEAKS.
Matthew Ellard wrote: The USA Espionage Act 1917 sets out the crimes Assange has been charged with. You didn't think for a nanosecond, to actually read the Act did you? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Well Matty Boy: you continue to be just too irrelevant.
No Bobbo. I read the act and the relevant court cases. You didn't. :lol: :lol:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:No one is charged by mere reference to the Act.
You idiot!!! The act has to be stated in the indictment. That's how we know who has previously been charged under the act. :lol: :lol:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: I haven't followed the Assange case but I'd be surprised if a Non USA citizen acting outside the USA can be charged under the Espionage Act. Is that what they do in Australia?
Russian spies are not US citizens and are charged under the act where ever they were spying against the USA's military. The connection with the USA is that it must be to the detriment of the USA's military.......Ie the commander in chief, the president. The USA uses the act to charge East Germans in East Germany spying on USA military bases in West Germany. :lol: :lol: :lol:

"Persons convicted under the Espionage Act of 1917"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category: ... ct_of_1917

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Tom Palven is an idiot 2

Post by Matthew Ellard » Wed Dec 12, 2018 2:02 am

Tom Palven wrote:Firstly, yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre is more a property rights issue than a free speech issue.
You idiot!!! Here is the actual ruling from the unanimous majority in Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919)

Primary Decision
If speech is intended to result in a crime, and there is a clear and present danger that it actually will result in a crime, the First Amendment does not protect the speaker from government action.


You two clowns are arguing about a Supreme Court, specific court case that you both refuse to actually read.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19375
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: A Monument to Courage is Being Planned

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Dec 12, 2018 2:13 am

Tom: you are just repeating what you said above and was answered.

I'll stop with this third attempt: what is illogical about Holmes statement? Talking about what free speech is or isn't is totally off point...….don't you see that? It has nothing to do with what you post, nothing to do with a military draft, nothing to do about the scope or application of free speech. Complete the following sentence: Justice Holmes statement "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic." is illogical because........... Note that disagreeing with it does not make it illogical...….although no one should disagree with it for as you and Holmes agree: any yelling in a theater is about private property rights.

I agree the application of the espionage act to non-citizens throws a shank into Matt's worn out dodge challenging other people to read irrelevant red herrings, but I'm more impressed by his access to sealed court filings outside his own country. Note: that is from memory, I don't care enough to look it up BECAUSE ITS IRRELEVANT to the issues of whether or not Free Speech "should be" a defense against any charges against Assange.

……….and I very much liked your statement that if you don't like Freedom of Speech: just pass a law against it. …………..But I've never seen Matt admit to an error EVEN AS THEY PILE UP IN THIS THREAD....………………...Note: you appear to be attracted to this hubris as well. "Mind the Force...……"
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Tom Palven is an idiot

Post by Matthew Ellard » Wed Dec 12, 2018 2:14 am

Tom Palven wrote: Firstly, yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre is more a property rights issue than a free speech issue.
Why are you so stupid? Justice Holmes, specifically set out the reasons for his, and all the other Supreme Court Judges's, ruling over five pages in Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919)

Where does he or any of the other judges say "property rights" :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

You two idiots still don't understand how stare decisis works. The Supreme Court makes a ruling and sets out its obiter ( supporting logic.) If I argue a similar case in a lower court, I have to use the exact words of the superior decision or obiter dictums in the Supreme court, to distinguish how my facts may differ or agree with that decision. This is the fundamental basis of the law. :lol:

Tom Palven is simply making up crap about "property rights", when the actual reasons are already set out by the Supreme Court. :lol: :lol:

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Tom Palven and Bobbo are idiots

Post by Matthew Ellard » Wed Dec 12, 2018 2:17 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: I agree the application of the espionage act to non-citizens throws a shank into Matt's worn out dodge
Russian spies are not USA citizens. The Act has been used to charge foreigners in foreign countries spying against the USA.

Where is the legislation are you claiming it states non-USA citizens can't be charged?
:lol: :lol:

What makes you a very special sort of idiot is that Mueller just charged 16 Russian GRU officers in Russia under the Act.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19375
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Tom Palven and Bobbo are idiots

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Dec 12, 2018 2:28 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Wed Dec 12, 2018 2:17 am
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: I agree the application of the espionage act to non-citizens throws a shank into Matt's worn out dodge
Russian spies are not USA citizens. The Act has been used to charge foreigners in foreign countries spying against the USA.


Name one...………….ie: a link to a case. My memory does not extend to East/West Germany spying from 50 years ago. The 12 Russian Spies indicted by Mueller were charged NOT WITH SPYING, but with computer hacking and theft and ……..money laundering? Something about bit coin or something.

You might be right as I could be confusing Treason with Espionage under the Act...………..but you've been wrong about so much, I'll leave the burden with you. Its getting boring...……………………..
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Tom Palven
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6270
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 12:29 am

Re: Tom Palven and Bobbo are idiots

Post by Tom Palven » Wed Dec 12, 2018 2:34 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Wed Dec 12, 2018 1:54 am
The USA uses the act to charge East Germans in East Germany spying on USA military bases in West Germany. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Your ASIS manual seems to be a little ouitdated, Matt.
Last edited by Tom Palven on Wed Dec 12, 2018 2:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
If one can be taught to believe absurdities, one can commit atrocities. --Voltaire
I may not agree with the what you say, but I will defend your right to say it. --Voltaire
Mankind will not be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest. --Denis Diderot
I haven't abandoned my vices. My vices have abandoned me. --Denis Diderot

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19375
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Tom Palven is an idiot

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Dec 12, 2018 2:36 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Wed Dec 12, 2018 2:14 am
Tom Palven wrote: Firstly, yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre is more a property rights issue than a free speech issue.
Why are you so stupid? Justice Holmes, specifically set out the reasons for his, and all the other Supreme Court Judges's, ruling over five


Matt: why can't you yell Fire in a theater when there is no fire?...……..from the theater owners perspective???
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Tom Palven and Bobbo are idiots

Post by Matthew Ellard » Wed Dec 12, 2018 3:10 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: Name one...………
You idiot. Yevgeny Prigozhin. (You really forgot that Mueller charged the Russian GRU officers in Russia?) :lol: :lol:

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Tom Palven is an idiot

Post by Matthew Ellard » Wed Dec 12, 2018 3:13 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: Matt: why can't you yell Fire in a theater when there is no fire?...……..from the theater owners perspective???
Step 1. What are the terms and conditions of the contract entered into when you purchased the ticket? ( Hint : It's contract law )

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19375
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: A Monument to Courage is Being Planned

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Dec 12, 2018 3:14 am

On Friday, Mr. Prigozhin was one of 13 Russians indicted by a federal grand jury for interfering in the American election.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/16/worl ... eller.html

……..…..and the errors just keep piling up...……………………...
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Tom Palven and Bobbo are idiots

Post by Matthew Ellard » Wed Dec 12, 2018 3:16 am

Tom Palven wrote: Your ASIS manual seems to be a little ouitdated, Matt.
Really? Did both you and Bobbo both forget that Mueller indicted Russian GRU officers in Russia? [/quote] :lol: :lol: :lol:

I know you are senile and forget things,,,,,,,,but you really are very stupid. :lol: :lol: :lol:

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19375
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Tom Palven is an idiot

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Dec 12, 2018 3:16 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Wed Dec 12, 2018 3:13 am
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: Matt: why can't you yell Fire in a theater when there is no fire?...……..from the theater owners perspective???
Step 1. What are the terms and conditions of the contract entered into when you purchased the ticket? ( Hint : It's contract law )
The contract does not obviate other civil and criminal law statutes. Silly to post such nonsense.

l...………………..the errors just keep piling up...……...because Matt has no self control. Dogs with a bone are like that.

How many unresponded to challenges have you ignored now?
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?