3 ms·

It's the Al Capone gambit. Capone was not jailed for his criminal activities, but for not reporting the income from them. Martha Stewart went to jail, not for

by russell 17y ago

It's the Al Capone gambit. Capone was not jailed for his criminal activities, but for not reporting the income from them. Martha Stewart went to jail, not for insider trading, but for lying about it. My guess is that this particular piece of legislation violates first amendment rights, so this is just legislative grandstanding, an activity not unknown these days,

benatkin 17y ago
> My guess is that this particular piece of legislation violates first amendment rights They've got that one covered. > Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to authorize, require or establish censorship or to limit in any way or infringe upon freedom of the press or of speech as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States and no regulation shall be promulgated hereunder having that effect. Fortunately I don't live in S. C., so I'm free to construe it any way I want. What a cynical piece of legislation.
cabalamat 17y ago
> this is just legislative grandstanding Wouldn't it be nice if whenever politicians did that, $1000 was docked from their wages? It'll never happen, of course.
joe_the_user 17y ago
You're point is? Al Capone was certainly a criminal. Martha Stewart was celebrity in the wrong place at the wrong time when someone needed to make a point. The government interprets laws for it's convenience, yes. Occasionally to our benefit, often otherwise. The law in the article certainly violates the 1st, 4th and 5th amendments as they've generally been interpreted (freedom of speech, right to privacy, right avoid self-incrimination). But such laws have been in force in this country before so I wouldn't be sure they can't appear again. At this moment, though, this will probably turn out to be an embarrassment.
- russell 17y ago
  My point is that there are enough laws that a determined prosecutor can get you on something even if he cant on the big crime. Perhaps Capone is not a good example because he committed a lot of crimes that we all think deserve jail time. Martha Stewart is a more interesting case in this context. She was never convicted of insider trading and probably could not have, but she could not keep her mouth shut. She lied about something something that probably was not a crime, However the lying was enough to get her jail time. This legislation is a trap to catch people who would not otherwise be guilty of a crime.
  - joe_the_user 17y ago
    Yes indeed, from the SC state website: Any organization or person who violates any of the provisions of this chapter shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished by a fine of not more than twenty-five thousand dollars or imprisonment for not more than ten years, or by both fine and imprisonment. http://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t23c029.htm http://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t23c029.htm Not admitting to doing something that isn't necessarily illegal puts you at risk for a ten year sentence...

by russell 17y ago

benatkin 17y ago

> My guess is that this particular piece of legislation violates first amendment rights They've got that one covered. > Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to authorize, require or establish censorship or to limit in any way or infringe upon freedom of the press or of speech as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States and no regulation shall be promulgated hereunder having that effect. Fortunately I don't live in S. C., so I'm free to construe it any way I want. What a cynical piece of legislation.

cabalamat 17y ago

> this is just legislative grandstanding Wouldn't it be nice if whenever politicians did that, $1000 was docked from their wages? It'll never happen, of course.

joe_the_user 17y ago

You're point is? Al Capone was certainly a criminal. Martha Stewart was celebrity in the wrong place at the wrong time when someone needed to make a point. The government interprets laws for it's convenience, yes. Occasionally to our benefit, often otherwise. The law in the article certainly violates the 1st, 4th and 5th amendments as they've generally been interpreted (freedom of speech, right to privacy, right avoid self-incrimination). But such laws have been in force in this country before so I wouldn't be sure they can't appear again. At this moment, though, this will probably turn out to be an embarrassment.

russell 17y ago
My point is that there are enough laws that a determined prosecutor can get you on something even if he cant on the big crime. Perhaps Capone is not a good example because he committed a lot of crimes that we all think deserve jail time. Martha Stewart is a more interesting case in this context. She was never convicted of insider trading and probably could not have, but she could not keep her mouth shut. She lied about something something that probably was not a crime, However the lying was enough to get her jail time. This legislation is a trap to catch people who would not otherwise be guilty of a crime.
- joe_the_user 17y ago
  Yes indeed, from the SC state website: Any organization or person who violates any of the provisions of this chapter shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished by a fine of not more than twenty-five thousand dollars or imprisonment for not more than ten years, or by both fine and imprisonment. http://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t23c029.htm http://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t23c029.htm Not admitting to doing something that isn't necessarily illegal puts you at risk for a ten year sentence...