Re: Freedom of speech question...

[attila <attila@primenet.com>]

	Jim's point is particularly valid in the U.S. --Congress (and the 
    states) pass statues that preempt the actual commission of the crime, or
    as Jim phrased it: for what might result. The enabling clause is 
    "conspiracy" which is best defined by:

	three men are getting stinking drunk in a bar across from a bank;
	one suggests they rob the bank, and they sit there drinking and
	planning. when they depart, one man passes out on the floor; the
	other two, of course, are arrested while in the act --but the
	police also arrested the sleeping drunk.  Why? Title 18 US ----

	   ...any one who commits, or conspires to commit, the crime of
	   (insert your favourite), shall be charged with a felony....

	conspiring to commit a crime, executed or not, is the same under
    U.S. law as committing the crime.  --welcome to America. In the
    civil courts of Europe, you either committed the crime, or you
    did not. conspiracy does not count in a civil law case.


On Thu, 1 Feb 1996, Jim Choate wrote:

> 
> It is a commenly held belief that shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre is a
> crime because of the potential for harm to persons and property. It is one
> of the most commen examples given for limiting freedom of speech even though
> the Constitution says "Congress shall make no law...". This view is proposed
> as a equaly valid rationale for limiting crypto, virus technology, drugs,
> etc.
> 
> My question to the list is would it be a crime if you were alone in the
> theatre? If you developed a virus and didn't distribute it would that be a
> crime? If you give it to one person is it a crime? How about if you give it
> to millions? How many people must know a fact, posses source code or
> executable. In short, does freedom of speech rest on how many people are
> aware of your expression?
> 
> My position is that if you answer in the affermative then you are basicaly
> stating there is no freedom of speech. It should be perfectly permissible
> to shout 'fire' in a theatre filled to the brim. If anyone takes you
> seriously and is harmed then you should be liable for the damage. Your right
> to shout 'fire' is not relevant. If you accept the premise then what you are
> buying into is preemptive justice, in short judging somebody guilty by what
> they might do, not what they have done. If this is permitted then we have a
> serious problem in that anyperson is therefore guilty of whatever crime is
> desired.
> 
>  
> 
> 

__________________________________________________________________________
    go not unto usenet for advice, for the inhabitants thereof will say:
      yes, and no, and maybe, and I don't know, and fuck-off.
_________________________________________________________________ attila__

    To be a ruler of men, you need at least 12 inches....
    There is no safety this side of the grave.  Never was; never will be.