The Law

[chonged]

ive seen a few ppl using this as their signature.

"Any posts made by me are purely fictional in nature and by no means is anything I say to be taken seriously. I do not grow or condone the growing of anything not legal. Any and all pictures I post are pictures widley available on the internet and any discussions I am involved in are purely hypothetical or are commentary in nature and should not constitute advice or be considered advice to assist in activities that are deemed illegal."

this "disclaimer" regarding growing is actually a confession to conspiracy

growing gets u 14 years in jail...the above statemnt gets u life

:)

[HARDDON]

Please, explain the conspiratorial charges. :)

Conspiring to do what?

[turtle420]

Chonged, please let us in... what you know?

[9ski9]

Wherein I am not an attorney, I did attend law school and clerked for a family court judge for two very shitty years, before leaving for my current profession...

That said, there is nothing the least bit conspiratorial about the disclaimer signatures. Nothing. Zero.

You'd perhaps be carted off in a cattle car if this were Berlin, say in 1939, or Iran today, but that statement is void of any implication. Much of this site, in fact, is assumed to be protected as satire.

If you're really interested, HD, drop me an email and I'll give you an example of how I've relied on the "satire defense"....

Takes me back to the good old Hustler days, when Flynt would post full page adds with pictures of people like Pat Boone and the text "Pat Boone raped by his father" or whatever, then at the bottom it would read: *this is only satire. And it's fine with judges...

[chonged]

I am not an attorney,
i am :)

im drunk, just got in will explain in morning

peace

[chonged]

its also a confession to u aiding and abetting an offender

[AngryJohnny]

well, come on down here and word something for us to use just how you lawyers so eloquently do.

[9ski9]

"Any posts made by me are purely fictional in nature..."

Then as an attorney, you can appreciate the power of those words. It's true that you could 'Patriot' your way around it if these were b*mb making instructions, but that's the only exception.

You do know that, among others, Abbie Hoffman broke this ground 30 years ago? "Steal This Book" was untouchable. It was tested and is in case law as status quo.

I'm curious as to your motivation, though. Added to that, why claim it would be a "life" offense? I'm lost trying to find one shred of credibilty...

[9ski9]

Hey Chonged, were you drunk when you posted this:

"in the US Supreme Court - State of New York v Some Junky 1968 (cant remember name..been long time since at law school), it was held unconstitutional to prosecute some1 who was addicted to drugs"

And you grew up in Allerton UK, or Liverpool? And you studied US Law at a British school? We sure never studied British law at my US law school.

Pretending to be a lawyer and posting shit like that is waaaay fucking uncool, dude.

[9ski9]

Okay, so in a moment of obsession, I hit my old law books and notebooks and came up with a few cases of interest. The first is important because it establishes the connection between the internet and literature. It gives the "Internet" the highest level of First Amendment protection:


American Library Association v. U.S. Department of Justice and Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844, 117 S.Ct. 2329, 138 L.Ed.2d. 874 (1997)
In a 9-0 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court on June 26, 1997, declared unconstitutional a federal law making it a crime to send or display indecent material on line in a way available to minors. The decision in the consolidated cases completed a successful challenge to the so-called Communications Decency Act by the Citizens Internet Empowerment Coalition, in which the American Library Association and the Freedom to Read Foundation played leading roles. The Court held that speech on the Internet is entitled to the highest level of First Amendment protection, similar to the protection the Court gives to books and newspapers.
____________________________________

Second was my favorite legal tester, Larry Flynt, and his parody/satire protection:

Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46, 108 S.Ct. 876, 99 L.Ed.2d. 41 (1988)
Hustler*Magazine published a parody of a liquor advertisement in which Rev. Jerry Falwell described his "first time" as a drunken encounter with his mother in an outhouse. A unanimous Supreme Court held that a public figure had to show actual malice in order to recover for intentional infliction of emotional distress as a result of a parody in a magazine. The Court held that political cartoons and satire such as this parody "have played a prominent role in public and political debate. And although the outrageous caricature in this case "is at best a distant cousin of political cartoons," the Court could see no standard to distinguish among types of parodies that would not harm public discourse, which would be poorer without such satire.


__________

Third is private thought law:

Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 55, 22 L. Ed. 2d 542, 89 S. Ct. 1243 (1969)
A man found to possess obscene materials in his home for his private use was convicted of possessing obscene materials in violation of the state laws of Georgia. The Supreme Court overturned the conviction, holding that Constitution protects the right to receive information and ideas, regardless of their social worth, and to be generally free from governmental intrusions into one's privacy on the grounds that the government "cannot constitutionally premise legislation on the desirability of controlling a person's private thoughts."

_________________________

Fourth is a case that my be of interest in case anyone finds it objectionable that a minor might read these pages:

Butler v. Michigan, 352 U.S. 380, 1 L. Ed. 2d 412, 77 S. Ct. 524 (1957)
A man convicted of selling "a book containing obscene, immoral, lewd, lascivious language, or descriptions, tending to incite minors to violent or depraved or immoral acts, manifestly tending to the corruption of the morals of youth" to a police officer appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court. The Court overturned the conviction and struck down the law, holding that the state's attempt to quarantine the general reading public against books not too rugged for grown men and women to read in order to shield juvenile innocence "is to burn the house to roast the pig." Famously, the Court ruled that the state of Michigan could not "reduce[s] the adult population of Michigan to reading only what is fit for children."

_____________________________

There is no Supreme Court ruling from 1968- or any other year- in which an arrest and conviction of a drug addict was overturned on the basis that the person was an addict. Being an addict-or alcoholic, for that matter- is not a defense for any crime, including but not limited to public intoxication and/or possession of a controlled substance.

[HARDDON]

HARD ON IS A FUCKING CHARACTER........

I MAKE UP STORIES.

I AM AN INTERNET TROLL (just ask BobBONG) :D

I AM A FICTIONAL ENTITY.

I AM NOT REAL CHONGED......

CAN YOU NOT COMPREHEND THAT????

HARD ON is a fricking POST TROLL STORY TELLER...

And by the way, what a shitty thing to post...makes me wonder about you and your intentions.....wtf are you anyhow?

[9ski9]

What a buzzkill...

[Garden Knowm]

Hard on.. you not real? WTF man!!!!!!!!

That means I really don't have any friends!!!

[chisme]

ding a ninga ning ning - quick garden knowm to the battank!!

[turtle420]

9ski9,

For my part, I found that pretty interesting.

[9ski9]

Ha, well, I guess I'm done waiting for barrister chonged to sober up and explain.

Fuck it, though.

Sucks without HD around.

[Lady Vapor]

9ski9,

I for one found your information very interesting. Thanks for digging all that up!

[Garden Knowm]

ditto, thanks ski!!!!

[chonged]

i know none of us grow weed, we just copy and paste stuff from other sites..but if u are interested...read on

[chonged]

as a lawyer...i dont know what the law is - no-one knows it.....my job is to identify issues. The only law u need to know regarding cannabis is that it is illegal to grow it.

2 lads, Mo and Billy go to the shops. Mohammed walks out of the shop with super high strength fertilizer and a big smile on his face. Billy walks out of the shop with 10 cannabis seeds and a big smile on his face.

Both have bought products that are lawfullly availabe in the UK.

Billy is smiling cos he plans on growing cannabis
Mo (short for Mohammed) is smiling, cos he is going to make a bomb out of the fertilizer

Both ppl intend on using lawfully purchased products for illegal purposes. This is a crime. But how do u prove it?

Unless either of them walk into a police station and confess.....u cant prove nothing

[chonged]

once billy and Mo get home, they both get on the net

Billy post "im going to grow me own weed" and Mo "I'm going to make a bomb"

without actually doing anything....both have admitted their criminal liabilty.

if u think ppl arnt convicted in shitty little ways like this, u really should sit in a court for 20 mins and listen to the evidence the CPS comes out with

[chonged]

to cut a very long story short.....technically...posting stuff on here can get u life in prison....realistically....posting stuff on here, at a minimum, enables the police to go to a magistrate and get a warrant to search ya premises

[chonged]

spent ages typing out all the issues.....only to be told when i submitted it.... the server is busy, please try later....and lost it all....ffs

[RastaKaze]

good thing i live in amsterdam where its legal :D i'm takin cultivation classes at cannabis college.. my grow log is just a school project :)