At 8:45 AM -0400 9/27/00, Steve Furlong wrote:
<grin> In the year or so I've been posting on c-punks, you have several times mentioned that I had a good point but not once had you suggested that I should be killed. I was starting to feel left out.
I do not think the woman should be filing suit. She should have ignored the boor or, if her command of invective sufficed, told him off scathingly. I do, however, support the right of people to take matters to civil court if they truly feel they have been wronged. I'd prefer to see a loser-pays system to prevent or compensate for frivolous claims, as this claim would be likely to prove.
The point being that civil cases for damages should not be allowed for NONCRIMINAL issues. That is, a "matter of law" should be involved. Example: a bookstore owner sues because another bookstore moved in across the street from him and "hurt his business." There is no violation of any law, so it doesn't even matter whether the original bookstore was "hurt." No lawsuit possible. Example: a woman feels insulted by the language of another. No violation of any law, so no lawsuit possible. I'm shocked that you were blathering on about the woman filing a civil suit for something such as "intentional infliction of emotional distress." In fact, I plan to file a civil action against you for this shock to my system. (Seriously, I say you should GET THE FUCK out of this law school you are now in. Too many damned lawyers as it is. If you really think, as you claimed a few weeks ago, that you can study law and then somehow affect the law/programming worlds, pace the various legal cases of recent years, then you're delusional. Vastly greater changes are possible with technology.)
The _main_ point I wanted to make was that the state had no business interfering here. The anti-swearing law is nonsensical, unenforceable, and almost definitely unConstitutional. Disturbing the peace charges, if they should exist at all, should be reserved for matters of greater import than making a rude gesture at one woman. I concede that my previous post didn't make my point well, if at all.
Suing in the courts for having one's sensibilities hurt, allegedly, is even worse. I'd rather the gubment scum made the speech illegal, up front, than allowing such suits to go forward. We are daily losing our liberties to creeps like the zionists who use the Southern Poverty Law Center to suppress speech they dislike. With the help of people exactly like you. That you are encouraging the process of using civil action tells me you will make a fine lawyer. Disgusting. --Tim May -- ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, "Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.