🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <QhNu2.161$wc4...@server1.news.adelphia.net>, 
tabmok99....@damnspaz.com says...
> This is in reference to <MPG.1125a491a...@news.demon.co.uk>, in
> which a one ma...@mhetherington.demon.co.uk (Mark) wrote:
> > In article <I5Mu2.148$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.
> 
> So you're saying that threating a painless death (by let's say, lethal
> injection) isn't a crime?

?!. Reads it again. ?! Reads again. ?! No. 

Where did I say that? 

*Any* death threat *is* a crime. If you are trying to draw me into a 
discussion on capital punishment, then lethal injection is less a threat 
and much more a promise :P

> > > 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.
> 
> Telling the whole world that I think I should kill a certain person
> would.  Or telling them that I will kill them, or telling the world
> *to* kil them would.  But what they did was (just barely) within the
> law.

Obviously it was *not* within the Law barely or otherwise. 

> > > 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.
> 
> How many times must I say this?  

Nowhere else so far in this message so why not keep that part of your 
weak argument to the messages where it is.

> The so-called victim could perceive
> anything a threat, and then the threat would exist (within the victim's
> mind).  

See other message.

> Again, if Midway got sued because some nut perceived their violent
> games as a death threat, should Midway have to pay them money?

See other message. 

> 
> > > > > > 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. 
> 
> Are you being this ignorant on purpose?  I mentioned that opinions
> aren't facts on the very line of text below this one!

You did *not* actually. You *did* say opinions != threats on the next 
line.

> > I ask again. What part of the constitution gives a Us citizen the right 
> > to threaten at will regardless of the victims view?
> 
> None.  People are allowed to state the facts and their opinions.

The following assumes Mr. X can be easily identified by all concerned 
parties as a specific individual. 

Let us take a look at the phrase "Mr X deserves to die". 

This is an opinion that Mr X could perceive as a threat since it 
explicitly suggests that you personally would like to see him dead. 

If Mr X believes you capable of carrying out that desire either yourself 
or through the use of a third party, then a threat exists. The reason is 
inconsequential. Intent to carry out the act is inconsequential. It is 
all down to the victim's perception. 

You predictable retort of "you could see anything as ... blah blah blah" 
should be left to the other message rather than watering your argument 
down over so many different ones.

> > > 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!
> 
> I have always "gotten it".  Apparently you didn't.  

I got what you meant if that is what your derogatory remark is aimed at. 
You would obviously be so scared by the threat as to do ... nothing? 
Seems like it was a threat then!

> If they *really* felt threatened, they wouldn't have sued the
> webmasters.  

What so they should live in fear? The best way to deal with threatening 
behaviour is to remove the threat. This has been successfully achieved.

> Now the webmasters will have to remain anonymous
> in order to excersize their right to free speech.  

Difficult since Laws are in draft to require all web masters to declare 
themselves on the site and to be accountable for content.

FYI English = exercise (not sure whether you misspelled or exersize is 
the US version :) ) 

> If the doctors
> thought they had it rough before, things are really going to be
> Hell for them now.  

How's that?

> The doctors must not have cared or they
> wouldn't risk their lives to sue these people.

You see a risk to their lives?! Yet there was (in your opinion) no threat 
to their lives. Where is the risk?

> 
> > > > > 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. 
> 
> No, because look:
> 
> FACT    "Dr x of y road, whatever state ZIPCODE"
> OPINION "deserves to die"
> FACT    "because they are an abortion doctor"

Been there, done that. Read back if you want a response.

> > 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)
> 
> Wrong again.  An opinion can be very specific or very broad.  It's their 
> opinion.  They're allowed to think it, and they're allowed to state it.
> Saying they're not entitled to have a specific opinion is ludicrous, and
> saying they're entitled to think it but not say it is also ludicrous.

But I said neither. I said targeted comments which could be/were 
perceived as a threat were so. Nothing to do with free speech there. 
Anyway, your comments above seem to imply that you do acknowledge a 
threat to their lives so your argument seems to have run it's course and 
crashed and burned.

> > 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?
> 
> My adress is not public information, therefore it isn't okay.  

Are you not in the "phone book"? - Public information.

Are you not listed in whatever the US equivalent is of "register of 
electors" (list of people able to vote)? - Public information

> If you are a 
> doctor in the U.S., your adress is public information.  The American Medical 
> Association lists it publicly.

So? I do not think the intention was to let people make better threats.

> > > Now just once
> > > I'd like to see you admit when you're wrong.
> > 
> > When I *am* wrong, I do.
> 
> You have admitted that it was a poor example and I guess that's as close 
> as you'll come.

I said when I wrote the example that it was poor and reasoned why. IMHO I 
am not wrong so have nothing to "admit".

-- 
Mark