Since Con-Gress Can't Abridge Speech Or Press, Speech Must Be Called Con-duct, Or Behavior, Or Anything There but, Thereby Allowing It to Be Outlawed.
A.K.A. The Case Of A Meaning.
"The 'behavior' that neither resulted in a conviction nor even an arrest but that was facially unlawful, and in any event a very chilling indication of the consideration as to how likely it is that he would commit further crimes is that he undoubtedly and indisputably set up this killercop.com web site." ~Judge A. Howard Matz
SENTENCING HEARING OF THE OWNER OF KILLERCOP.COM FOR TRANSMITTING THREATS AND ID THEFT. ALL BASED ON A THEORY AND NO LAW.
The Framers of the Constitution were very clear when they wrote the First Amendment.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
But in 2009, the Traitors of today want power over your speech, so they place in power men like judge Alvin Howard Matz, to give lip service to this law.
Like a dedicated cog in the wheel, he spews out rulings, converting the word speech, into "conduct."
REMEMBER, CHILDREN OF AMERICA, "SPEECH IS CONDUCT" IN AMERICA TODAY!
SO WATCH YOUR TERMS AND DON'T CROSS THE LINE!! I MEAN, COME ON, IT'S PRETTY CLEAR!!
JUDGE MATZ: Ms. Potashner, if you have an
intelligent, sophisticated, deliberately functioning
individual who can incorporate those kinds of qualifying terms and disclaimers into anything that's posed. And the
mere fact that they are included and incorporated would be
on its face sufficient to take away the potential and
otherwise clear significance of the threats or the
invitations or the means of communicating danger to other
people or subjecting other people to invasions of their
security and privacy.
Then what would be the capacity of law enforcement
and of the courts to prevent this kind of conduct? One
could be an open invitation to simply put the disclaimers in
every single time.
MS. POTASHNER: Of course. The disclaimers in and
of themselves does not make something that is dangerous not
dangerous. But I think the disclaimers... I don't think that a weapon could be created to
shoot bees across a space, to train bees to go after a
particular target. It's a ridiculous weapon. It's not a
weapon that exists."
AHHHHH, JUDGE ALVIN, ALWAYS ON THE LOOK OUT "FOR THE CAPACITY OF LAW ENFORCEMENT AND COURTS TO PREVENT SPEECH" [DEEMED CONDUCT.]
Someone please tell Alvin to relax. George Washington was far smarter then him and included a tenth amendment.
What do you think, Alvin?
"This kind of conduct is actually far more devastating than Assaulting a Prison officer." ~Judge Alvin Howard Matz
Well then Alvin, I guess you are really gonna hate this...
