• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Wanted: AlGore Charge: Treason

Simon W. Moon

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
26,687
Reaction score
10,839
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
I'm sure the FBI is well aware of Mr. Gore's recent escapades with foriegn governments.
And the reason why they have not arrested Mr. Gore is because the FBI is part of some treasonous cabal?

Or is it because the charge of treason is histrionic and hysterical?
 

Trajan Octavian Titus

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
galenrox said:
yeah, because Gore going to a bunch of Arab's and saying "Yeah, we ****ed up, but keep in mind it's not the majority of us, just the government, so don't **** with the rest of us, it's not our fault." really creates "clear and present danger".:roll: :doh

I believe you have misinterpreted my meaning, the Clear and Present Danger test was formulated by the Supreme Court in the cases of Schnenck V. United States, and Yates V. United States regarding free speech and the roll of state regulation.
 
Last edited:

Simon W. Moon

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
26,687
Reaction score
10,839
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
I tend to think that this falls into what the Supreme Court has deemed the Clear and Present Danger test in the majority opinion in Schnick V. U.S.
Schenck


If Gore's a clear and present danger aren't you comforting him and aiding him with your resolute refusal failure and failure to take actions matching your words?
 

tumbleweed

Active member
Joined
Feb 12, 2006
Messages
341
Reaction score
130
Location
Maine
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Isn't Al Gore a private citizen? He can say what he likes. I'm not aware of any public reaction to his speech, say like a riot or a camel stampede. They should at least burn one of our embassys in protest of his statements.Even then I doubt they could call it treason.
 

Trajan Octavian Titus

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
galenrox said:
It's quite possible, please enlighten me.

Class lecture notes:



Clear and Present Danger test: first proposed by Holmes, it is a balancing approach to balancing the first amendment and the right of the government to prevent an overthrow of the government; Schenck Dissent and Gitlow.

Bad Tendency test: says that the government can censor any form of speech that could even far in the future cause damage to the government; Gitlow.

Clear and Probable Danger test: Dennis Vs. United States Case 1951 prosecuted the top tier of the Communist party, a mathematical equation multiplying the chance that the speech will harm and how much harm it could bring. Vinson-Dennis

Absolutist approach: Black and Douglas, entirely fully rejects any form of balancing at all. For them the only focus is the First Amendment no exceptions at all.

Black thinks the majority opinion of the court is cow towing to the public opinion.

Yates vs. The United States: prosecuted the second tier of the Communist party. It overturned their convictions.

The Yates case comes in 1957 at a time after McCarthy had been discredited, and the Red scare had died down a bit.

There are key personnel changes in the court too, Chief Justice Vinson is replaced by Wilson, Jackson replaced by Harlan, Reed is replaced by Whittaker, and Minton is replaced by Brennan.

Brandenberg vs. Ohio - Deals with a prosecution of a KKK member persecuted for his radicalism, what he said is in front of a Klan rally is that revenge might have to be taken if the government continues its policies of integration. He had also said a few other thinly veiled threats. The court unanimously over turns the conviction. The majority in this case used a clear and present danger test but they used a form which makes it very difficult for the government to prove that any form of speech poses a clear and danger, and the only thing that can be considered a threat is if the speech was an immediate incitement to riot. Two concurring opinions were Black and Douglas but they were advocating a totally absolutist position.

Obscenity - The Justice knows it when he sees it. Until the 1950s the U.S. adopted a English precedent called Regina Vs. Hicklin 1868. What would be defined as obscenity is if one page of an entire book was deemed to be obscene it would be enough to get the whole book made illegal.

ExParte Jackson 1878 - banned the interstate commerce of obscene material applying the Hicklin test.

From the 30s through the 50s groups like the ACLU started to fight these cases.

Beginning in 1957 this started to lax in the Butler Vs. Michigan that dealt with a law that had a ban on any material that could be considered harmful to children. Frankfurter stated holding adults to the standards of children is like burning the house to roast the pig.

Roth Vs. U.S.A and Alberts Vs. California p.438 it is the real landmark case that deals with sexually explicit material, Roth was a publisher of literary erotica. The convictions are upheld but the precedent which the case sets is one which opens the way for much more permissive standards towards pornography. Obscenity is not protected by the first amendment but the difficulty comes with identifying what is obscene. Brennan says that the government needs to look at a new set of issues to look at the average person rather than the most vulnerable in society. Second Brennan also says that the government needs to look at the work as a whole and the dominant theme of the work as a whole. If the work is purian sex for sex sake then it is obscene but if there are any literary or artistic value then it still gets a pass.

P442 Douglas and Black are the dissenting opinions and they take an absolute stance on the subject.

Harlen concurs in Albert’s but dissents in Roth because Albert’s is a state case.

Stanley Vs. Georgia on P. 442 the police were searching Stanley’s house for book making evidence but found obscene material. The supreme court unanimously overturned it for the privacy issue. P443 Black sends a letter to Harlen saying he doesn’t have to see the movie because no matter what it’s protected.

1957 even though the Roth opinion upheld the convictions the dominant theme precedent and the average American precedent set the course for the future of 1st amendment and pornography law.

Nixon promised to appoint court justices who would over turn these decision and replaces four justices with his own nominees Warren-Burger, Black with Powell, Fortas with Blackmun the author of Roe Vs. Wade, and Harlen with Rehnquist.

1973 Miller Vs. California 434 and the Paris Adult Theatre Vs. Slayton also in 1973 and the Court takes a step back from the Libertarian direction it had been moving in. The court upheld the conviction, it doesn’t go anywhere near the Hinton test but steps back and Burger, Powell, Blackmun, and Rehnquist.

Paris adult theatre dealt with a movie house where Slayton was prevented from showing a video. Burger cites some empirical evidence of theatres with a causal effect on other issues; such as, crime which the community has a right to control.

February 15th first exam blackboard review tomorrow.

NY V Ferber - 1982 child pornography case law prohibited trafficking any one younger than 16 engaged in sexual activity, Ferber argued that it violated his 1st amendment right under the Miller test. White argued that it was different when a child was involved. States have a compelling interest to protect the children from abuse. Distribution should not be treated any differently than the creation of it.

Aschcroft V free speech - 2002 - Child Pornography prevention act which prevented virtual child pornography. Kennedy was arguing that the law went to far and that it was overbroad, the dissenters don’t deny that literary material is protected but they say that the law isn’t to broad.


City of Erie vs. Pats A&M, dealt with a local ordnance that prevented being nude in public, the real intent is to close down strip clubs or make them appear in clothes, they clamed that it was protected by the First Amendment, O’Conner argues that it doesn’t violate it because it doesn’t define one individual type of nudity. Ex if it said that nudity in a strip club is not ok but other type of public nudity is ok then it would be a violation. It isn’t a free speech issue it’s a conduct issue she also argues at the negative secondary effects; such as, crime. Pg. 459

Key Concept: Fighting Words, can the government limit free speech in order to have people not insult each other.

1942 Chaplinsky V New Hampshire, Jehovah’s witnesses as a religious view don’t believe in the flag salute because they consider it idolatry, the plaintiff was a Jehovah’s witness and he got assaulted while preaching and the police came and arrested him and calls the police: “Damn Fascists, and profiteering Racketeers.” And was charged by a law against offensive annoying et al words. It goes to the Supreme Court and Justice Murphy concludes that in this case the First Amendment didn’t apply and the fighting words exception is created, but also makes clear that the fighting words has limits and it must be language which the average person finds offensive and it has to show direct causation between the language and the offensiveness created by it. And the average person changes through time as well.

Cohen V California - 1971 - Cohen argues that a person had a shirt that read: “**** the draft,” was protected by free speech. By a 6-3 majority the court rules in favor of Cohen

p497
Bethel V Fraser - 1986: How much free speech do schoolchildren have, Fraser was making a lewd speech and he got suspended. The dissenting opinions said that it is to subjective.

Tinker V Des Moines

State Universities are held to the same standard as the Government.

Regulations on speech that is Racist, sexist, xenophobic, politically correct.

1980s local areas placed into codes that sanctioned speech that was politically incorrect.

RAV vs. St. Paul 1992 - It’s a crime dealing with hate speech RAV burned a cross on a lawn of the only black family in a white neighborhood and RAV was convicted under that ordnance. The lower court dismissed it but the Minnesota higher court over ruled that decision and RAV took it to the Supreme Court which overturned the law unanimously. But their reasons are different. The majority says that the city of St. Paul is discriminating on account of content and Scalia says that the law is to narrow, the minority says that the law is to broad because it doesn’t just capture hate speech but also speech that is protected so they don’t have a problem with outlawing hate speech but feel that it needs to be drawn very narrowly so as not to capture protected speech.

WI vs. Mitchell 1993 - Wisconsin had a sentencing enhancement if something is a crime is done out of hate. Mitchell attacked a white kid for being white and his sentenced was doubled because it was a crime done out of racial hatred. The court upholds the sentence enhancement unanimously. Rehnquist argues that motive is considered in sentencing all of the time. Mitchell argued that this would have a chilling effect because people would be less likely to join hate groups and express them because it would come back and hurt them if they are later charged in a crime.

<<<CONTINUED BELOW>>>
 

Trajan Octavian Titus

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Virginia vs. Black - Virginia specifically outlawed any kind of cross burning. O’Conner argued that cross burning isn’t just saying that we don’t like black people it is a form of terrorism due to its specific history. So it’s not speech it’s specific terrorist intimidation, the dissenting opinion argues that the history of the cross burning is irrelevant Seuter, Kennedy, and Ginsberg.

Different standards of first amendment protection for different forms of media.

Broadcast media has finite space so some entity in the government has to regulate it and that is called the F.C.C. no one is able to broadcast without a license from the F.C.C. The airwaves are considered public property and the FCC can’t just deliberate who can broadcast but also what can be broadcast.

Red Lion V. FCC -1969 > Fairness Doctrine

The Court unanimously rules that the FCC does have that authority, because broadcast and radio television are different than print media in terms of scarcity.



Pg 614 - The FCC vs. The Pacifica Foundation 1978 - Carlin, 7 dirty words can’t be said and George Carlin had a monologue dealing with the 7 dirty words and their contextual usage, and Pacifica played the skit in the afternoon someone heard it and complained to the FCC and the FCC only put a warning to Pacifica not fined but they sued anyways because they argued that regulating indecency was a violation of the first amendment they also said that Pacifica issued a warning in advance of the language in the skit, and they also said that it isn’t offensive, because it dealt with the languages, the way they were used, and social satire. The court finds for the FCC and Stephens admits at the outset that governments can not regulate content and Stephens and the majority say that it isn’t obscene but radio is different and also when dealing with decency questions the FCC gets even more leeway because radio is intrusive. The dissenting opinion is that the FCC is using the standard of Sticklen in that they are holding up adults to the standards of children.

PG. 616 - 615 Denver Area Educational Telecommunications Consortium vs. FCC 1996 - the law in question is dealing with Cable Television specifically the CTCPCA section 10a 10b 10c

10a allows the cable operators to eliminate sexually explicit programming.
10b requires CTV to isolate sexual explicit networks unless the subscribers ask for them
10c allows the cable TV companies to eliminate offensive programs on public access.

The S.C. argues 7-2 that a is constitutional and b and c are not.

10c is constitutional, because cable TV companies are private companies and can decide what to distribute and what not to dissenters on point A argue that the law even though the private companies to discriminate based on content.

10b is overturned by a 7-2 vote because the law imposes restrictions on the business and it doesn’t restrict the operators but also restricts the individual. Thomas and Scalia disagree because they don’t believe that it is to much of a regulation, because the government has the authority to regulate it.

10c This one is overturned 6-3 under a concept of public forum because if someone is to open something to public use then they have no right to discriminate what groups are going to use that or not based on the content.

The internet -

The Federal Governments concern over access to internet porn for children.

Since the 1990’s the government has tried to regulate internet pornography but the Supreme Court overturned it then the feds used a backdoor.

Reno V. ACLU - Communications Decency Act of 1996, criminalized the knowing transmission of obscene material to children under the age of 18. In a nutshell any message over the internet that is determined to be indecent that could fall into the hands of a minor without the ISP or internet company taking affirmative action could be held liable. The court ruled 7-2 deemed it was unconstitutional. Stevens who wrote the majority opinion argued that the law as it was written other material could fall into the category besides porn. Also, after Miller obscene came down to local standards but the internet isn’t local; furthermore, the law put to much burden on the internet companies to verify age plus there are other methods that can be used to stop children from obtaining pornography. Rehnquist and O’Conner do not buy the overbroad argument or that it is to restrictive on the internet service providers.

Ashcroft V. ACLU 2004 - p621 - COPA Child Online Protection Act of 1998 - It narrows down congress’s scope on pornography regulation, three important parts, A. Only applies to web based material not email, B. Covers only communications made for commercial purposes, C. It only restricts the kinds of material that are of harm to minors. The lower courts struck this down and goes to the Supreme Court and a 6-3 majority strikes it down. Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion that it is a much narrower scope, however, it still doesn’t solve the restrictive means upon the service providers that were the second issue in Reno V. ACLU. Kennedy goes further and argues that filtering software may be more effective, because it would also block international websites, emails, etc.

US v. ALA of 2003 - CIPA, funded mandate that basically what congress said that any library which gets money from the Feds had to install filtering software but unlike the prior two cases it doesn’t ban anything it only has to deal with withholding funding if the libraries refuse to follow governmental regulation. Once a library selects a book or display then removes it under pressure is on shaky Constitutional grounds, because they are publicly owned. So the ALA argues that the filters are the same thing as choosing some things and to be placed in the library while not allowing others which is unconstitutional. The court upholds the law in a 6-3 decision.

The speech versus expressive content. The government can not regulate spoken or written words but can regulate conduct.

Ideas can be expressed not just in writing or speaking but also through actions.

Tinker V. DMICSD - 1960, - two kids were suspended for wearing black arm bands with peace symbols to protest the Vietnam war. 7-2 Decision in favor of the Tinker’s, it can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights at the entrance to the school. The Supreme Court argues that it is close enough to free speech that it is protected under the 1st amendment.

Texas V. Johnson 1989, deals with flag desecration. Before 1989 flag desecration was against the law. Johnson was arrested and the case went to the Supreme Court. The Court overturned his arrest. Brendan argues that there is protection for not just speech but also, expressive conduct and, also, the Supreme Court has many times dealt with flag cases. Texas argues that it the law is meant to maintain the peace, and the flag needs to have special protection, because it is a symbol of national unity. Brendan says that it is irrelevant because there are already laws against breech of the peace and that the emotional value of the flag are not sufficient to justify regulating freedom of expression. Kennedy concurs but adds that he personally supports the flag. The dissenters argues that the flag is uniquely in need of protection, and that the intention of flag burning is to incite anger. Johnson wasn’t prosecuted for the idea but for the way in which it was presented. Ex. what if they decide to spray paint it on a public facility.

Choose 4 questions based on the review sheet, pace yourself at 20 minutes per question. Rulings opinions and how they answer the question big main points.

Total, Selective, Total plus, and no incorporation 317


Poof you're enlightened albeit marginally, these notes pale in comparison to this 1639 pg. bastard that I've got staring me in the face and laughing.
 
Last edited:

Binary_Digit

DP Veteran
Joined
May 21, 2005
Messages
7,164
Reaction score
5,736
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Trajan, like Simon has been trying to tell you. If you have correctly interpreted those legal precedents, and they accurately relate back to this situation, then surely the FBI would be ready to arrest Gore as soon as he is found. But I think it's obvious that the legal experts who know better wouldn't make the same conclusion, or else Gore would be in trouble already. You're obviously redefining "treason" here.
 
M

Mickeytrout11

Forgive me if I didn't read part of that.

Or any of it, honestly. (Talking about first amendment protection as it applies to the media doesn't strike me as relevant in this situation.)

On-topic...last time I checked, exercising your right as a private citizen to freedom of speech is not treason.

Give it up. The crusade to arrest all liberals for speaking their mind is going nowhere fast. This is ridiculous.
 

aquapub

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 16, 2005
Messages
7,317
Reaction score
344
Location
America (A.K.A., a red state)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Catchy title aint it? :smile:



Oh that's great so now we have Al Gore attacking the U.S. in a foriegn nation where 13 of the 19 9-11 hijackers came from. Took me an hour to find an article on the subject which goes to show how much the lib press is covering the story . . . hunting accident involving the V.P.? - they're all over it, former V.P. committing treason? *sound of crickets*


Well spoken. A hunting accident is only a blockbuster 24-hour news event if it hurts a Republican.

I don't think it's treason, but it is sure as hell inaccurate, to say the least.
 

aquapub

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 16, 2005
Messages
7,317
Reaction score
344
Location
America (A.K.A., a red state)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
tumbleweed said:
How can Al Gore be tried for treason for telling the truth? Aren't his statements mistruths, pretty much the same mistruths Bush uses when he opens his mouth?

Ah, isn't free speech great.:mrgreen:


Gore is a habitual liar with a staggering history. Liberals can't even prove Bush lied about WMD-see ABC World Report tonight. ;)
 

Captain America

Jedi Master
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2006
Messages
23,310
Reaction score
13,660
Location
Wisconsin
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
I wonder, on the other side of the coin, how the Middle East would react if the Grand Poobah Sheik Ali Mohammad Ahab stood in America, before Americans, and apologized for Islamaniac transgressions? Much the same, I would imagine, as our rightwing collegues reacted to Gore.

What say ye?
 
M

Mickeytrout11

That be an excellent point. All the same people who are burning Danish flags and embassies and killing our soldiers would react similarly to, and heck, maybe even more violent than (but that's unlikely), the very same Republicans here who are shouting that someone said something they don't like.
 
Last edited:

Captain America

Jedi Master
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2006
Messages
23,310
Reaction score
13,660
Location
Wisconsin
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
I don't think that common trait is anything to brag about. But there you have it. In living color.


PS..... Margaritaville is one of my favorite places to be. Lifelong Parrothead here.
 

Trajan Octavian Titus

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Binary_Digit said:
Trajan, like Simon has been trying to tell you. If you have correctly interpreted those legal precedents, and they accurately relate back to this situation, then surely the FBI would be ready to arrest Gore as soon as he is found. But I think it's obvious that the legal experts who know better wouldn't make the same conclusion, or else Gore would be in trouble already. You're obviously redefining "treason" here.

*Ahem*

You're convoluting my arguments, I'm speaking of two separate issues both of which are related to the current Gore debacle A) Treason as it is defined in the Constitution under article III section 3 as giving aid and comfort to the enemy and B) The Supreme Courts varying opinions on the role the state can play in the regulation of expressive dissent.
 

Binary_Digit

DP Veteran
Joined
May 21, 2005
Messages
7,164
Reaction score
5,736
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
*Ahem*

You're convoluting my arguments, I'm speaking of two separate issues both of which are related to the current Gore debacle A) Treason as it is defined in the Constitution under article III section 3 as giving aid and comfort to the enemy and B) The Supreme Courts varying opinions on the role the state can play in the regulation of expressive dissent.
Admittedly, I had to look up "convolute" just to make sure.

But I still don't see how that changes anything. If Gore has committed treason as it is defined in the Constitution under article III section 3, then he would have already been arrested. If Gore has committed treason as defined by legal precedents set forth by the Supreme Court's varying opinions, then he would already have been arrested. If you're trying to make a point, about the Bush impeachment movement, then I think it's a decent one. But still, that's all I can see.
 

Trajan Octavian Titus

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Binary_Digit said:
Admittedly, I had to look up "convolute" just to make sure.

But I still don't see how that changes anything. If Gore has committed treason as it is defined in the Constitution under article III section 3, then he would have already been arrested. If Gore has committed treason as defined by legal precedents set forth by the Supreme Court's varying opinions, then he would already have been arrested. If you're trying to make a point, about the Bush impeachment movement, then I think it's a decent one. But still, that's all I can see.

I used the term treason as an attention grabber although one could legitimately make the argument that what Gore did falls into the context of giving aid and comfort, but I just used it as a spring board to the bigger issue I would like to address which is whether or not the Supreme Court should go back to the bad tendency test, and the original interpretation of the Clear and Present danger test during the Shcneck V. U.S. case as opposed to the more Libertarian interpretation of the same test in the Brandenberg V. Ohio case. The question is which in which way should the Supreme Court move, in the direction of the absolutist approach or the balancing approach to the interpretation of freedom of speech.
 
Last edited:

fooligan

Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2006
Messages
170
Reaction score
0
Location
G.R. MI
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Treason, maybe... sedition, certainly. It's time to re-enact sedition laws.

gorespray.gif
 

Trajan Octavian Titus

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I used the term treason as an attention grabber although one could legitimately make the argument that what Gore did falls into the context of giving aid and comfort, but I just used it as a spring board to the bigger issue I would like to address which is whether or not the Supreme Court should go back to the bad tendency test, and the original interpretation of the Clear and Present danger test during the Shcneck V. U.S. case as opposed to the more Libertarian interpretation of the same test in the Brandenberg V. Ohio case. The question is should the Supreme Court move in the direction of the absolutist approach or the balancing approach to the interpretation of freedom of speech.

.....ya I ****ed this one up and the time expired.
 
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
2,669
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Red State America loves when Gore makes a baffoon of himself. :lol:
 

Paladin

Active member
Joined
Oct 4, 2005
Messages
380
Reaction score
36
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
... and comfort in that he let them know for certain what side of the line the American left resides.

No. He let them know what side of the line Al Gore resides.

fooligan said:
... sedition, certainly

What he did could be seen as morally wrong. It wasn't illegal. It also wasn't inciting revolution against the elected government.
ted
 

fooligan

Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2006
Messages
170
Reaction score
0
Location
G.R. MI
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Paladin said:
What he did could be seen as morally wrong. It wasn't illegal. It also wasn't inciting revolution against the elected government.
ted

Of course it wasn't illegal. Sedition is an antiquated law, so he's in the clear.

My point was that sedition laws should be RE-enacted. Because, yes, I think he stepped over a few lines; not just morally, but in his civic duty.
 

Trajan Octavian Titus

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Paladin said:
No. He let them know what side of the line Al Gore resides.



What he did could be seen as morally wrong. It wasn't illegal. It also wasn't inciting revolution against the elected government.
ted

Much of the far left has certainly been acting like they want revolution, I think I can safely put Al Gore in the category of the far left.
 

Paladin

Active member
Joined
Oct 4, 2005
Messages
380
Reaction score
36
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
fooligan said:
Of course it wasn't illegal. Sedition is an antiquated law, so he's in the clear.

You implied that he was guilty of sedition. Sedition is illegal.

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Much of the far left has certainly been acting like they want revolution, I think I can safely put Al Gore in the category of the far left.

Yep. He is a far-left wingnut. He did his Forrest Gump imitation and is trying to get a few more minutes of fame.
But if he truly represented the majority of the left he probably could have found a gig a little closer to home, donchathink? ;)

I would liken Gore representing the near left to Michael Savage representing the near right.
ted
 

Trajan Octavian Titus

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Paladin said:
You implied that he was guilty of sedition. Sedition is illegal.



Yep. He is a far-left wingnut. He did his Forrest Gump imitation and is trying to get a few more minutes of fame.
But if he truly represented the majority of the left he probably could have found a gig a little closer to home, donchathink? ;)

I would liken Gore representing the near left to Michael Savage representing the near right.
ted

That's the only article I could find on the subject nobodies covering the story and I mean nobody I had to use a freeper link to find any print coverage of it. As for implying that he was guilty of sedition I actually said treason, that's a separate issue from sedition altogether which is why I went on the talk about the Schneck case and the clear and present danger test which is still applied today albeit different from its orginal intent of the majority opinion in the case.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom