• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is This Site and All of Us in Potential Legal Trouble

W

washunut

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2009
Messages
14,185
Reaction score
4,652
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
I am not a lawyer, so am asking this of folks who are or who think they know the law around threatening a law official.

I saw this thread:

[h=1]Thread: Can People Shoot ICE Agents?[/h]
Is it possible that even posing such a question is illegal. If it is illegal would law enforcement be able to look into all members of DP, especially the folks responsible for allowing it, responding to it etc.

How about folks who did not even respond but are just members of this site?

I know there are some experienced lawyers out there. Turtle was even a lawyer for the government. Would like to hear his and/or any others' thoughts on this.
 
I just noticed in my WiFi signals list, there's one labeled "FBI Surveillance Van."

Not sure if that means anything.
 
Brewdog said:
I just noticed in my WiFi signals list, there's one labeled "FBI Surveillance Van."

Not sure if that means anything.
Click to expand...

So you think that that is a legitimate form of political debate?
 
I see a hypothetical question being posed. I don't see a threat being made for which the author could be prosecuted. If a person, by advocating the use of force or violation of law, creates a clear and present danger of imminent lawlessness, that person's speech is not protected by the First Amendment.

To create that danger, though, the speech must be both directed to producing or inciting imminent lawless action and likely to produce or incite such action. Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969). Note the word "imminent" and the requirement that the desired result of the speech must be "likely." The bar is set high, just as it should be in a free country.

Even so, a private person who maintains a forum may ban speech there which government could not ban, just as a private employer may prohibit certain speech by his employees at their workplace, even though a law prohibiting that same speech would be unconstitutional.
 
Last edited:
matchlight said:
I see a hypothetical question being posed. I don't see a threat being made for which the author could be prosecuted. If a person, by advocating the use of force or violation of law, creates a clear and present danger of imminent lawlessness, that person's speech is not protected by the First Amendment.

To create that danger, though, the speech must be both directed to producing or inciting imminent lawless action and likely to produce or incite such action. Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969). Note the word "imminent" and the requirement that the desired result of the speech must be "likely." The bar is set high, just as it should be in a free country.

Even so, a private person who maintains a forum may ban speech there which government could not ban, just as a private employer may prohibit certain speech by his employees at their workplace, even though a law prohibiting that same speech would be unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your insights.
 
washunut said:
So you think that that is a legitimate form of political debate?
Click to expand...

I was a bit surprised that the thread continued with his illogical ramblings and libelous accusations of events which never happened. But I'm also surprised that someone can troll a forum to the extent that he/she has and still be here. Perhaps he has nude photos of one of the mods; who knows.

But I don't see anything criminal in the thread. Just the ravings of a mentally unstable individual without any objective reasoning ability. It's one thing to argue a coherent opinion based upon facts and personal interpretation of those facts. It's completely different to just lie and troll based upon utter cognitive dissonance. If the government were to find reason to research further into his comments, it would be via a different 3-letter agency than the one we were discussing.

The screen name is fitting. Calamity (noun): a disaster
 
washunut said:
So you think that that is a legitimate form of political debate?
Click to expand...

I understand that some have called war a form of diplomacy.

So, there's that...
 
Brewdog said:
I just noticed in my WiFi signals list, there's one labeled "FBI Surveillance Van."

Not sure if that means anything.
Click to expand...

Shouldn't this post have an emogie?
 
code1211 said:
Shouldn't this post have an emogie?
Click to expand...

153f0143d5b1fbcd6509aa99292e090c.png
 
washunut said:
I am not a lawyer, so am asking this of folks who are or who think they know the law around threatening a law official.

I saw this thread:

[h=1]Thread: Can People Shoot ICE Agents?[/h]
Is it possible that even posing such a question is illegal. If it is illegal would law enforcement be able to look into all members of DP, especially the folks responsible for allowing it, responding to it etc.

How about folks who did not even respond but are just members of this site?

I know there are some experienced lawyers out there. Turtle was even a lawyer for the government. Would like to hear his and/or any others' thoughts on this.
Click to expand...
I doubt that it's illegal, but I could see some topics being of interest to some agencies.

We're all on a list somewhere, I'm sure. :mrgreen:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom