Breaking the new anti-free speech law.

Free Republic | 03/23/02 | Jim Robinson

[Jim Robinson]

There have been several posts recently advocating a plan to engage in illegal activities, that is, to break the new law restricting our free speech rights. Though I sympathize with the posters, Free Republic is not to be used to advocate illegal activities, thus these posts have all been deleted.

However, should this clearly unconstitutional bill become the law of the land, I may choose to break it myself, but I would never encourage anyone else to break it. And I definitely would not recommend anyone use the internet to engage in the planning or execution of illegal acts. This would only be inviting trouble.

Thanks,

Jim

[fellowpatriot]

You're beginning to sound like a democrat.

[weikel]

No im just cynical. I don't think people will steal more because they happen to break the stupid evil tyrannical CFR law.

[weikel]

If the government is tyrannical and totalitarian( which with CFR it seems to be going down that road) for the love of god you don't want people to be law abiding.

[fellowpatriot]

Oh, yes I do. I don't want anarchy.

[weikel]

Anarchy is better than Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia IMHO. Anarchy basically boils down to rule by local warlords Ill take that over Stalin anyday.

[fellowpatriot]

So, you would trade one Stalin for maybe 100?

[Pistias]

Some people obey the positive law of the state because it is a crystallization of more fundamental natural laws applied to certain circumstances (i.e., the unique members of a particular regime). You only obey laws because somebody can throw you in jail if you don't?

[Pistias]

Well why break taxes when you can dodge them thats the best form of civil disobedience with taxes

Case in point: you're working from something different than civil disobedience here. A civil way to break the law is to do it publicly and to face the charges against you in a court of law to publicly challenge it's congruence with the true or natural justice of mankind. What you're advocating is just breaking the law for your own benefit and trying to hallow it with patriotic words. No offense intended.

[Pistias]

You want them to obey the laws that are "written upon the heart," so to speak, and not upon the books in that case, I would say. Just because one law is bad doesn't mean the others are too (though some of the others may be). You're very comfortable with the thought of a rapid plunge into the Third World.

[Pistias]

What you're advocating

My mistake--you're not advocating it, but replace the word with "talking about" if you please.

[conserve-it]

YOU HAVE EVERY RIGHT, IN FACT AN OBLIGATION TO PROTECT THE INTEGRITY, MOREOVER THE CONTINUED VIABILITY OF THIS WEBSITE. WE KNOW WE HAVE ENEMIES. YOU HAVE TO BE SHREWD AND CUNNING TO STAY AHEAD OF THOSE WHO WOULD DO US IN. WE ALL UNDERSTAND THIS.........ROCK ON!!!!

[Arleigh]

Now, if they truly do close down free speech, then we will have another more serious problem that will need further addressing.

21st Century Committees of Correspondance seem in order. I suggest some contingency planning by the techno-savvy for the worst-case scenarios.

[StarFan]

Judge Kenneth Starr was chosen because of his vast knowledge of constitutional law and IMHO they made an excellent choice.

[Texasforever]

People forget that Ken Starr was also GHWB's Solicitor General and came extremely close to convincing the USSC to over rule Roe v. Wade.

[jwalsh07]

Judge Kenneth Starr was chosen because of his vast knowledge of constitutional law and IMHO they made an excellent choice.

Ditto.

[ModernDayCato]

So true. Unfortunately not possible.

[harpseal]

Unril this unconstitutional law is the actually signed into law any discussions about future resistance are specualtive in nature and not illegal. However, should this become an in force stute I then think al bets are off regarding what forms resistance to this legislation will take. The full spectrum of resistance is then possible and any and all such resistance is IMHO totally justified. No I am not advocating any specific violation of any law but if one is going to be a criminal anyway then what crimes are off the table?

From a philosophical standpoint someone on Free Republic who misinterpreted a post as call for violence once stated there is no reason for violence because we have the First Amendment. When the CFR legislation is signed into to law what is the reeasoning why there is no need for violence? We all need to engage in some very serious soul searching over the next weeks and months and we had better very well understand the consequences of any action we undertake or fail to undertake. Inaction will have consequences as palpable as any action.

Where do each of us draw his/her line in the sand. At what point do we say this is beyond toleration and I will stake my life, my fortune and most importantly my sacred honor. What does it mean to be an American. All these questions will be coming up to a large number of people. I feel confident that you personally have the answers that allow you to keep your personal honor. I know many others do but discussion of these questions and other issues is about to become forbidden in America.

I am angry at what I just typed because it is true. I just got back from a ceremony where more than seventy flags were retired. Participating in that ceremony were vetrans from WWII, Korea, Vietnam, The Gulf War, Boy Scouts, Cub Scouts, parents of these youngsters, and I am forced to contemplate restrictions on political speech by Americans in America. That disgusts me.

I do not know what form my resistance will take. I will not discuss that on the internet but I shall resist and I look forward to a toast to our restored constitutional republic after the next Yorktown.

Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown

[weikel]

The average warlord probably wouldn't be that bad after all they want the other warlords "subjects" to look on them as a liberator.

[weikel]

I hope so how is his record before SCOTUS.