From: Larry Colen
On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 08:23:45PM -0400, Zos Xavius wrote:
Oh no. I've been drawn in to the debate. :p
So its ok if I take pictures of you and photoshop them to make it
look like you are beheaded and post copies of the with the words
"Kill John"? What if I do the same with the President? See my
actions are actually infringing upon your rights. Sure you have a
right to do things, but being a member of society is also a social
contract. We agree to be nice to each other. It might not have been
much of a threat, but I would argue it was certainly
harassment. Did you miss the part where she already has a
restraining order? This isn't her first run in. You can't keep
attacking the police without expecting some kind of response.
While the charges may be arguably trumped up, her actions
were certainly not befitting someone who wished to contribute
positively to society. If you are going to provoke authority you
should do it gently.
But, what she did was not get up and say "John should be killed",
she took a picture of someone saying "John should be killed".
If what she did was threatening, then so is every newscaster covering
a violent riot.
Under the standard Zos is proposing, if I take his hypothetical argument
here in PDML the wrong way, he's committed a crime. He doesn't get to
decide whether he's made a threat, I do. Authority should consider not
provoking me with trumped up charges.
It's carving out an exception to the 1st Amendment to allow prosecution
of "thought crime". I just don't think that's such a good idea.
You can't have a strong protection for free speech if you don't protect
disagreeable speech?
I also note this happened in Canada where they don't have 1st Amendment
rights.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
