🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <qe6v2.317$wc4...@server1.news.adelphia.net>, 
tabmok99....@damnspaz.com says...
> > > 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.

No they are considered more "humane". If they were not *harmful*, the 
person would not die!

> > *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.

I'll wait for you to finish that sentence.

> > > > > 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.

You have no faith in courts then? I agree they are not perfect but that 
is because they are "run" by humans. They do tend to be right more often 
than wrong. You only ever hear of the mistakes and never the successes. 

So far everyone here has more or less agreed that the comments were 
threats. Even you yourself said (later in this message before you argue) 
that you would have seen them as a threat. 

> Example, OJ won his criminal trial but lost his civil case.  Now did he
> do it or not?

I do not know the guy. Ask him.

> 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".  

But that is the whole point. In this case the "opinion" was indeed a 
*threat*. Opinion may = threat.

> For the "facts != threats" it is
> obvious that stating the facts (someone's name, adress, etc) is in
> no way a threat.

However when placed in a sentence along with a threat it becomes one. You 
cannot take a sentence and break it down into parts saying well, this bit 
is fact, this is opinion and this is therefore not a threat. We are not 
talking a list of meaningless words we are talking strings of words 
linked together to form what we call a sentence. A sentence must be read 
as a whole and not analyzed semantically. Semantics have little to so 
with meaning of a sentence. The words themselves are meaningless. 
Sentence parts are just as meaningless since they rely on the whole for 
context. 

?Mean get do. you I what

Apparently the above will make complete sense to you since the idea of a 
sentence has no relevance to you.

> 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.

LISTEN! Intent is not necessary to prove threat. What do you think 
"threatening behaviour" means? You will really love this one. It is any 
act that could be perceived as threatening by anyone and is punishable in 
Law. There is no intent. It could be something as simple as shaking your 
fist at the sky. No intent, not even personal direction. But it is 
threatening behaviour. (extreme example since you tend to ignore what I 
write anyway, guess what you would have written if you were arguing with 
yourself and respond to your new interpretation).

> > > > > 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).  

Sort of yes. There are other issues to consider but I'll read on.

> 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.  

Bullshit. That is what the law is for. To remove the threat. To deal with 
it. Failing that the US has the wonderful constitutional remedy of the 
"right to bear arms"!

> 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.  

You are soooo wrong. Why would stopping now make any difference? The 
threat was already made, and I am sure in the eyes of those making the 
threats they are guilty for past "sins". You yourself rely on a book 
thousands of years old for moral code, why would a few months of 
abstinence lend any credence to these doctors in the eyes of the 
persecutors.

> 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".

No the law was broken. Even without the threat (had the doctors not 
deemed the comments threatening) there are other issues that could arise 
in such statements.  

> > > 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.

No you have told me what you would do. Run and hide. Very commendable 
<cough> Now an average person is more likely to deal with the threat 
rather than spending the rest of their lives miserable and afraid. You 
obviously prefer this scenario but most people want to live, not merely 
survive. 

> The perceived threat hasn't been removed either, it could come back
> even worse.  

It could. Or it could not. If it does, expect more drastic recourse 
against the perpetrators since it will now have implied intent.

> > > 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.

Did you see what I wrote? 

Besides that, do you know of an ISP that would carry such statements and 
risk prosecution themselves without recourse to the originator? 

Anonymity on the web is not nearly as effective as we are lead to 
believe. 

> > > 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.

Not at the time you hadn't!

> > > 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.

Verbatim quote "The doctors must not have cared or they wouldn't 
******risk their lives********* to sue these people."

OK!

> You know the risk is in their mind.
> If they believed there was a threat, they would believe there a risk
> also.

But they would believe that taking action would remove the risk and 
remove the threat. Hence a very advantageous solution.

> You think it depends on the wording?

Check out the comments above on those things we call sentences that make 
communication so much more effective than...

<fact>, <opinion> <fact> <fact> <fact> :) <opinion> :(

> > 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...  

So you *agree* it was a threat. (the "I would have bit" seems to 
explicitly imply that you would have seen it as a threat were you in that 
position yet you find it so incredulous that another person might) Why 
the fuck are we having this conversation?

> but that doesn't 
> make stating the facts and opinions illegal.  

When intermingled to form a threat it DOES!!!!!!!!

> Targeted comments could become
> illegal if they were done in private 

How? If the victim did not know then no threat has been made. If a third 
party reported such private conversations and brought the "threat" into 
the open then yes action would likely follow. 

> (it could become harassment if they did 
> it by e-mail, telephone, snail mail, etc.)

Harassment yes, threat yes.

> > > > 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!

You know what I am getting at. 

> 
> > 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

Sorry. I thought we were having an adult conversation. We'll talk more 
when you start shaving :P

As you should have realised, my argument stands, the chances are that 
anyone and everyone's name and address is public information of one form 
or another. 

So now with that in mind, use an adult of your choice whose details are 
"public information" and answer the original question... "Yet you think 
this is OK?"

> > > 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.

So the list comes with specific columns for

<name> <address> <specialist area> <opinion> <threats> <other comments> 
:P

If not my point stands.

-- 
Mark