Usually giving instructions on how to commit a crime and giving someone the tools to do it makes you an accessory if a crime occurs and is not covered under the 1st Amendment. Same as if you gave someone a ride to a bank and a gun – if they commit the crime you are an accessory.

Oh thanks for all the (sic)’s in the quote from my post. I guess it is your attempt to distract from the facts you don’t want to acknowledge. If you were for free speech why would you worry about grammar?

As an Ohio citizen, there’s a reason our state is a microcosm of the nation: we take all kinds. While most are reasonable, there are a few that make the most noise. You can guess where Doug falls in.

Never have I met a “libertarian socialist” that wasn’t an admirer of Mao’s mountains of corpses, while also a believer in the propaganda: it was just an accident. When I hear that phrase I know its time to back away.

I THINK WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS A BUNCH OF B.S.

First, genius, The Progressive case was never heard by the United States Supreme Court. Second, the court specifically found that the article was not a “how to” build the bomb. Third, the issue was national security, not criminal conspiracy. Fourth, The Progressive didn’t make a “kit” for its readers to build bombs.
The First Amendment is not a hall pass to commit felony criminal conspiracies. You didn’t take this information to the authorities, you told people to take the resources you create to commit voter fraud… to prove voter fraud actually exists.
You told people to rob the bank to show how easy it is.
You say you can’t find any evidence that PB supports free speech? It just reported how Mandel physically assaulted a tracker who was filming him in a public building. It reported on how citizens were locked out of the General Assembly, while it was in session, to keep out opponents of SB 5. Your research on PB is as flawed as your legal research.
Regardless, this post of yours should be used by rhetoric professors everywhere as a final exam to see how many logical fallacies their students can spot beyond just the factual errors.

I stand corrected. U.S. v. Progressive didn’t reach the Supreme Court. That’s what I get for going off memory.

The court that heard the case said the article was “probably not” a “do-it-yourself” guide, in the sense that nobody can build an H-bomb by himself. You’d need “a large, sophisticated industrial capability” to pull it off, not just a magazine article. In the same way, you’d need a large, sophisticated conspiracy to pull off elections fraud, not just an article.

You can see why I mentioned the case, even if it’s otherwise dissimilar. I’d seek a more exact precedent, but there isn’t one, for the simple reason that in this country, we don’t criminalize journalism.
The rest of this lawyer’s argument is absurd. There is no physical “kit.” We published a database assembled from public records. Is that the part he thinks should be illegal?

It’s simply false to say I encouraged anyone to misuse this information. We used a facetious headline – “Get your voter fraud kit here” – to make the article’s point. If a dumb reporter can assemble this information, the election pros can, too. They just won’t tell you if they’re up to no good.

And Modern proves my point – his idea of free speech is a tracker hassling Josh Mandel. And there was one day a year and a half ago when the Statehouse locked its doors to thousands of pro-union protestors. Sort of like the U.S. Capitol does every day.

I’m honored that he thinks my scribblings could be used for a final exam (can we make it grad school?), but it doesn’t take training in rhetoric to notice that the article is one long ad hominem. I didn’t even rebut one of Berger’s points; I just repeated his words in a funny tone of voice. So disrespectful.

And then I take a throwaway line from one of your comrades, and employ guilt-by-association to hit you all as a bunch of fellow travelers. Fallacious!

But it’s only a fallacy if I were trying to prove something, if there had been some question about whether you guys had betrayed the First Amendment. There wasn’t. You did. That sucks.

Another error in your post: The Court never ruled in favor of The Progressive. So, not only did you get the Court wrong, the facts wrong, you got the law wrong, too. The Court granted a temporary injunction BARRING publication of the story. In other words, you apparently have NEVER read a single decision in that case.
James O’Keefe tried to use the “we don’t criminalize journalism” to justify his unethical tactics. He lost, and now has a federal criminal record.
You provided the identies of those prime to be used for voter impersonation, said here’s how you can circumvent I.D. requirements… it’s more than your dumb title.
There’s no evidence that the tracker was hassling Mandel except for filming him… in public as a public official. Yeah, that’s free speech. And no, the U.S. Capitol does not lock people out from attending legislative sessions simply because there’s protest occuring on the grounds over what the legislature is considering. That. does. not. happen. period. Let alone daily.
“The election pros” are the figments of your imagination of people conspiring to commit the election fraud you now advocate they commit with your information… to prove that fraud exists.
The First Amendment is not a shield against criminal acts. It never has been. Your entire argument is based that these folks criticized you on something the Supreme Court said is protected by the First Amendment… but it hasn’t. In fact, neither did the federal district in Wisconsin that actually heard the case you were referencing. You are just wrong.
Advocating a criminal act on the Internet doesn’t invoke First Amendment protections that bar your prosecution, so people pointing out that anyone advocating voter fraud through identity theft aren’t “enemies of free speech.” They’re enemies of felony crimes.

You see how you screwed up, right? I mentioned The Progressive case as a reason why I thought it was doubly sad that the left would oppose free speech, not as any kind of legal argument. The left has a long and proud record of defending the First Amendment and proving its boundaries. That strengthens the Constitutional protections the rest of us enjoy.
You’re a lawyer, so surely you know the actual standard in free speech cases is “imminent lawless action,” as established in Brandenburg v. Ohio.
The SC wrote: “the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”
Your problem isn’t just that we didn’t advocate anything. If you argue that my article was intended to produce imminent lawless and that it’s likely to produce such action, you are saying that voter fraud is both imminent and likely, and all it took was one little spreadsheet. That really destroys the argument that voter fraud is a non-issue and that the polls need no additional security.
And you clearly haven’t spent any time on the Hill. Protestors aren’t allowed to march through the Capitol. They demonstrate outside.

I seriously hope this watchdog ohio thing is not funded.

You clowns have been chasing your tail on that for this long?! It was a nonstarter then and it is now. On the other hand’ the left has counted on the “dead” vote since before Kennedy and at least to Tweed. The New Black Panthers Intimidating in Philly. I don’t have a doubt that both side have done that but you nor anyone has a clue about the Fla. vote and came up with conspiracy theories from the giggling academy. Try this -win an election based on ideas! Not by tricks and law suits (Al Franken)