ALA Absrdishliberationary

jonb · 08-07-2012, 04:08 AM

YouTube (Short URL)

We all have different ways of resisting

jonb · 09-07-2012, 03:16 AM

Ok you didn't look fine, or you didn't understand fine.

Symple language
Paul Chambers Appeal.
Paul chambers was convicted of thretening to blow sky high Robin hood airport on twiter beacuse it was out of action.
The sort of expletive we all use. For this he was convicted of threatening a terrorist act. Until now the law would have to prove intention, and that means he would have actually intended to blow up the Airport, but now it seems the prosecution does not have to prove intention. So the wrong word from you is enough to convict you, now.
If that was all we could all just be very very careful of what we said. But there is another part to this case. There are many ways of blowing a thing sky high, it is not necessary with a bomb for instance I can blow a balloon sky high with my breath which of course is not a terrorist act. The prosecution traditionally would also have had to prove blowing something sky high meant an act of terrorism.
Now in this case it has been judged that the perception the statement could be interpreted as meaning an act of terror is enough to convict. In other words it does not even matter what you say, it only matters what the listener thinks.
So it does not even matter what you say. If a person in authority perceives you as a threat that is enough to convict. If this stands as case law your rights are now gone not just in hidden underhand ways but it is now open.
So is that just a joke about twittering?

09-07-2012, 03:16 AM	#2
jonb Senior Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: not here anymore Posts: 294	Ok you didn't look fine, or you didn't understand fine. Symple language Paul Chambers Appeal. Paul chambers was convicted of thretening to blow sky high Robin hood airport on twiter beacuse it was out of action. The sort of expletive we all use. For this he was convicted of threatening a terrorist act. Until now the law would have to prove intention, and that means he would have actually intended to blow up the Airport, but now it seems the prosecution does not have to prove intention. So the wrong word from you is enough to convict you, now. If that was all we could all just be very very careful of what we said. But there is another part to this case. There are many ways of blowing a thing sky high, it is not necessary with a bomb for instance I can blow a balloon sky high with my breath which of course is not a terrorist act. The prosecution traditionally would also have had to prove blowing something sky high meant an act of terrorism. Now in this case it has been judged that the perception the statement could be interpreted as meaning an act of terror is enough to convict. In other words it does not even matter what you say, it only matters what the listener thinks. So it does not even matter what you say. If a person in authority perceives you as a threat that is enough to convict. If this stands as case law your rights are now gone not just in hidden underhand ways but it is now open. So is that just a joke about twittering? __________________ The first step on the path to enlightenment is the rejection of all status Sweetness comes from the death of power http://newprimitiveart.yolasite.com/