At 06:30 PM 5/1/2003 +0100, David Howe wrote:
First, it's "falsely shouting fire," and second, I wonder how you
would draw a distinction between a newspaper saying that, someone
saying that on this list, and someone saying it in a public park.
Imprison all of 'em?
If they make false statements in a public forum that causes a mass
The problem is that if you create a rule that can be used to imprison
the Holocaust deniers (a loathsome sort, I agree), it can be used to
jail those who challenge the conventional orthodoxy, even if they
believe they're right. More to the point, even if they *are* right.
True enough - and the world is full of people with wild beliefs (like
at Thursday, May 01, 2003 6:43 PM, Declan McCullagh
was seen to say:
panic, *and* fail to defend their actions in court - why not? I am not
arguing for prior restraint here (telling them "you must not do these
things") but I think they should be required to face the consequences of
their actions.
the Holocaust deniers) who are willing to go to jail as "martyrs" for
their beliefs... I suppose my problem is I believe that a act (even
speech) that damages the community as a whole or influences those
legally not yet equipped to make their own decisions (children) should
be subject to challenge in court - not precensure, but legal challenge
after the fact. If he is unable to convince (in court) a jury mutually
chosen by his lawyers and the prosecution that he acted reasonably, then
perhaps he didn't?