So just our entire system of law is meaningless then?
So just our entire system of law is meaningless then?
that’s been proven to be lying under oath.
That’s a very big assumption you’re making. They could be lying now.
Or are they lying now? You can’t know. Do you reevaluate every case when somebody says something other than their sworn testimony?
Guess innocence isn’t as important as the death penalty. They should have known that someone lied under oath at the time, right?
Don’t be obtuse. Multiple lines of evidence were presented to convince 12 people that he was guilty.
Guess we should just release everybody from prison because we can never know with 100% certainty that anyone ever did anything.
Anybody can say anything. They held a trial. Testimonies were given under oath. Other witnesses testified.
You can’t throw out every conviction after-the-fact because somebody says something new. It would be trivial to overturn sentences and lock up the courts for decades.
First execution in nearly 10 years.
“true threats” and “imminent lawless action” have meanings that most people wildly misunderstand though. The courts take a narrow view on both.
It can be, sure. I prefer garbage collectors but I’m not doing systems programming.
“Everything I said was correct.”
Sooo - this is slander or libel then???
It forces you to be careful in the way it wants you to be careful. Which is fine, but it makes it a strange beastie for anyone not used to it.
Nor should he be. What he said was most likely “protected” speech.
In Terminiello v. Chicago (1949), the Supreme Court narrowed the scope of what constitutes fighting words. The Court found that words which produce a clear and present danger are unprotected (and are considering fighting words), but words which invite dispute and even cause unrest are protected (and are not considered fighting words).
Let’s say you yell fire in a theater,
Legal. This is no longer the standard for speech limitations.
or threaten the president,
So long as it’s a “true threat” and not hyperbole.
or publish classified national security secrets.
This is legal, so long as you didn’t steal them.
Guess you missed the part where the person was talking about seeking a legal result not just shitting on Elon?
Legal consequences.
Are you being facetious? Liberals are calling Republicans “fascists” all the time. Even people like Mitt Romney or other moderates.
was shot
We need to rename “passive voice” to “police voice”.
I always take somebody’s opinion on HIPAA seriously when they misspell it.
I’m absolutely not. I don’t believe in the death penalty - and I’m not defending it. But you can’t throw out every case because somebody makes a new claim. Everybody in this thread is believing the new information unquestionably. The trial would have presented other corroborating evidence as well.
It’s like how you still need to determine if somebody committed a crime even if they confess.