Freedom lost in the U.S.A.?

Satcomer · #1 January 12th, 2004, 11:39 AM

I bring this to your attention because I'm starting to feel that the criticism of freedom lost in the U.S.A. might be actually true! I bring up the case of Martha Stewart. Her case comes up soon but not on what you have been to lead to think. The case has been moved because the Justice Department can't provide enough evidence to go to court. So what's the case about now. Hang onto your hats. It's because after the initial change she is being charged in CIVIL court because the government believes when she first declared her innocence she was propping up her companies falling stock price!!! So she is being charged with declare her innocence. The us media doesn't even seem to care. I also believe the word EVEY plays BIG in this case.

Go ahead and read these responses.

Now I know a lot of you are from other countries. I just want to get out into the open my suspicions. I'm just starting to become disenfranchised. I particularly don't like the style of Martha Stewart. However, for some reason, I just believe this is how really a lot of things are being done now in the U.S. now. I thought I would never say that.

Da_iMac_Daddy · #2 January 12th, 2004, 11:53 AM

If you think Martha Stewart's criminal case is the biggest threat to our freedom you should consider yourself lucky. I see things all over every day that make me sick to my stomach.

Read anything about the DMCA; they are a horrible threat to our freedom of speech.

::edit:: http://anti-dmca.org/ ::/edit::

pds · #3 January 12th, 2004, 01:36 PM

DCMA represents one kind of threat, that of special interest influence in lawmaking.

Martha represents another, a mindset that your motives are a) knowable and b) judgeable (subject to legal action).

The former is troubling, the latter is dangerous.

Satcomer · #4 January 12th, 2004, 07:34 PM

What I am saying is the Stewart case pointed something out to me when I read about it. I now can see the chipping away of the rights in the U.S.A. When the government went after her on the current charges it just looks like they are bending over backwards to nail her with anything they can cook up.

**mdnky** · #5 January 14th, 2004, 12:59 AM

Quite honestly I think she should be locked away for the whole insider trading thing. She's no better than those guys at Enron or Worldcom.

As far as the other part, I'd like to see some kind of proof to that statement. It seems to me that the news would be all over that story if it were true. There is no legal grounds to try her for stating she's innocent, that is a right after all. The only thing they could do is get her for perjury of some kind maybe, if she lied with intent to a comission or an inquiry by the SEC.

Liberty is going great for others, heck Ohio finally got their buts in gear and actually followed their state constitution and the US Constitution. Their residents finally get to enjoy the ability to decided for themselves if they want to protect themselves or not, LONG OVERDUE. Good news for the law-abiding citizens, bad news for the crooks.

pds · #6 January 14th, 2004, 01:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdnky

Quite honestly I think she should be locked away for the whole insider trading thing. She's no better than those guys at Enron or Worldcom.

Her and everyone who works in the securities industry? Insider trading is a fact of life there. That's the root of the truth in the saw "You need money to make money."

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdnky

Liberty is going great for others, heck Ohio finally got their buts in gear and actually followed their state constitution and the US Constitution. Their residents finally get to enjoy the ability to decided for themselves if they want to protect themselves or not, LONG OVERDUE. Good news for the law-abiding citizens, bad news for the crooks.

Please elaborate for non-residents.

diablojota · #7 January 14th, 2004, 04:14 AM

I have heard no such move of venue for the court case against Martha Stewart. In fact, I almost find it implausible since there was plenty of evedince that she partook in insider trading. I mean, she sold the stock the day before they announced that the product was not working. She sold almost all of her shares too! That is more than enough evidence in any SEC filed case.

**Giaguara** · #8 January 14th, 2004, 07:54 AM

Who is this Martha Stewart? What is she blamed exactly for? I want to hear it from other source than on her website.