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 <declan@well.com> 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?