🚀 go-pugleaf

This is in reference to <MPG.1126d38e1...@news.demon.co.uk>, in which a
one ma...@mhetherington.demon.co.uk (Mark) wrote:
> 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? 

"I consider death to be physically harmful."
You implied it right there, as there are some forms of death that we
accept to be not harmful.

> *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

Alright, you still don't understand yet so let me be more clear here:
In "death threat" the emphasis is not so much in the _death_ as it is
the threat, and it's not about whether the doctors felt threatened or
not either.

> > > > 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. 

Wrong.  Just because something was found in court doesn't make it true.
Example, OJ won his criminal trial but lost his civil case.  Now did he
do it or not?

> > > > > > > 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.

Yeah, well that's what I meant.  Anyway, when I break it down into
"facts aren't threats" and "opinions aren't threats" you can't reply
to the facts part saying "Stating that *you* think someone "deserves
to die" is opinion *not* fact" because that was why I broke it down
into the "opinions != threats".  For the "facts != threats" it is
obvious that stating the facts (someone's name, adress, etc) is in
no way a threat.

> > > 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.

I'll have to find your message, but just because a threat exists within
a victim's mind is not enough.  The reason why someone has to be punished
for threatening someone is if it was their intent to threaten.

> > > > 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!

Alright, I'll go along with your arguement that feeling threatened somehow
makes the other person break the law (at least for now).  Then you're
saying if the doctors didn't actually feel threatened, no law was broken
(it is logical to assume you agreee, hence the "Feeling threatened. Law 
broken!" statement).  

The doctors didn't act like they felt threatened.  If you are actually
scared for your life, you are not going to go and take any foolish risks.
If they really beleived those webmasters were capable of carrying it out,
they would not do anything to piss them off.  You know what a scared
doctor would do?  Stop giving abortions and let the site maintainers
know, and kindly ask them to remove their name, adress, etc. from the
list.  Then they can go and breathe a sigh of relief.  They acted more
like they wanted revenge rather than peace of mind, hence by your
argument "No law broken".

> > 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.

Well, I just told you what someone who was really scared would do.
The perceived threat hasn't been removed either, it could come back
even worse.  

> > 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.

They could get a few anonymous email accounts...  some free web sites...
bring it all back and pretend they're someone else.

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

Well, I think I explained that already.

> > 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?

I didn't say I believe they risked their lives.
You know the risk is in their mind.
If they believed there was a threat, they would believe there a risk
also.

> > > > > > 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.

You think it depends on the wording?

> > > 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.

I said they *may* have felt threatened...  I would have...  but that doesn't 
make stating the facts and opinions illegal.  Targeted comments could become
illegal if they were done in private (it could become harassment if they did 
it by e-mail, telephone, snail mail, etc.)

> > > 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.

Right - I'm not!

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

No, I just turned 18, and didn't register yet, so nyeh :P

> > 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.

No, but they are allowed to list their adress and name phone number, etc.
They are also allowed to state their opinion.

_|    _|  _|_|_|  Visit the Kombat Pavilion today.
_|  _|    _|  _|  http://come.to/the.kombat.pavilion
_|_|      _|_|_|
_|  _|    _|
_|    _|  _|