--On Wednesday, January 23, 2008 6:29 PM -0800 Ted Mittelstaedt
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
He disobeyed a court order. That makes him a criminal.
Only if the court in question has jurisdiction over him. The US
courts found in favor of an anti-trust lawsuit against DeBeers
around 20 years ago I think it was and the DeBeers family finally
decided it was too much of a nuisance to avoid travelling into the US
so they settled for some paltry 300 million this year (if you have
ever bought a diamond and you still have the receipt you can
get some settlement money)
Did the US court have jurisdiction over a corporation that has no
footprint in the US? They thought they did. DeBeers didn't. What
do you think?
Doesn't matter. In the US, they were in violation of the law.
How would you like it if some kangaroo court in Iran issued a judgement
against you? Would you consider yourself a criminal?
In Iran? Yes.
Whether
what he was
trying to do was "right" or not is irrelevant.
Absolutely untrue. It is at the heart of the issue.
Absolutely not. Right or wrong is irrelevant in a court of law.
Once the court
told him to
stop, he should have stopped.
No. Once ALL AVENUES of appeal are exhausted AND a judgement was
found against him, only then if he disobeys the final court order
then can he be considered a criminal.
If you get a TRO *during* a trial, and you violate the terms of the TRO,
then you are a criminal by definition. The outcome of the case is
irrelevant.
And good people often forget that courts are nothing more than another
arm of the government, and quite often the solutions that come out
of them are a result of political negotiation and compromise - exactly
the same way that the legislative arm solves problems.
They *should* never be.
You should read some history, there's been a lot of bad law that
has been overturned. It never would have happened if people like
Rosa Parks hadn't "committed criminal acts" from your viewpoint,
and ignored court-supported orders and laws.
I totally agree, however, Rosa Parks *did* violate the law and *was* a
criminal by definition.
You cannot sit there and say that just because someone is a
criminal they are bad.
I never said anything about bad. It isn't a moral judgement. It's a legal
one.
Nor can you say that just because someone
is not a criminal that they are good. Look no further than the
current occupant of the White House for that. What is criminal
in a good society is defined by what is "wrong"
No, what is criminal in a good society is when you violate the law.
Whether or not the law is "good" is irrelevant.
Sadly, that
does not always happen.
If you buy a DVD and make a copy for your own use according to
DMCA you are a criminal. However if you buy a videotape of the
same movie and make a copy for your own use you are not a criminal.
Clearly, both actions are morally "right" They are almost the same
action in fact. But one is illegal the other isn't. Can't you
see here that the problem isn't the action but the law?
Of course, however, if you copy the DVD you have violated the law and by
definition you are a criminal. Now, you may decide your actions are right,
but you need to do that with the full knowledge that you *could* be found
in violation of the law and you *could* go to jail. To violate the law and
then whine that it's unfair is childish.
In this lawsuit, the worst you can say is that both parties,
the spammer and the spamfighter, are in the wrong. But I fail to
see how the spammer can be "right" and the spamfighter is "wrong"
Didn't say he was wrong. Just in violation of the law.
You can, if you wish, argue the spammer is "legal" and the
spamfigher is "illegal" But, this simply illustrates that the
law is bad - and for many people it is a moral duty to violate
bad law. And I for one, am very glad that they feel this way.
Again, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that *so long as* you are
fully willing to suffer the consequences. As with Rosa Parks, you may
succeed in illustrating how unfair the law is and getting it changed, but
you won't do it without paying a personal price. Ignorance of the law is
no excuse.
Paul Schmehl ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Senior Information Security Analyst
The University of Texas at Dallas
http://www.utdallas.edu/ir/security/
_______________________________________________
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
