America - The Official Thread

[Keef]

If I'm talking about a dispensing machine it's a pop machine. Sometimes I drink Faygo which is flavored soda. When I'm out to eat I order a Coke, capitalized, and grunt a little when all they have is Pepsi.

I can't really defend car-ml - I know it's wrong but I say it anyway. It's so much easier to enjoy a car-ml-app-le than a ca-ra-mel-app-le. It doesn't flow, man.

Here's another interesting one. I can't for the life of me figure out how anyone could pronounce these differently but apparently the East Coast has figured it out.

 

[Omnis]

So are those people in the Pennsylvania the ones that'd say Murray Christmas? Eric Berry = Urk Burry.

Also, Keef, you drink Faygo? What are you, a Juggalo?

 

[Pupik]

I think the question should say "Mary/merry/marry, why you buggin?"

I'm suddenly proud to be from Jersey again; the rest of the nation speaks in a borked manner.

 

[Slash]

I live in Western NY near Buffalo and just about everyone I know pronounces them the same.

As far as the pop/soda thing, there is a good mixture. I tend to lean towards pop but I've heard both and they are very common. Same deal with Caramel, mixture of both.

 

[Danoff]

I think the question should say "Mary/merry/marry, why you buggin?"

I'm suddenly proud to be from Jersey again; the rest of the nation speaks in a borked manner.

Yes, new Jersey has credibility in spades.

 

[Pupik]

Yes, new Jersey has credibility in spades.

...says the one going off the deep end about the pronunciation of "caramel".

As a matter of fact opinion, it's only slightly less of a pain in the ass than New York and California.

Note: I live in flah-ri-duh. No matter how many times I truly inadvertently say "y'all", my birthmark still shows, damn it. And I say the two "car-ml/ca-ra-mel" interchangeably, now that I think about it; probably based on when to accent that word with another word next to it. Which puts me in Nowherelandia.

 

[Keef]

So are those people in the Pennsylvania the ones that'd say Murray Christmas? Eric Berry = Urk Burry.

Also, Keef, you drink Faygo? What are you, a Juggalo?

Not unless I'm having pizza at Mikey's Late Night Slice in Columbus. All they offer is every flavor of Faygo.

Now, this is interesting.

Kentucky, you're not fooling anyone - it's on your water tower!

Also, on the website these maps have a mode where you can click them and show percentages for that location. Almost all the options show up in some percentage.

Also, I think I've discovered why that weirdo spot in Pennsylvania, west of Philly, is so different than the surrounding area. This map gave me a clue as I just learned about it in geography class the other day. Lutherans. Apparently Minnesota and the Dakotas are historically full of German immigrants, mostly Lutheran. The phrase from this map annoys me so much that I had to find out why that cluster from Pennsylvania spoke like the Lutherans from up north. As it turns out, that area which is mostly Lancaster county on the border of Maryland, and the areas around the north of it including Harrisburg, Hershey, and Reading, are full of German immigrants including many Amish Lutherans. The area used to be a hotbed for German-ish speakers who became known as the "Pennsylvania Dutch" and the dialect has probably carried over from the older residents.

As it turns out, this area includes the home of Yuengling brewery, America's oldest and exceedingly German.

Here's another map showing commonality with the Dakotas and Minnesota:

 

[Pupik]

Kentucky, you're not fooling anyone - it's on your water tower!

Here's the backstory on that water tower, by the way. It was supposed to say "Florence Mall".

And yes, I've photographed it. Worked right near it for two weeks...

 

[FoolKiller]

My brother lives just outside Florence. I pass that tower every time I go to Hofbrauhaus, Great Wolf Lodge, or Jungle Jims Market, which has a sweet Beerfest.

And I agree with Keef, most of us say y'all.

 

[arora]

Shelby County v. Hholder.

It seems rare these days to see anytime the federal gov sticks its nose where it does not belong a corrective action is taken. Go state's rights go go go! lol. Congress fail, lets see if they go back to the drawing board or just let it go.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/25/us-usa-court-voting-idUSBRE95O0TU20130625

In a 5-4 ruling with the court's conservatives in the majority, the justices ruled that Congress had used outdated facts in continuing to force nine states, mainly in the South, to get federal approval for voting rule changes affecting blacks and other minorities.

The court ruled in favor of officials from Shelby County, Alabama, by declaring unconstitutional a section of the law - most recently updated by Congress in 2006 - that set the formula that decides which states and locales with a history of racial discrimination need federal approval to change voting laws.

And for some of us that take the time to go to the source and actually see what is what, here is the supreme court dealie and a small snip of the opinion of the court 👍

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-96_6k47.pdf

Striking down an Act of Congress “is the gravest and most delicate duty that this Court is called on to perform.” Blodgett v. Holden, 275 U. S. 142, 148 (1927) (Holmes, J., concurring). We do not do so lightly. That is why, in 2009, we took care to avoid ruling on the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act when asked to do so, and instead resolved the case then before us on statutory grounds. But in issuing that decision, we expressed our broader concerns about the constitutionality of the Act. Congress could have updated the coverage formula at that time, but did not do so. Its failure to act leaves us today with no choice but to declare §4(b) unconstitutional. The formula in that section can no longer be used as a basis for subjecting jurisdictions to preclearance.

Of course we could dispute voter rights and such, as I've recently seen in another thread here, but I'm simply pointing out an instance where checks and balances might be in action.

 

[DK]

I use "fizzy drinks" rather than coke/soda/pop/soft drinks, even though the last one is a bit logical if you consider what they do to your teeth.

 

[Danoff]

Now, this is interesting.

I like y'all or you all for that. It's an important bit of grammar that seems to be missing from the English language. I've gotten out of the habit of using y'all, but I think it's a useful term.

 

[GTsail]

Shelby County v. Holder.

And for some of us that take the time to go to the source and actually see what is what, here is the Supreme Court dealie and a small snip of the opinion of the court 👍

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-96_6k47.pdf

Arora - Thanks for finding the link to the Supreme Court case:tup:

I've waded thru most of it...

The Supreme Court has ruled that Section 4 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act (VRA) is un-constitutional. Section 4 relates to the "formula" being used to determine which States/Counties are required to obtain pre-clearance for any changes to their voting procedures.

The Court's opinion is that the VRA's formula has become obsolete and now places an un-fair and discriminatory burden upon the various jurisdictions that are subject to Section 5 of the VRA because of the Section 4 "formula".

The Court says that it now sees that most States have shown vast improvements in minority voter partcipation, and near equal voter participation between covered and non-covered jurisdictions, and therefore the "formula" has become inappropriate/un-constitutional.

The Court says that "there is no doubt that these improvements are in large part because of the Voting Rights Act. The Act has proved immensely successful at redressing racial discrimination and integrating the voting process.", but that the Act is no longer needed to prevent voter discrimination.

I would like to be wrong, but I worry that we can expect to see an increase in various discriminatory voting procedures getting enacted by some jurisdictions now that they are not subject to the Federal pre-clearance/oversight. I suspect that we will now see enough voter discrimination lawsuits that un-employment for attorneys could be a thing of the past.

Does everyone think that the Supreme Court is correct to think that future voter discrimination is un-likely to increase in the previously covered States/Counties, now that the pre-clearance provision has been lifted?

Respectfully,
GTsail

 

[Danoff]

Does everyone think that the Supreme Court is correct to think that future voter discrimination is un-likely to increase in the previously covered States/Counties, now that the pre-clearance provision has been lifted?

Even if it did (and I'd be shocked to discover that), the previous law was not an appropriate or constitutional answer. This is not an all or nothing proposition. Repealing the one law doesn't mean a better one can't be put in its place.

 

[MisterWhiskers]

[Rant] About Snowden: I was just thinking about it and I think that what Snowden did was right. If the NSA is creeping on us, shame on them. The whole purpose of the internet is to search the internet privately. They can't find some sort of terrorist watching everybody. It's a right to have privacy. [/Rant]

My avatar goes perfect with my rant.

 

[FoolKiller]

[Rant] About Snowden: I was just thinking about it and I think that what Snowden did was right. If the NSA is creeping on us, shame on them. The whole purpose of the internet is to search the internet privately. They can't find some sort of terrorist watching everybody. It's a right to have privacy. [/Rant]

My avatar goes perfect with my rant.

Just so you know, PRISM has its own thread now. You'll find more discussion there.

 

[MisterWhiskers]

Just so you know, PRISM has its own thread now. You'll find more discussion there.

Oh, so that's why so many people were posting there. Sorry, I didn't know they would name it "Prism".

 

[FoolKiller]

Oh, so that's why so many people were posting there. Sorry, I didn't know they would name it "Prism".

Prism is the name of the program that's been widely exposed.

 

[GTsail]

Even if it did (and I'd be shocked to discover that), the previous law was not an appropriate or constitutional answer. This is not an all or nothing proposition.

I'm not sure if you are saying that the 1965 VRA was un-necessary back in 1965 or if you think that it became un-constitutional and unnecessary over time?

Repealing the one law doesn't mean a better one can't be put in its place.

I'm going to put on my Rose colored glasses....... I would like to think that America no longer needs a VRA that requires pre-clearance because America has evolved enough, and can handle any present or future racial voter discrimination on a case-by-case basis since the volume of such discrimination has been reduced significantly.👍

The Supreme Court's decision starts out by saying "The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was enacted to address entrenched racial discrimination in voting, "an insidious and pervasive evil which had been perpetuated in certain parts of our Country through unremitting and ingenious defiance of the Constitution."

The SC decision mentions why the VRA included the pre-clearance formula: "The Act was limited to areas where Congress found "evidence of actual voting discrimination, "and the covered jurisdictions shared two characteristics: "the use of tests and devices for voter registration, and a voting rate in the 1964 presidential election at least 12 points below the national average."

Earlier, in Katzenbach, (another SC case) the Supreme Court concluded that "the coverage formula was rational in both practice and theory." (so originally, the SC determined the the 1965 VRA was constitutional and appropriate for its originally intended purpose).

Now, with this new ruling, the Supreme Court feels that the formula in the VRA is un-constitutional, essentially saying that it should no longer be used as the basis for subjecting jurisdictions to pre-clearance.

As evidence, the Supreme Court cites a voter registration table from the 2004 Census (with most of the pre-clearance covered states), which shows a significant improvement in Black voter registration when compared to a similar table from 1965.

--------1965 data -----   ---2004 data ---
State  White  Black  Gap  White  Black  Gap
-----  -----   -----  ---  ------  -----  ---
Alabama  69.2  19.3   49.9  73.8  72.9   0.9
Georgia  62.6  27.4  35.2   63.5  64.2  -0.7
Louisian  80.5  31.6  48.9   75.1  71.1  4.0
Mississ   69.9  6.7   63.2   72.3   76.1 -3.8
S.Carol   75.7  37.3  38.4   74.4   71.1  3.3

Looking at the above table, you can see how large of a disparity in voter registration there was back in 1965,👎 and how now, in these states, the voter registration "gap" has essentially disappeared.👍 Mississippi now shows higher black voter registration than white voter registration, which is a long way from their 1965 rate of 6.7% (which was just terrible).

I would say that this table is very good news,👍 and could/can/should be used as evidence when considering whether the section 4 formula in the VRA is still necessary today.

The Supreme Court decision also mentions a Michigan Law School study/paper done by Ellen Katz, which studied voting discrimination, specifically looking at Judicial findings under Section 2 of the VRA from 1982 to 2005.

I've taken a look at the Katz study, and found it to be on point, and quite interesting (or as much as such a study can be).

The Katz study looked at 331 lawsuits which encompassed 763 court decisions, addressing Section 2 claims under the VRA since 1982.

Of the 123 successful plaintiff outcomes (from the above claims), 68 originated in pre-clearance covered jurisdictions, and 55 originated in non-covered jurisdictions.

68 out of 123 (55.3%) certainly points towards the fact that the pre-clearance jurisdictions have more Section 2 voter rights violations (maybe twice as many if you take population into account), but in my mind, not such a huge difference to make me jump out of my seat. Of, course, there would likely have been many more without the pre-clearance formula for the covered jurisdictions, but still....

The Katz study also noted that the Section 2 rights violations have been declining over time. The Katz study said that most of the rights violation occurred during 1980's (46.7%), then 38% during the 1990's, and finally declining to only 15.2% during the last five years.

This decline of Section 2 cases is relatively significant, and could/can/should be looked at when deciding if the pre-clearance formula from Section 4 of the VRA is still absolutely necessary.

My current thoughts:
Voter discrimination has been significantly reduced since 1965 (and the VRA should be thanked for its role in this).

I think that eliminating the pre-clearance formula in the VRA may have been premature, and we may see a quick increase in voter discrimination lawsuits, but maybe this will only be transitory and the Nation's path towards less racial discrimination will remain intact. Any back-sliding can still be addressed with Section 2 cases under the VRA (after the fact I know, but at least such discrimination can still be addressed).

I am old enough to remember the 1968 Presidential campaign of George Wallace (who was the Governor of the State of Alabama), and I do not want to see a return to the type of racial discrimination policies/ideas that were championed by politicians such as him.

Respectfully,
GTsail

 

[Tesla]

http://dailycaller.com/2013/06/27/t...-joke-during-video-game-is-jailed-for-months/

A Texas teenager who has been in jail since March faces an eight-year prison sentence because of a threatening joke he made while playing an online video game.

In February, Justin Carter was playing “League of Legends” — an online, multiplayer fantasy game — when another player wrote a comment calling him insane. Carter’s response, which he now deeply regrets, was intended as joke.

“He replied ‘Oh yeah, I’m real messed up in the head, I’m going to go shoot up a school full of kids and eat their still, beating hearts,’ and the next two lines were lol and jk,” said Jack Carter, Justin’s father, in a statement to a local news channel.

The statements “lol” and “jk” — meaning “laughing out loud” and “just kidding” — indicate that Justin’s statement was entirely sarcastic, said his father.

But a Canadian woman who saw the post looked up Carter’s Austin address, determined that it was near an elementary school, and called the police. Carter was arrested one month later, and has been in jail ever since. He recently celebrated his 19th birthday behind bars.

Authorities charged him with making a terrorist threat. If convicted, he will face eight years in prison.

“These people are serious. They really want my son to go away to jail for a sarcastic comment that he made,” said the elder Carter.

Authorities noted that recent school shootings like the one in Newtown, Connecticut have caused them to evaluate all potential threats seriously. Newtown was still fresh in their minds at the time of Carter’s arrest.

“In light of recent situations, statements such as the one Justin made are taken seriously,” said an Austin police detective in a statement.

Carter’s father said his son didn’t follow the news at all.

“Justin was the kind of kid who didn’t read the newspaper,” said Jack Carter. “He didn’t watch television. He wasn’t aware of current events. These kids, they don’t realize what they’re doing. They don’t understand the implications. They don’t understand.”

Carter’s parents have launched a change.org petition to convince Texas Attorney General Greg Abbot to release their son.

“Release Justin Carter from jail,” the petition reads. “Too many teenagers are being arrested, jailed and having their lives forever altered because of anti-terrorism laws and investigations that impede their 1st Amendment right to freedom of speech.”

A hearing to review Carter’s case is scheduled for July 1.

How can they possibly take that long to talk to him and realize he's a sane kid who wouldn't do that and that it was said light-heartedly? I mean, there's hardly a history of school shooters posting about it publicly in the non-immediate time before it.

 

[MisterWhiskers]

http://dailycaller.com/2013/06/27/t...-joke-during-video-game-is-jailed-for-months/



How can they possibly take that long to talk to him and realize he's a sane kid who wouldn't do that and that it was said light-heartedly? I mean, there's hardly a history of school shooters posting about it publicly in the non-immediate time before it.

That's what happens when you are not sure. Put yourself in someone's shoes who are playing the game in his lobby or something. Would you not be sure and risk lives, with the person potentially being a mentally insane person. Who puts "lol" and "jk" after a post like that?! I would've done the same if I were that person.

 

[Joel]

You would have tracked his address and called local police because someone was being rude in League of Legends? God, 80% of the player base should be in prison.

 

[MisterWhiskers]

You would have tracked his address and called local police because someone was being rude in League of Legends? God, 80% of the player base should be in prison.

Oh, because someone threatening to SHOOT A WHOLE SCHOOL is nothing concerning, right?! Do you want Newtown to be repeated?! Think about it. I even live near Newtown, too, about 30 minutes away. I cried as a grown man when watching the news. Even laws were passed because of what happened on December 14th, 2012. I expected a smarter answer from you, Noob616.

 

[MarinaDiamandis]

Oh, because someone threatening to SHOOT A WHOLE SCHOOL is nothing concerning, right?! Do you want Newtown to be repeated?! Think about it. I even live near Newtown, too, about 30 minutes away. I cried as a grown man when watching the news. Even laws were passed because of what happened on December 14th, 2012. I expected a smarter answer from you, Noob616.

Oh, won't somebody please think of the children! Monitor my every move and record my every word, and ban every gun in the country so nothing like this happens again. I promise I won't forget to report my own brother to the authorities for using dark humour.

Nobody cares if you live near Newtown. Nobody cares if you are a grown man who cries. Nobody should care about kids joking around in a game.

If everything I said online was to be taken seriously, my child support payments would be astronomical.

I would say I expected a smarter answer from you, but I'd be lying.

 

[MisterWhiskers]

Oh, won't somebody please think of the children! Monitor my every move and record my every word, and ban every gun in the country so nothing like this happens again. I promise I won't forget to report my own brother to the authorities for using dark humour.

Nobody cares if you live near Newtown. Nobody cares if you are a grown man who cries. Nobody should care about kids joking around in a game.

If everything I said online was to be taken seriously, my child support payments would be astronomical.

I would say I expected a smarter answer from you, but I'd be lying.

I think monitoring kids not strictly enough is a problem. I know kids who do weed in the woods and parents are looking for them. I wouldn't expect a smart answer from you, either. You are like the Hunter Killer killstreak from Black Ops 2. You insult me on everything you see I post, like my personal moderator. It makes me sick how you think it is not a problem what this kid said. I honestly don't give a **** what you say, either. "lol" and "jk" won't erase what he said. She did the right thing to stop someone who potentially could kill someone or a large group of kids in a school. You are pathetic and rude, MD.

 

[Tesla]

I think monitoring kids not strictly enough is a problem. I know kids who do weed in the woods and parents are looking for them. I wouldn't expect a smart answer from you, either. You insult me on everything you see I post. It makes me sick how you think it is not a problem what this kid said. I honestly don't give a **** what you say, either. "lol" and "jk" won't erase what he said. She did the right thing to stop someone who potentially could kill someone or a large group of kids in a school. You are pathetic and rude, MD.

In the context of the situation, this was not a threat. Anyone could potentially kill someone or a large group of kids. The job of the police and people reporting others is to know whether or not there is sufficient evidence, like a change in behavior over a larger period of time, combined with purchasing of weapons and reading into previous shootings and building plans. Even then, it'd be best to sit down and talk about it rather than report them to the police. Have them talk to a professional about their issues.

 

[Bopop4]

I know kids who do weed in the woods.

Oh noes.

I wouldn't expect a smart answer from you, either.

You are like the Hunter Killer killstreak from Black Ops 2.

...

You insult me on everything you see I post, like my personal moderator.

It's needed.



Is there any blue/"You" on that map or I'm I just missing it?

 

[JGreens]

Put yourself in someone's shoes who are playing the game in his lobby or something. Would you not be sure and risk lives, with the person potentially being a mentally insane person. Who puts "lol" and "jk" after a post like that?! I would've done the same if I were that person.

Just wandered in here and I have to ask the question:

Do you understand sarcasm?

It's clearly made in humour and not to be taken seriously. This is the internet, not reality.

 

[Joel]

Oh, because someone threatening to SHOOT A WHOLE SCHOOL is nothing concerning, right?! Do you want Newtown to be repeated?

 

[FoolKiller]

That's what happens when you are not sure. Put yourself in someone's shoes who are playing the game in his lobby or something. Would you not be sure and risk lives, with the person potentially being a mentally insane person. Who puts "lol" and "jk" after a post like that?! I would've done the same if I were that person.

Lets assume that in this new world order full of terrorist boogeymen and a sociopath teenager in every other house that we can no longer tolerate even sarcasm, humor, or child's play. Why is this kid being held for nearly five months without a trial? The July 1st date isn't even a trial. It's a case review.

Better yet, why is a clearly joking comment made in response to a joking comment worth an eight-year prison sentence? Even if what he did violates some new kind of zero tolerance law, is it worth eight years? He said something you didn't like, big gorram deal. If it takes five months just to determine if he really is a threat you suck at investigative work. If saying something that might possibly, when taken out of context, white washed, and fed through a lawyer's liability threat simulator is a crime worth eight years in prison, as opposed to mental health treatment, then the whole justice system is screwed up. This is just a dumb kid, who in our worst case, shutter the windows and hide under the bed scenario, is troubled. Their answer to it is to put him in prison with actual criminals, and have him come out in his mid-late twenties with no job skills and formal education, being taught the ways of the criminal world. He will come out being better at cooking meth than working a cash register.

But ultimately, this is just another symptom of our whole system going bat nuts insane.

A kid accidentally chews his pop-tart into a gun shape, notices, and says bang to his friend. Suspended.

A 5-year-old girl is overheard discussing her plans to play with her Hello Kitty bubble gun with her friend. Suspended.

Pretending a pencil is a gun. Suspended.

Caught with a nerf gun. Suspended.

Toy cap gun souvenir from a place called Frontiertown. Questioned without parents present, until he wet himself. Suspended.

To make it even worse, most of these kids will have their school records indicating they violated the school's gun policy, which can affect their schooling until, and possibly even affect getting into, college.


Tell me these are cases of just being sure so that Newtown doesn't happen again. I played cops & robbers and cowboys & Indians. I'm a terrorist, sociopath, and racist by today's standards. I played with cap guns, BB guns, laser tag guns, and even real guns. I was 13 when a friend had a birthday party at a laser tag arena. For 20 minutes at a time a group of kids ran around with guns that vibrated to simulate being fired, and vests that vibrated to simulate being shot and told you when you were "dead" so you had to go recharge at your base. At 13 me and my friends were developing squad tactics to take our enemies' base and "kill" any who tried to get to our base. After each game we discussed ways to improve, strategies, good cover positions, reload stations that we need to keep covered, and so forth. None of us ever killed a single person in real life.


The problem isn't the threat of a school shooting. It's thought police. We're strictly punishing kids for doing what kids have been doing since the beginning of civilization. It's just that now some of these douche bags think we are too civilized and advanced to have children that play violence. Screw them.

Nearly every pivotal moment in history, good or bad, is marked by some form of war or violence. The people we list as heroes of any kind put their personal safety at risk. But we can't pretend to be the very people who made it so that our biggest threat is some angsty teen or some zealot in a cave. When a Hello Kitty bubble gun or sarcastic comment between friends are threats worth lifting a finger over we clearly have solved all the real problems and now the busy body whiners need something to keep them busy. Or, we let our government convince us that the scary stories of terrorist/sociopath boogeymen are so real and imminent that we must give up not only our rights but our common sense and sanity.

Imagine if these busy bodies focused on something real, like cancer. We'd have no disease if they would shut up and do something useful.




While I'm on my government stomping free speech rant:

http://www.cbs8.com/story/22686986/local-mans-chalk-protest-could-land-him-in-jail

SAN DIEGO (CBS 8) - A North Park man is looking at more than a decade behind bars for using washable chalk to protest the banking industry.

Jeff Olson is being charged with 13 counts of vandalism for writing anti-bank slogans on sidewalks outside three Bank of America branches.

A surveillance camera caught Olson in the act, writing on the sidewalk in front of a Bank of America in North Park. But here's the thing -- Olson admits it.

"I wrote 'No thanks big banks,' I wrote 'Shame on Bank of America,'" he said.

For Olson it was about free speech, letting customers know that he blamed big banks for much of our economy's problems. Not for a minute did he consider it vandalism.

"Always on city sidewalks, washable chalk, never crude messages, never vulgar, clearly topical," he said.

But the city attorney's office -- after receiving multiple emails from a high ranking bank security manager -- decided to charge Olson with 13 counts of misdemeanor vandalism.

"It seems a little extreme," bank customer Wendy Greene said.

Greene remembers seeing Olson's writing outside her B of A branch. She doesn't consider it vandalism.

"No, vandalism is not the work that came to mind. Seemed like freedom of speech. A little extreme, but it was just chalk," Greene said.

Other customers wondered if Olson can be charged, is their child next?

"My daughter plays with chalk every day and writes on the sidewalk. We just wash it off," a North Park resident said.

Olson's attorney argued in motions Tuesday morning that this is free speech written in easily cleanable chalk, but Judge Howard Shore disagreed, saying this case has nothing to do with free speech.

"In light of the fact that it's clear in the case law, vandalism is not a legitimate exercise of free speech rights. It really is irrelevant what the message is, or content is," Judge Shore said.

That's not to say Olson is guilty, but the jury cannot consider his right to free speech when deciding his fate.

Someone needs to stand in front of that courthouse and hand out fliers about jury nullification.

[/rant]

Move along. Nothing to see here. Just the rantings of a middle-aged man who was considered a paranoid , anti-government, conspiracy theorist by his family, until a month ago.