It bans “correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States”.
Trying to influence others is fundamentally protected by the First Amendment, even if (especially if!) your interests are not the same as those of the government.
International diplomacy without being an elected official or appointed by one is not protected speech. Using overly reductive language to make it sound like a campaign stop won’t change that.
Trying to influence others is fundamentally protected by the First Amendment, even if (especially if!) your interests are not the same as those of the government.
Charles Manson would like to hire you as a lawyer.
Oh so you just have no idea what he’s in jail for, got it. He never murdered anyone, he famously convinced other people to commit murder and got convicted of murder himself. You know, the complete opposite of what you think the 1st amendment protects you from.
He didn’t just convince people. For example, in one of the murders he drove with his accomplices to the crime scene.
Prosecutors can use any concrete action, no matter how minor, to tie him to the murder. Manson’s gun was used in the Tate murders, which is more than enough. But even giving the others a place to stay can be enough.
The elements of a conspiracy are (a) planning a crime with someone, and (b) taking any step, no matter how minor, to advance the plan.
Both are necessary. Planning a violent revolution without taking any concrete action is just talking shit, which is generally not illegal. Good thing for Lemmy users.
Likewise, inadvertently helping a murderer without having a criminal plan, like Ma and Pa, is also not illegal.
Put the two together, and you’ve got an illegal conspiracy.
It bans “correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States”.
What exactly do you think negotiating U.S.-Saudi diplomacy when he wasn’t tasked to by the government is doing?
Yes, I quoted the Logan Act to point out that it’s directly at odds with the First Amendment. A law that bans “influencing” someone will quickly be ruled unconstitutional as soon as anyone tries to enforce it.
There are many anachronistic laws that are still on the books but will be thrown out if anyone tries to enforce them today. For example, in some states homosexuality is technically banned, but those bans are unenforceable and people “flagrantly violate the law” every day.
Interesting that his law, signed into law by a founding father no less, is an anachronistic law, but the constitution is supposed to be rock solid and the law of the land. Looking at you, second amendment
Our interpretation of the First Amendment has undeniably changed a lot over the centuries. The Sedition Act, also in 1798, sent someone to jail for calling the President “not only a repulsive pedant, a gross hypocrite, and an unprincipled oppressor, but…in private life, one of the most egregious fools upon the continent.” Such a prosecution would be a non-starter today.
It’s sad that the Second Amendment seems to be frozen in time, for now.
The Logan Act says nothing about contracts.
It bans “correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States”.
Trying to influence others is fundamentally protected by the First Amendment, even if (especially if!) your interests are not the same as those of the government.
International diplomacy without being an elected official or appointed by one is not protected speech. Using overly reductive language to make it sound like a campaign stop won’t change that.
Charles Manson would like to hire you as a lawyer.
Charles Manson was guilty of murder and conspiracy, which are more than just influencing others. Both require taking some concrete action.
Oh so you just have no idea what he’s in jail for, got it. He never murdered anyone, he famously convinced other people to commit murder and got convicted of murder himself. You know, the complete opposite of what you think the 1st amendment protects you from.
He didn’t just convince people. For example, in one of the murders he drove with his accomplices to the crime scene.
Prosecutors can use any concrete action, no matter how minor, to tie him to the murder. Manson’s gun was used in the Tate murders, which is more than enough. But even giving the others a place to stay can be enough.
Shit, we better get to locking up all the parents. Sorry Ma and Pa, he lived under your roof for 15 years obviously you’re an accessory.
The elements of a conspiracy are (a) planning a crime with someone, and (b) taking any step, no matter how minor, to advance the plan.
Both are necessary. Planning a violent revolution without taking any concrete action is just talking shit, which is generally not illegal. Good thing for Lemmy users.
Likewise, inadvertently helping a murderer without having a criminal plan, like Ma and Pa, is also not illegal.
Put the two together, and you’ve got an illegal conspiracy.
Oh so you lied earlier then.
No, I didn’t. I’ll walk you through it again.
(a) Manson convinced people to join his murder plan. But he didn’t just convince people, he also
(b) Took a concrete step to actualize his plan
When (a) and (b) are both present, that’s a conspiracy
What exactly do you think negotiating U.S.-Saudi diplomacy when he wasn’t tasked to by the government is doing?
He is trying to influence Saudi-US diplomatic relations, which we all have a First Amendment right to do.
He isn’t “negotiating a contract”, because only agents of the US government can negotiate contracts with the US.
What you quoted literally says it’s banned. I mean “with intent to influence” is right there in the text you quoted. Did you even read it?
Yes, I quoted the Logan Act to point out that it’s directly at odds with the First Amendment. A law that bans “influencing” someone will quickly be ruled unconstitutional as soon as anyone tries to enforce it.
There are many anachronistic laws that are still on the books but will be thrown out if anyone tries to enforce them today. For example, in some states homosexuality is technically banned, but those bans are unenforceable and people “flagrantly violate the law” every day.
Interesting that his law, signed into law by a founding father no less, is an anachronistic law, but the constitution is supposed to be rock solid and the law of the land. Looking at you, second amendment
Our interpretation of the First Amendment has undeniably changed a lot over the centuries. The Sedition Act, also in 1798, sent someone to jail for calling the President “not only a repulsive pedant, a gross hypocrite, and an unprincipled oppressor, but…in private life, one of the most egregious fools upon the continent.” Such a prosecution would be a non-starter today.
It’s sad that the Second Amendment seems to be frozen in time, for now.