In a message dated 7/22/01 12:29:50 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
< The word 'bomb' without context is most certainly not
under those exceptions.
I would argue that the word bomb has a context in this circumstance - you are
in an airport or on an airplane.
You don't seem to understand that the burden of proof is on those who wish to
take away rights, not the ones who want to keep them.
Would you seriously like to encourage a government
where we have to justify the use of our rights before
we can take advantage of them?
Saying the wrong word
in the wrong place does not justify your being
arrested.
Unless it endangers others. By the way, just because you are detained does
not mean you are arrested or that you have to go to trial. It simply means
that the security forces are being prudent. What would you suggest they do if
someone comes through the security check points and says "Bomb"? Are they to
ignore the potential threat and assume you are a jerk? If I am flying through
that airport I would certainly prefer that they detain you until you have
proved that you are simply a jerk.
What if the police decide other words
spoken in other places warrant your arrest, and the
courts say 'yeah, sure - it will make us safer, so
we're justified in taking just a tiny bit more of
people's rights away'? That's the slippery slope.
Yes I know it is the slippery slope and I would argue that we have adequate
safeguards to prevent this from happening. You can defend your use of a word
through the court system and may make it to the supreme court. You can sue.
You can try to exert political pressure to insure that the new law is
repealed etc. I would argue that we must always look to balance individual
freedom with public safety. This is what we do all the time.
Keep in mind we're talking about the way law abiding
citizens of the US of A are being treated- we're
innocent until proven guilty.
No - treated as suscpect when acting in a way that could be reasonably be
construed to endanger others.
Which brings me to ask what you meant when you implied
that i'm using the 'slippery slope' concept to my
advantage. Do you mean that i'm out to repeal some or
all legislation until i've established some sort of
libertarian (or anarchist) utopia?
No, I mean that slippery slope arguements are always suspect because there is
an assumption that there will not be counter-balancing forces that are acting
to make the slope less steep and less slippery.
Want more stuff to argue about? Drunk driving check
points are unconstitutional also. ;)
And this has been decided by which federal court? >>
