posted
Actually, I believe he used to be in Sweden and then came to America. Or vice versa. Or maybe there were multiple movings. But I do recall it occuring. That is to say, he has explained it before.
And I kind of like him because he set up that awesome abortion thread that CT went all post-happy in that made laugh more than I have on Hatrack in a while.
I'm just sayin'.
Edit for clarity.
[ July 08, 2004, 01:17 PM: Message edited by: Bob the Lawyer ]
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do know Michaele8's approximate age from other conversations, and I'm not willing to write this off as immaturity. I'll just say he is too old for the mid 30's clique and leave it at that.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: In each case the effort is to preserve peace, not necessarily to censor thought.
To what extent should we go to preserve peace?
Should a person be censored if they are delibrately causing an angry mob?
What if a couple of sick-os in the crowd get all riled up and hurt someone after a speech that's generally not inflammatory?
What if two people get into a fistfight because they disagree on the views expressed?
What if someone calls somebody a dirty name and hurts his feelings?
What if passers-by don't like what they're hearing and are offended, then are curt to people they meet later because they're upset?
Each is an example of peace being disrupted, but where do you draw the line? When is it okay to ban someone from expressing his views? When do we say that the people causing the violence are responsible for their own actions, regardless of what they may have listened to?
I'd say that someone with clout or popularity has more personal responsibility to what they encourage others to do. I don't know if it's possible or ethical to enforce that.
Edit: I didn't realize this topic had a second page when I wrote this. Forgive me if it's been covered or doesn't apply now.
posted
Our was student run, and we generally liked twitting the administration when we felt they were wrong .
Of course, this is partly because the school charter gave our student body a lot of powers they don't get at other schools. The activity fee goes straight to the student government and is one percent of tuition, for instance, which makes us wealthier (in the sense of having more disposable income, even after taking care of necessary expenses such as student group funding) than most of the departments and divisions of the school, thus making us more powerful (in the sense of having more leverage) than them. Heck, if our tuition growth rate keeps up, in a couple of years the student government will get over $2 million before expenses.
<edit>oh, and the student body is about 6000 people</edit>
Plus, the student government gets to make policy on a number of things, and in fact what things we get to make policy on is just about limited to what we can convince people we can make policy on -- since the student body approves the student government's consitution.
Major academic policy changes must also be passed by the student body, and there are a few other things.
(oh, we also had a seed fund for student groups that really needed some funding to do something when first starting out).
posted
To what extent should we go to preserve peace?
Should a person be censored if they are delibrately causing an angry mob? That person should be urged to be less inflammatory. If that wasn't possible, that person should be urged to move elsewhere, possibly to private property.
What if a couple of sick-os in the crowd get all riled up and hurt someone after a speech that's generally not inflammatory? Then the sickos are the ones being inflammatory and they're the ones that should be addressed.
What if two people get into a fistfight because they disagree on the views expressed? Same as above.
What if someone calls somebody a dirty name and hurts his feelings? Life is hard. They'll have to deal.
What if passers-by don't like what they're hearing and are offended, then are curt to people they meet later because they're upset? See above.
Each is an example of peace being disrupted, but where do you draw the line? When is it okay to ban someone from expressing his views? When do we say that the people causing the violence are responsible for their own actions, regardless of what they may have listened to?
When the person expressing his or her views is urging the audience to violate law, or when the speaker is encouraging violence amongst the audience. Not if violence is occuring regardless, then it's the violent person's fault. I don't care if someone wants to stand up and rail about the evils of tooth decay, even if the audience gets worked up. I do care if someone stands up and demands that the audience go out and beat up Coca Cola salespeople.
The person who commits the act is totally at fault and responsible, no matter what anyone told him to do. This is true. But if a speaker continues to tell people to break the law and they do, even if he holds no legal culpability for their actions, it's still in the public's interest to move his message elsewhere.
Or, to put it a different way, say a teenage kid has convinced every other kid in his neighborhood to steal cigarettes and smoke 'em. The other kids are completely responsible for their actions, but I'd still go have a word with him.
[ July 08, 2004, 01:52 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with you, Chris. I'm just wondering if there's ever a point at which someone should be stopped from speaking in a public place. My gut says "No" but I might personally beat the crap out of someone who's trying to get people I care about hurt. I'd go to jail, but at least I didn't hinder their free speech.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
What I like about that, Chris, is your philosophy that culpability is not a zero sum game. Saying person X is 100% for their actions does not make the instigator any less culpable. Nor does saying the instigator is at fault make the perpetrators less culpable.
When you talk about not allowing people to advocate breaking the law, do you mean even in non-violent situations? What if the law is fuzzy or outright immoral (I'm thinking of the fugitive slave law, for instance)? Should advocating peaceful civil disobedience be allowed (although I have a problem with people advocating it and not being on the front lines when it goes down)?
Does the advocacy have to be specific and immediate ("Go beat up that person right now") or can it be more general ("People of type X should be beaten")? What about advocacy of illegal, non-criminal acts (such as job discrimination)?
posted
It would seem to depend on if the person encouraged is a child or otherwise not as responsible for their actions.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Humans are social creatures and we have an unfortunate habit of adopting a pack mentality.
Whether or not someone instigated the scenario might mitigate or lessen the responsibility of the actual participants, but it should not absolve them of guilt.
Not that "Just say No" ever really worked, but it's a nice, cherished dream of denial I choose to shroud myself in.
posted
Just wondering if there is anyone here who would like to see the same kinds of laws Sweden has adopted here in the USA.
Posts: 232 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It would never happen Mike - or Michelle? Although as social standards change, such things may become commonplace. Good fences make good neighbors and so on.
The concept of free speech is so ingrained in the consciousness of America that such a law, as well-intentioned as it may be, would be brought down very quickly.
And such laws, while designed with the best of intentions, do not necessarily serve the public interest.
I'm sure Dag will have a more vocal and reasonable list of the failings inherent, but for my part - a certain amount of regulation is required for an orderly society. Despite what anarchists may choose to believe.
But at the same time, government should be limited in its ability to regulate what people do or say or think or feel.
Hah. Government should maintain the lowest common denominator and let the rest sort itself out? That was the principle of the US government - to maintain the basic functionality without becoming an oppressive, dominating force?
Feh. I don't know. Instinctively, I would not like to see such laws because frankly, I like to know where my enemies are and when they're coming. As for the more intelligent, reasonable answer - I don't know.
-Trevor
Edit: How's that for a rambling rant?
Posts: 5413 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: The concept of free speech is so ingrained in the consciousness of America that such a law, as well-intentioned as it may be, would be brought down very quickly
Maybe Bush should make a new policy.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Speaking of Just Say No, Trevor, I've been wondering if maybe the government should just hand out free drugs to those that want them. Maybe unlimited free crack would clear out the peer-following sheep from the gene pool.
Yeah, I'm being sarcastic, but not necessarily disagreeing with you. I'm at a loss as to what kind of campaign would do any good at all in reducing drug use. It seems those of us who listen to ads aren't interested in drugs anyway.
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
It is difficult to go against the grain and defy your peer group.
Most adults find it difficult to do, never mind teens.
That being said, how many parents bother to take their kids aside and explain the ramifications of drugs?
"Because I said so" doesn't really hold water with teens, especially ones who question authority and want to be radical. However, explaining the concept of addiction and what people say versus the reality, etc. How many people believed notions like, "you can never get pregnant the first time?"
Just because you think you can fly doesn't mean gravity won't yank your rump back down.
-Trevor
Edited for word choice and mindful that this is a family forum. Of sorts.
Edit 2: While government should take steps to provide information, it cannot take the place of good parenting. What is "government" to a teenager? "Da Man?"
Government can and does enact social sanctions against people who decide to break the law, but few people approve of government becoming more proactive in regulating lives in an Orwellian fashion. We can dictate what is bad in raising a child, for example, but we cannot dictate what is good.
posted
The prime importance of free speech stems from the representational reinforcement theory of rights. Our governments have general police power which was historically unlimited. However, since our government is mostly responsible to the political process, it must be prevented from interfering with the political process. Otherwise the current government can lock itself in. We see this now with redistricting, which is one of the biggest threats to representational government around.
If speech could be limited based on the whims of the political branches, then those branches could turn our representational system into a self-perpetuating government accountable to no one.
Sure, not all speech is political. But how on earth do you decide. Almost everything can be the subject of legislation, so almost everything needs to be in the realm of protected speech.
Dagonee P.S., your idea of wanting to know who the enemy is is a very good reason to support free speech.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dagonee, my answer to those and, frankly, just about any question involving humans is: it depends. I can't offer a hard-and-fast rule because the dynamic changes in every situation. A person calmly telling a laughing audience that someone oughtta burn down the local stadium is not the same as a person shouting "let's go get them [racial slur of your choice]s!" and neither is the same as a quiet, impassioned plea for civil disobedience that results in massive social change. It depends.
On the speaker. On the subject, and how it's presented. On the audience and their reactions. On the environment and timing and significance of the event. On the atmosphere -- political, religious, social, emotional, or whatever -- of the times.
I am against most limitations of free speech. I am also against someone being a damn idiot and talking a lot of other damn idiots into doing something stupid.
[ July 08, 2004, 02:59 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fair enough. Those are the types nitty-gritty questions that made me want to go to law school. Every single free speech case requires answering them, even if to say, "We're not sure where the line is, but this case is well past it (or doesn't approach it)." That's how the majority of law gets made in this country.
I could bat around hypotheticals on this subject all night, but I realize many don't share my enthusiasm for it.
posted
Yep - but since that statement's been made, there have been a lot of cases that have refined the definition. Adn those areas that still have lines so fuzzy as to be clouds are the areas where we're practically guaranteed more litigation on fundamental issues.
I know people know about judicial review and how that makes judges powerful, but I don't think most people appreciate how truly sweeping their interpretive power is.
posted
And it's worth noting that since that statement, the definition of obscenity has been changed to acknowledge the different factors that help define it, "obscenity" and "pornography" both being relative.
See? "It depends." I want it on my statue.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm so glad I live in a country where every word's meaning is different for every person and no one can be tagged by what they say or do because everything is relative and based on semantics.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
PSI, if you're trying to bug me it takes a lot more than that.
I shoot and kill someone. Should I go to jail?
Does it matter if I did on purpose or by accident? Does it matter if I was defending myself? Does it matter if I was defending someone else? Does it matter if I was clear-headed or not? Does it matter if I did it as part of a military mission? Does it matter if I meant to wound and missed?
Definitions are relative in law. They damn well better stay that way. The meanings aren't based on semantics, they're based on conditions that can affect how that action should be judged.
[ July 08, 2004, 03:44 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not trying to bug you Chris, and it's not aimed at you. It's aimed at the world in general. I guess I should have put /rant afterwards.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fair enough, thanks. You just came too close to triggering my own rant on mandatory sentencing and similar "conditions make no difference" restrictions.
[ July 08, 2004, 03:46 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I shoot and kill someone. Should I go to jail? It depends.
Does it matter if I did on purpose or by accident? Yes - although doing it on accident can still result in significant jail time, even in a murder 2 conviction under the MPC. Does it matter if I was defending myself? Yes - justification. Does it matter if I was defending someone else? Yes - justification. Does it matter if I was clear-headed or not? Yes - mitigation and can reduce the charge to manslaughter. Does it matter if I did it as part of a military mission? Yes - justification. Does it matter if I meant to wound and missed? No - presumed intent to kill when deadly force is intentionally applied. Incidentally, it also doesn't matter if you were trying to shoot someone else and killed the wrong person.
quote:You just came too close to triggering my own rant on mandatory sentencing and similar "conditions make no difference" restrictions.
The tradeoff is between uniformity of sentencing and ability for judicial discretion. I have no idea where the happy medium is, but both extremes are terribly unjust.
posted
Chris- I'm not an advocate for mandatory sentencing. There just never seems to be a middle ground. It's one thing for people to consider the conditions when deciding about a person's guilt. It's another when they push and push until there's no way a person can get punished for what they did AT ALL, because there will ALWAYS be extenuating circumstances. You can always blame what you do on how your parents raised you, or any of a million different things. It's very difficult to pin anyone down in any situation in this country.
I love it when I post and I see that someone just said what I was trying to say, but when they said it it was shorter and made sense.
posted
Ok, let's say I want to kill my worst enemy and sneak into his bedroom and fire several shots into his bed. Then I sneak out of his house. Only, he wasn't in his bed and the shots did nothing but put a few holes in his mattress. What would I be charged with?
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
While I'll talk about conditions all day, I'm also a strong proponent of taking responsibility for your actions. There's a middle ground and it can (and should be) sought, but where it lies can change.
love it when I post and I see that someone just said what I was trying to say, but when they said it it was shorter and made sense.
Yup. TomDavidson has the evil habit of doing that to me. I write a nice long speech and find that he snuck a two-sentence response in first.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Ok, let's say I want to kill my worst enemy and sneak into his bedroom and fire several shots into his bed. Then I sneak out of his house. Only, he wasn't in his bed and the shots did nothing but put a few holes in his mattress. What would I be charged with?
In some states the "purpose" level of culpability with regards to circumstances is defined by the perptrator's state of mind - if events were as the perpetrator believed them to be, could the crime have occurred. So you might be able to be charged with attempted murder.
In other states, impossibility is a defense for attempt. If your actions could not have harmed the victim (let's say the house was empty), then no attempt charge is probably possible.
But burglary (breaking into a dwelling with intent to commit a felony) is a no-brainer in any state.
In most states, there's probably enough of an act to qualify for attempt by breaking in with the gun and firing the shots.
posted
I always loved that you'd get charged for attempted murder for that one. I mean, the guy wasn't even there! You'd be upset enough if you wounded the guy but didn't get him and got charged. I mean, at least you hurt the sucker. But to not get him at all? How frustrating.
Not that I advocate violence, kids. I just keep expecting to see this on a TV show or summin'.
Wait, was everyone still talking?
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, and BTW, Bob, in that scenario, no perp in his right mind would admit he was trying to kill the guy. He'd say he was so mad that he shot holes in his mattress.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
The debate is about whether Islamic preacher, Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, should be refused entry into the UK because he preaches that Muslims should use their ability to arm themselves as human bombs to attack their enemies. In addition some sides argue that he has "ties" to terrorist organizations. The UK Govt. has granted him entry and has not limited his ability to preach because he doesn't represent a threat to incite violence.
On the other hand, the US has banned him from entry.
Just my opinion but I think that the difference in policy between the US and UK is related to how recently each has been attacked.
There are, however, stark differences in ideology and law. The Prime Minister's answer at question time was straight forward: Here are the three criteria that have to be met to ban him. They've not been met.
Posts: 270 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
How's that different than the U.S.? The criteria might be different, but that's how it works here.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
.![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
