TexasCHLforum.com

rotor wrote:

JALLEN wrote:The government can't put you in prison for what you say, only for what you do.

You can think, and say, just about anything you like, with few exceptions.

Didn't the AG want to prosecute people that denied global climate change?

Did the AG do anything, or was (s)he merely saying what (s)he liked?

Many of us have sat in law school and have had the Con Law professor tell us that if you say, "I think the government of the United States should be overthrown by force," it is perfectly all right. You will not be arrested, or jailed or indicted, etc. If you do an act in furtherance of that aim, you may be in for trouble, but thought and speech are not criminal, cannot be a violation of law.

The kids who are out there advocating repeal of the Constitution, in whole or part, commit no crime, goofy as their advocacy may seem. Moreover, as long as they do not resort to violence, no problem, insofar as crime goes.

There are some exceptions, secrets, etc. but not many.

JALLEN wrote:

rotor wrote:

JALLEN wrote:The government can't put you in prison for what you say, only for what you do.

You can think, and say, just about anything you like, with few exceptions.

Didn't the AG want to prosecute people that denied global climate change?

Did the AG do anything, or was (s)he merely saying what (s)he liked?

Many of us have sat in law school and have had the Con Law professor tell us that if you say, "I think the government of the United States should be overthrown by force," it is perfectly all right. You will not be arrested, or jailed or indicted, etc. If you do an act in furtherance of that aim, you may be in for trouble, but thought and speech are not criminal, cannot be a violation of law.

The kids who are out there advocating repeal of the Constitution, in whole or part, commit no crime, goofy as their advocacy may seem. Moreover, as long as they do not resort to violence, no problem, insofar as crime goes.

There are some exceptions, secrets, etc. but not many.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... e-deniers/

Just the idea that they were thinking this way is frightening.

rotor wrote:

JALLEN wrote:

rotor wrote:

JALLEN wrote:The government can't put you in prison for what you say, only for what you do.

You can think, and say, just about anything you like, with few exceptions.

Didn't the AG want to prosecute people that denied global climate change?

Did the AG do anything, or was (s)he merely saying what (s)he liked?

Many of us have sat in law school and have had the Con Law professor tell us that if you say, "I think the government of the United States should be overthrown by force," it is perfectly all right. You will not be arrested, or jailed or indicted, etc. If you do an act in furtherance of that aim, you may be in for trouble, but thought and speech are not criminal, cannot be a violation of law.

The kids who are out there advocating repeal of the Constitution, in whole or part, commit no crime, goofy as their advocacy may seem. Moreover, as long as they do not resort to violence, no problem, insofar as crime goes.

There are some exceptions, secrets, etc. but not many.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... e-deniers/

Just the idea that they were thinking this way is frightening.

The analogy to the RICO suits against the tobacco industry is inapt. That might be why there has been no action.

Caution: You have entered the tinfoil hat zone

I tell them my thoughts on a regular basis with every social media and web forum post, email, phone call, text, electronic communications, credit card purchases, basically any trackable format/data the NSA cares to store and data mine for later use against me. Don't forget political activities. How hard are they paying attention to me? They are not, at least until they want to make a case against me. Same goes for all of us. But I say what I feel and I'm not afraid to do so. Even if no one gets red flagged specifically I do think general trends are tracked to get a general consensus about what the populace is thinking. Does it affect or at least delay policy and agendas? I believe it does for better or worse.