Stephen wrote:
> However, on the larger issue of the limits to freedom of speech,
> I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. For myself, I see
> little difference between what is posted on that website and the
> call to the faithful to murder Salman Rushdie. Or for that
> matter, little difference from having some nutcake post a website
> announcement offering a million dollars to have Rick Adams and
> his family murdered, with directions on how to do it. I don't
> think freedom of speech should extend that far. I regret to
> discover that Rick seems to think it does.
I don't.
On the other hand, I don't see it as a freedom of speech issue, but as
one of rights to privacy.
The best example I can think of is Roe v Wade--the decision that
effectively eradicated laws against abortion in the US. That decision,
while one of the strongest ones the SC has issued in recent years, was NOT
about abortion, rather it was about the right to privacy.
I _don't_ feel that publishing information about doctors who perform
abortions should be banned as illegal speech--that's censorship. On the
other hand, I _do_ feel that publishing those names and addresses should
be actionable or prosecutionable under right to privacy laws, which would
result in the same effect w/o limiting our speech in other areas.
As far as the murder of physicians goes--to me, the webmaster of a site
which _encouraged_ the murder of anyone (and provided information to
facilitate that murder) should be prosecuted as an accessory to murder,
from my perspective. Certainly, that would have the same net result (if
not a more powerful one) that censorship would affect, but would do so w/o
limiting our freedoms.
Rick
--
Rick Adams
Department of Social Sciences
Jackson Community College
Jackson, MI
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"... and the only measure of your worth and your deeds will be the love
you leave behind when you're gone. --Fred Small, Everything Possible "
