--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
<snip>
You and I can argue whether the police are justified
in arresting you (they either arrest you or not- there
is no grey area) for saying the word 'bomb' until our
fingers fall off. FYI the original circumstance i had
in mind is that if you're having a normal
conversation, say about a book, and you say the word
'bomb', you become a suspect.
All of that is beside the point- what counts is the
rule of law. All speech in the US is protected by the
1st with the exception of 8 circumstances which you
can find described in detail. A simple word does not
endanger others - but currently by saying it in any
context in an airport gives the police the right to
arrest you.
> 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 repealed etc.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.
All of these safeguards i'm aware of. My point is
that it shouldn't have been allowed in the first place
because, as the 1st is interpreted right here and now,
it is protected along with the vast bulk of other
speech.
What it boils down to is that the system is allowing
itself to look the other way and violate the
foundations of it's own establishment for convenience
sake. What else will they overlook in the bill of
rights?
>
>
> 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.
>
Allowing an innocent citizen to be treated as a
suspect with such extremely weak evidence is
preposterous.
>
> 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?
>>
As you might have guessed, it's my own judgement. If
a federal court had decided that, we wouldn't have
them. That's why i'm bringing the matter up. It's an
even more clear cut case of treating innocent citizens
as criminals - it's assuming guilt for everyone
driving along a given stretch of road at a given time.
What is really disturbing me is your attitude towards
criminal law. You figure if the police would like to
do it (for whatever reason), then they must be doing
their jobs. Fine, that's reasonable. What you're not
considering is how when the police are allowed to
expand their powers, the rights of everyone shrink.
Not just of the criminals, *everyone*. And even if it
would only be encroaching on the rights of a convicted
criminal, should we still not pause before proceeding
so recklessly?
dean
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
