Students Turn Against Free Press

johnny karate said:
It’s what I’m discussing.
Click to expand...

Gods, I really should've made that bet. I knew for sure you'd say that. Did it not occur to you before this point that we were, as I explained numerous time, indeed talking about two different definitions of the word?

It’s isn’t relevant if they’re wrong.
Click to expand...

Except that you're employing circular logic to make them wrong. For some reason you're committed to the idea that they weren't intimidated because it'd be illegal. Yeah, people never do anything illegal, after all, nor does anyone ever consider something intimidation that wouldn't meet the legal definition and thefore discuss what they see as undue presure on the paper as such. Nope.
 
Giordano said:
Just a bit of added information for what it is worth: I was a photographer for the college newspaper in the 1970's. I photographed several student protests. Policy was that photos in which individual student protesters could be identified were generally not published and were kept in hidden storage or destroyed. This was because of concerns of retaliation by the administration or the police. These concerns were not just paranoia: retaliatory actions were put into place more than once, and were not limited to students who committed actual crimes. Innocent co-participants were often targeted as well; for example if anyone throw a rock through a window all other protesters were at risk for administrative sanctions.
Click to expand...

And this is exactly what the student journalists said was one of the reasons behind their decision to pull the photo.
 
Belz... said:
Gods, I really should've made that bet. I knew for sure you'd say that. Did it not occur to you before this point that we were, as I explained numerous time, indeed talking about two different definitions of the word?
Click to expand...

What definition are you talking about?

Except that you're employing circular logic to make them wrong. For some reason you're committed to the idea that they weren't intimidated because it'd be illegal.
Click to expand...

I'm committed to the idea that the student journalists weren't intimidated, coerced, or otherwise forced against their will into removing the photo because they made it pretty clear that they weren't.

Yeah, people never do anything illegal, after all, nor does anyone ever consider something intimidation that wouldn't meet the legal definition and thefore discuss what they see as undue presure on the paper as such. Nope.
Click to expand...

Cool, let's do that then.

I've found your behavior towards me in this thread to be needlessly belligerent, and it seems to me that you are applying undue pressure on me to get me to respond to you in a manner to your liking.

If I were to accuse you of intimidation because of that, would you find that reasonable and accept it? Or would you challenge that accusation?
 
Last edited:
carlitos said:
"Nobody push me"
- Volodymyr Zelensky
Click to expand...

And this just brings us back to where we started: People claiming coercion took place without evidence that coercion took place (which is in stark contrast to the example that you're referencing).
 
Leftus said:
It's not illegal. Nobody has *ever* been charged let alone convicted for threatening a boycott.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news...0191112-3dys2uoif5e45n5bpie5ogabay-story.html

Clearly, Jessie will be charged, right?
Click to expand...

You should take it up with the Illinois State Legislature:
12-6.  Intimidation.

(a) A person commits intimidation when, with intent to cause another to perform or to omit the performance of any act, he or she communicates to another, directly or indirectly by any means, a threat to perform without lawful authority any of the following acts:

(1) Inflict physical harm on the person threatened or any other person or on property;  or

(2) Subject any person to physical confinement or restraint;  or

(3) Commit a felony or Class A misdemeanor;  or

(4) Accuse any person of an offense;  or

(5) Expose any person to hatred, contempt or ridicule;  or

(6) Take action as a public official against anyone or anything, or withhold official action, or cause such action or withholding;  or

(7) Bring about or continue a strike, boycott or other collective action.
Click to expand...
 
Leftus said:
I have the good fortune not to live under those laws. So they wouldn't listen to me.

It might also run afoul of the first amendment. Just because it's on the books doesn't make it legit. It's only on the books because it's never been challenged? Why hasn't it been challenged? Because it's not enforced.
Click to expand...

Or it is, and you're wrong.

Either way, it's the law.

Because you might not agree with it doesn't negate that fact.
 
johnny karate said:
What definition are you talking about?
Click to expand...

Please tell me you're joking.

I'm committed to the idea that the student journalists weren't intimidated, coerced, or otherwise forced against their will into removing the photo because they made it pretty clear that they weren't.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's quite that clear from their explanation, and we have now two opposing viewpoints on this.

Cool, let's do that then.

I've found your behavior towards me in this thread to be needlessly belligerent, and it seems to me that you are applying undue pressure on me to get me to respond to you in a manner to your liking.

If I were to accuse you of intimidation because of that, would you find that reasonable and accept it? Or would you challenge that accusation?
Click to expand...

I certainly wouldn't agree that it reaches the level of legal intimidation, but you might interpret it as such, sure.

It'd be stupid, and just as silly as your line of argument here, but I can't help that.
 
johnny karate said:
You should take it up with the Illinois State Legislature:
Click to expand...

Ahem.

12-6.  Intimidation.

(a) A person commits intimidation when, with intent to cause another to perform or to omit the performance of any act, he or she communicates to another, directly or indirectly by any means, a threat to perform without lawful authority any of the following acts:

(1) Inflict physical harm on the person threatened or any other person or on property;  or

(2) Subject any person to physical confinement or restraint;  or

(3) Commit a felony or Class A misdemeanor;  or

(4) Accuse any person of an offense;  or

(5) Expose any person to hatred, contempt or ridicule;  or

(6) Take action as a public official against anyone or anything, or withhold official action, or cause such action or withholding;  or

(7) Bring about or continue a strike, boycott or other collective action.
Click to expand...

Since when is a boycott unlawful?
 
I don't think it's quite that clear from their explanation, and we have now two opposing viewpoints on this.
Click to expand...

We do, and I have very clearly explained why I find one of them more plausible.

I certainly wouldn't agree that it reaches the level of legal intimidation, but you might interpret it as such, sure.

It'd be stupid, and just as silly as your line of argument here, but I can't help that.
Click to expand...

Right, because it's not intimidation just because I might think it is.

That's my point.
 
johnny karate said:
We do, and I have very clearly explained why I find one of them more plausible.
Click to expand...

You have, yes. How many opposing viewpoints would it take for you to change your mind, I wonder?

Right, because it's not intimidation just because I might think it is.

That's my point.
Click to expand...

What do you mean? That it's not legal intimidation just because you might think it is? Or that others might disagree? Or what?

It seems to me like you're simply locked into that one position for no other reason than it's the position you initially took and you're committed to it.
 
johnny karate said:
Or it is, and you're wrong.

Either way, it's the law.

Because you might not agree with it doesn't negate that fact.
Click to expand...

Number of people who have ever gone to jail for it? Or even been charged?

It's not the law until it's enforced or tested in the courts. Jessie will not be charged, or even asked about it.


Find it being enforced. In the last, say, 40 years.
 
Belz... said:
You have, yes. How many opposing viewpoints would it take for you to change your mind, I wonder?
Click to expand...

Why do I need to change my mind? I'm content to just disagree with you.

What do you mean? That it's not legal intimidation just because you might think it is? Or that others might disagree? Or what?
Click to expand...

We were discussing non-legal intimidation, per your request.

My point is that just because someone thinks something is intimidation doesn't necessarily make it actual intimidation.

It seems to me like you're simply locked into that one position for no other reason than it's the position you initially took and you're committed to it.
Click to expand...

And it seems to me that you're taking a contrarian position for the sake of being a contrarian.
 
Leftus said:
Number of people who have ever gone to jail for it? Or even been charged?

It's not the law until it's enforced or tested in the courts. Jessie will not be charged, or even asked about it.


Find it being enforced. In the last, say, 40 years.
Click to expand...

You should probably forward your request to the Illinois State Legislature. I didn't write the law. I'm just telling you what it says.
 
johnny karate said:
You should probably forward your request to the Illinois State Legislature. I didn't write the law. I'm just telling you what it says.
Click to expand...

Quoting the law and showing how it is enforced and in what circumstances are different things. This FTC article about illegal boycotts seems to give a good understanding of why it is part of law. How that would relate to this case is a different matter.
 
johnny karate said:
You should probably forward your request to the Illinois State Legislature. I didn't write the law. I'm just telling you what it says.
Click to expand...

Question is section CC still the law here:

http://www.ksrevisor.org/statutes/chapters/ch65/065_007_0071.html

I mean, it's still on the books despite being adjudicated as being unconstitutional. But it's still on the books. So is it still the law of that land?


Just because they haven't taken it off the books, doesn't mean it's the law. Your ignorance of juris prudence not withstanding.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom