|
|
Back to UserFriendly Strip Comments Index
|
Should the First Amendment be revoke for some? | by subbywan | 2006-11-19 12:55:59 |
| The problem, as I see it, is that the criminal |
by Blackbyrd2 |
2004-01-13 19:50:11 |
isn't the one posting these things.
In my opinion, when you are convicted of a felony, you should lose many of the rights that a normal citizen posesses.
The killer should never have been allowed to transmit documents of any sort except those related to his case and his appeals outside the prison.
Interestingly enough, these same documents ought to be a part of the prosecution's case during any appeals process, as he apparently admits guilt in the documents.
There should be (if there aren't already) laws protecting people from psychological attacks, or speech which has no purpose but to cause psychological harm. It seems to me that verbal torture, such as describing the murder of someone with the intent to cause additional pain, could be construed as aiding and abetting in the commission of the original crime.
This doesn't mean neo-nazis are prohibited from speaking their mind about their opinions of what blacks, Jews, etc may be. It would, however, prevent them from describing in gory detail the family fun and frivolity associated with an actual lynching or murder with the intention of terrorizing the people they are addressing. (Family fun, etc is meant to be sarcasm, for the intelligence impaired.)
Note that most intelligent people of this ilk (Is that an oxymoron or what??) would be able to circumvent this restriction by couching their bloody descriptions in terms which they could defend as 'informational'. (Because you can't, and shouldn't stop someone from describing something heinous just because it's heinous.)
Does this mean thought police? Not necessarily. The intent needs to be weighed against free expression. Does the text, speech, etc constitute a conscious malicious intent to do harm, or does it have some redeeming value?
We have precedent for this type of action. Obscenity laws are very similar. Material is deemed obscene if it fits all of the following criteria;
(a) the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to a prurient interest in sex; (b) the material is patently offensive because it affronts contemporary community standards relating to the description or representation of sexual matters; and (c) the material is utterly without redeeming social value.
We could establish similar guidelines for 'hate' speech or 'brutalization' speech.
Please note that I am one of the most rabid proponents of civil liberties, crying foul everytime Ashcroft chips away at another bit of our freedom. I am not someone to whom restrictions on speech comes easily.
And thayut's all Ah've got to say about thayut. </Gump> |
|
[ Reply ] |
|
|
[Todays Cartoon Discussion]
[News Index]
|
|
