Re: OT: Civil Disobedience and Jury Nullification (was Re: D…

Top Page
Attachments:
Message as email
+ (text/plain)
Delete this message
Reply to this message
Author: Jason Spatafore
Date:  
To: plug-discuss
Subject: Re: OT: Civil Disobedience and Jury Nullification (was Re: DVD Movies on Ubunto)
On Monday 02 May 2005 09:57, Kevin Brown wrote:
> If you don't agree with the laws the legislature is passing, then either
> convince others to vote for someone else at the next election and/or write
> your current representative and let them know what you think.  They
> can't/won't change what they are doing if they don't hear from people who
> disagree with them.


You are to be judged by your peers. If you are an individual who disagrees
with the laws you are being prosecuted for, why do you not get to choose the
peers who are to judge you? All in all, our constitution *was* written for
the people and by the people. It was originally created to protect people
from heavy oppression and forceful rule. Whether you think so or not, that is
not the case.

Think about it...when Napster was first started, 60 MILLION people shared
files and wanted to do so. We were 'educated' that this is 'wrong' and
'illegal'. And, nowadays, we have 'learned' that it is wrong. In the end
though, is it really wrong? Is it wrong when 60 million people were involved?
Why didn't the 60 million people get to say "Umm, I like it. Too fucking bad,
Sony/RIAA/insert any other financially strong institution here."

Also, I would like to inform everyone that numerous justices on the supreme
court have been quoted saying "Our laws are not to be influenced by societal
pressures." And I have to say this very loud and very clear: OUR ENTIRE
GOVERNMENT *IS* TO BE INFLUENCED BY SOCIETAL PRESSURES!!! That is what
DEMOCRACY is all about!!! BUT, our constitution has one flaw: Lifelong
judicial terms. If the judges were directly elected...would the laws be as
they are? No, they would forever change. Legislature may proposed the laws,
and get them encouraged by the executive branch. BUT, the people charged with
declaring what is 'unconstitutional' are failing to do their jobs...and there
are no repercussions in such a case. Checks and balances my ass...

*clears throat*

--
Sincerely,

Jason Spatafore
http://www.spatafore.net
A+ Certified Service Professional
---------------------------------------------------
PLUG-discuss mailing list -
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change you mail settings:
http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss