On Fri, 11 May 2001, Eric Cordian wrote:
> 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.
No, it isn't. It actually ignores ANY mechanism that the murderer might
choose to use. It matters not "Why?" or "How?", only that it did happen.
To even ask the questions of "Why?" or "How?" in relation to the question
of actual guilt is nothing more than a covert admission that the agencies
doing the judging believe that 'murder' is justified in some cases (most
likely when it is politicaly or economically convenient of course), if
only the right magic incantation is used. That in fact it isn't a question
of 'justice' or any concept of 'equality under the law' that in fact it is
nothing more than mere human opinion...All hale the high priests of
justice!!!!
Your position breaks down into two assertions then:
- Each individual is responsible for their speech
- Each individual should show no self control over their speech,
they should in fact blabber whatever comes into their heads
in a continous stream of noise. Otherwise it's 'censorship'
because somebody might find the silence offensive
The reality is that not only are people responsible for their speech but
ONLY they are in a position to decide if they wish to live with the
consequences of any particular act. Whether that act involves speech or
not is irrlevant. In fact, whether the act uses a gun, knife, baseball
bat, whatever is irrelevant. It is the act that is of interest to the
concept of 'justice' not the mechanism. The ONLY value of demonstrating
mechanism is to clarify both motive and opportunity with respect to guilt.
In no case is it relevant to 'justification' or 'defence' with respect to
acts of the judging body.
There is an additional problem with your position. If I am not to be
trusted to manage my own speech in all cases, what makes this supposed
angelic censor so reliable? Are they not people? Are they not the same end
result of several billion years of evolution? Or are you claiming that
such agents are in fact homo superior? (and I'm sure you believe yourself
to be a flagship member as well). Or perhaps you have some magic
incantation that is exorcised over them giving them some extra-sensory
perception (as symbolized in badges, law degrees, and black robes)? If it
works for them, why not just do it to everyone and be done with it?
Now you can of course claim that such a goal is 'ideal', which is nothing
more than admission that you don't believe, and choose(!!!) to act
contrary to, such long range goals. In effect you choose to do whatever
you can to make such failure of ideal happen. And then you bitch about it.
If the world is fucked up (your corner or my corner irrespective) it's
because at least one person in that locale has decided to not follow the
rules. In the current case, a LOT!!! of people have decided they are above
common decency and democracy. Concepts of 'right', 'left', etc. are
irrelevant. If these concepts really are significant to you with respect
to basic human rights and liberty then you're part of the problem due to
intolerance and bigotry.
It's about 'the people', not 'what the people believe or act on' or 'how
much money the people have'.
____________________________________________________________________
God was my co-pilot, then we crashed in the Andes.
So I ate him.
Anonymous
The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate
Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087
-====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
--------------------------------------------------------------------
