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.