Where is the line between "Ordering" somebody to commit a crime and "Suggesting" it? If a mob boss orders somebodies death, are they guilty of that murder? If you actively call and incite people for the assasination of the president, and the president is assasinated based on your speech, are you not culpable? Failed revolution is caused treason - and is punishable by death. When does that line get crossed into artistic freedom?
You want to have the freedom of speech, but be held blameless for any ramifications of what you say. I wholeheatedly agree with you in part - that one should have the freedom to say what they want. However they also must be held accountable for the actions set in motion as a result of their actions.
Similarly, you have the freedom and the right to own and use a gun. However you must be held accountable for the results of your use of that right. If you point that and murder somebody, then you have infringed on the rights of others and should be condemned. If you speak and cause the infringement of the rights of others then you should also be condemned.
My point then was that for the author of the site, if he/she is willing to accept knowing that some half-wit will (probably) kill some kittens because the site was too realistic then keep it up - but they should not kid themselves into thinking they are blameless. As for the government, I would hope the argument is made that they wern't blameless and tried for the same crime as the kid who did it.
I do not say it should be surpressed, but you cannot be held unaccountable for the outcome.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> [mailto:owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com]On Behalf Of Justin Schwartz
> Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2001 4:40 PM
> To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> Subject: RE: Tasteless site
>
>
>
> On this reasoning, if Jonathan Swift were still among us, we should be so
> lucky, and some moron were to kill and eat a baby, crediting "A Modest
> Proposal" as his inspiration, Swift might be subject to
> prosecution. Don't
> laugh: this is actually the conclusion drawn by the Fourth
> Circuit Court of
> Appeals in the "Hit Man" case. Their idea, and yours, is that speech is
> dangerous, and if it inspires misconduct by fools and wicked people, the
> speech--and not the fools or the wicked--ought to suppressed. God
> Bless you,
> and welcome to the land ogf the free.
>
>