In response to:

"Keep Piers Morgan in the USA"

Tinsldr2 Wrote: Dec 26, 2012 5:45 PM
Bigdogoffthechain ranted (3:53 PM) Advocating violating the Constitution is sedition. Plain and simple. So, you're wrong. Do not again call it "ridiculous" when I'm trying to educate you. Gun grabbers and their advocates are seditionists, plain and simple. ,,,,,,,, Your argument is without merit based on the law and thus ridiculous. The man used his freedom of speech to give an opinion. He did not advocate violence or governmental overthrow. We dont agree with his speech and can advocate against him. But what he said was not sedition, was not intended to be sedition and it IS RIDICULOUS to say it is For a full legal discussion of sedition see http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-01/41-seditious-speech.html
Bigdogoffthechain11 Wrote: Dec 27, 2012 9:51 AM
Thank you for your pointless drivel.

The man used his freedom of speech to advocate the violation of, and overthrow of, the Constitution of the United States. There is no element of violence required. As I posted the definition of sedition from the Uunited States Code, perhaps you should go educate yourself there further.

He broke the law and it's as simple as that.

For a full legal discussion on what I have typed for a third time trying to educate you, go find my original posting and go read Title 18, USC.

Class dismissed.
Tinsldr2 Wrote: Dec 26, 2012 5:49 PM
From SC case NYT v Sullivan

The general proposition that freedom of expression upon public questions is secured by the First Amendment has long been settled by our decisions. The constitutional safeguard, we have said, "was fashioned to assure unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people." Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 484.

The maintenance of the opportunity for free political discussion to the end that government may be responsive to the will of the people and that changes may be obtained by lawful means, an opportunity essential to the security of the Republic, is a fundamental principle of our constitutional system.
(cont)
Tinsldr2 Wrote: Dec 26, 2012 5:51 PM
Stromberg v. California, 283 U.S. 359, 369. "[I]t is a prized American privilege to speak one's mind, although not always with perfect good taste, on all public institutions," Bridges v. California, 314 U.S. 252, 270, and this opportunity is to be afforded for "vigorous advocacy" no less than "abstract discussion." NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415, 429. [p270] The First Amendment, said Judge Learned Hand,

presupposes that right conclusions are more likely to be gathered out of a multitude of tongues than through any kind of authoritative selection. To many, this is, and always will be, folly, but we have staked upon it our all.

Read the case....
Bigdogoffthechain11 Wrote: Dec 27, 2012 9:52 AM
Title 18, USC.

Go read it, simpleton.
Bigdogoffthechain11 Wrote: Dec 27, 2012 9:52 AM
After an official White House petition to deport Piers Morgan for his attacks on the 2nd Amendment gained steam over the Christmas weekend, the British have been fighting back. They don't want him either.

We want to keep Piers Morgan in the USA.

There are two very good reasons for this. Firstly, the first amendment.

Second and the more important point. No one in the UK wants him back.

This one hasn't gone as viral as the previous one - perhaps...