Mike wrote:
> I can walk into almost any public library, give no ID, set up
> an anonymous e-mail account, and send whatever I want over the
> Internet. I doubt that any library has been held responsible
> for such use.
Not yet--but at least two services providing anonymous email accounts
(Hotmail and Rocketmail) are now under legal challenge (and expected to
lose) on precisely that basis.
Bear in mind that if an individual provides false information to obtain
an such an account, by the terms of the agreement s/he approves at the
time of account creation s/he is guilty of fraud.
It is equally possible to obtain, for example, a VISA card by providing
fraudulant information about oneself, but that doesn't limit the liability
of the VISA card provider to compensate the merchant for approved
purchases.
> Even if a login is required, many novice users forget to
> logout, and someone else can then use their account.
And some have been held legally liable for the results!
If you leave the keys in your unlocked automobile in most jurisdictions
and it is stolen by a youth offender, you share culpability for the
offenses s/he commits with that car--as you do if you leave a loaded
firearm unlocked and accessible to a minor who uses it to commit a
homicide.
The fact that a person is a novice user does _not_ provide a defense for
his/her legal culpability.
> Again, they might feel foolish, but I doubt that they would
> be held legally responsible. If anyone knows of any cases
> that refute this, please let me know.
I'll dig out the appropriate citations after the Labor Day break, but you
can probably locate them yourself by visiting the EFF website or a similar
resource.
> A gross oversimplification of "rights." See, "shouting fire in
> a crowded theater",
A myth. This _specific_ quotation was _never_ used in a legal decision
contrary to the legend.
In reality, the _concept_ of shouting fire in a theater is valid, but
only because it carries with it _criminal_ intent to cause physical harm.
Thus, if I shout "Fire" in a standard US theater, I am knowingly
attempting to cause harm to others, but if I shout "Fire" in a theater
known to be frequented _only_ by chinese speaking customers I have _not_
committed a crime.
The right to free speech is considered so important by the Supreme Court
that _compelling_ evidence of criminal intent to cause harm is essential
before a conviction can occur.
> "your rights end where mine begin", etc.
Care to provide a _legal_ citation for that one?
As a libertarian, I agree with it--but the law doesn't. In fact, if
anything it goes the other way in non-speech related issues. For example,
if I were to smoke a marijuana cigarette (for the record, I don't smoke) I
would NOT be violating your rights or those of anyone else--yet I would
NOT have the right to do so legally.
> Or, give it a test--use a racial slur, or
> make bomb jokes at the airport, or tell a traffic cop that you
> think he is too fat and the speed limit is too f**king
> low--and defend it on the basis of your "rights."
Let's take these one at a time:
1. Racial slurs. KKK rallies are totally legal and protected speech, as
is the publication of WAR Cry (the White Aryan Resistance newspaper). Both
are filled with racial slurs and arguments that minorities are inferior to
whites. The Supreme Court has ruled that the right to free expression
outweighs the need to protect a group from offensive speech (rulings
concerning pornography for some bizarre reason are excepted).
2. You can make any _joke_ you like at an airport--but if you do so in a
manner that indicates the possibility an actual bomb may, in fact, be
present you are subject to being detained and investigated. The _only_
type of joke (apart from those involving obscenities, banned not because
of harm but because of religious prejudice) that is technically illegal in
the United States of America is a joke that involves causing harm to the
President of the United States.
3. I am perfectly free to tell a police officer that he is too fat if I
wish. That is protected speech. The fact that he or she may violate my
rights as a citizen as a result has no legal basis, any more than the fact
that if I dress and behave in a manner that fits a "profile" s/he will
violate my rights by detaining me as a possible drug violater has on my
freedom of choice. It may be poor taste to tell someone s/he is too "fat,"
but it is NOT illegal.
4. The same holds true here. I have every right to express my views on
the law (I do that regularly with respect to my views on consensual crime
laws, sodomy laws, drug laws, and other restrictions on rights--and I do
so very publicly). The use of the term you cited, while offensive and
unnecessary, IS protected speech in a political (but not sexual in our
uptight society) society. In 1968 the specific phrase "Up against the
Wall, Motherf**kers!" was ruled protected political speech in a case
stemming from an incident in Boston, MA.
Sorry, Mike, you may know psychology (and I'm not about to deny that
speech can cause psychological harm)--but you're arguing legal issues with
a life long rights activist who happens to also be a Political Science
professor who specializes in Constitutional Law. You need to be a bit more
accurate in your facts if you want to win this one. :)
Peace,
Rick
--
Rick Adams
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Department of Social Sciences
Jackson Community College, Jackson, MI
"... and the only measure of your worth and your deeds
will be the love you leave behind when you're gone."
Fred Small, J.D., "Everything Possible"
