NEED IMPORTANT INFO

"Bob" wrote in message
...
Editor -- Child Support News wrote:
I don't think that sort of implication is tolerated in NM, I'm sure the
implication isn't here in Virginia.

The USA generally allows people to express their opinions on government
officials with little restriction. See the 1st amendment. I believe
that still includes Virginia.

I don't believe the first amendment allows one to freely advocate the
killing of judges of state officials by posting Bushmaster ads when you're
talking about them...I could be wrong but there are such laws about doing
that using the internet here in Virginia.

It would, perhaps, be prudent to refrain from making those types of
statements in our forum...

Is this a moderated group? When you get to be net-cop let us know.

Nope. Personally I don't give a rat's ass if a cop ends up on your door for
your postings.

"Bob" wrote in message
...
Editor -- Child Support News wrote:
I don't think that sort of implication is tolerated in NM, I'm sure the
implication isn't here in Virginia.

The USA generally allows people to express their opinions on government
officials with little restriction. See the 1st amendment. I believe
that still includes Virginia.

I don't believe the first amendment allows one to freely advocate the
killing of judges of state officials by posting Bushmaster ads when you're
talking about them...I could be wrong but there are such laws about doing
that using the internet here in Virginia.

It would, perhaps, be prudent to refrain from making those types of
statements in our forum...

Is this a moderated group? When you get to be net-cop let us know.

Nope. Personally I don't give a rat's ass if a cop ends up on your door for
your postings.

Okay still need useful information. Anyone have any useful advice that does
not result in violence?

Okay still need useful information. Anyone have any useful advice that does
not result in violence?

Okay still need useful information. Anyone have any useful advice that does
not result in violence?

Editor -- Child Support News wrote:
"Bob" wrote in message
...

Editor -- Child Support News wrote:

I don't think that sort of implication is tolerated in NM, I'm sure the
implication isn't here in Virginia.

The USA generally allows people to express their opinions on government
officials with little restriction. See the 1st amendment. I believe
that still includes Virginia.


I don't believe the first amendment allows one to freely advocate the
killing of judges of state officials by posting Bushmaster ads when you're
talking about them...I could be wrong but there are such laws about doing
that using the internet here in Virginia.


Yes, you could be wrong. The constitution in the US generally prohibits
restriction on speech about public officials, but courts make exception
for clear and present threats. A general statement that some public
official "ought to be shot" is not a clear or present intent to harm
anyone. There is a long list of SCOTUS decisions on free speech.

Bob does not advocate any illegal, immoral, or treasonous acts. All of
Bob's posts are for rhetorical, discussion or humorous purposes. If you
want to go shoot your congresswoman, or your Governor, we'll all laugh.


It would, perhaps, be prudent to refrain from making those types of
statements in our forum...

Is this a moderated group? When you get to be net-cop let us know.

Nope. Personally I don't give a rat's ass if a cop ends up on your door for
your postings.

IOW: You pretend to be the net-cop, but it's not a moderated group.

You dodged the question regarding your previous assertion of government
taking action against this group. Since you snipped it out here it is
again:

we have enough problems with them taking actions
against us that have no semblence of constitutionality...

Who do you mean has been "taking actions against us"?

Please explain your previous statement.

Bob


--

When did we divide into sides?

"As president, I will put American government and our legal system back
on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for
President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/


























[Bob does not advocate any illegal, seditious, or immoral acts. All
posts are for discussion, rhetorical, or humorous purposes only.]

Editor -- Child Support News wrote:
"Bob" wrote in message
...

Editor -- Child Support News wrote:

I don't think that sort of implication is tolerated in NM, I'm sure the
implication isn't here in Virginia.

The USA generally allows people to express their opinions on government
officials with little restriction. See the 1st amendment. I believe
that still includes Virginia.


I don't believe the first amendment allows one to freely advocate the
killing of judges of state officials by posting Bushmaster ads when you're
talking about them...I could be wrong but there are such laws about doing
that using the internet here in Virginia.


Yes, you could be wrong. The constitution in the US generally prohibits
restriction on speech about public officials, but courts make exception
for clear and present threats. A general statement that some public
official "ought to be shot" is not a clear or present intent to harm
anyone. There is a long list of SCOTUS decisions on free speech.

Bob does not advocate any illegal, immoral, or treasonous acts. All of
Bob's posts are for rhetorical, discussion or humorous purposes. If you
want to go shoot your congresswoman, or your Governor, we'll all laugh.


It would, perhaps, be prudent to refrain from making those types of
statements in our forum...

Is this a moderated group? When you get to be net-cop let us know.

Nope. Personally I don't give a rat's ass if a cop ends up on your door for
your postings.

IOW: You pretend to be the net-cop, but it's not a moderated group.

You dodged the question regarding your previous assertion of government
taking action against this group. Since you snipped it out here it is
again:

we have enough problems with them taking actions
against us that have no semblence of constitutionality...

Who do you mean has been "taking actions against us"?

Please explain your previous statement.

Bob


--

When did we divide into sides?

"As president, I will put American government and our legal system back
on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for
President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/


























[Bob does not advocate any illegal, seditious, or immoral acts. All
posts are for discussion, rhetorical, or humorous purposes only.]

Editor -- Child Support News wrote:
"Bob" wrote in message
...

Editor -- Child Support News wrote:

I don't think that sort of implication is tolerated in NM, I'm sure the
implication isn't here in Virginia.

The USA generally allows people to express their opinions on government
officials with little restriction. See the 1st amendment. I believe
that still includes Virginia.


I don't believe the first amendment allows one to freely advocate the
killing of judges of state officials by posting Bushmaster ads when you're
talking about them...I could be wrong but there are such laws about doing
that using the internet here in Virginia.


Yes, you could be wrong. The constitution in the US generally prohibits
restriction on speech about public officials, but courts make exception
for clear and present threats. A general statement that some public
official "ought to be shot" is not a clear or present intent to harm
anyone. There is a long list of SCOTUS decisions on free speech.

Bob does not advocate any illegal, immoral, or treasonous acts. All of
Bob's posts are for rhetorical, discussion or humorous purposes. If you
want to go shoot your congresswoman, or your Governor, we'll all laugh.


It would, perhaps, be prudent to refrain from making those types of
statements in our forum...

Is this a moderated group? When you get to be net-cop let us know.

Nope. Personally I don't give a rat's ass if a cop ends up on your door for
your postings.

IOW: You pretend to be the net-cop, but it's not a moderated group.

You dodged the question regarding your previous assertion of government
taking action against this group. Since you snipped it out here it is
again:

we have enough problems with them taking actions
against us that have no semblence of constitutionality...

Who do you mean has been "taking actions against us"?

Please explain your previous statement.

Bob


--

When did we divide into sides?

"As president, I will put American government and our legal system back
on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for
President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/


























[Bob does not advocate any illegal, seditious, or immoral acts. All
posts are for discussion, rhetorical, or humorous purposes only.]

"Bob" wrote in message
...
Editor -- Child Support News wrote:
"Bob" wrote in message
...

I don't believe the first amendment allows one to freely advocate the
killing of judges of state officials by posting Bushmaster ads when
you're
talking about them...I could be wrong but there are such laws about
doing
that using the internet here in Virginia.

Yes, you could be wrong. The constitution in the US generally prohibits
restriction on speech about public officials, but courts make exception
for clear and present threats. A general statement that some public
official "ought to be shot" is not a clear or present intent to harm
anyone. There is a long list of SCOTUS decisions on free speech.

Well, Bob, I could be, but I doubt it.

When you stated that "maybe Mr. Young's replacement might be more willing to
talk..." and... "Maybe he needs to
have his rights violated permanently." those are pretty explicit
threats....some with links to BushMaster's site...they are as many SCOTUS
cases where speech has been restricted as well. One of your postings, I
believe, related to a judge.

Bob does not advocate any illegal, immoral, or treasonous acts. All of
Bob's posts are for rhetorical, discussion or humorous purposes. If you
want to go shoot your congresswoman, or your Governor, we'll all laugh.


IOW: You pretend to be the net-cop, but it's not a moderated group.

Yeah, OK, whatever.

You dodged the question regarding your previous assertion of government
taking action against this group. Since you snipped it out here it is
again:

we have enough problems with them taking actions
against us that have no semblence of constitutionality...

I meant actions relating to the enforcement of child support. Isn't that
what the group alt.child-support is about?

"Bob" wrote in message
...
Editor -- Child Support News wrote:
"Bob" wrote in message
...

I don't believe the first amendment allows one to freely advocate the
killing of judges of state officials by posting Bushmaster ads when
you're
talking about them...I could be wrong but there are such laws about
doing
that using the internet here in Virginia.

Yes, you could be wrong. The constitution in the US generally prohibits
restriction on speech about public officials, but courts make exception
for clear and present threats. A general statement that some public
official "ought to be shot" is not a clear or present intent to harm
anyone. There is a long list of SCOTUS decisions on free speech.

Well, Bob, I could be, but I doubt it.

When you stated that "maybe Mr. Young's replacement might be more willing to
talk..." and... "Maybe he needs to
have his rights violated permanently." those are pretty explicit
threats....some with links to BushMaster's site...they are as many SCOTUS
cases where speech has been restricted as well. One of your postings, I
believe, related to a judge.

Bob does not advocate any illegal, immoral, or treasonous acts. All of
Bob's posts are for rhetorical, discussion or humorous purposes. If you
want to go shoot your congresswoman, or your Governor, we'll all laugh.


IOW: You pretend to be the net-cop, but it's not a moderated group.

Yeah, OK, whatever.

You dodged the question regarding your previous assertion of government
taking action against this group. Since you snipped it out here it is
again:

we have enough problems with them taking actions
against us that have no semblence of constitutionality...

I meant actions relating to the enforcement of child support. Isn't that
what the group alt.child-support is about?