: Political banter..

[Bill Vermillion]

On Mon, May 17, 2004 at 09:02:51PM -0400, Fairlight thus spoke:
> >From inside the gravity well of a singularity, GCC Consulting shouted:

> > Freedom of speech, yes. down right lying no. He lied to his
> > listeners and not a political lie. The constitution protects
> > political speech not all speech. More then yelling fire in a
> > theater is unconstitutional.

> Well that's not unconstitutional, it's just illegal.  Technically, the
> law that forbids it is probably unconstitutional, but since it's a
> relatively sensible law, nobody will challenge it. 

There are many laws that modify the 1st ammendment's free speech.
Sedition is punishable.

The saying about FALSLEY yelling fire in a crowded theatre was
never a legal decision, but a comment made in the trial of
Charles Schenck - head of the Socialist Party of The United States
who was found guilyt of of attempting inusubordination of soldiers
drafted into World War I.   That would fit under the definition of
sedition which was made a crime in the late 1700s.

However this phrase came from this statement by Justice Holmes in
his ruling at the trial:

	'The most stringent protection of free speech would not
	protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre, and
	causing panic.  It does not even protect a man from an
	injunction against uttering words that may have all the
	effects of force'.

IOW certain speech can be classified as dangerous, and the comment
Holmes made did have the qualifier of 'causing panic'.   It's not
the words, but what effect that words have that may make their use
illegal.

> Of course, it didn't just stop there. Nowadays you can't even
> tell someone what you think of them, in private, without facing
> a lawsuit--even if it's a frivolous one.

In private?  WIth no witnesses it's your word against their word,
and something like that is more appropriate for 'Judge Judy'.

In public there are law of libel and slander.

> > People are finding that they are not free to express
> > themselves about their bosses or company's. They can loose
> > their jobs or be held libel for looses. People posting
> > complaints about their employers on the web have been fired.
> > These firings have been upheld.

> Yeah, and I happen to think that's BS. If it's -factual-
> and not actually libel, they should NOT be held liable for
> anything.

The 'whistleblower' laws were enacted to protect those who choose
to speak out.  However not all whistleblowers have been protected
as they should, and those who committed the infractions are often
treated lightly.  The ADM [Archer Daniels Midland] price fixing
case levied the highest fines ever - ADM agreed to pay $100,000,000
in fines.  You may not recognize the name, but at times there are
coporate ads on TV and the phrase "supermarket to the world is
used".  The $100M fine was just another blip as they had paid out
over $90M in civil and anti-trust law suits.

It was not front page as price fixing in the lysine market doesn't
grab headlines like the high cost of gasoline, even though the
price fixing drove up the cost of food for everyone.

The person who helped the goverment seal the case was also
imprisoned because of his involvement, but the higher ups had
their crimes pardoned by then President Clinton on his last day
in office, while the person who sealed their fate is still in
prison.

It brings to mind the old "good guys don't win ball games" phrase.
Or "If you have a lot of money don't worry about going to jail".
It looks like that tide is starting to change.

Bill
-- 
Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com