US Judge fines 40 people $80,000 for signing petition

[d-cat]

US Judge fines 40 people $80,000 for signing petition
link to youtube

[Hotspring 44]

d-cat; is that your only source? Are there any other sources that are more known for example, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle, or Library of Congress? Or is this just one web site that you absolutely trust? Do you really trust only one source for information like that when it is not the Library of Congress?
Sometimes those media networks that I mentioned, don't get it right all the time, but to cite one or two of them saying the same thing I think would be a better source than just some hyped-up youtube personality/s.

I'm not going to unblock it just to see some erroneous BS.
Until you can link some (or a least one) reliable source/s that doesn't trigger my firewall, I am saying that I would be willing to look at them. But unless I see something credible, to the contrary, I still stand by what I said before that; the intent of the law the way it's written that you're citing as far as I can tell, is; people that have a “position” in that institution can not use that “position” to do those specified things; it's kind of like if you're working for somebody in the private world and you use your position as an employee and libel the employer; that would be grounds for firing you (and possibly suing you); well, the laws we are talking about here are similar, except it specifically specifies certain things that are not permitted, and as far as I can tell they are just specifying very judiciously, what you can and cannot use that position for. That position is a granted government contract position. It does not mean you do not have civil rights to do things on your own when you are not utilizing that position.(Granted, one has to be very careful how they say and do things when they are doing those things as a private individual when one holds such a position, so as not to be held liable.). As far as I'm concerned the source/s that you have cited so far is/are unreliable at best.

US Judge fines 40 people $80,000 for signing petition link to youtube

[Barry]

Please don't paste in (or quote) copies of the screen that says a website is not safe. For some reason it is screwing up the digest.

If you must, just include a link and describe what happpens, or take a screen capture into an .jpg and post that.

Thanks,
Barry

[Hotspring 44]

“Please don't paste in (or quote) copies of the screen that says a website is not save. For some reason it is screwing up the digest. If you must, just include a link and describe what happpens, or take a screen capture into an .jpg and post that. Thanks, Barry”

Barry; sorry about that I did not have any idea that it would (or even could) screw up the digest in any way.
Also I do not know at this point how to or have screen capture capability to copy as .jpg. Update: somebody just showed me how to do it in shared program with me so that I would be able to put it into jpg format. But I am going to try to get screen capture capability soon. Update: (Got it)
Apparently, I should not even quote the fire wall warning in text only form? So now that I have the program and am enabled to put in jpg format I have done here and will just do that in the future. However, the question to Barry still remains; not even in text only form?


Anyway, what does happen is that when I go to the link that d-cat provided for this topic in this thread, my firewall tells me that it is a dangerous web site. When I look it up on my firewall it says this: Threat: this web site is potentially unsafe because it contains spy ware or malicious code, is a fake web site, or has a poor reputation level.

So anyway, I'm still saying that d-cat’s source in regards to this topic specifically; is unreliable at best, and could actually be a Web threat, according to my firewall.
I am also saying that I am willing to investigate deeper into the topic here as a personal preference; so long as my firewall doesn't warn me against it as far as links are concerned. I am more open-minded than open to Web threats.
That being said, there has been no other reliable sources provided by anyone at this point for what d-cat apparently claims is factual. So I tend to believe that it is hype along the same lines as the health-care debate has been pushed into. Like I said before without reliable sources for confirmation through the Library of Congress or any of the reliable media outlets, it’s BS.
This is what it said, I put it in jpg.

Please don't paste in (or quote) copies of the screen that says a website is not save. For some reason it is screwing up the digest.

If you must, just include a link and describe what happpens, or take a screen capture into an .jpg and post that.

Thanks,
Barry

[Barry]

Apparently, I should not even quote the fire wall warning in text only form? So now that I have the program and am enabled to put in jpg format I have done here and will just do that in the future. However, the question to Barry still remains; not even in text only form?

I don't know what is causing the problem. Please don't cut and paste anything from warning screen. Either include a screenshot (as you did and worked fine), or type in any text you want to reproduce. And really all you need to say is "I got a warning that it was a dangerous website."

Thanks!