BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Malbec said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Also, this thread is not big on free speech. What is the difference between the First and Second Amendments?

---

You leftists really do live in your own reality, don't you?

---

No, free speech is pretty basic to American reality.

---

If HAMAS is a designated terrorist organization by the U.S. (and since 1997), and protestors say, "We are HAMAS!" while chanting "Death to America!," would that be simply 'free speech'?

---

By that I think you mean could the government succesfully prosecute the students for making a terrisitc threat? Doubtful. "Death to America" is not imminent action and the students are not going to cause imminent action.

If they said burn the federal courthouse that more specfic statement is going to be more actionable. If they said burn the federal courthouse while stockpiling kerosene or publishing diagrams, defintitely yes.

Again the First Amendment exists to protect offensive political speech.

---

"Death to America" is not imminent action and the students are not going to cause imminent action."

You don't know that, nor can you expect anyone else to downplay the threat to your level. And it doesn't even have to be "imminent" in order to be considered a violent threat.

---

Verbatim from the Texas terroristic threat statute:

"threatens to commit any offense involving violence to any person … with intent to place any person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury."

---

Speech doesn't have to qualify as a "terroristic threat" under Texas statute in order to be considered unprotected.

---

The presumption is all speech is protected. It is removed from protection for specifc reasons: libel/slander; public safety; national security; safety and liberty of others.

Why should we remove Death to America from the protections of the First Amendment. What is the legal rationale?

---

You're deflecting. Do you see why your argument is wrong? Imminency is a factor in determining if speech qualifies as "terroristic" in the state of Texas, but it is NOT a factor in determining whether or not that speech should be protected, which is what you argued.

---

You won't do well in law schoool. It is the government's burden to demonstrate why speech is not protected; the speaker does not have to show why it is protected.

If you are saying that Death to America speech is not protected because it is a terroristic threat then you have to prove it is a terrostic threat; imminent harm is an essential part of that proof. If you are saying death to America is not protected for some other reason, tell me what that reason is.

---

If I won't do well in law school, then that's more likely an indictment of law school, to be frank.

Regardless, you don't have to be able to do well in law school to know logical BS when you see it. You are making a strawman argument, saying "If you are saying that 'Death to America' is not protected because it is a terroristic threat". No, I never narrowed it that way. I only said that it can be a violent threat:

- all terrorist threats are violent threats;
- but not all violent threats are terrorist threats;
- any violent threat is not protected speech

---

The First Amendment protects against censorship.

The government censors by making speech criminal through a statute.

The question will always be whether the criminal statute censoring the speech is unconstitutional because of the First Amendment. To decide that issue you have to use the words of the statute. That is what I did. The statute is about terroristic threats and requires intent and ability to cause imminent harm.

"Violent threat" is just a made up, abstract concept. It is not a statute and therefore not a means of censorship. It has nothing to do wihth the analysis at all.

---

So, only terrorist threats are real, and all others are just "abstract" concepts??

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Malbec said:

---

So they are advocating the death of America by peaceful means? Seems like a logical interpretation. /s

---

That is the point. What exactly, are they advocating? If you can't tell, you can't prosecute?

They may be calling on Allah to rain natural disaster on us. Or for the electorate to wake up and institute Sharia law. Or for jihadists to commmander planes to attack the Pentagon, World Trade Center, and Capitol. One of those is actionable.

---

So somebody has to die before the Death to America chants are taken seriously by this administration? I do not think that is a good plan, Frank.

---

I don't think it is a good ideaa to limit speech based on speech alone.

As far as the adminstration I think you missed the fact that the demonstrators are demonstrating against the administration.

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Malbec said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Also, this thread is not big on free speech. What is the difference between the First and Second Amendments?

---

You leftists really do live in your own reality, don't you?

---

No, free speech is pretty basic to American reality.

---

If HAMAS is a designated terrorist organization by the U.S. (and since 1997), and protestors say, "We are HAMAS!" while chanting "Death to America!," would that be simply 'free speech'?

---

By that I think you mean could the government succesfully prosecute the students for making a terrisitc threat? Doubtful. "Death to America" is not imminent action and the students are not going to cause imminent action.

If they said burn the federal courthouse that more specfic statement is going to be more actionable. If they said burn the federal courthouse while stockpiling kerosene or publishing diagrams, defintitely yes.

Again the First Amendment exists to protect offensive political speech.

---

"Death to America" is not imminent action and the students are not going to cause imminent action."

You don't know that, nor can you expect anyone else to downplay the threat to your level. And it doesn't even have to be "imminent" in order to be considered a violent threat.

---

Verbatim from the Texas terroristic threat statute:

"threatens to commit any offense involving violence to any person … with intent to place any person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury."

---

Speech doesn't have to qualify as a "terroristic threat" under Texas statute in order to be considered unprotected.

---

The presumption is all speech is protected. It is removed from protection for specifc reasons: libel/slander; public safety; national security; safety and liberty of others.

Why should we remove Death to America from the protections of the First Amendment. What is the legal rationale?

---

You're deflecting. Do you see why your argument is wrong? Imminency is a factor in determining if speech qualifies as "terroristic" in the state of Texas, but it is NOT a factor in determining whether or not that speech should be protected, which is what you argued.

---

You won't do well in law schoool. It is the government's burden to demonstrate why speech is not protected; the speaker does not have to show why it is protected.

If you are saying that Death to America speech is not protected because it is a terroristic threat then you have to prove it is a terrostic threat; imminent harm is an essential part of that proof. If you are saying death to America is not protected for some other reason, tell me what that reason is.

---

If I won't do well in law school, then that's more likely an indictment of law school, to be frank.

Regardless, you don't have to be able to do well in law school to know logical BS when you see it. You are making a strawman argument, saying "If you are saying that 'Death to America' is not protected because it is a terroristic threat". No, I never narrowed it that way. I only said that it can be a violent threat:

- all terrorist threats are violent threats;
- but not all violent threats are terrorist threats;
- any violent threat is not protected speech

---

The First Amendment protects against censorship.

The government censors by making speech criminal through a statute.

The question will always be whether the criminal statute censoring the speech is unconstitutional because of the First Amendment. To decide that issue you have to use the words of the statute. That is what I did. The statute is about terroristic threats and requires intent and ability to cause imminent harm.

"Violent threat" is just a made up, abstract concept. It is not a statute and therefore not a means of censorship. It has nothing to do wihth the analysis at all.

---

So, only terrorist threats are real, and all others are just "abstract" concepts??

---

No, only terrorist threats are illegal.

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Malbec said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Also, this thread is not big on free speech. What is the difference between the First and Second Amendments?

---

You leftists really do live in your own reality, don't you?

---

No, free speech is pretty basic to American reality.

---

If HAMAS is a designated terrorist organization by the U.S. (and since 1997), and protestors say, "We are HAMAS!" while chanting "Death to America!," would that be simply 'free speech'?

---

By that I think you mean could the government succesfully prosecute the students for making a terrisitc threat? Doubtful. "Death to America" is not imminent action and the students are not going to cause imminent action.

If they said burn the federal courthouse that more specfic statement is going to be more actionable. If they said burn the federal courthouse while stockpiling kerosene or publishing diagrams, defintitely yes.

Again the First Amendment exists to protect offensive political speech.

---

"Death to America" is not imminent action and the students are not going to cause imminent action."

You don't know that, nor can you expect anyone else to downplay the threat to your level. And it doesn't even have to be "imminent" in order to be considered a violent threat.

---

Verbatim from the Texas terroristic threat statute:

"threatens to commit any offense involving violence to any person … with intent to place any person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury."

---

Speech doesn't have to qualify as a "terroristic threat" under Texas statute in order to be considered unprotected.

---

The presumption is all speech is protected. It is removed from protection for specifc reasons: libel/slander; public safety; national security; safety and liberty of others.

Why should we remove Death to America from the protections of the First Amendment. What is the legal rationale?

---

You're deflecting. Do you see why your argument is wrong? Imminency is a factor in determining if speech qualifies as "terroristic" in the state of Texas, but it is NOT a factor in determining whether or not that speech should be protected, which is what you argued.

---

You won't do well in law schoool. It is the government's burden to demonstrate why speech is not protected; the speaker does not have to show why it is protected.

If you are saying that Death to America speech is not protected because it is a terroristic threat then you have to prove it is a terrostic threat; imminent harm is an essential part of that proof. If you are saying death to America is not protected for some other reason, tell me what that reason is.

---

If I won't do well in law school, then that's more likely an indictment of law school, to be frank.

Regardless, you don't have to be able to do well in law school to know logical BS when you see it. You are making a strawman argument, saying "If you are saying that 'Death to America' is not protected because it is a terroristic threat". No, I never narrowed it that way. I only said that it can be a violent threat:

- all terrorist threats are violent threats;
- but not all violent threats are terrorist threats;
- any violent threat is not protected speech

---

The First Amendment protects against censorship.

The government censors by making speech criminal through a statute.

The question will always be whether the criminal statute censoring the speech is unconstitutional because of the First Amendment. To decide that issue you have to use the words of the statute. That is what I did. The statute is about terroristic threats and requires intent and ability to cause imminent harm.

"Violent threat" is just a made up, abstract concept. It is not a statute and therefore not a means of censorship. It has nothing to do wihth the analysis at all.

---

So, only terrorist threats are real, and all others are just "abstract" concepts??

---

No, only terrorist threats are illegal.

---

Ummm....no?

---

Quote:

---

The other threat that is criminalized is "assault by threat. In Texas the staute defines assault by threat as:

intentionally or knowingly threatens another with imminent bodily injury, including the person's spouse

Note that imminent is still part of the equation even if the ability to cause it is not. So if the protestors are telling individuals that they are going to physically attack them, the First Amendment does not protect the protestors. Which is not what we have been discussing.

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

The other threat that is criminalized is "assault by threat. In Texas the staute defines assault by threat as:

intentionally or knowingly threatens another with imminent bodily injury, including the person's spouse

Note that imminent is still part of the equation even if the ability to cause it is not. So if the protestors are telling individuals that they are going to physically attack them, the First Amendment does not protect the protestors. Which is not what we have been discussing.

---

So, terrorists threats aren't the only ones that are illegal, so why did you assert it?

And if imminence is required for "threats", then saying you're going to kill someone in 5 years is not a threat?

---

1. Because it is the only basis I could see for saying that general chanting about Death to America and Death to Israel would not be protected by the First Amendment.

2. It is a threat, just not an illegal one.

You are struggling with a basic concept. Government censorship comes primarily in the form of criminal statutes. To correctly say a particular type of speech is not protected by the First Amendment you must clear two hurdles: (1) the speech must be criminal as defined by a statute and (2) the statute must be enforceable despite the First Amendment.

To say the protestors have no right to say "x" the frist thing you have to do is show the stattue criminalizing saying "x." I have not seen that yet so we do not even get to the second issue.

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Frank Galvin, are you a lawyer or in law school?

If I wouldn't do well in law school, then God help me.
If you are a lawyer or in law school, then God help us all.

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

The other threat that is criminalized is "assault by threat. In Texas the staute defines assault by threat as:

intentionally or knowingly threatens another with imminent bodily injury, including the person's spouse

Note that imminent is still part of the equation even if the ability to cause it is not. So if the protestors are telling individuals that they are going to physically attack them, the First Amendment does not protect the protestors. Which is not what we have been discussing.

---

So, terrorists threats aren't the only ones that are illegal, so why did you assert it?

And if imminence is required for "threats", then saying you're going to kill someone in 5 years is not a threat?

---

1. Because it is the only basis I could see for saying that general chanting about Death to America and Death to Israel would not be protected by the First Amendment.

2. It is a threat, just not an illegal one.

You are struggling with a basic concept. Government censorship comes primarily in the form of criminal statutes. To correctly say a particular type of speech is not protected by the First Amendment you must clear two hurdles: (1) the speech must be criminal as defined by a statute and (2) the statute must be enforceable despite the First Amendment.

To say the protestors have no right to say "x" the frist thing you have to do is show the stattue criminalizing saying "x." I have not seen that yet so we do not even get to the second issue.

---

I think you are struggling with basic logic and common sense, and maybe even sanity itself.

1. This makes no sense whatsoever. You wrote "because terrorist threats are the only ones that are illegal" - an obviously false statement like that actually passing someone's filter is cause for concern for that person's mental state.

2. Telling someone you're going to kill them is a violent threat, and it is illegal. It doesn't matter if they give a time frame. And if a threat to occur 5 years from now is not illegal as you say, then what exactly is the threshold for "imminence" that makes it illegal? Two years? One year?

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

The other threat that is criminalized is "assault by threat. In Texas the staute defines assault by threat as:

intentionally or knowingly threatens another with imminent bodily injury, including the person's spouse

Note that imminent is still part of the equation even if the ability to cause it is not. So if the protestors are telling individuals that they are going to physically attack them, the First Amendment does not protect the protestors. Which is not what we have been discussing.

---

So, terrorists threats aren't the only ones that are illegal, so why did you assert it?

And if imminence is required for "threats", then saying you're going to kill someone in 5 years is not a threat?

---

1. Because it is the only basis I could see for saying that general chanting about Death to America and Death to Israel would not be protected by the First Amendment.

2. It is a threat, just not an illegal one.

You are struggling with a basic concept. Government censorship comes primarily in the form of criminal statutes. To correctly say a particular type of speech is not protected by the First Amendment you must clear two hurdles: (1) the speech must be criminal as defined by a statute and (2) the statute must be enforceable despite the First Amendment.

To say the protestors have no right to say "x" the frist thing you have to do is show the stattue criminalizing saying "x." I have not seen that yet so we do not even get to the second issue.

---

I think you are struggling with basic logic and common sense, and maybe even sanity itself.

1. This makes no sense whatsoever. You wrote "because terrorist threats are the only ones that are illegal" - an obviously false statement like that actually passing someone's filter is cause for concern for that person's mental state.

2. Telling someone you're going to kill them is a violent threat, and it is illegal. It doesn't matter if they give a time frame. And if a threat to occur 5 years from now is not illegal as you say, then what exactly is the threshold for "imminence" that makes it illegal? Two years? One year?

---

1. The point I have constantly made throughout this thread is that to be illegal and potentially not protected by the First Amendment the threat must be intentional and must threaten imminent harm. I have shown you the exact wording of the statute that says that. If you disagree show me a threat stattue that does not contain those two concepts. If you can't do that, you havel ost the argument. Criminal law isn't what your opinion is, it isn't what is fair, it isn't what is best for the country, it isn't what you thnik it should be. It is what is written in the penal code.

2. Your second point demonstrates your failure to grasp that concept. Its not me saying a violent but non-imminent threat is not illegal. The legislature said that when they put the word "imminent" in the staute. Any competent judge will tell you that they try to give meaning to every word in a criminal statute. Every conservative judge ever has said that is how you do it.

Juries decide whether a threat is imminent based on the circumstances of the case. It can and does vary.

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Frank Galvin, are you a lawyer or in law school?

If I wouldn't do well in law school, then God help me.
If you are a lawyer or in law school, then God help us all.

---

I'm a semi-retired lawyer.

I graduated 4th in my class of 270 at SMU in 1991. Law Review editor, runner-up in the school wide moot court competition.

I have succesfully argued in the Texas Supreme Court (several times), the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (several times), on brief in The U.S. Supreme Court, in many Texas Courts of Appeals, every U.S. district court in Texas and probably 20 more around the country. I lost my share of arguments also but companies pay me $750 an hour based on my knowledge of how the law works and my ability to articulate it.

Criminal law iand constitutional law are not my specialties although I did get the high grades in my law school basic Consittuional law class and my Constittuional Criminal Procedure class. As noted though, that was a long time ago.

I see a lot of people ttelling me I must be wrong but I don't see anyone other than the poster who posted the overthrow statute say why I am wrong or post any actual support for their argument. It comes down to this. The First Amendment protects our most cherished rights. There is an exceedingly high bar before the government can restrain or punish speech. Offenisive as it may be, I have not seen any reporting of student speech that meets that very high bar.

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Malbec said:

---

So they are advocating the death of America by peaceful means? Seems like a logical interpretation. /s

---

That is the point. What exactly, are they advocating? If you can't tell, you can't prosecute?

They may be calling on Allah to rain natural disaster on us. Or for the electorate to wake up and institute Sharia law. Or for jihadists to commmander planes to attack the Pentagon, World Trade Center, and Capitol. One of those is actionable.

---

So somebody has to die before the Death to America chants are taken seriously by this administration? I do not think that is a good plan, Frank.

---

I don't think it is a good ideaa to limit speech based on speech alone.

As far as the adminstration I think you missed the fact that the demonstrators are demonstrating against the administration.

---

• Protestors should be able to peacefully march and chant whatever they want in public
• Universities should have a right to regulate protests to some degree - there is no right to protest on private property
• Protestors should not be allowed to use violence, destroy property, or physically disrupt other people from peacefully going about their day ... free speech should be speech and not any activity in service of that speech

GrowlTowel said:

---

Like Baylor, Columbia is a private university. This means that it has absolute control over the conduct of persons on its campus and the content of speech on its campus…

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Frank Galvin, are you a lawyer or in law school?

If I wouldn't do well in law school, then God help me.
If you are a lawyer or in law school, then God help us all.

---

I'm a semi-retired lawyer.

I graduated 4th in my class of 270 at SMU in 1991. Law Review editor, runner-up in the school wide moot court competition.

I have succesfully argued in the Texas Supreme Court (several times), the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (several times), on brief in The U.S. Supreme Court, in many Texas Courts of Appeals, every U.S. district court in Texas and probably 20 more around the country. I lost my share of arguments also but companies pay me $750 an hour based on my knowledge of how the law works and my ability to articulate it.

Criminal law iand constitutional law are not my specialties although I did get the high grades in my law school basic Consittuional law class and my Constittuional Criminal Procedure class. As noted though, that was a long time ago.

I see a lot of people ttelling me I must be wrong but I don't see anyone other than the poster who posted the overthrow statute say why I am wrong or post any actual support for their argument. It comes down to this. The First Amendment protects our most cherished rights. There is an exceedingly high bar before the government can restrain or punish speech. Offenisive as it may be, I have not seen any reporting of student speech that meets that very high bar.

---

Frankly, I don't believe you. Not at all. You actually wrote this sentence - "terrorist threats are the only ones that are ilegal". An intelligent person just would not let that leave their keyboard, let alone double down on it later.

You also have some of the dumbest takes on this forum.

So if you ARE telling the truth, then God help us all even more.

---

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Frank Galvin, are you a lawyer or in law school?

If I wouldn't do well in law school, then God help me.
If you are a lawyer or in law school, then God help us all.

---

I'm a semi-retired lawyer.

I graduated 4th in my class of 270 at SMU in 1991. Law Review editor, runner-up in the school wide moot court competition.

I have succesfully argued in the Texas Supreme Court (several times), the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (several times), on brief in The U.S. Supreme Court, in many Texas Courts of Appeals, every U.S. district court in Texas and probably 20 more around the country. I lost my share of arguments also but companies pay me $750 an hour based on my knowledge of how the law works and my ability to articulate it.

Criminal law iand constitutional law are not my specialties although I did get the high grades in my law school basic Consittuional law class and my Constittuional Criminal Procedure class. As noted though, that was a long time ago.

I see a lot of people ttelling me I must be wrong but I don't see anyone other than the poster who posted the overthrow statute say why I am wrong or post any actual support for their argument. It comes down to this. The First Amendment protects our most cherished rights. There is an exceedingly high bar before the government can restrain or punish speech. Offenisive as it may be, I have not seen any reporting of student speech that meets that very high bar.

---

Frankly, I don't believe you. Not at all. You actually wrote this sentence - "terrorist threats are the only ones that are ilegal". An intelligent person just would not let that leave their keyboard, let alone double down on it later.

You also have some of the dumbest takes on this forum.

So if you ARE telling the truth, then God help us all even more.

---

That's a clown post bro.

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Frank Galvin, are you a lawyer or in law school?

If I wouldn't do well in law school, then God help me.
If you are a lawyer or in law school, then God help us all.

---

I'm a semi-retired lawyer.

I graduated 4th in my class of 270 at SMU in 1991. Law Review editor, runner-up in the school wide moot court competition.

I have succesfully argued in the Texas Supreme Court (several times), the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (several times), on brief in The U.S. Supreme Court, in many Texas Courts of Appeals, every U.S. district court in Texas and probably 20 more around the country. I lost my share of arguments also but companies pay me $750 an hour based on my knowledge of how the law works and my ability to articulate it.

Criminal law iand constitutional law are not my specialties although I did get the high grades in my law school basic Consittuional law class and my Constittuional Criminal Procedure class. As noted though, that was a long time ago.

I see a lot of people ttelling me I must be wrong but I don't see anyone other than the poster who posted the overthrow statute say why I am wrong or post any actual support for their argument. It comes down to this. The First Amendment protects our most cherished rights. There is an exceedingly high bar before the government can restrain or punish speech. Offenisive as it may be, I have not seen any reporting of student speech that meets that very high bar.

---

Frankly, I don't believe you. Not at all. You actually wrote this sentence - "terrorist threats are the only ones that are ilegal". An intelligent person just would not let that leave their keyboard, let alone double down on it later.

You also have some of the dumbest takes on this forum.

So if you ARE telling the truth, then God help us all even more.

---

That's a clown post bro.

---

I guess you'd know, bro.

And what did I say that was incorrect?

It amazes me that someone who touts himself as an accomplished lawyer just said "terrorist threats are the only (threats) that are illegal" and I'M the clown.

---

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Frank Galvin, are you a lawyer or in law school?

If I wouldn't do well in law school, then God help me.
If you are a lawyer or in law school, then God help us all.

---

I'm a semi-retired lawyer.

I graduated 4th in my class of 270 at SMU in 1991. Law Review editor, runner-up in the school wide moot court competition.

I have succesfully argued in the Texas Supreme Court (several times), the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (several times), on brief in The U.S. Supreme Court, in many Texas Courts of Appeals, every U.S. district court in Texas and probably 20 more around the country. I lost my share of arguments also but companies pay me $750 an hour based on my knowledge of how the law works and my ability to articulate it.

Criminal law iand constitutional law are not my specialties although I did get the high grades in my law school basic Consittuional law class and my Constittuional Criminal Procedure class. As noted though, that was a long time ago.

I see a lot of people ttelling me I must be wrong but I don't see anyone other than the poster who posted the overthrow statute say why I am wrong or post any actual support for their argument. It comes down to this. The First Amendment protects our most cherished rights. There is an exceedingly high bar before the government can restrain or punish speech. Offenisive as it may be, I have not seen any reporting of student speech that meets that very high bar.

---

Frankly, I don't believe you. Not at all. You actually wrote this sentence - "terrorist threats are the only ones that are ilegal". An intelligent person just would not let that leave their keyboard, let alone double down on it later.

You also have some of the dumbest takes on this forum.

So if you ARE telling the truth, then God help us all even more.

---

That's a clown post bro.

---

I guess you'd know, bro.

And what did I say that was incorrect?

It amazes me that someone who touts himself as an accomplished lawyer just said "terrorist threats are the only (threats) that are illegal" and I'M the clown.

---

Yes I know you sometimes get to arguments where you claim to be right, because you say so.

I'll make sure and remember that when you don't have any better arguments you will just accuse posters of lying about their CV.

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Frank Galvin, are you a lawyer or in law school?

If I wouldn't do well in law school, then God help me.
If you are a lawyer or in law school, then God help us all.

---

I'm a semi-retired lawyer.

I graduated 4th in my class of 270 at SMU in 1991. Law Review editor, runner-up in the school wide moot court competition.

I have succesfully argued in the Texas Supreme Court (several times), the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (several times), on brief in The U.S. Supreme Court, in many Texas Courts of Appeals, every U.S. district court in Texas and probably 20 more around the country. I lost my share of arguments also but companies pay me $750 an hour based on my knowledge of how the law works and my ability to articulate it.

Criminal law iand constitutional law are not my specialties although I did get the high grades in my law school basic Consittuional law class and my Constittuional Criminal Procedure class. As noted though, that was a long time ago.

I see a lot of people ttelling me I must be wrong but I don't see anyone other than the poster who posted the overthrow statute say why I am wrong or post any actual support for their argument. It comes down to this. The First Amendment protects our most cherished rights. There is an exceedingly high bar before the government can restrain or punish speech. Offenisive as it may be, I have not seen any reporting of student speech that meets that very high bar.

---

Frankly, I don't believe you. Not at all. You actually wrote this sentence - "terrorist threats are the only ones that are ilegal". An intelligent person just would not let that leave their keyboard, let alone double down on it later.

You also have some of the dumbest takes on this forum.

So if you ARE telling the truth, then God help us all even more.

---

That's a clown post bro.

---

I guess you'd know, bro.

And what did I say that was incorrect?

It amazes me that someone who touts himself as an accomplished lawyer just said "terrorist threats are the only (threats) that are illegal" and I'M the clown.

---

Yes I know you sometimes get to arguments where you claim to be right, because you say so.

I'll make sure and remember that when you don't have any better arguments you will just accuse posters of lying about their CV.

---

No, when I claim to be right it's because logic and truth says I am. Here, let's demonstrate for the folks:

answer me this: if a certain hypothetical scenario contains "x", then is it absolute truth that the hypothetical scenario contains "x"?

And I believe I backed up my argument - do you not agree that an intelligent person wouldn't write "terrorist threats are the only threats that are illegal"?

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Frank Galvin, are you a lawyer or in law school?

If I wouldn't do well in law school, then God help me.
If you are a lawyer or in law school, then God help us all.

---

I'm a semi-retired lawyer.

I graduated 4th in my class of 270 at SMU in 1991. Law Review editor, runner-up in the school wide moot court competition.

I have succesfully argued in the Texas Supreme Court (several times), the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (several times), on brief in The U.S. Supreme Court, in many Texas Courts of Appeals, every U.S. district court in Texas and probably 20 more around the country. I lost my share of arguments also but companies pay me $750 an hour based on my knowledge of how the law works and my ability to articulate it.

Criminal law iand constitutional law are not my specialties although I did get the high grades in my law school basic Consittuional law class and my Constittuional Criminal Procedure class. As noted though, that was a long time ago.

I see a lot of people ttelling me I must be wrong but I don't see anyone other than the poster who posted the overthrow statute say why I am wrong or post any actual support for their argument. It comes down to this. The First Amendment protects our most cherished rights. There is an exceedingly high bar before the government can restrain or punish speech. Offenisive as it may be, I have not seen any reporting of student speech that meets that very high bar.

---

Frankly, I don't believe you. Not at all. You actually wrote this sentence - "terrorist threats are the only ones that are ilegal". An intelligent person just would not let that leave their keyboard, let alone double down on it later.

You also have some of the dumbest takes on this forum.

So if you ARE telling the truth, then God help us all even more.

---

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Frank Galvin, are you a lawyer or in law school?

If I wouldn't do well in law school, then God help me.
If you are a lawyer or in law school, then God help us all.

---

I'm a semi-retired lawyer.

I graduated 4th in my class of 270 at SMU in 1991. Law Review editor, runner-up in the school wide moot court competition.

I have succesfully argued in the Texas Supreme Court (several times), the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (several times), on brief in The U.S. Supreme Court, in many Texas Courts of Appeals, every U.S. district court in Texas and probably 20 more around the country. I lost my share of arguments also but companies pay me $750 an hour based on my knowledge of how the law works and my ability to articulate it.

Criminal law iand constitutional law are not my specialties although I did get the high grades in my law school basic Consittuional law class and my Constittuional Criminal Procedure class. As noted though, that was a long time ago.

I see a lot of people ttelling me I must be wrong but I don't see anyone other than the poster who posted the overthrow statute say why I am wrong or post any actual support for their argument. It comes down to this. The First Amendment protects our most cherished rights. There is an exceedingly high bar before the government can restrain or punish speech. Offenisive as it may be, I have not seen any reporting of student speech that meets that very high bar.

---

Frankly, I don't believe you. Not at all. You actually wrote this sentence - "terrorist threats are the only ones that are ilegal". An intelligent person just would not let that leave their keyboard, let alone double down on it later.

You also have some of the dumbest takes on this forum.

So if you ARE telling the truth, then God help us all even more.

---

That's a clown post bro.

---

I guess you'd know, bro.

And what did I say that was incorrect?

It amazes me that someone who touts himself as an accomplished lawyer just said "terrorist threats are the only (threats) that are illegal" and I'M the clown.

---

Yes I know you sometimes get to arguments where you claim to be right, because you say so.

I'll make sure and remember that when you don't have any better arguments you will just accuse posters of lying about their CV.

---

No, when I claim to be right it's because logic and truth says I am. Here, let's demonstrate for the folks:

answer me this: if a certain hypothetical scenario contains "x", then is it absolute truth that the hypothetical scenario contains "x"?

And I believe I backed up my argument - do you not agree that an intelligent person wouldn't write "terrorist threats are the only threats that are illegal"?

---

Legal discussions require law citations, not your logic and truth. Cite laws in support of your opinion.

Or I guess you can go back to accusing people of lying about their expertise if you can't do that.

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Frank Galvin, are you a lawyer or in law school?

If I wouldn't do well in law school, then God help me.
If you are a lawyer or in law school, then God help us all.

---

I'm a semi-retired lawyer.

I graduated 4th in my class of 270 at SMU in 1991. Law Review editor, runner-up in the school wide moot court competition.

I have succesfully argued in the Texas Supreme Court (several times), the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (several times), on brief in The U.S. Supreme Court, in many Texas Courts of Appeals, every U.S. district court in Texas and probably 20 more around the country. I lost my share of arguments also but companies pay me $750 an hour based on my knowledge of how the law works and my ability to articulate it.

Criminal law iand constitutional law are not my specialties although I did get the high grades in my law school basic Consittuional law class and my Constittuional Criminal Procedure class. As noted though, that was a long time ago.

I see a lot of people ttelling me I must be wrong but I don't see anyone other than the poster who posted the overthrow statute say why I am wrong or post any actual support for their argument. It comes down to this. The First Amendment protects our most cherished rights. There is an exceedingly high bar before the government can restrain or punish speech. Offenisive as it may be, I have not seen any reporting of student speech that meets that very high bar.

---

Frankly, I don't believe you. Not at all. You actually wrote this sentence - "terrorist threats are the only ones that are ilegal". An intelligent person just would not let that leave their keyboard, let alone double down on it later.

You also have some of the dumbest takes on this forum.

So if you ARE telling the truth, then God help us all even more.

---

Maybe instead of name calling you might do what he did and give us a rundown of your qualifications.

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Frank Galvin, are you a lawyer or in law school?

If I wouldn't do well in law school, then God help me.
If you are a lawyer or in law school, then God help us all.

---

I'm a semi-retired lawyer.

I graduated 4th in my class of 270 at SMU in 1991. Law Review editor, runner-up in the school wide moot court competition.

I have succesfully argued in the Texas Supreme Court (several times), the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (several times), on brief in The U.S. Supreme Court, in many Texas Courts of Appeals, every U.S. district court in Texas and probably 20 more around the country. I lost my share of arguments also but companies pay me $750 an hour based on my knowledge of how the law works and my ability to articulate it.

Criminal law iand constitutional law are not my specialties although I did get the high grades in my law school basic Consittuional law class and my Constittuional Criminal Procedure class. As noted though, that was a long time ago.

I see a lot of people ttelling me I must be wrong but I don't see anyone other than the poster who posted the overthrow statute say why I am wrong or post any actual support for their argument. It comes down to this. The First Amendment protects our most cherished rights. There is an exceedingly high bar before the government can restrain or punish speech. Offenisive as it may be, I have not seen any reporting of student speech that meets that very high bar.

---

Frankly, I don't believe you. Not at all. You actually wrote this sentence - "terrorist threats are the only ones that are ilegal". An intelligent person just would not let that leave their keyboard, let alone double down on it later.

You also have some of the dumbest takes on this forum.

So if you ARE telling the truth, then God help us all even more.

---

That's a clown post bro.

---

I guess you'd know, bro.

And what did I say that was incorrect?

It amazes me that someone who touts himself as an accomplished lawyer just said "terrorist threats are the only (threats) that are illegal" and I'M the clown.

---

Yes I know you sometimes get to arguments where you claim to be right, because you say so.

I'll make sure and remember that when you don't have any better arguments you will just accuse posters of lying about their CV.

---

No, when I claim to be right it's because logic and truth says I am. Here, let's demonstrate for the folks:

answer me this: if a certain hypothetical scenario contains "x", then is it absolute truth that the hypothetical scenario contains "x"?

And I believe I backed up my argument - do you not agree that an intelligent person wouldn't write "terrorist threats are the only threats that are illegal"?

---

Legal discussions require law citations, not your logic and truth. Cite laws in support of your opinion.

Or I guess you can go back to accusing people of lying about their expertise if you can't do that.

---

His legal opinion, that terrorist threats are the only ones that are illegal, was not supported by law citations.

That statement is so bad, that it is sufficient cause to question someone's online resume. Do you not agree?

---

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Frank Galvin, are you a lawyer or in law school?

If I wouldn't do well in law school, then God help me.
If you are a lawyer or in law school, then God help us all.

---

I'm a semi-retired lawyer.

I graduated 4th in my class of 270 at SMU in 1991. Law Review editor, runner-up in the school wide moot court competition.

I have succesfully argued in the Texas Supreme Court (several times), the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (several times), on brief in The U.S. Supreme Court, in many Texas Courts of Appeals, every U.S. district court in Texas and probably 20 more around the country. I lost my share of arguments also but companies pay me $750 an hour based on my knowledge of how the law works and my ability to articulate it.

Criminal law iand constitutional law are not my specialties although I did get the high grades in my law school basic Consittuional law class and my Constittuional Criminal Procedure class. As noted though, that was a long time ago.

I see a lot of people ttelling me I must be wrong but I don't see anyone other than the poster who posted the overthrow statute say why I am wrong or post any actual support for their argument. It comes down to this. The First Amendment protects our most cherished rights. There is an exceedingly high bar before the government can restrain or punish speech. Offenisive as it may be, I have not seen any reporting of student speech that meets that very high bar.

---

Frankly, I don't believe you. Not at all. You actually wrote this sentence - "terrorist threats are the only ones that are ilegal". An intelligent person just would not let that leave their keyboard, let alone double down on it later.

You also have some of the dumbest takes on this forum.

So if you ARE telling the truth, then God help us all even more.

---

That's a clown post bro.

---

I guess you'd know, bro.

And what did I say that was incorrect?

It amazes me that someone who touts himself as an accomplished lawyer just said "terrorist threats are the only (threats) that are illegal" and I'M the clown.

---

Yes I know you sometimes get to arguments where you claim to be right, because you say so.

I'll make sure and remember that when you don't have any better arguments you will just accuse posters of lying about their CV.

---

No, when I claim to be right it's because logic and truth says I am. Here, let's demonstrate for the folks:

answer me this: if a certain hypothetical scenario contains "x", then is it absolute truth that the hypothetical scenario contains "x"?

And I believe I backed up my argument - do you not agree that an intelligent person wouldn't write "terrorist threats are the only threats that are illegal"?

---

Legal discussions require law citations, not your logic and truth. Cite laws in support of your opinion.

Or I guess you can go back to accusing people of lying about their expertise if you can't do that.

---

His legal opinion, that terrorist threats are the only ones that are illegal, was not supported by law citations.

That statement is so bad, that it is sufficient cause to question someone's online resume. Do you not agree?

---

So you have no laws to cite to support your opinion and you think the person who writes thorough posts with laws supporting his view is lying. Got it.

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Frank Galvin, are you a lawyer or in law school?

If I wouldn't do well in law school, then God help me.
If you are a lawyer or in law school, then God help us all.

---

I'm a semi-retired lawyer.

I graduated 4th in my class of 270 at SMU in 1991. Law Review editor, runner-up in the school wide moot court competition.

I have succesfully argued in the Texas Supreme Court (several times), the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (several times), on brief in The U.S. Supreme Court, in many Texas Courts of Appeals, every U.S. district court in Texas and probably 20 more around the country. I lost my share of arguments also but companies pay me $750 an hour based on my knowledge of how the law works and my ability to articulate it.

Criminal law iand constitutional law are not my specialties although I did get the high grades in my law school basic Consittuional law class and my Constittuional Criminal Procedure class. As noted though, that was a long time ago.

I see a lot of people ttelling me I must be wrong but I don't see anyone other than the poster who posted the overthrow statute say why I am wrong or post any actual support for their argument. It comes down to this. The First Amendment protects our most cherished rights. There is an exceedingly high bar before the government can restrain or punish speech. Offenisive as it may be, I have not seen any reporting of student speech that meets that very high bar.

---

Frankly, I don't believe you. Not at all. You actually wrote this sentence - "terrorist threats are the only ones that are ilegal". An intelligent person just would not let that leave their keyboard, let alone double down on it later.

You also have some of the dumbest takes on this forum.

So if you ARE telling the truth, then God help us all even more.

---

That's a clown post bro.

---

I guess you'd know, bro.

And what did I say that was incorrect?

It amazes me that someone who touts himself as an accomplished lawyer just said "terrorist threats are the only (threats) that are illegal" and I'M the clown.

---

Yes I know you sometimes get to arguments where you claim to be right, because you say so.

I'll make sure and remember that when you don't have any better arguments you will just accuse posters of lying about their CV.

---

No, when I claim to be right it's because logic and truth says I am. Here, let's demonstrate for the folks:

answer me this: if a certain hypothetical scenario contains "x", then is it absolute truth that the hypothetical scenario contains "x"?

And I believe I backed up my argument - do you not agree that an intelligent person wouldn't write "terrorist threats are the only threats that are illegal"?

---

Legal discussions require law citations, not your logic and truth. Cite laws in support of your opinion.

Or I guess you can go back to accusing people of lying about their expertise if you can't do that.

---

His legal opinion, that terrorist threats are the only ones that are illegal, was not supported by law citations.

That statement is so bad, that it is sufficient cause to question someone's online resume. Do you not agree?

---

So you have no laws to cite to support your opinion and you think the person who writes thorough posts with laws supporting his view is lying. Got it.

---

What opinion am I giving that needs law citations? Do you or do you not agree that what I said gives sufficient cause to question his credentials? What's your answer?

---

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Frank Galvin, are you a lawyer or in law school?

If I wouldn't do well in law school, then God help me.
If you are a lawyer or in law school, then God help us all.

---

I'm a semi-retired lawyer.

I graduated 4th in my class of 270 at SMU in 1991. Law Review editor, runner-up in the school wide moot court competition.

I have succesfully argued in the Texas Supreme Court (several times), the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (several times), on brief in The U.S. Supreme Court, in many Texas Courts of Appeals, every U.S. district court in Texas and probably 20 more around the country. I lost my share of arguments also but companies pay me $750 an hour based on my knowledge of how the law works and my ability to articulate it.

Criminal law iand constitutional law are not my specialties although I did get the high grades in my law school basic Consittuional law class and my Constittuional Criminal Procedure class. As noted though, that was a long time ago.

I see a lot of people ttelling me I must be wrong but I don't see anyone other than the poster who posted the overthrow statute say why I am wrong or post any actual support for their argument. It comes down to this. The First Amendment protects our most cherished rights. There is an exceedingly high bar before the government can restrain or punish speech. Offenisive as it may be, I have not seen any reporting of student speech that meets that very high bar.

---

Frankly, I don't believe you. Not at all. You actually wrote this sentence - "terrorist threats are the only ones that are ilegal". An intelligent person just would not let that leave their keyboard, let alone double down on it later.

You also have some of the dumbest takes on this forum.

So if you ARE telling the truth, then God help us all even more.

---

That's a clown post bro.

---

I guess you'd know, bro.

And what did I say that was incorrect?

It amazes me that someone who touts himself as an accomplished lawyer just said "terrorist threats are the only (threats) that are illegal" and I'M the clown.

---

Yes I know you sometimes get to arguments where you claim to be right, because you say so.

I'll make sure and remember that when you don't have any better arguments you will just accuse posters of lying about their CV.

---

No, when I claim to be right it's because logic and truth says I am. Here, let's demonstrate for the folks:

answer me this: if a certain hypothetical scenario contains "x", then is it absolute truth that the hypothetical scenario contains "x"?

And I believe I backed up my argument - do you not agree that an intelligent person wouldn't write "terrorist threats are the only threats that are illegal"?

---

Legal discussions require law citations, not your logic and truth. Cite laws in support of your opinion.

Or I guess you can go back to accusing people of lying about their expertise if you can't do that.

---

His legal opinion, that terrorist threats are the only ones that are illegal, was not supported by law citations.

That statement is so bad, that it is sufficient cause to question someone's online resume. Do you not agree?

---

So you have no laws to cite to support your opinion and you think the person who writes thorough posts with laws supporting his view is lying. Got it.

---

What opinion am I giving that needs law citations? Do you or do you not agree that what I said gives sufficient cause to question his credentials? What's your answer?

---

That you are avoiding providing legal support for your arguments.

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Like Baylor, Columbia is a private university. This means that it has absolute control over the conduct of persons on its campus and the content of speech on its campus…

---

I agree with you 100% that if these protests were right coded the riot police would already be on campus breaking heads.

But I do have a question about private vs pubic.

Since they all started taking Federal loans are they not all in a sense "public" now?

I mean isn't that how things like the Obama administration Title IX letter were applied to Baylor?

---

90sBear said:

---

Go back to accusing people of lying since you don't want to talk about thread topic anymore.

---