🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <I5Mu2.148$wc4...@server1.news.adelphia.net>, 
tabmok99....@damnspaz.com says...
> And the people didn't threaten physical harm so no law was broken.

I consider death to be physically harmful.

> Telling a person you think they deserve to die doesn't fall into the
> category however.

Telling the whole world that you think a specific person deserves to die 
does. It is implicitly threatening their life.

> But, posting a person's name and adress (as long as it's public
> information, as is the case with doctors' names and adresses) and
> saying you think these people desere to die doesn't meet the
> criteria.

Are you listening. If the *victim* perceives the comment as a threat the 
Law *has* been broken since the threat exists.

> > > > Threats are as punishable as actual deeds albeit with different levels of 
> > > > consequence. 
> > > 
> > > facts != threats
> > 
> > Huh?
> 
> If you state the facts, you have not violated any law.

Stating that *you* think someone "deserves to die" is opinion *not* fact. 

> > > opinions != threats
> > 
> > An expression of the opinion that a given person should die could 
> > constitute a crime for a number of reasons. In addition to assault there 
> > is the crime of incitement. An open opinion that a person ought to die, 
> > may incite another to commit the act. Either way if the victim feels 
> > threatened by the expression of the opinion, assault has been committed.
> 
> That's not the way it works.  The "victim" could act threatened by
> anything that comes his way, which is why the U.S. Constitution would
> not allow the anti-abortion site to have to pay a fine.

I ask again. What part of the constitution gives a Us citizen the right 
to threaten at will regardless of the victims view?

What exactly are you quoting as defence?

> If I were the doctor here and I felt threatened, the *last* thing
> I would do would be to piss these people off by making them pay
> shitloads of money that they don't have.

You are getting it. Feeling threatened. Law broken!

> > > facts + opinions != threats
> > 
> > Depends on the wording of "fact + opinion". Telling an overweight person 
> > that "I am going to kill you, you fat bastard" is 
> > 
> >           fact  - "fat" 
> >         + opinion       - "bastard" 
> >         = threat        - of death
> > :P
>  
> Wrong.  The threat is in the "I am going to kill you".  The latter part
> of the sentence has little to do with the actual threat.  

So your wonderful little x!=y speech was completely pointless since a 
sentence "Dr x of y road, whatever state ZIPCODE deserves to die because 
they are an abortion doctor" is subject to the same rule you applied to 
my admitted poor example. They did not list a lot of Doctors and their 
occupation (i.e. facts). They did not suggest that all abortion Doctors 
should die (I.e. opinion). They specifically stated that the doctors of 
this profession (together with personal details so not merely a general 
opinion) should not be allowed to live because of their profession. (I.e. 
threats)

These Doctors were singled out as targets. This is threatening. Do you 
really think these Doctors thought nothing of it? Would you? Imagine 
visiting a prominent associations web site and seeing your name and 
address posted along with a list of contemporaries together with the 
comment that you should die. Out of 5 billion or so people on the planet, 
you and a few associates are singled out. Would you not feel somewhat 
perturbed or even "threatened"? 

I think you would. You will not even post on this newsgroup the *state* 
you live in for "fear" of consequence. Imagine having your exact location 
in a message here and in a threatening form ... "Kombat of <this address> 
should be killed because he is a ... ". 

Yet you think this is OK?

> Now just once
> I'd like to see you admit when you're wrong.

When I *am* wrong, I do.

-- 
Mark