🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <fvtv2.684$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!
> 
> So abortion is harmful too then?

Did we not do this one already***?*** And then again at least once***?*** 
Try to stay within the current topic. 

Or has your argument lost so much steam you are cutting and pasting from 
earlier in the thread***?*** ;)

> > > > *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.
> 
> 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
> either.

So....***?*** What is the POINT***?*** Unlike yourself I do not wish to 
add 2 and 2 to make 5. FINISH THE SENTENCE

"Blah blah blah (cut from last response I am that lazy!) ... but it IS 
ABOUT .... missing stuff here!!"

Clear enough***?***

> > > > > > > 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* kill 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? 
> 
> Bullshit.  Stop putting words into my mouth.

****?**** 

"?" indicates a question in the English language hence my EMPHASISED use 
of it in this post with ***?*** since you are missing punctuation as well 
as the text. 

> > 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. 
> 
> Actually I argued what I would do *if* I saw them as a threat.

But you then went onto say (not verbatim) "if they saw it as a threat... 
*****I WOULD HAVE*****". 

> That does make it a threat in the eyes of the law.  They were tricky,
> they mixed facts and opinions together (perfectly legal).  Rather
> than saying "I'll kill you" they said "We think abortion doctors
> such as the ones in this list [link to list] have commited murder,
> and thus deserve the death penalty."
> 
> > > 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.
> 
> See?  Now you are saying it is in the intent of the defendant.

Does your news reader actually display random phrases for you to reply 
to***?***

> > > 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.
> 
> Ah.  Now we're getting somewhere :)  Yes, opinions can *appear*
> threatening and if the law said that if someone felt threatened 
> made it a threat, I would agree with you that opinions can be
> threats under the eyes of the law.  

At last progress. 

> You were wrong before when 
> you said I was repeating someone else's opinions, I was going
> from my memory of the Constitution when I was in school.  (Which
> said it has to be their intent to threaten.)

Now we are getting somewhere. Enhance it maybe. 

> > > 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. 
> 
> I agree that Facts + threats = threats

Good. 

> It's just whether the opinions are threats, which is where we disagree.

OK. Define your view of "opinion". Here are a few possibilities, but feel 
free to illustrate with more.

"I wish you were dead"

"I want you dead"

"You should die"

"You should be killed"

> > ?Mean get do. you I what
> I know you are saying "You get what I mean?" but that doesn't mean it makes 

You missed the Do but yes! ;)

> > > 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. 
> 
> Now why do you act like I didn't know you were saying that?
> Did it not seem obvious that I merely disagreed?

Hmmm, I must have missed the IMHO or equivalent... No, it reads like a 
statement of "fact". No indication of opinion whatsoever. 

> > 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).
> 
> ignore != disagree

This == getting tedious!

> > > 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"!
> 
> Is the "threat" removed?  They could have ordered the site to shut down
> and be done with it - that would be removing it (at least temporarily,
> since they could come back anonymously at any given moment).  But what
> does getting +$100 Million have to do with removing the "threat"?  If

Punishment. Removing the threat is the victory that the victim seeks. 
Damages provide punishment. Just removing the threat may give the victim 
peace of mind but does not stop the perpetrator doing the same thing 
again. Punishment (in this case damages) is designed to do that. 

> they were thrown in jail, that would also remove them for the moment.

The offence did not justify a term of incarceration. Punitive damages was 
applicable. 

> But they acted more out of revenge and greed rather than fear.

Another missing IMHO***?***

> > > 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.
> 
> Since you brought up the Bible, if one is sorry for his sins, God
> forgives him.  It doesn't matter if it's only been a few months.
> I don't know what kind of people the webmasters are, but I wouldn't
> judge them - if a doctor said he began to see things their way so
> please remove his name from the list, I'm sure they'd comply.

Forced attrition != genuine sorrow.

> And if you are going to judge them...  they'd consider it a 
> victory.  They'd be too proud not to remove his name from the
> list.  Hell, makes we wonder if that actually happened and
> never made its way into the courts...?

Actually I think the outcome would be another page saying Fuck me we have 
FORCED Dr X of address to change we can do it to them all and the 
"threat" list would increase as would the explicit nature of the threats. 
Violence breeds violence. Any terrorist victory results in more terrorist 
activity. 

> Also, we are both referring to a scroll hundreds of years old for
> a legal code :P

Huh?

Although the Law has its foundation in times past, it is constantly 
updated to account for changes in society. The bible has not changed in 
what 2000 years or so***?*** We are not all living in grass huts these 
days and have many more things to consider than the outdated moral code 
of 2000 years ago. 

I see your point, but as we recently discussed your source of inspiration 
is rapidly outdating. Society changes constantly and the Law may move a 
step or two behind but it does move on.

> Off topic, but the UltraHLE emulator was in fact copyright infringement
> because it uses the copyrighted 3-D "N" logo (as its main icon).

Damn right too!

> > No you have told me what you would do. Run and hide. Very commendable 
> > <cough> 
> 
> =\  If I truly believed they were terrorists capable of carrying out
> this threat, I don't think it matters.

But if you had an option to remove the threat, punish the perpetrator and 
get on with your life how *you* choose, would you not prefer that? Maybe 
you prefer to let anyone with the audacity to threaten you to control 
your life. Most people like to control their own destiny.

> > Now an average person is more likely to deal with the threat 
> > rather than spending the rest of their lives miserable and afraid. 
> 
> Okay, you don't see it.  Let me explain:
> 
> If I sued them and pissed them off, I don't think they'd stop there.
> *That* would make me spend the rest of my life miserable and afraid.
> Telling them ho I stopped, went pro-life, etc. would in essence be
> dealing with the "threat" directly rather than through a humiliating
> court scene.

So you could go to your grave an old broken Man with stories of how you 
were forced by a bunch of bullies down a path not of your choosing. Sound 
happy?

> So your comment "Now an average person is more likely to deal with
> the threat rather than spending the rest of their lives miserable
> and afraid," implies that I am average since I fall into the same
> category, albeit a different path.

No you did not deal with the threat. You succumbed to the threat. 

Fight != Give up.

> > You obviously prefer this scenario 
> 
> WRONG.

You just reiterated your belief in this scenario!

> > but most people want to live, not merely survive. 
> 
> If I have done what the doctors did, I would be scared every day of
> my life.  Even if it wasn't a threat before, they would be a lot
> angrier now since I have hurt them on a personal level.

So what then? Give in. Terrorism in the full definition of the term.

> > > 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.
> 
> Yes, unless the "perpetrators" choose to remain anonymous from now on
> and pretend they are different people.  It would be very difficult to
> prove it was them, and that would give them room to act more freely,
> making the threat (if there was one) a lot worse than before.

But who will be the first suspects? Who is going to get a shit load of 
hassle every time similar problem occurs? Will they consider it worth the 
risk to them?

> > Did you see what I wrote? 
> 
> Not when I said what I did, no.

So you actually draft your reply before mine and try to mingle it in 
then***?***

As I have said before, you ignore what I write (seems obvious given the 
above comment). I do have better ways to spend my time. I am so tempted 
to leave you to your argument with yourself as Jenn already has. 

If you wish to continue this conversation at least have the courtesy to 
read my response. An apology for your admitted ignorance above would have 
been appreciated. 

> > 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. 
> 
> E-mail accounts != ISPs 

Who do you think provides the email servers***?*** God***?***

> There are anonymous mail programs, anonymous email accounts, Hell they
> don't even have to use a valid email adress.  Anonymity can still be
> achieved by some.

I am so sick of repeating myself. I know what is out there. Anonymity is 
NOT AS EFFECTIVE AS YOU MAY 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!
> 
> Heh, I didn't mean to imply that.

OK, CUT :)

> > > 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 missed my point - taking action to remove the "threat" is a "risk".
> "Taking action would remove the risk and remove the threat" because the
> risk in the taking action.  Hence a very risky solution.

But is there not risk in not taking action***?***

It is called a vicious circle and it has to be broken. 

> > > > 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. 
> 
> I agree that the threat may have been in their mind.  I disagree that
> that's a threat under the eyes of the law.

So point out fact. Why do you disagree***?*** Often it seems merely 
personal adversity to law rather than basis in fact. 

> > (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) 
> 
> That...  The "I would have" refers to what I would have done *if* I
> had seen it as a threat.

No. You wrote

"I said they *may* have felt threatened...  I would have... "

The dots are yours. Personally I feel brackets would be more appropriate 
(sorry parentheses) but the sentence reads that you can empathise with 
their perception of threat and in the same situation you would feel the 
threat.

> > > but that doesn't 
> > > make stating the facts and opinions illegal.  
> > 
> > When intermingled to form a threat it DOES!!!!!!!!
> 
> Changing your story again?  First, opinions alone are threats.
> Then the opinions and facts need to be mixed to become a threat.

You are the one breaking things down, not me. If you bothered to read the 
rest of the post you would not have made such an erroneous statement.

> > > Targeted comments could become
> > > illegal if they were done in private 
> > 
> > How? If the victim did not know then no threat has been made. 
> 
> I meant, in private to the victim.

So why do you see a public threat as any different to a private 
one***?***

> > If a third party reported such private conversations and brought the
> > "threat" into the open then yes action would likely follow. 
> 
> That would be more...  conspiring than anything.
> 
> > > (it could become harassment if they did 
> > > it by e-mail, telephone, snail mail, etc.)
> > 
> > Harassment yes, threat yes.
> 
> Threat no.

So a death threat by email is not a threat ***?***

> > 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?"
> 
> OK != Legal

Huh? You already decided the courts and law are a waste of fucking time 
so this is obviously asking your personal opinion not pointless 
statements of the obvious!

Fuck me

Black != White
Light != Dark

Kombat != Listening

Kombat == Ignorant (look it up before you take it as an insult!)
 
> I might not like it, but it doesn't mean they have broken the law.

They have! Show me one thing either from your "precious" Constitution 
or American Federal Law or State law from the prosecuting state (if 
applicable) or whatever to back up any one of your claims so far.

> > So the list comes with specific columns for
> > 
> > <name> <address> <specialist area> <opinion> <threats> <other comments> 
> > :P
> > 
> > If not my point stands.
> 
> No, it's like "<opinion> <click for list>".  I do not see why it even
> matters as they are both different ways of saying the same thing.

I still doubt that click for list offers death threat as an option.

-- 
Mark