> Should Charles Manson be set free? He didn't kill anyone (AFAIK) he only
> manipulated others into doing it. And what of the rappers who write songs
> to encourage the youth to go out and kill cops? If somebody cites that as
> the sole or (more-likely) major influence that caused them to kill a cop,
> should that "musician" be held blameless?
>
> 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.
> >
> >