cryptoanarchy.wiki

Arise, you have nothing to lose but your barbed wire fences!

1997-11-11 - Re: 1st Ammendment Tossed in Paladin Case

Header Data

From: Peter Herngaard <pethern@inet.uni2.dk>
To: Lizard <lizard@mrlizard.com>
Message Hash: 87e331d7e6dbe39ccb8954cbeaf3c50e363ab5acf6632dfad4cbc63b54480420
Message ID: <Pine.3.89.9711112118.A5630-0100000@inet.uni2.dk>
Reply To: <3.0.1.32.19971111115626.00cf2150@dnai.com>
UTC Datetime: 1997-11-11 20:29:16 UTC
Raw Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 04:29:16 +0800

Raw message

From: Peter Herngaard <pethern@inet.uni2.dk>
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 04:29:16 +0800
To: Lizard <lizard@mrlizard.com>
Subject: Re: 1st Ammendment Tossed in Paladin Case
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19971111115626.00cf2150@dnai.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9711112118.A5630-0100000@inet.uni2.dk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



This ruling is interesting.
Does the First Amendment jurisprudence generelly require strict scrutiny in 
civil as it does in criminal action?
In other words, does a plaintiff in a civil case have to prove that the 
statement was intended  to incite imminent lawless action 
to recover damages like the goverment in a criminal case?

Thread