comparemela.com

The shakespeare theater hosted a mock trial in june based on a scenario of William Shakespeares play macbeth. Panel a federal Appellate Court judges and Supreme Court justices including Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer heard oral argument in the case of the weird sisters versus kingdom of scotland. At issue is whether or not the sisters were guilty of using witchcraft to assist macbeth in the murder of king duncan of scotland. This event is one hour. [applause] thank you everyone, for joining us in this event which is not our 25th mock trial. [applause] this is one of the events that we do that is a labor of love and it is, that it becomes that way. This is produced and sponsored by the Bar Association which many of you are members and those are not i hope you will become. It is the Affinity Group of lawyers in washington, d. C. , Bard Association to try to sport not on arts in general but this terrific theater in specific. As you know tonight argument is based on the text when Shakespeares Macbeth which was produced by the theater this spring directed by on this te stage builds a wonderful event i am sure many of you attended. I want to start by thanking as the people that you will see on the stage the people who are not on the stage that make this possible. This event comes together in large part because the group of people with whom im honored to work who work on an epic idea, coming up with which we were going to do, figure out what the legal questions can be. These are the people who youre in europe make this possible. I realized after last winter of one always think them in general, i wanted to thank them and specific i get to be the front guy but in the people who do the hard work. So if youre in the house i want to announce and have everybody thank the following people. Amanda, jerry, great cook, carol, nina dunn, bert fischer, jesse, lori randolph, john vogel, karen wheeler. Would you all please stand and let us thank you. [applause] so in the world beset by civil war and invasion, mcbeth begin a series of murders designed to further their own ambitions. Only to plunge their lives as you know into madness. To ascend to power, mcbeth kills king duncan and usurped the throne. But was it a faded prophecy tht brought mcbeth to commit regicide . Or did the three weird sisters, probably the political correct phrase for what we used to call the three witches, intentionally set an idea in motion using the bat as a pond knowing that they would benefit from the chaos . Or to put it another way, and to bar from that of the wellknown plate of the bard, with that danish cast, can words, words, words, someone or in this case three particular people, odd characters to be convicted for murder . Last mock trial we considered the culpability of Friar Lawrence in the deaths of romeo and juliet. Tonight we take that search for the real culprits responsible for shakespeares tragedies to a new level. Or to use current term, that is vogue in this town, we tonight i really on a witchhunt. [laughing] [applause] last week we had another successful event sponsored by the association, the will on the hilly that were members of congress, the media and others in d. C. Are cast as characters in a place to address current affairs. In that same thinking that we are in washington, d. C. , with as Democratic National committee and the republican National Committee to suggest to my play the three witches. [laughing] the dnc suggested majority leader mitch mcconnell. [laughing] Speaker Paul Ryan and russian president vladimir putin. [laughing] [applause] the rnc suggested Senate Minority leader chuck schumer, House Minority leader nancy pelosi, and russian president vladimir putin. [laughing] so you see there is bipartisanship in city after all. At the conclusion of tonight argument you will be asked to serve as you have in the past the jury and vote on the following question. Did the trial court air in convicting the weird sisters of king duncans murder . At the end of the arguments you believe the weird sisters were falsely convicted and the trial court erred, please vote with the blue token picky to believe that trial court did not err in the decision to remain upheld, please vote with a red token. So now let me introduce the participants. Please first welcome and we are honored always ever participation Supreme Court martial pamela talkin. [applause] we would get no further than this podium if we did not have amazing advocates to spend countless hours getting ready to prepare and take the abuse the about to endure, that would be our advocates deny. Please welcome kelso for the petitioners, the weird sisters, and her associates. [applause] and knowing if you could defend interest of United States in front of the Supreme Court day in and day out, representing scotland and its cant and should be a piece of cake, please welcome former solicitor general donald and his helpers and his associates. [applause] i want anyone to know you will see an amazing amount of events occurring on this stage but many of you know i want remind you that you can see another amazing piece of work that these advocates did which is the brief this event to the judges and justices prior to tonight which is on the website of the shakespeare theater and some of your gun and email link to it so i invite you not going to performance, but sometime later to see this amazing work and you can find it then. Now let me tell you who we the judges tonight and they will soon be seated by the marshal, and they are Supreme Court justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg will be presiding, justice Stephen Breyer, judge david tell, judge and judge patricia miller. Please enjoy the trial as the marshal announces the justices. [applause] all rise. Oh, yay, oh, gay, oh, j. The Supreme Court of scotland is now in session. Please be seated. I have a preliminary announcement to make. Since the Supreme Court of scotland and not the d. C. Circuit on the Supreme Court of the United States tonight, we have allowed the advocates three uninterrupted minutes [laughing] to open their process. And now we are ready to hear the case. Scotland against the three weird sisters. [inaudible] may it please the court. This is truly the single greatest witchhunt in scottish history. [laughing] [applause] while others may lay claim to that distinction. [laughing] believe me, believe me. [laughing] this is awitchhunt. Our client, three peaceful sisters come have been convicted and sentenced to die for their religious expression. This prosecution has been fueled from the beginning by superstitious prejudices. The crowd has taken advantage of the popular belief that any gathering of more than two women is a coven of witches up to no good. My colleagues and i would beg to differ. [laughing] while the sisters may seem weird to others, they did nothing remotely approaching the alleged crime. They neither solicited the murder of king duncan nor aided and abetted in it. It was mcbeth who savagely murdered king duncan while the king slept in mcbeth oldcastle. And if the kingdom were looking for an accomplice, it is not the sisters they should blame. It is mcbeth fiendish wife. It was her taut and challenges to macbeth apparently fragile masculinity [laughing] perhaps he has small hands. [laughing] [applause] that ultimately drove him to commit the murder. It was late in macbeth who with wine knocked out the kings chamber. It was late in macbeth who left the daggers ready what macbeth could not miss them and it was lady macbeth who set up the chamber by smearing the sleeping groom with blood. Such a nasty woman. [laughing] [applause] so how did we end up here . Well, with the true murderer beheaded and his fiendish wife sent with in sandy, he had to punish someone to fulfill his promise to drain the bog. [laughing] but the prosecutions case is full of sound and dignify nothing. [inaudible] [laughing] they are applauding, why . To make foul what is fair, to lead him on, to last for the throne. They conjure an image, an apparition, that tells him to be bloody, bold. All that is in the record, and it seems youre ignoring it. No, your honor, not at all. All the sisters did was inform him of the prophecy. They told into things, that he would be and that sometime in the hereafter he would be king. But if making such political predictions were enough to be subject to prosecution, that which had been most of the energy in this town. [laughing] the sisters prophecy is part of a long and valued tradition, actually speaking truth to power. But in all cases the profits are mere messengers. You cant shoot the messenger. Time and again this court has made clear that forprofits speech is equally protected. Before we go on and he declare for something to your brief never gave me the names of these three weird sisters be are we talking cam, chloe and Courtney Kardashian . [laughing] youre on is correct that the text does not identify the sisters. We prefer to go by sister want and sister to an sister three. Thats what my clients prefer to be called. I think at times that textus label them which is, but i think its important to keep in mind that whether it is william who wrote the record or thomas as the king suggests, either way it was one or thomas and they are both men [laughing] and essentially this prosecution is based on sex stereotyping. Ms. Maynard, compare the witches early uttered words, there is foul and fowl is fair, with came to be macbeth bright line, so foul affair, the foulest day i have not seen. That parallel between these lines is plain. It is not prove beyond a reasonable doubt a week between the two by lumping your reply in poetic fodder . [laughing] [applause] i cannot do that on the fly. [laughing] i will give it a try. I think that the sisters here do not control the environment, and many of the charges against him essentially i think macbeth is a Climate Change denier. So macbeth suggests the sisters have some have stored up the seas, made the foul fair but you cant blame Climate Change on the sisters. We are far past melting ice caps either quit talking about the words moving woods. The sisters are followers of the goddess of the moon, and she chastises them for doing it on their own. She said, lets see what did she say . She said they trafficked in macbeth affairs without her presence. So you raise some question of religious freedom, but doesnt devil worship or moon god worship qualify as a religion . Well, to point about the premises of your question, your honor. You are relying on mutual that was stricken from the record which the kingdom and probably relies on in their brief, but if one does look at that one will see that macbeth is acting for his own desire, not for his own ends, not for you. So i think if the passage is taking context know it doesnt support any proof beyond a reasonable doubt about the sisters. We cant prin pin all this on macbeth, can we . Is and he knew to this new to government . [applause] isnt he new to this, new to government . [laughing] he is but i think if this court were to look at the tweets that he said [laughing] its pretty clear that what hes trying to do is affect a complete and total shutdown of witchcraft. Did your clients, did the sisters even find the right person . The reason im asking is this, the lines the you to speak our inner rind and im no poetry expert i think the supposed to write. The line for the president by the person who is at their target go like this, wheres the place upon the east there to meet with the beast . [laughing] your honor makes an excellent point. However, according to that really authoritative legal source, wikipedia, when shakespeare, or thomas, wrote this play, it did indeed rhine and a do believe they have identified the right man who was, however, driven to do what he did ultimately i his true accomplice, his wife lady macbeth. Macbeth at times to nature would come through but no, nevertheless, she persisted. [applause] your clients went way beyond mortal religious practices, right . They were sinking ships, destroying crops and announcing lala land won best picture. [laughing] i dont remember the last being relevant. But as to the first bit, again i do believe that macbeth the summit of the Climate Change denier, and secondly, my clients want to be taken seriously but not literally. [laughing] [applause] ms. Maynard, ms. Maynard, as a strict textualist, i think it rather obvious that under 18 usc section 373, the sisters never get command macbeth, nor solicit them to cause now comes death. But did they not induce him to do the crime by telling him he will be king . And will you reply in im not sure that i can do it again. Just answer the question. Yes, always. They did not induce him. Even if, all they told him was that someday he would be king. They did not suggest you take any actions to make it so. C yes your honor but later in your copyright after that met death new tool gave him this is what he said will a chance would have making. But macbeth is the name of the witch. [laughter] one your honor pointing out that you are male. [laughter] you do not accept the label, which maybe if macbeth had quit man interrupting them. [laughter] in treating them like hysterical women they would have continued on to make clear that they could let life go. In fact what they often told him was he was going to be a famous author and he did go on to become a famous author. He explained it but he had this ambition which took over. Simply put macbeth is a bad hombre. [laughter] sisters cant be playing for the alleged appearance your honor. First that stadium statement when beth recognized it was a phony. The evidence shows that he says it was a dagger of his mind, i thought creation proceeding from the heat oppressed brain but even if you saw it happen the only other person who saw that dagger crooked lady macbeth. [laughter] shes the only one who mentions that dagger. I correct myself she mentions it later in the play so isnt it just as likely that the vision was druginduced and just like she had dragged the chamberlain she drugged him. Why do your clients call this stuff . [laughter] we have called ourselves and our clients call themselves simply the Three Sisters. The is the label that society is placed on them. Its in the script that we have. [laughter] its an old english word and its meaning is thank you for that assistance your honor and i will take the first step always looking at the dictionary. Taking a word usually meant to disparage and using it as a badge of honor. Absolutely your honor and i would like to get back to my point about the prosecution being based on sex stereotyping the sisters have to work double double toil first. [laughter] and apparently the crown thinks they are not feminine enough as they are weathered and if i may add like to reserve the balance of my time. [applause] thank you. [applause] we will now here from mr. Verrilli who is representing king. E madam chief justice and may it please the court complaining about a witch hunt is no substitute for a sound legal defense. And it makes no difference whether those complaints pop up in an angry tweet at 5 00 in the morning or scare quotes in a brief to this court. Whenever you hear someone rained on and on about the single greatest witch hunt in scottish history, you can be sure of one thing, something wicked this way comes. [laughter] [applause] so dont let these sisters ensnare you with their charms like they ensnared macbeth. Focus on what is real not what is fake and in particular focus on these two keys. First, weird sisters did not have a religious liberty. Remember they testified at trial that they were mere mortals who had been scapegoated just because they enjoyed thumbing their long crooked noses at social convention. Now they come to this court and say exactly the opposite. Its all paganism and double warship that. The eye of the newt and the toe of the frog cooking in the pot and at trial they said they were just trying out their latest hosea andre recipe. Now its forth exercise. The wild spinning around like acid trippers added grateful dead concert. A trial they said they were auditioning for dancing with the stars. [laughter] now its really just exercise, the beards, the weathered and wild again religion. I mean really. Do you know what that argument is like . That argument is like enacting a Health Care Law as regulation of interstate commerce in coming to this court in arguing it ought to be upheld estate tax. [laughter] [applause] i mean you know really, who would fall for Something Like that . [laughter] now the second key, the second key there was plenty of evidence implicating the weird sisters in king duncans murder. Its all right there in act i, scene three of the record. Much that this just going about his business having disemboweled the traitor or two and what happens . The weird sisters appear out of nowhere like sean spicer popping out of the white house shrubbery. [laughter] that was not an accident, your honors. The weird sisters admitted that they had wound up their charm, their spell so they could spring it on macbeth at that very moment which of course they did. My friend says while it is idle prophecy on their part peer applesauce as a great jurist once said. About an argument i made. [laughter] the prophecy was altogether accurate. Its wellknown in Great Britain that every man is king in his own home so macbeth was on his way home and their he would be king. Lets talk about that prophecy. Thats how these weird sisters worked, your honor. The fact that its subtle doesnt excuse it. The key was at that very moment they cast a spell. Its not just the words, its the spell they cast. A king, i looked it up on the internet. It could be king messiah. Maybe it was king the mexican rapper. Gizzard the lizard wizard. King what . Its a very long question, your honor. I just wasnt sure if you were finished or not. I think macbeth and lady muck beth knew exactly what they were talking about. They talked about the metaphysical. They were quite clear about where she came. They were talking about the king that the beth would become. I dont think theres any doubt about that in this record. Mr. Verrilli of 35 recorded executed which is and easily six were missed. Is this not proof that crying which in truth is merely pretext for controlling any woman man perceived as a weird . [applause] p i have there were answer and a reply. All i to decline the invitation. I will say this. I think the very fact that your honor describes this argument will a full 15 burned at the stake for witchcraft became the most common of scheme. What that tells you is not secularism. Just national security. [laughter] i would like to follow up. [laughter] a question here. This smacks of discrimination. You say you are opposed to witchcraft but i dont see you going after the washington wizards. [laughter] all in good time, your honor, all in good time to but let me just say i think this brings up a critical point. Of course the weird sisters were not persecuted for heresy. They were not prosecuted for witchcraft. They were prosecuted for murder and it does not matter as far as the crown is concerned. What their motivation was. Did the devil made them do it or were they just mad because the king would let them develop their golf course in the Scottish Highlands . [laughter] its an indication that macbeth was not trustworthy either. Didnt he claim to have the biggest coronation crowd in history and maybe it showed otherwise . Well you know its rampant these days and we understand that your honor certainly. Would the make of the word from macbeth when he said that if chance will have me kang then chance must crown me so at the moment, at the moment when he is with his three which is listen to him as much as people listen to cassandra. But then what comes next your honor and what comes next is the moment of the bloody dagger and exactly the moment when macbeth witnesses the bloody dagger appears. Does anyone really believe that is a figment of muck up the imagination . Maybe if you live in lady conways fantasyland and you have alternative facts he would believe that. But there was no one else and isnt that part of it . All of this was in macbeths mind. Macbeth tells us about the which is stirring up the wind. He saw the companion with him. Lennox. Lennox doesnt even see the which is. But your honor the evidence that which is come out of their own mouths i would her spur you to that key moment in act i scene three just before they cast their spell on macbeth. What happens . One of the which is is bragging to her sisters about how she had cast a spell to make a poor sailors life a living hell and for what . Because the sailors wife wouldnt share her that was right out of the mouths of the which is themselves so thats proof right there and all that we got from macbeth was corroboration. Why didnt they look at another set of words. After the deed was done he says this, ive i have done the deed not somebody else putting me up to the deed. He said i have done the deed and if theres one thing we know about power for one to be powerful men as they are willing to blame anything on women. [laughter] well your honor he certainly did the deed and his wife was certainly deeply implicated as well but that doesnt exhaust the gambit of criminal responsibility here. This all started on that key. [laughter] why are you calling . No i dont want your latte dagger. I dont want the dagger. [applause] if i had in the sense i would rest my case right there. [laughter] what was the point about the chestnuts . I have a followup to the judges question. Before he killed the king macbeth amid a lengthy speech recounts the words witchcraft celebrates do these five words not prove to all who is here that have to than not her which is bears the guilt . Arent you going to invite me to respond . [laughter] i think what that shows us is quite the opposite. This key moment macbeth can see the difference between fake news and a genuine effort to subvert the line of a legitimate line of succession in the kingdom of scotland. Macbeth understood that this was rich craft in operation and lady macbeth understood it was witchcraft and operation metaphysical aid in the jury understood that it was witchcraft in operation. It was on that basis that they had an absolute justification to convict the weird sisters of soliciting this crime. I am suspicious of this whole prosecution and i want to know why you were not going after the people who have leaked out this information about the sisters in including the former of the fbi. Again your honor all in good time, all in good time. [laughter] i didnt get that point about the chestnuts. [laughter] its right there in act i, scene three. It all depends. C they were right in her lap. She had a nice bunch in her lap and she recused to share them with the which is which i think you can understand under the circumstances and her poor husband tossed from stern to bow day after day week after week based on their use of witchcraft. Its right there out of their own mouths. Im to stand the point of the chestnuts. [laughter] what is the act of the Three Sisters did that rendered them helpful both for murder because as far as i can tell all they did before he committed the crime is plant the seed on the fine that he might come somebody and if thats enough to give somebody convicted of murder you will have an expansive life as a prosecutor. Which would be just fine by the way. But again its that key moment, the whole case hinges on a key moment before then counter might pass. They go into their wild maniacal jig three times this way, three times that way, three times back around again. They are in their own words winding up their spell. Theyre calling it up so they can spring it on macbeth and thats what happens. Thats the key moment of culpability right there. Thats the key moment. Thats when the spell takes hold and at that point they know they have them they want him. They plant the idea in his head and the rest is tragic history. I thought macbeth tweeted out the sisters had better hope there arent any tapes. Are there tapes . [laughter] there are of course the memos. [laughter] [applause] if instead of on the blasted heap their prophecy bequeath on meet the press or fox and friends, would there predictive poetry convict these three . Its not the prophecy. [applause] its the spell. Its not the prophecy. The prophecy just works its way through the spell. One thing thats inconsistent is that for all the. Only one thing. Its critical. We know for sure that the which is engineered macbeth death. But thats death, we know that they deceived him so that he would fight with with mud that than lose sillies punishing and for his misdeeds. That is exactly how radical terrace work. They need chaos. In order to thrive and prosper so they just created a chain of chaos. First with death kills duncan and the engineer macbeth death. Thats their whole plan to takeover the world world right there and thats why it was imperative that we prosecute them and convict them. The normal method used to execute a witch and scotland is to bury her but does that not offend amendment 8 . Your honor we have in the eighth and ninth centuries that was how we did it. [laughter] but there has been a great humanizing tendency and by now as i would hope your honor would know the way this works is that yes we do tie the witch to the stake but then we first strangled a witch. Its quick, its relatively painless, its over in a very short time. The witch feels almost nothing. And then of course we do burn the body but we are just doing that to make sure we have taken care of the whole evil spirits thing. That inflicts no cruel and unusual punishment on the witch. Now is my time is drawing to a close if i may just offer these final words. So now your honors must decide free exercise . No, a verdict for the kingdom then. Lets make scotlands great again. [applause] you have five minutes. Thank you your honor. I like to make three quick points. First fundamentally is this prosecution is allowed to stand it will kill the kingdom and it will result in kings being surrounded by a bubble of fame who sits around the kings table and offers praise. [applause] second, the crown points to some of the chatter and dancing that happened at times but that is just coven room talk. You cant make anything up and finally the crown points to the conscience of my clients called, but part of freedom is being able to put in your cauldron whatever you want and to make your soup with whatever ingredients you wish and if you allow this in the next thing you know he will be here telling you that we all have to make our soup out of broccoli. [laughter] and if thats not enough we will all have to buy insurance. You have a very strong case but heres what worries me. If we reverse and rule instead that which is served a rest of tony and term in death, with a comply or would they use their magic to escape . We have prepared a response. Round about the cauldron goes and in the poisoned entrails flow. Days and nights 31 sweltered venom sweeping the world in the charmed pot. Double double, toil and trouble fire burning cauldron bubbles. Free our clients on the double or this kingdom will be rubble. [laughter] [applause] all rise. The honorable bench will now deliberate. Please be seated. As the honorable bench deliberates we have got a story. Our audience will cast their vote by placing a red or blue token in the basket that will be circulating. The question is, did the trial court air and convicting the weird sisters . Please vote yes, blue for yes if you believe the weird sisters were wrongly convicted in the trial court erred. Please vote red for no if the Trial Court Decision should be upheld. Again vote luther yes if you believe the three weird sisters were wrongly convicted and the trial court erred and please vote red for know if the trial courts decision should be upheld. A reminder please vote only once. [laughter] ladies and gentlemen please welcome abbe lowell for tonights discussion. [applause] it is our great honor and pleasure to also have for this and from other justices and judges are deliberating a friend of mine, a scholar somebody you all though and have heard up and obscene and im talking about Jonathan Turley gw professor of constitutional law. You probably know good deal about him. Please welcome him right now. [applause] as you know jonathan teaches comments writes amazing numbers of articles, dozens of various law journals and other publications and in those i asked him to indulge us and realize you were the youngest chaired and history quite remarkable. Thank you for coming. Let me set up but we want to talk about. We are doing an of the conviction of the three weird sisters for words that they spoke about macbeth for which they were convicted of aiding and abetting in the murder. In the news last week Michelle Carter was convicted by a judge in the state court of massachusetts of Involuntary Manslaughter. Manslaughter is the killing of one human being by another that is not premeditated. In massachusetts Involuntary Manslaughter occurs when somebody unintentionally causes the death of another when the defendant is engages in some type of wreck was conduct or while committing another serious battery on a person. Massachusetts voluntary manslaughter is the killing of another person that is intentional but has some kind of mitigating factor. The circumstances can include heat of passion caused a reasonable provocation or being in the paws of witchcraft. Maybe not so much that. This is to be distinguished from the states that have laws that prevent assisting somebody in suicide which 37 states have by statute and three by common law. These are often in the form of the manslaughter of some kind or another usually in the voluntary or involuntary. With that background given we are here tonight to talk about the words of the sisters can be held as the means by which their convictions should stand or fall lets talk about that in connection to the verdict as Michelle Carter so let me start. Would you agree or disagree with the verdict . I disagree. I believe the courts human tragedy has turned into a legal tragedy as well and the implications in what the judge is saying are really chilling. And its sort of surprising. I guess this is why juvenile courts dont normally come become a fountain of jury. This is chilling in case of what it could mean for free speech. Primarily as your view of what made it wrong is that if it constricts by any amount the amount of speech that occurs, that is enough to make it in a constitutional verdict . I have to confess, i am unabashedly an absolutist in terms of free speech. Governmental limitations on free speech. Unlike many people in the free Speech Community i believe the solution to bad speech is more speech. Maybe the Three Sisters we can just add a whole bunch and it would all balance out but i think history has shown that when courts or when governments through legislative means, speech it really achieves what they leased state as a purpose and it often reduces speech in a way that its hard to get get back. Its the weird thing about constitutional rights. Its very hard ever to get them back. Let me ask you this, if we know the court has had the famous phrase that we have all been talking about the crying fire in a crowded theater can be actionable then why isnt it when somebodys in the midst of his truck were fumes are coming in and he feels ill and he leaves the truck can you tell that person to get back in the truck, doesnt that trigger where free speech ends in criminal liability begins . You know if i had a time machine i think my first visit would be before all of earl Oliver Wendell holmes uttered those words and said stop. Its one reason sound bites dont work well in constitutional doctrine. Everyone wants to restrict speech is just like screaming fire in a theater. Holmes did not mean it is a sweeping justification but what you are really saying is the result of a court chipping away conceptions on the right of free speech. Brandenburg is feel to met example of that. In 1969 the Supreme Court ruled in brandenburg versus ohio that you couldnt criminalize speech. It was an interesting decision where they actually struck down the ohio language which was incredibly broad but in striking it down they endorsed the idea that you can have violent speech for many of us we have a hard time accepting the concept of speech as violence in what you see in this tragic case is how words can actually be treated like a murder weapon and what that implies for us as a country what you had in this case which i think is abundantly obvious was in my view a crime of murder. You had two teenagers both of them had emotional difficulty both of whom had diagnose problems that they were struggling with. They were brought together in a moment of tragedy. That tragedy was multiplied by the court, not resolved by the court. I heard what you said is a qualifier in the eye can see enough of the audience that i can ask the question. So you think that there is no amount or quality or lack of quality are words spoken as words whether orly or in writing or through an email that can ever be actionable in a criminal contest that leads to someone committing a criminal act . My answer is probably no. There are plenty of crimes based on words. You can have conspiracy in terms of your words being part of a criminal act but whats different about this is that the words themselves are treated not just as a weapon. Lets make sure that everybody does understand what you are saying because i was researching for tonight and the difference in the manslaughter category you have to have been involved in creating the act in the weapon if you will to be involved in the death. The question is whether the words in that context can ever be quote the weapon whereas my jump off to the next question was about therefore the assisted suicide prohibition in those 37 states . So there the requirement you are saying more than words. They have to provide whatever. I am not a big van of those thoughts either but the problem with this is the suicide laws. People on the internet who have given advice to people who are seeking to end their lives including how they can do so easily or humanely. We have had a couple of charts. For those of us concerned about free speech the invocations of what happened in this case can easily be seen by just looking over the ocean or over the port of canada. Free speech is a road at all around the world. The west is falling out of love with freespeech and this became tiring at some point. France criminalizing free speech at a rate that i never thought was possible and its important to note that those laws havent terms like inducement that you can criminalize speech inducing hatred. Criminalize speech if its viewed as insulting or harassing all of those are not something we would all except but what has happened in those countries is what we have known that history. Once you begin to criminalize speech it develops an insatiable appetite and soon other people want to silence the people they dont agree with. I hear you saying and staking out the position that the value of free speech and the precious right it is in our country that is eroded in other countries, i get that by what you have done is say if you accept the verdict in massachusetts i guess what you are arguing for is the in the armor or the slippery slope and once that goes, nothing else goes. Well thats correct. Here you have two kids struggling with a problem and you have this, and tragedy but the result of this creates a new type of crime. The words themselves are the weapon and the question is as angry as we may be at a shelter was she dead and i dont think anybody reading this story didnt feel revulsion by what she told her friend. The question is does it help to make this a crime . Is that going to stop the next michelle from doing that . Let me ask you three quick questions because in then our judges are going to be ready in a second. First i take it from what you said do you think yes or no is going to be a crime should it be done by common law judges by opinions or should it be done by legislature . I dont think it should be done by either but i think the legislature makes speech a crime it should be viewed as unconstitutional but im particularly concerned that there is a concern over what is called the Legislature Problem where judges go before legislature. Its notable that in massachusetts this type of suicide is not a crime so the court here not only created a new type of speech crime but did so involving a subject thats not an criminalize which is suicide. I know a few people we could probably ask. [laughter] as a practice to how you voted in a show of hands based on what you have read and what you know on what we have talked about all those people who support the verdict of massachusetts based on the words spoken, raise your hand. Wow. All those people who are against the verdict. Hallelujah. Let me thank jonathan for helping me. Thank you. [applause] [inaudible conversations] all rise. Please be seated. I will announce the judgment of the court. We are in scotland where we dont find that defendants are innocent nor do we find necessarily that they are guilty and so we have returned this verdict. Did the women [applause] did they aid or abet beth in the murder of king duncan . Are answer is not true and one of the reasons why we have a most reasonable doubt facilitated by my slip of the tong. We know historically that men feared which is so they burned women. And now i will call upon my colleague most of whom concur in the courts judgment. [laughter] so we will start with the judge. Thank you justice ginsburg. I know better than not to concur with you. [laughter] this seems like an easy case to me if we do the job that we are supposed to do with his approach their task with empathy and when i look at it that way i grew up in a household with two sisters. [laughter] i used to call them weird. [laughter] and they use to fill my head with delusions of grandeur which caused me to do all sorts of mischievous things and nice to blame them and now i see the error of my ways. Clearly it was all on me. They were just having fun. [laughter] and i now vindicate my wisdom with this verdict today. [applause] as i indicated during my questioning this whole prosecution smacks of discrimination both the target of the prosecution and the Orlando Magic when men create blogs predicting whos going to be president or king. These women get it right and they get prosecuted. [laughter] and the last thing i will say is i think theres a pervasive conflict of interest in having king malcolm prosecuted. The alleged murderers of the father and the special chronicle should have been appointed. [applause] having started the pattern i might as well finish it great although we could overturn the sentence for insufficient evidence i would chart a different course in reversing the trial court. Putting the sisters to death perpetuates a semblance that only women are to blame. We cant explain it is therefore clear that this prosecution violates equal protection. That by the way was mostly and truck cake [applause] and now Justice Breyer will speak in dissent. [laughter] there are obviously guilty. Anyone who has seen the shakespeare companys production of this play would know that there couldnt possibly be such discrimination. Two of the socalled which is were men. [applause] anyone who has seen that production would know there couldnt possibly be a violation of the freedom of religion clauses. After all these socalled which is were from the cia. And if you want any more evidence the absolute what used to be called sovereign dollinger and im surprised you dont know what that means, that is the chestnut. I dont understand the chestnut argument but i sense that it is a very good argument. [applause] with enormous appreciation for the advocates who were splendid. [applause] please welcome back abbe lowell to read the jurys decision. This is my favorite part of these events to report the results of all of you to see how they fared against our learned judges. I would start by thanking again the wonderful participants and as to don and his associates at the table when we had to take on a tough argument to make sure that it would be well representative, we knew that there was nobody in this town that we could turn to who knew about stuff arguments other than you so we appreciate that. [applause] and we knew if there was any group of people who could put the right definition on the word weird we picked the right people for the table. [applause] so i will tell you if you remember the red bags are filled with the votes to say that the lower court did not fare and the verdict should stand. The blue represents those who believe that the lower court was in error and should be reversed. [laughter] however taking the lead of the suggested of the learned counsel understood that the benches willing to every argument next week to see whether or not the Three Sisters violation affected the tax clause. Thank you all very much. Have a good evening and thanks for being part of this. [applause] all rise. This concludes the trial of the weird sisters. Hope you had a wonderful evening and enjoy the rest of it. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] for so long women stories, womens military stories have just been discounted or appropriated by others and so she just felt like the timing was right. It was time to give these women a voice. We are not a social experiment. We were soldiers, we were sailors and we ended up being in iraq and afghanistan doing the same jobs in many cases as the men and coming home to a country that did not recognize many of us as veterans but with the same physical and moral injuries as the man. How do you make that case rightly i think that the help of conservatism is an urgent matter that actually has real world implications . You can win elections and if you were doing matches for the sake of winning elections than yale we can do that but if we as conservatives want to enact conservative policy, then you have to treat an election like how do we set this up for governing in ways that we can move forward with our agenda. We didnt have a sense of who is going where. He pulled me aside and said hey dont take this the wrong way, im going, im going but if we know we are going to die why are we going . I said we are not going for fame and we are not going for bravado. We are going for the single mom who dropped the kids off at school on a Tuesday Morning in 45 minutes later she jumped to her death from a skyscraper. Now freedom of speech on college campuses. Scholars and others recently took part in the twoday conference at Princeton University called a worthy life finding meaning in america. Speakers include an Indiana University professor who has invited conservative author Charles Murray to speak on this campus is your move protested by several students and staff. This is two hours

© 2024 Vimarsana

comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.