Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Gizogin]

Goodness I thought he misspelled coffee... But... that doesn't even make sense in that sentence.

It looks like he was attempting to say "coverage", which makes sense on some level. Of course, I'm not one of the few people who understand what he meant, so what do I know, right?

[Neonivek]

Anyways, as the Russia scandal investigation rumbles onward (I had started to post when I got the idea for the title change, so, heh), Congress is investigating another possible meeting between Sessions and Kislyak. Sessions didn't report that one either, if it did happen.

Also, remember those two Russian spy compounds that Obama confiscated as punishment for Russian interference in the election? Trump is considering giving those back. It seems that it had initially been contingent on resuming construction on a consulate in St. Petersburg, but that's no longer the case. Consulate in a construction freeze or not, this seems like the absolute last thing someone under investigation for colluding with Russia should be doing as it.... *drumroll* looks like they're colluding with Russia.

Yeah as I said... If Trump is innocent than he is acting like the most suspicious person in the world.

The ONLY way he could paint himself as MORE suspicious is if he went on some tangent saying that if he did meet Russians in private that it would be justified and be to protect the American people or something along those lines.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Look...so what? You know? So what if I did talk to the Russians? I should be talking to the Russians! And if I did, there's nothing you can do about it. I'm your President...it's just...don't you people know what loyalty means? 50 years I've ran my businesses, and those people, my people, they know what loyalty means. You all need to get with the program.

[Frumple]

50 years I've ran my businesses, and those people, my people, they know what loyalty means. You all need to get with the program.

That's where we kick him out and refuse to pay any remaining or future presidential stipend or whatever, right? I'm not sure how we'd get inside him and declare bankruptcy from within, burning who knows how many jobs to the ground in the process. Maybe the SVR knows the trick :V

[Max™]

Anyways, as the Russia scandal investigation rumbles onward (I had started to post when I got the idea for the title change, so, heh), Congress is investigating another possible meeting between Sessions and Kislyak. Sessions didn't report that one either, if it did happen.

Also, remember those two Russian spy compounds that Obama confiscated as punishment for Russian interference in the election? Trump is considering giving those back. It seems that it had initially been contingent on resuming construction on a consulate in St. Petersburg, but that's no longer the case. Consulate in a construction freeze or not, this seems like the absolute last thing someone under investigation for colluding with Russia should be doing as it.... *drumroll* looks like they're colluding with Russia.

*rim* *kick* *crash*

Freedom of Speech is merely the right to speak against the government without fear of imprisonment/execution/disappearance.  It does not enforce speech between individuals.

Conservatives and Democrats giving each other verbal shit isn't a violation nor a compliance of freedom of speech.  Trump shutting out reporters on grounds of "fake news" or whatever can be a violation of free speech (or press actually, but they're related nonetheless).

It is a lot more than the ability to speak out against the government. Remember that Freedom of Speech is freedom of thought.

As well the government certainly DOES enforce speech between individuals... because it must, and in doing so it must maintain freedom of speech.

That is why the Conservatives cannot injunction the Democrats and prevent them from speaking.

Freedom of speech is more than the inability of the government to censor what we say or print.

What I am saying is that this aspect spreads to everything else. Because they cannot censor someone, it also means they cannot pass a law that allows someone else to censor someone, at least within the reasonable limits (Limits that apply to the Government as well)

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The government could theoretically mandate that people should attend church a, be jailed for going to church b, arrest/punish people who speak out and/or try to call attention to something it did in person, or those who collect and distribute said information, or those who group together to discuss these actions, as well as those who try to get said actions changed.

This would be bad, and went against many ideas which at the time were viewed by many as important for a new free society to flourish, so rather than dictate and limit what the people can do they declared what the government cannot do.

Spoiler: tl;dr the 1st limits government action against private citizens, not private citizens themselves (click to show/hide)

It is not the place of the government to say "punching nazis is fine" as that is an infringement of rights which are held by the people against such interference.

This is why we have things like jury nullification, so we can look at a case where someone is spewing hateful shit everywhere, someone else decides to use a more direct method of indicating disagreement via punching, hateful shitspewer decides to press charges, it goes to court and the case seems clear cut, so the jury should rule with the plaintiff because they're there to determine if the defendant is innocent or guilty, yes?

Wrong, the jury is there to determine if the law as written should be upheld in that case, if this does not seem to be the case, like if the jurors find themselves in the situation where they would have to declare "it is wrong to punch nazis" they do not have to side with the nazi.

As long as the government isn't saying "people HAVE to nullify cases which defend nazi hate speech" it's perfectly fine for a jury to state "we are not going to side with you, even though the facts as given suggest punching you was excessive, maybe don't complain if you get smacked for preaching about ideas which have been broadly rejected as a nation, especially when you begin arguing that the rights of others should be stripped because of some arbitrary quirk of genetics or birthplace" and return a verdict accordingly.

If there is merit to a stance like "white people are the bestest, everybody else should just bow down and accept it when we ship them off somewhere else" then society would probably head in that direction. Instead there have been bloody conflicts against exactly that sort of ideology, and it seems to have lost. When you get something which winds up with a label like "world war 2" and a big portion of the conflict is between people on one side of the "fuck nonwhites" and people on the "no, fuck nazis" side, you can take that as a sort of general suggestion that society doesn't give a fuck if you think white supremacy is awesome. When millions of soldiers are thrown into a meatgrinder over beating something down, it seems like that's reason enough to think arguing in favor of that something isn't going to get a positive reaction, and it seems fair to point and laugh when people do it anyway and get popped in the nose.

That all aside, remember that speech intended to incite violence or discrimination against others is not protected, and the wiggle room between there and less directly suggestive hate speech is where cowards like to hide while trying to use the 1st as a shield against any sort of persecution, so pushing the idea that the 1st prohibits private citizens from doing anything is harmful, and so to reiterate: the 1st amendment is a limit on government power and in no way means anybody has to respect the right of someone else to speak about whatever wherever they want.

Yes, that means you don't actually get to complain about violated free speech rights if you get kicked out after going into a confederate flag store and screaming about racism, just like they don't get to complain about people outside protesting their store.

Toady runs this site, he can ban you because he doesn't like your eyebrows, he can ban you because you think kid rock is awesome, you don't have a right to post here, you do have a right to expect that the government can not and will not interfere with you posting here, at the very least for US based servers/posters though it is fuzzy as hell in other areas, and good luck interfering with my speech, I'm behind 9 amendments!

[Gizogin]

This is why we have things like jury nullification, so we can look at a case where someone is spewing hateful shit everywhere, someone else decides to use a more direct method of indicating disagreement via punching, hateful shitspewer decides to press charges, it goes to court and the case seems clear cut, so the jury should rule with the plaintiff because they're there to determine if the defendant is innocent or guilty, yes?

Wrong, the jury is there to determine if the law as written should be upheld in that case, if this does not seem to be the case, like if the jurors find themselves in the situation where they would have to declare "it is wrong to punch nazis" they do not have to side with the nazi.

"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, please direct your attention to exhibit 114, a Twitter post made by the plaintiff on the sixteenth of March, 2014. It reads, and I quote, 'Hitler had some great ideas' ell-oh-ell, winky face, thumbs-up emoji. Clearly, the plaintiff is a quote-unquote 'hateful shitspewer' and is therefore unworthy of protection under the law. My client therefore cannot be held liable for drop-kicking the plaintiff, especially due to the hilarious nature of the footage as previously demonstrated in exhibit 36. The defense rests."

I don't know which legal system you're working within, but I'm reasonably certain it's not the one I know. It would certainly make crime dramas more interesting.

[smjjames]

@Max: Speaking of fuzzy as hell, the shadow effect on the text there makes it a bit blurry and slightly harder to read. I get what you were trying to do with distinct sections, but it just looks bad, at least on the default forum scheme.

[Greiger]

Jury nullification really is a thing.  It's just something that is very very unknown to the general public, the vast majority of the justice department does not want you to know, and informing a jury about that option, apparently even if you are a member of said jury, can get you jailed for jury tampering.   So it's basically a part of our judicial system, while still on the books, will never happen.

[alway]

I don't know which legal system you're working within, but I'm reasonably certain it's not the one I know.

If the one relevant to you is the one relevant to this thread, you should get to know it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification_in_the_United_States

It's pretty much the US criminal system's "This one weird trick they don't want you to know; prosecutors hate it!" Part of jury selection is generally attempting to get rid of people who would acquit just on principal. It's been used for various things over the years; drug possession crimes have been one of the more popular ones in recent years; also popular with the libertarian party, as it gives hyper-local control over criminal law by allowing a local jury to essential render a federal law impotent. From the wiki page, it's estimated to occur in about 3-4% of jury trials.

[Lord Shonus]

Jury nullification happens. It is rare, but it is expected to be rare, because cases where the law screws up so bad that the jury has to step in and say that the law is wrong usually wind up with the judge dismissing the case before it gets that far. It also is generally considered that you cannot ask for it, and there is considerable opposition to juries being told about it.

Many legal scholars consider it a critical part of the Third Box.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Jury nullification is a difficult one, to be sure. On one hand, it checks against gross injustice in an organic way, such as a jury throwing out a pot use charge on a high school kid. On the other hand, it allows for gross injustice in an organic way, such as an all-white jury from a small town sentencing one of the few black people around for rape in spite of a video evidence alibi. On the third, transcendent hand that lives inside your left eye, it's impossible to prevent and even people who don't know about it are decently likely to come up with the idea independently halfway through the trial if they have umbrage with the laws in question.

I think, on the whole, that it's better than not because of the appeals system, to err in favor of protecting the innocent, and the lack of double jeopardy in the US. A grossly malicious conviction has fair odds at getting overturned.

But it's a moot point. The knowledge of nullification is out and increasing as information technology increases, as well as education. I learned about jury nullification in a public school, actually!

[Strife26]

Anyways, as the Russia scandal investigation rumbles onward (I had started to post when I got the idea for the title change, so, heh), Congress is investigating another possible meeting between Sessions and Kislyak. Sessions didn't report that one either, if it did happen.

Also, remember those two Russian spy compounds that Obama confiscated as punishment for Russian interference in the election? Trump is considering giving those back. It seems that it had initially been contingent on resuming construction on a consulate in St. Petersburg, but that's no longer the case. Consulate in a construction freeze or not, this seems like the absolute last thing someone under investigation for colluding with Russia should be doing as it.... *drumroll* looks like they're colluding with Russia.

Can we start describing the Russia investigation as slouching towards Bethlehem to be born?

[Lord Shonus]

Jury nullification is a difficult one, to be sure. On one hand, it checks against gross injustice in an organic way, such as a jury throwing out a pot use charge on a high school kid. On the other hand, it allows for gross injustice in an organic way, such as an all-white jury from a small town sentencing one of the few black people around for rape in spite of a video evidence alibi. On the third, transcendent hand that lives inside your left eye, it's impossible to prevent and even people who don't know about it are decently likely to come up with the idea independently halfway through the trial if they have umbrage with the laws in question.

I think, on the whole, that it's better than not because of the appeals system, to err in favor of protecting the innocent, and the lack of double jeopardy in the US. A grossly malicious conviction has fair odds at getting overturned.

But it's a moot point. The knowledge of nullification is out and increasing as information technology increases, as well as education. I learned about jury nullification in a public school, actually!

Your second example is correct in spirit, but is not a case of nullification - that term applies only to cases where the jury acquits regardless of example. A better example would be all the lynchers that got off in the late 19th and early 20th century.

The one you used is something for which I don't know a formal term other then malicious prosecution, and is something for which no positive role exists.

[smjjames]

Anyways, as the Russia scandal investigation rumbles onward (I had started to post when I got the idea for the title change, so, heh), Congress is investigating another possible meeting between Sessions and Kislyak. Sessions didn't report that one either, if it did happen.

Also, remember those two Russian spy compounds that Obama confiscated as punishment for Russian interference in the election? Trump is considering giving those back. It seems that it had initially been contingent on resuming construction on a consulate in St. Petersburg, but that's no longer the case. Consulate in a construction freeze or not, this seems like the absolute last thing someone under investigation for colluding with Russia should be doing as it.... *drumroll* looks like they're colluding with Russia.

Can we start describing the Russia investigation as slouching towards Bethlehem to be born?

It would have to be March, not May.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Jury nullification is a difficult one, to be sure. On one hand, it checks against gross injustice in an organic way, such as a jury throwing out a pot use charge on a high school kid. On the other hand, it allows for gross injustice in an organic way, such as an all-white jury from a small town sentencing one of the few black people around for rape in spite of a video evidence alibi. On the third, transcendent hand that lives inside your left eye, it's impossible to prevent and even people who don't know about it are decently likely to come up with the idea independently halfway through the trial if they have umbrage with the laws in question.

I think, on the whole, that it's better than not because of the appeals system, to err in favor of protecting the innocent, and the lack of double jeopardy in the US. A grossly malicious conviction has fair odds at getting overturned.

But it's a moot point. The knowledge of nullification is out and increasing as information technology increases, as well as education. I learned about jury nullification in a public school, actually!

Your second example is correct in spirit, but is not a case of nullification - that term applies only to cases where the jury acquits regardless of example. A better example would be all the lynchers that got off in the late 19th and early 20th century.

The one you used is something for which I don't know a formal term other then malicious prosecution, and is something for which no positive role exists.

I checked, and CGPGrey mentions the "inverse nullification" in his video on the subject by the same name (and notes that it is fairly uncommon because obviously sadistic jurors tend to fall afoul of the judge's capacity to overturn a guilty verdict), but for lack of a better term there's not much of a reason not to call it nullification. It works linguistically - the law is still being nullified in a way since it is at least intended to prosecute the actually guilty.

It doesn't quite work to call it malicious prosecution though, that seems only to apply to the party that files suit, not the jury. And is focused on civil law instead of criminal anyway.