Jim Choate writes:
>> If Fred has an odd sense of humor, and tells blind people the opposite
>> of what the traffic lights say, his actual speech needs to be managed.
> You don't 'control the speech' you punish the son of a bitch for at least
> attempted murder. A couple of those and 'odd sense of humor' will be
> mediated by common sense.
That's still controlling Fred's subsequent speech, albeit indirectly.
Also, in cases where the damage doesn't rise to the level of attempted
murder, it seems to me Tim is saying that no one should be able to file
a civil suit against Fred, absent a pre-existing contract with Fred for
some service, which Fred has violated.
[In deference to "he who is easily offended", the imaginary character
of "Timmy" will henceforth be known as "Larry."]
>> If Larry causes mass death by screaming "Anthrax Attack" in an
>> underground walkway during rush hour, resulting in a massive
>> stampeding, crushing, and trampling incident, his actual speech needs
>> to be managed.
> No, the consequence, breaking the peace, needs to be punished.
So you're not against civil suits like Tim is, you're only against
prior restraint. That I have no problem with.
--
Eric Michael Cordian 0+
O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division
"Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"
