Re: José Rizal (Re: 15% of Filipinos functionally illiterate)

Congenital Kano wrote: 
"tumbaga" <tanso@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:11irqcu9ngcq31f@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Sorry.  When you jail those who speak out against you, you are a despot.

Maybe you didn't understand the ramifications of his response to
Robertson.
He wants Robertson extradited to Argentina to face trial - he claims that
anyone who calls for the death of a nation's leader should be imprisoned.
That's not the way it works here.  I like our way better.

Don't you get to be in jail when threatening the president? 

No.  18 U.S.C.A. § 871, as interpreted by U.S. v. Ogren (2001) 54 M.J. 481,
extends the rationale generally applied to "incitement" to threats against
the president - that they be "true threats", and that they be wilful.  To be
a "true threat", the statement must contain an "avowed determination to
injure another... provided that the language communicated and
all the surrounding circumstances would lead a reasonable person in the
recipient's place to perceive a threat." (Id. at p. 486.)

In Watt v. U.S. (1969) 394 U.S. 705 the U.S. Supremes tempered any prosecution of alleged threats against the president by the "profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wideopen, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials." This specifically does not include "political hyperbole." (Watts v. U.S. (1969) 394 U.S. 705, 708.) The Court concludes: "We agree with petitioner that his only offense here was 'a kind of very crude offensive method of stating a political opposition to the President.' Taken in context, and regarding the expressly conditional nature of the statement and the reaction of the listeners, we do not see how it could be interpreted otherwise." (Ibid.)

Look at Robertson's comment: ""You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it." This not even a threat; it is an opinion of what should happen. Only a fool would think a) that Robertson was really agitating for the assassination and b) that his words in any way could effect that desire. If I say, I think people who litter the highways should be taken out and shot," does that constitute a threat? Of course not. For one, I lack the power to bring this about, and it strains credulity that I would incite someone with the means to actually do it.

Statements of opinion are generally not punishable, even against politicians. When Rep. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana threatened the president with a slapping if he said certain things, there was a much higher probability of her being in a position to effect that threat. It was conditional (which also takes it beyond § 871 as defined in Watt v. U.S., the seminal 1969 case on threats to the president), as is Robinsons ("if he thinks").

So, no, we don't prosecute people for making these kinds of statements against the president.


Chavez's biggest detractors are the land owners. The common person on the
street supports him. Doesn't mean he is perfect, he is a socialist and not
making any excuses.

I do like two of your links.


The common people on the street are the poor who are doing worse under Chavez. Dictators have long gotten by on promises to the ignorant poor offering them bread and circuses while doing nothing to alleviate their condition. Unemployment is up, poverty is up - and Chavez wants to attack those very institutions (business and property rights) which lead to escape from poverty and the development of a middle class. A clue that a leader is unable to create positive change is when they mount a campaign to say that all the nation's woes are caused by some external enemy. This means that they don't have to try to succeed in changing things, because the external boogie man will never let them succeed.

Again, consider how land reform worked in the Philippines. Many poor people who were "land rich" got their farms and land taken without compensation

I tend to be pragmatic - show me where there is sustainable growth and the basis for elevating more people out of poverty - not just promises - and I will note the positives.

Chavez seems to be poising himself for a takeover of neighboring states. He is a very dangerous man.

"The people are like children..." Pig

BTW, CK, I've been noticing that you're putting Chavez to bed in Argentina. He's in Venezuelundski.

Pigsky
.

Relevant Pages