On Wednesday, April 30, 2003, at 02:40 AM, David Howe wrote:
I don't see any basis for supporting a "law against lying." Unless a contract is involved, lying is just another form of speech.
Should a church which claims that praying to the baby Jesus will save one from going to Hell be prosecuted for lying? They aren't *knowingly* lieing - that is the point. Church types firmly believe hell exists, and only pestering a omnipotent and omniscient being (who therefore already knows what they wanted to say, and could do something about it if he chose to) will
at Tuesday, April 29, 2003 6:16 PM, Tim May <timcmay@got.net> was seen to say: prevent them visiting it (as opposed to actually being nice to other people and so forth, which would at least be productive)
Nonsense. Many preachers and televangelists know they are shucking and jiving their congregations. So? The First Amendment does not have an exception clause for "knowingly lying."
Should a newspaper be prosecuted for publishing a claim that the Sumerian prediction that Nibiru, aka Planet X, will stop the earth from rotating on May 15, 2003? Nope. but they should be prosecuted if they front-page splash it as "earth doomed, we have two weeks to live, there is no hope" and fail to mention that it is a religious prediction that the scientific community has a few issues with....
Nonsense.
Should someone be prosecuted for saying the Holocaust never happened, or was exaggerated greatly by the Jewish lobby? That is borderline. given that the accepted body of fact admits that the Holocaust not only happened, but was pretty much as described by the Jewish lobby, then any claims that it didn't happen should be accompanied by pretty convincing evidence. Not that I think the Holocaust justifies what is going down with the palastinians, but I don't think it can be denied that it actually happened.
You really believe the Jew propaganda? The First Amendment does not contain language about how speech "should be accompanied by pretty convincing evidence." Etc. --Tim May