On Oct 7, 2009, at 12:56 PM, David Patrick Henderson wrote: > > On 05 Oct 2009, at 12:46, Kevin Callahan wrote: > >> http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/10/05-6 >> >> Those two concepts converged during the G-20 summit, when state >> police >> arrested two New York men for using Twitter to inform protesters in >> Pittsburgh about the movements of local officers. > > Isn't this called aiding and abetting in most jurisdictions? Forget > about the how and think about the what. In most if not all states, > helping one or more people evade the law makes one guilty of the crime > as an accessory. > > The other issue here is that most Americans have this mistaken idea > that free speech == speech without consequence. This conception is not > correct. All speech has consequence, be it social, political, or > criminal, the Constitution only guarantees that political expression > should not have criminal penalties imposed by the government or its > agents.
Good point. Back during the civil rights movement they were fully aware of the consequences of their actions. They even welcomed them for the reactions it would evoke. --Larry _______________________________________________ OSX-Nutters mailing list | [email protected] http://lists.tit-wank.com/mailman/listinfo/osx-nutters List hosted at http://cat5.org/
