OFF: Freeedom of Speech

[trev]

burn 'em dahn ...burn 'em dahn...grunt!

trev


----- Original Message -----
From: "Jonathan Jarrett" <jjarrett at CHIARK.GREENEND.ORG.UK>
To: <BOC-L at LISTSERV.ISPNETINC.NET>
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 11:41 AM
Subject: Re: OFF: Freeedom of Speech


> On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 02:33:48PM +0000, M Holmes typed out:
>> Jonathan Jarrett writes:
>> > in the word `predictable'.  Especially when you introduce statistics
>> > into it.  We can predict, perhaps, or so it could be claimed, that a
>> > certain number of people will infringe such rights, so how
>> > `predictable' does something need to be before you can legislate?
>>
>> Enough for 12 folks on the jury to agree that it was only to be
>> expected. Stats won't cut it for your, heh, average jury.
>
>        Yes, but we're not talking about juries. You said:
>
>> > > Try me.  I'll certainly give it a go.  Just hold people responsible
>> > > for predictable consequences of their speech which are illegal or
>> > > harmful.
>
>        If it's to be illegal, so that a jury can be asked to decide any
> cases at all, there must be a definition of what can be considered a
> predictable consequence. If it's not illegal not to know better, the
> notional idiot can't be brought to court. If it's to be illegal to be that
> idiotic, some definition of illegal idiocy must be laid down. The weasel
> is still safe there for now.
>
>> Doesn't creating that limit actually cause speeding? After all, one
>> can't speed where there's no speed limit.
>
>        Certainly it does. Are you retreating to semantics or are you
> suggesting that the offence of dangerous driving should be enough to cover
> speeding without limits being required?
>
>> > I do agree with your principles here, but I think that so far
>> > the opposition has its arguments better marshalled.
>>
>> Yeah, burning down Embassies is just so, well, eloquent.
>
>        Actions speak louder than words, they say... But The opposition
> to free speech doesn't all do that. If we're talking about opposition that
> have any arguments at all marshalled, at least. If someone is burning down
> embassies they're probably not susceptible to a well-turned point of
> debate. Yours,
>                Jon
>
> --
>        Jonathan Jarrett                Birkbeck College, London
>                 jjarrett at chiark.greenend.org.uk
>        --------------------------------------------------------
>  "The large print giveth and the small print taketh away." (Tom Waits)
>