>What makes you say that? Obviously, actually blowing up people and
>discussing which targets may be considered military targets are not
>the same thing
Obviously no target is a legitimate military target in the absence of a declared war between two states. Otherwise, it is known as murder. A child could tell them that.
> -- not even in the US criminal justice system. If the prosecution
>had enough evidence to charge Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman with murder,
>it would have charged him with that. The prosecution had nothing of
>the sort, and that is not in dispute. What was at stake in his
>trial was his speech, not his action.
Inciting murder, not actually killing people yourself personally, is OK then? Hate speech is OK. The pity is only that they had to drag some archaic law (seditious conspiracy) out of the dustbin. Not to mention pervert the course of justice by misapplying that law. All because because Americans fetishise, rather than respect, free speech. That is, perversely regard hate speech and incitement to murder as protected "free speech".
Wake up people. This perverse fetish is the biggest danger to free speech of all. It undermines the only force that protects free speech, public opinion.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas