|
Should the First Amendment be revoke for some? | by subbywan | 2006-11-19 12:55:59 |
|
Nope. | by zbear | 2004-01-13 16:36:22 |
|
Not really valid. | by Naruki | 2004-01-13 16:44:50 |
| I disagree |
by zbear |
2004-01-13 16:57:09 |
If he were somehow forcing the speech on the family, or calling them every night and ranting, that would be harrassment. My understanding is that he (or someone else) is simply posting his words to a website. That doesn't make this harrassment.
As to libel? No, not in this case. These were private letters to an individual. That person then posted them. From the article:
Alabama prison officials say it appears Trawick stopped sending out new stories about murder after Gach's mother and others complained last year. But Trawick's old writings are still on the Web, along with gruesome drawings of murdered women.
For it to be libel, they would have to prove that he published it (which he didn't) and that it damaged their reputation...whatever the courts believe that means.
Oh, and free speech protects EVERYBODY. |
|
[ Reply ] |
|
Obscene material can be libel. | by subbywan | 2004-01-13 16:58:40 |
|
Not in this case | by zbear | 2004-01-13 17:00:40 |
|
Fair enough (n/t) | by subbywan | 2004-01-13 17:02:31 |
|
Ah, but you are wrong there. | by Naruki | 2004-01-13 17:30:08 |
|
I keep asking myself that ... | by subbywan | 2004-01-13 17:42:04 |
|
As for the first point... | by Naruki | 2004-01-13 17:48:32 |
|
And only under certain conditions | by subbywan | 2004-01-13 17:53:59 |
|
Um...nope | by zbear | 2004-01-13 18:13:39 |
|
If that *was* true as a blanket statement | by subbywan | 2004-01-13 18:16:45 |
|
But it IS true... | by zbear | 2004-01-13 18:19:35 |
|
Child porn is not illegal due to any | by Naruki | 2004-01-13 18:26:10 |
|
How does literature hurt the child? | by subbywan | 2004-01-13 18:26:56 |
|
Um... yep. | by Naruki | 2004-01-13 18:24:00 |
|
In the world? | by zbear | 2004-01-13 18:30:14 |
|
Which we already know is false | by subbywan | 2004-01-13 18:32:11 |
|
I was going to make the same point. | by Naruki | 2004-01-13 18:39:00 |
|
I still maintain they're not rights, | by subbywan | 2004-01-13 18:41:40 |
|
I'm usually uncomfortable with that saying. | by Naruki | 2004-01-13 18:58:51 |
|
Actually, I'd like to take issue with your | by adiplomat | 2004-01-13 19:02:19 |
|
Well, we don't have it extending to everyone | by subbywan | 2004-01-13 19:08:24 |
|
Absolutely! | by zbear | 2004-01-13 18:48:52 |
|
But we've already shown that free speech *isn't* | by subbywan | 2004-01-13 18:51:12 |
|
Noooo.... | by zbear | 2004-01-13 19:00:27 |
|
Even before the PA | by subbywan | 2004-01-13 19:11:37 |
|
Even before that grotesquely misnamed act, | by adiplomat | 2004-01-13 19:20:37 |
|
Well, that's a bit twisted! | by zbear | 2004-01-13 18:41:20 |
|
Yes. It's moved on | by subbywan | 2004-01-13 18:43:28 |
|
What exactly are you "depriving" yourself of? | by Naruki | 2004-01-13 18:46:26 |
|
Who decides? | by zbear | 2004-01-13 18:57:09 |
|
Sorry, gotta go. | by Naruki | 2004-01-13 19:00:16 |
|
Ciaooooo (n/t) | by zbear | 2004-01-13 19:01:35 |
