Re: Free Speech No Defense for Urging Suicide
Mike Findlay <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.music.dadl.ot |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Sorry. I wasn't sure if you were asking legally speaking or more philosophically and I was mixing the two. I think he was wrongly convicted based on my understanding of the current law, and I think this conviction will be overturned on appeal. Even using the "fighting words" argument the connection is too remote. Fighting words usually refer to just that - words that provoke a fight and they have to be said pretty much face to face. Oh and I did think of an example: Bomb threats made to schools, offices, planes etc. Those are a sticky wicket - I want to say that they go beyond speech and constitute action but I think that is cheating on my part. I guess because they convey and immediate threat and put people in the immediate fear of that threat being carried out they are akin to an assault. Mike F. ________________________________ From: Bruce Geerdes <[email protected]> To: DADL (off topic) <[email protected]> Sent: Wed, March 16, 2011 2:15:12 PM Subject: Re: [DADL-OT] Free Speech No Defense for Urging Suicide On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 1:02 PM, Mike Findlay <[email protected]> wrote: I've never argued the guy wasn't, in fact, convicted. No, I'm just trying to figure out what you *are* arguing. I take it you're arguing that he shouldn't have been convicted, but I had no idea whether this was because he was wrongly convicted under current law or whether the current law is wrong. -- dadl-ot mailing list http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot