Man Who Used Hitler Oath On Voicemail Gets Prison Time

Thank you

You should be aware that yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is acceptable if there is a fire in progress.

Your disdain of written opinions of appellate courts and decisions of trial courts illustrates a startling lack of understanding how American law is made. In the European systems that are not based in the English common law, there is no law unless the legislature (by whatever name it's known) has placed it in the statute books. Thus law is a minute compilation of every matter of importance to interest groups having sufficient economic muscle to get statutory protection. By contrast, the common law juxtaposed to the American court system is what ''makes'' our law.

Our legislative bodies speak in as specific terms as is possible on the subject. But the complexities of life and commerce cannot possibly be addressed in sufficient detail to cover every conceivable situation. Thus, ''what the law is''can be found by reading and learning from those court opinions that you find so distasteful; it's known as precedent and authority. Without knowing what other courts that have decided when they considered the issue in question there would be no predicability or stability in American law. Persons, businesses and lawyers advising their clients would have no basis for their personal or business conduct or the advice rendered to clients; the result would be confused and conflicting results in each court considering the issue. Example: we would see different results within the same courthouse in Orlando and still further disparate outcomes between that courthouse and the courts in every other state. How would a multi-state business make a sound business decision that would permit consistency in the many states of their operations? How would WalMart know its immunities, obligations and priviliges in New York as well as New Mexico? The same type of confusion would be the case regarding individuals' conduct being across the criminal line or being permissible.

Without those boring and tedious written court decisions that you disdain, we would have no meaningful law. It is the duty of judges to determine what the law is and, to the greatest extent possible, use written opinions to make that law consistent across all 50 states in both state and federal courts. That's why legal education and training in the U.S. is comprised of studing complex and confusing legal issues in juxtaposition to what courts have said in written opinions when dealing with those issues.

The law would also be very ambiguous because it is hard to define propaganda. Would authentic WWII era items be considered illegal? Would books about nazism be illegal?

That is the problem with feel good laws, they are too tought to enforce. Then you have the liberals compalining about how free speech is surpressed in the US, but in their beloved Europe laws are much more restricitve.

That's just it. The government never finds these kinds of bad laws "tough" to enforce. Politically messy maybe, but as long as they can put a good face on it (it's for the children/read my lips) and get re-elected... they just don't care. There are no personal consequences to doing so.

Not anymore at least. At one point in time such doings may have carried a mortal risk to it.

He's damned lucky he didn't wish the callers Merry Christmas.