Jim Choate writes:
>> Tim asserts that the falsehood "John is a child molester" should not be
>> subject to either civil or criminal action.
> Exactly. The simple act of making that statement in public or private,
> alone or in a crowd is irrelevant to any action that follows. It therefore
> can not be held responsbile. The 'speech' can do no harm.
>> Whether he feels the falsehood "I have your cat in my microwave" or "I
>> have your kid" should be treated the same way, he has yet to state.
> And those statements in and of themselves, whether made in jest or
> intentional malice, should not be punishable. Now if the cat is actually
> in the microwave then the person who actually PUT them in there should be
> held accountable.
We're examining the case in which the claim is false.
> This entire perspective also ignores the fact that causing a riot in a
> theatre is a crime irrespective of mechanism used to cause it. Not only
> should the person yelling 'Fire' in the theatre be criminaly accountable
> but the theatre owner and patrons should also have civil recourse. Not for
> the screaming if "Fire", or the waving of a pistol or a penis.
Of course, some might argue that this is simply the well-known "Heckler's
Veto," in which people engage in misbehavior in order to claim it was
caused by a speaker whose views they disagree with.
If it is a crime to start a theatre riot by yelling "Fire!", should it
also be a crime to start one by yelling "Muhammad's wives are whores" or
"I don't believe in Santa Claus?"
Pretty soon you'll have people throwing fits on cue.
> You in effect do not believe that people should be judged for their acts,
> but also for their fundamental beliefs. As if there were some critical set
> that was less relative than the other alternatives.
Nope. People are free to believe anything they want. Even false things.
When they espouse those beliefs, and incite iminent lawless action on the
part of others towards some hapless individual, then they should be held
accountable.
But only if their claims are false, they were either malicious in stating
the false claims, or negligent in not knowing the difference, and a
"reasonable person" hearing the claims would likely act in a way which
placed himself or other people in danger of serious injury or death.
--
Eric Michael Cordian 0+
O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division
"Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"
