[quote]Gaius Octavius wrote:
Incitement is not a crime. Encouraging people to rape and murder, while disgusting and immoral, should not be prohibited.[/quote]
Can you imagine any form of speech that should be a crime?[/quote]
Only if you are leaking information you are contractually bound to keep hidden? Otherwise, not really. Talking isn’t a crime.[/quote]
So the ol’ proverbial hollerin’ “Fire” in a crowded theater deal doesn’t mean much to you? No crime there, eh?[/quote]
Shouting fire in a crowded theater violates the property rights of the owner of the theater, which is a crime. By buying your ticket you agree to follow the rules of the theater, one of which would be not to disturb the other guests needlessly. Shouting fire is in violation of this and as such is a crime. Libel and slander however are obviously not crimes. For libel or slander to be a crime would require that you have a property right in your reputation but that would mean that you had a claim on the minds of others which is obviously nonsense. Treason however falls squarely under divulging information you are contractually bound to keep hidden and again, as such, is a crime.
[quote]Gaius Octavius wrote:
Libel and slander however are obviously not crimes.[/quote]
In Rome there was no law against libel and slander(calumnies) - Calumnies were one of the weaknesses acknowledged by many historians to have contributed to the fall of the Republic(Spreading of calumnies against political opponents by Marius - Sulla - Pompey - Crassus - Caesar)
“…there can be no more effectual means for checking calumny than by affording ample facilities for impeachment(laws against libel and slander)…the legislator should so shape the laws of his State that it shall be possible therein to impeach any of its citizens without fear or favour; and, after duly providing for this, should visit calumniators with the sharpest punishments. Where this is not seen to, grave disorders will always ensue.” - Machiavelli, Discourses on Livy
Seems you’re at least half a millenia behind the times.
[quote]Gaius Octavius wrote:
Libel and slander however are obviously not crimes.[/quote]
In Rome there was no law against libel and slander(calumnies) - Calumnies were one of the weaknesses acknowledged by many historians to have contributed to the fall of the Republic(Spreading of calumnies against political opponents by Marius - Sulla - Pompey - Crassus - Caesar)
“…there can be no more effectual means for checking calumny than by affording ample facilities for impeachment(laws against libel and slander)…the legislator should so shape the laws of his State that it shall be possible therein to impeach any of its citizens without fear or favour; and, after duly providing for this, should visit calumniators with the sharpest punishments. Where this is not seen to, grave disorders will always ensue.” - Machiavelli, Discourses on Livy
Seems you’re at least half a millenia behind the times.[/quote]
Shouting fire in a crowded theater violates the property rights of the owner of the theater, which is a crime. By buying your ticket you agree to follow the rules of the theater, one of which would be not to disturb the other guests needlessly. [/quote]
So the owner should be able to have you arrested (by who? Who made it a criminal matter?) if your cell phone goes off. Or, if you’re yelling “uh-uh girl, don’t open that door, the crazy man behind it” during the spooky parts? In case of fire, I would’ve expected you to answer that the person could only be asked to leave…
[quote]Gaius Octavius wrote:
Libel and slander however are obviously not crimes.[/quote]
In Rome there was no law against libel and slander(calumnies) - Calumnies were one of the weaknesses acknowledged by many historians to have contributed to the fall of the Republic(Spreading of calumnies against political opponents by Marius - Sulla - Pompey - Crassus - Caesar)
“…there can be no more effectual means for checking calumny than by affording ample facilities for impeachment(laws against libel and slander)…the legislator should so shape the laws of his State that it shall be possible therein to impeach any of its citizens without fear or favour; and, after duly providing for this, should visit calumniators with the sharpest punishments. Where this is not seen to, grave disorders will always ensue.” - Machiavelli, Discourses on Livy
Seems you’re at least half a millenia behind the times.[/quote]
Stalin would like the way you think. [/quote]
Epic fail argument is fail. Stalin has next to nothing in common with the Republic of Rome or the work of Titus Livy or the tome Discourses on Livy. The only commonality he has is that all the above believe in some sort of governing body and as such are not anarchists.
Hell you can go even farther back “thou shalt not bear false witness”. Seems God and Stalin would agree, no? /sarcasm.
Shouting fire in a crowded theater violates the property rights of the owner of the theater, which is a crime. By buying your ticket you agree to follow the rules of the theater, one of which would be not to disturb the other guests needlessly. [/quote]
So the owner should be able to have you arrested (by who? Who made it a criminal matter?) if your cell phone goes off. Or, if you’re yelling “uh-uh girl, don’t open that door, the crazy man behind it” during the spooky parts? In case of fire, I would’ve expected you to answer that the person could only be asked to leave…[/quote]
The difference lies in how much harm you are causing the owner of the theater. If you shout fire in a crowded theater, you are liable to start a stampede and ruin the nights business. If your cell phone goes off you are just a douchebag.
[quote]Gaius Octavius wrote:
Libel and slander however are obviously not crimes.[/quote]
In Rome there was no law against libel and slander(calumnies) - Calumnies were one of the weaknesses acknowledged by many historians to have contributed to the fall of the Republic(Spreading of calumnies against political opponents by Marius - Sulla - Pompey - Crassus - Caesar)
“…there can be no more effectual means for checking calumny than by affording ample facilities for impeachment(laws against libel and slander)…the legislator should so shape the laws of his State that it shall be possible therein to impeach any of its citizens without fear or favour; and, after duly providing for this, should visit calumniators with the sharpest punishments. Where this is not seen to, grave disorders will always ensue.” - Machiavelli, Discourses on Livy
Seems you’re at least half a millenia behind the times.[/quote]
Stalin would like the way you think. [/quote]
Epic fail argument is fail. Stalin has next to nothing in common with the Republic of Rome or the work of Titus Livy or the tome Discourses on Livy. The only commonality he has is that all the above believe in some sort of governing body and as such are not anarchists.
Hell you can go even farther back “thou shalt not bear false witness”. Seems God and Stalin would agree, no? /sarcasm.[/quote]
I’m sure Stalin was an advocate of free speech. Next time try not to comment on post you don’t understand
Shouting fire in a crowded theater violates the property rights of the owner of the theater, which is a crime. By buying your ticket you agree to follow the rules of the theater, one of which would be not to disturb the other guests needlessly. [/quote]
So the owner should be able to have you arrested (by who? Who made it a criminal matter?) if your cell phone goes off. Or, if you’re yelling “uh-uh girl, don’t open that door, the crazy man behind it” during the spooky parts? In case of fire, I would’ve expected you to answer that the person could only be asked to leave…[/quote]
The difference lies in how much harm you are causing the owner of the theater. If you shout fire in a crowded theater, you are liable to start a stampede and ruin the nights business. If your cell phone goes off you are just a douchebag.[/quote]
Violates property rights? So does a cell phone going off after being asked to silence them. If it was a property rights issue, the property owner would just ask the person to leave (for cell going off, or for yelling fire).
Shouting fire in a crowded theater violates the property rights of the owner of the theater, which is a crime. By buying your ticket you agree to follow the rules of the theater, one of which would be not to disturb the other guests needlessly. [/quote]
So the owner should be able to have you arrested (by who? Who made it a criminal matter?) if your cell phone goes off. Or, if you’re yelling “uh-uh girl, don’t open that door, the crazy man behind it” during the spooky parts? In case of fire, I would’ve expected you to answer that the person could only be asked to leave…[/quote]
The difference lies in how much harm you are causing the owner of the theater. If you shout fire in a crowded theater, you are liable to start a stampede and ruin the nights business. If your cell phone goes off you are just a douchebag.[/quote]
Violates property rights? So does a cell phone going off after being asked to silence them. If it was a property rights issue, the property owner would just ask the person to leave (for cell going off, or for yelling fire). [/quote]
You’d ask someone to leave if their cell phone goes off because they disturbed the other guests. Yelling fire however ruins the entire performance and necessitates a refund to the other customers and is obviously a graver violation and carries a steeper penalty as a result.
You’d ask someone to leave if their cell phone goes off because they disturbed the other guests. Yelling fire however ruins the entire performance and necessitates a refund to the other customers and is obviously a graver violation and carries a steeper penalty as a result.
[/quote]
Why? The audience needn’t stampede out at one person’s shout of fire. If they do, that’s their own decision and action, no? They could choose to ignore him. The property owner may or may not ask him to leave. If he doesn’t leave when asked, then yeah, property rights are violated. Shouting fire is a public hazard. It has jack to do with property rights. In principle, imagine if the soon to sell property owner decided he was just fine with someone shouting fire. Maybe he put his pal up to it, for laughs. A child is pushed down the stairs in the rush to evacuate…
[quote]Gaius Octavius wrote:
Libel and slander however are obviously not crimes.[/quote]
In Rome there was no law against libel and slander(calumnies) - Calumnies were one of the weaknesses acknowledged by many historians to have contributed to the fall of the Republic(Spreading of calumnies against political opponents by Marius - Sulla - Pompey - Crassus - Caesar)
“…there can be no more effectual means for checking calumny than by affording ample facilities for impeachment(laws against libel and slander)…the legislator should so shape the laws of his State that it shall be possible therein to impeach any of its citizens without fear or favour; and, after duly providing for this, should visit calumniators with the sharpest punishments. Where this is not seen to, grave disorders will always ensue.” - Machiavelli, Discourses on Livy
Seems you’re at least half a millenia behind the times.[/quote]
Stalin would like the way you think. [/quote]
Epic fail argument is fail. Stalin has next to nothing in common with the Republic of Rome or the work of Titus Livy or the tome Discourses on Livy. The only commonality he has is that all the above believe in some sort of governing body and as such are not anarchists.
Hell you can go even farther back “thou shalt not bear false witness”. Seems God and Stalin would agree, no? /sarcasm.[/quote]
I’m sure Stalin was an advocate of free speech. Next time try not to comment on post you don’t understand[/quote]
LOL. Stalin a proponent of free speech? In what world? The Party is All. I suppose the purges were a fiction, as were the “work camps” for people who expressed unpopular views. Alexander Solzhenitsyn, all the other notables? Nothing registering? Oh yes, lots of freedom of speech in Soviet Russia. Please.
[quote]Gaius Octavius wrote:
Libel and slander however are obviously not crimes.[/quote]
In Rome there was no law against libel and slander(calumnies) - Calumnies were one of the weaknesses acknowledged by many historians to have contributed to the fall of the Republic(Spreading of calumnies against political opponents by Marius - Sulla - Pompey - Crassus - Caesar)
“…there can be no more effectual means for checking calumny than by affording ample facilities for impeachment(laws against libel and slander)…the legislator should so shape the laws of his State that it shall be possible therein to impeach any of its citizens without fear or favour; and, after duly providing for this, should visit calumniators with the sharpest punishments. Where this is not seen to, grave disorders will always ensue.” - Machiavelli, Discourses on Livy
Seems you’re at least half a millenia behind the times.[/quote]
Stalin would like the way you think. [/quote]
Epic fail argument is fail. Stalin has next to nothing in common with the Republic of Rome or the work of Titus Livy or the tome Discourses on Livy. The only commonality he has is that all the above believe in some sort of governing body and as such are not anarchists.
Hell you can go even farther back “thou shalt not bear false witness”. Seems God and Stalin would agree, no? /sarcasm.[/quote]
I’m sure Stalin was an advocate of free speech. Next time try not to comment on post you don’t understand[/quote]
LOL. Stalin a proponent of free speech? In what world? The Party is All. I suppose the purges were a fiction, as were the “work camps” for people who expressed unpopular views. Alexander Solzhenitsyn, all the other notables? Nothing registering? Oh yes, lots of freedom of speech in Soviet Russia. Please.
[/quote]
Again you fail to understand. He is against free speech just like Stalin was that’s why I said Stalin would like the way you think. Is it clear now or you need more explication?
[quote]
He is against free speech just like Stalin was[/quote]
Modern slander and libel laws date back to the 13th century(English defamation law and scandalum magnatum.) Every country on earth has libel/slander/defamation laws.
Article 17 of the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states:
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation.
Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
[quote]
He is against free speech just like Stalin was[/quote]
Modern slander and libel laws date back to the 13th century(English defamation law and scandalum magnatum.) Every country on earth has libel/slander/defamation laws.
Article 17 of the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states:
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation.
Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.[/quote]
Yes, but they are not crime per se, although this will depend on the country. For example here in Quebec you must prove that harm was done.
Treason however falls squarely under divulging information you are contractually bound to keep hidden and again, as such, is a crime.[/quote]
What contract? You and your libertarian brethren need to get consistent - I’ve been told over and over and over that if you can’t freely assent to a contract, you aren’t bound by it, and being born into a land ruled by a constitution isn’t freely assenting to its provisions.
[quote]
He is against free speech just like Stalin was[/quote]
Modern slander and libel laws date back to the 13th century(English defamation law and scandalum magnatum.) Every country on earth has libel/slander/defamation laws.
Article 17 of the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states:
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation.
Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.[/quote]
Well, that is downright fantastic…
Alas…this is what every president swears to uphold:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
[quote]
He is against free speech just like Stalin was[/quote]
Modern slander and libel laws date back to the 13th century(English defamation law and scandalum magnatum.) Every country on earth has libel/slander/defamation laws.
Article 17 of the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states:
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation.
Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.[/quote]
Well, that is downright fantastic…
Alas…this is what every president swears to uphold:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Where is the Grand Jury?
Where is due process?[/quote]
Ich konnte nicht ganz folgen. Ich sprach uber VERLEUMDUNG. Kapital verbrechen? Nein. Rechtliches verfahren? Ja.
Treason however falls squarely under divulging information you are contractually bound to keep hidden and again, as such, is a crime.[/quote]
What contract? You and your libertarian brethren need to get consistent - I’ve been told over and over and over that if you can’t freely assent to a contract, you aren’t bound by it, and being born into a land ruled by a constitution isn’t freely assenting to its provisions.
So, what contract, for treason?
[/quote]Yeah if yer so smart
Very good man LOL!.