tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30810438.post6621785068604079163..comments2023-06-23T09:34:42.832-04:00Comments on The Walrus Said: The limits of free speechJanethttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04600030574995481267noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30810438.post-63043258947259882342006-08-30T17:17:00.000-04:002006-08-30T17:17:00.000-04:00I am amazed that Bill White would bother leaving a...I am amazed that Bill White would bother leaving a comment on a blog as obscure as mine. He's quite right - I won't affect his traffic at all. I also note that his URL has changed in the last few days.<br /><br />I've decided to leave his comment up, but I would like to counter his main argument. Calling for the death of Saddam Hussein in the North American press has no practical impact whatsoever. It is just hot air even with an address list (it would have to have been an extremely long list; Saddam had a lot of residences). I can't imagine any North American readers responding by buying an airline ticket, hopping on the plane with his automatic weapon, gaining access to Saddam and shooting him. <br /><br />On the other hand, if I say, "This guy deserves to die," to a roomful of armed followers and then supply them with his coordinates, it's a very different thing indeed.<br /><br />Because the levels of will and ability and influence are extremely different, it is an entirely different thing. Equating the two different situations ignores so many pertinent details that it's absurd.Janethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04600030574995481267noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30810438.post-38564087017303987442006-08-29T14:09:00.000-04:002006-08-29T14:09:00.000-04:00Aren't courts capable of understanding context? A...Aren't courts capable of understanding context? Aren't they frequently called on to do so? Why can't they allow something in one place and not in another? After all, I'm allowed to carry shampoo anywhere but in a plane.<br /><br />There has got to be a way of drafting it that would work.<br /><br />Sorry if I'm being difficult here, but a "fundamentalist" understanding of the absolute right of free speech is too much, and the spirit of the law limiting free speech is being violated, if not the letter. If the practical result of a deliberate action is to endanger someone's life, hasn't it become a death threat?<br /><br />I suppose Warman could sue, but the precedent you cite would not encourage him much. In the meanwhile, I imagine he's put his house up for sale and will make sure his new address is NOT published in the phone book.Janethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04600030574995481267noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30810438.post-52750318223604342292006-08-29T00:33:00.000-04:002006-08-29T00:33:00.000-04:00Right now, the state of American law is such that ...Right now, the state of American law is such that this is probably protected speech. The principle, fairly well-respected <a href="http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=13548">opinion</a> from the court of appeals involved doctors who perform abortions and protesters who take their pictures and put them on posters and on-line, including their addresses, branding them as "baby-killers", and worse.<br /><br />On the good news side, there was a jury verdict of $109 million entered in favor of the plaintiffs, and the life of the main defendant was made miserable by having that judgment hanging over his head for several years until it was reversed by the court of appeals.<br /><br />I think it's just too difficult to draw the line any other way. Addresses are generally public information or are at least relatively easy to obtain. Do you make it illegal to publish them? Do you say that the guy publishing the phone book can publish them, but not the guy who hates abortion?PatHMVhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15542719040606654134noreply@blogger.com