(03-28-2024 01:19 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Tanq... I'm not playing this stupid game with you. I have enough stupid prizes.

One of the BIGGEST things that you and I argue about is my pontifications about how I think things should work (but don't) and your insistence on telling me that things don't work that way.

The documents case is a perfect example. You keep telling me that the way the law is written... intent is required for prosecution... and I keep telling you that I think that is a demonstrably flawed practice...

You think what you want to. No skin off my back. Demonstrably? In your opinion.

Quote:exacerbated by the fact that the people who most often get away with this crime are the people who wrote the law (and loophole).

Care to back that up actual numbers or is this another lack of substance, empty, rhetorical comment?

Quote: Get Trump for obstruction all you want... but the vastly larger concern should be that which the President of the US described as (paraphrasing from memory) 'wholly irresponsible, putting lives at risk'.... which was not the obstruction.

The vastly larger concern deals with the possession of documents, coupled with the acts that show intent -- which happen to be obstruction.

I am a firm believer in the concept of state of mind being the drawline for almost all criminal punishment. Not your concept of strict liability.

Quote: You have yet to present an argument that reasonably demonstrates to me why intent would be required to prosecute someone for possessing top secret documents outside of an authorized scenario...

Because the vast base of criminal law is based on the state of mind -- you seemingly think that shouldnt be the case, and strict liability should rule the roost.

Quote:That just makes zero sense to me.

If you dont think a moral underpinning of criminal intent is important in charging criminal offenses -- that is you. If that doesnt make sense to you in a simple moral sense, well..... that is you.

Quote:1) I am STILL unaware of any exceptions to free speech based on speed or breadth of that speech.... or really any of our rights.

It isnt an exception "based on speed or breadth", mind you. Content is the exception. The issue is whether in this avenue that 'speed and breadth' have a factor in whether the government has an entry to suggest to the media sites that an issue may be broached.

The fact that a single actor can make a video that absolutely *could* present a very widespread, and very quick across that widespread front, issue is one that is seemingly unique in our day and time.

If you think that is a non-issue -- go for it. I think that there could be an avenue for direct government interaction for such issues.

Quote:Oh... and MY speech (as a child) was also censored to my father... in addition to his to me. An insignificant aside to my point, but directly counter to your opinion that it only applied to him. I once said something like 'I can't wait to see you at Christmas' and that was censored....

Not my opinion. The communications with him as a party were censored as a measure of your father's position in the military. Nice misconstrual of the issue.

Quote:as was a 'Tommy's dad is coming home in a few weeks'.... Troop/ship movements.... My story was actually the topic of an 'AP equivalent' civics course in High School near DC in the 70's.

Awesome dawesome on the AP civics course. The basis is simply your father's position, the Code of Military Justice, and simple contracts. Not the subject at hand, mind you.

That basis does *not* grant you the "I think I have a slightly better idea than average of what is allowed and not" medal based on "Having had a father stationed overseas during military actions". It gives you a better idea of what can and is not monitored and censored as a result of correspondence to and from a military person. It does not give you a "better idea .... if what is allowed or not" on aother forms of communication.

Quote: I've certainly used the term 'illegal' to more broadly define 'actions the government could 'step in' to regulate and not merely 'urge'... and I even further said 'It is my understanding that numerous things can be illegal and have little to no penalty other that

2) the following statement of yours regarding posting ship positions is demonstrably false :
And honestly, during a time of urgency, yes -- I wholly support the issue of government interaction to stop that type of posting. Apparently you do not.

You're literally arguing that I called it 'per se' illegal (which I did not, but I did say it was illegal) while at the same time arguing that I don't support government interaction from stopping it.

You can't dance around that clear misrepresentation.

Ham, your original representation was off base in noting as illegal. General comments on troop movements by third parties, even in time of war -- is not ilelgal. No matter haw far down the fing rabbit hole you want to take it. It was brought up as an example of something that is not generally illegal, that the government could very well have a more than average interest in stifling --- even more so in time of war -- when broadcast to the world at large via social media.

Notwithstanding your vaunted AP essay on the issue of you and your father's communications.

Quote:3) The government is in no way nor at any time hamstrung from 'urging' people to regulate their speech any more than to turn in their guns.... as in sponsoring 'inclusion' initiatives or a gun buy-back program. They ARE hamstrung from forcing such actions through legal enforcement... by the Constitution (as they should be)

And again you simply decide to stray well and afar from the details of the case, and the context that KB introduces in here question. Score another point for the 'answer any question *you* decide to bring up'.

Quote:4) The comparison of free speech to national security is one that YOU brought in via your 'troop movements' hypothetical. My use of it here is intentionally an apples:oranges comparison... because they are. One is vitally important to enforce and the other is vitally important to allow... yet the more important one to enforce is harder to 'prosecute' than the one that is more important to allow.

The concept of generalized otherwise legal comments is the issue. Which *you* have decided is about Clinton, intent in crimes, your AP essay, and whole fkload of other ancillary issues.

And each of the hypos I put forward demonstrate that aspect. I care that each of those hypos is the type of issue KB asked in the context of the question. While you just want to seemingly regale us with general comments and your AP essay.

I actually give a rat's ass on *all* the hypos, for the same underlying common characteristics they share. That is -- the context of KBs question, and the types of issues she explicitly referred to in her queries. That is, the stuff you simply dont want to be bothered (and explicitly havent bothered, mind you) to really know before sermonizing.