[lbo-talk] Americans sorta like torture if it works
alan.rudy at gmail.com
Fri Apr 24 03:51:17 PDT 2009
Exactly my thoughts... Joseph's argument misses two things. First, were he
unambiguously correct anyone planning crimes, genocide or what-have-you -
but who didn't actually engage in the activity - could get away with
claiming they were just expressing the opinion that something could be done.
"I was just imaging what could be done... what you call my plans are the
same as speculative fiction."
Second, there is a difference between the free expression of thoughts in a
public arena and legal support of obviously illegal activities by those in
positions of power... the standards of practice and expectation is, and
ought to be, higher in the latter case.
We need to draw lines in grey areas, even if we don't always agree on where
the line should go.
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 2:05 PM, Bill Bartlett <billbartlett at aapt.net.au>wrote:
> At 2:37 AM -0400 24/4/09, Joseph Catron wrote
> Prosecuting someone for a legal opinion is fundamentally no different than
>> criminalizing any other sort of opinion.
> Incidentally, the alleged mastermind of 9/11 Khalid Sheikh Mohammed should
> probably be allowed free under this interpretation.
> He was only expressing his opinion when he (allegedly) encouraged the
> hijackers to commit their crimes. Surely you wouldn't want to see this "free
> expression of opinion", or in ordinary English "criminal conspiracy"
> criminalised? I know you wouldn't. Couldn't have that in the Land of The
> Free, now could we?
> Bill Bartlett
> Bracknell Tas
More information about the lbo-talk