Declan McCullagh wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 31, 2001 at 10:59:54AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Sure, I mention it because despite its being non-functional and
> > unpunishable it seemed to have been brought into the courtroom with the
> > purpose of spicing up the case.
>
> Sure. If you commit unacceptable-to-the-gvt *actions* and also spend a
> lot of time talking about how government officials should be
> assassinated, you may reasonably expect those statements to be used
> against you during your trial.
>
> But that is a far cry from your earlier government-has-this-power
> position, from which you're now backtracking.
>
> -Declan
>
Not so much backtracking as thinking out loud. Just musing on how the
letter of the law, its constitutionality, enforcement and even the
reasoning behind its creation are not always lined up so well.
18 U.S.C. 23 1 contains the seeds of the speech+action idea.
Mike
