[free-sklyarov] [DMCA_discuss] CNET - Security workers:

[Jeme A Brelin]

On Sat, 8 Sep 2001, Keith Handy wrote:
> Yes, but in this case it has nothing to do with what you have
> expressed, and everything to do with the fact that you've made a loud
> and startling sound.  You could just as easily cause the person's
> death by shouting "BANANA!" in the same way.

I agree and that's why CONTENT BASED restrictions are rejected by the
Court.

It's not illegal to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater... that is to say,
there is and can be no law that outlaws the word specifically.  It would
be just as criminal to incite panic by screaming "Man-eating ants!" or
something else that caused people to panic and was wholly untrue.

I think I was misunderstood originally (probably due to my own ambiguity
of language).  I'm not saying that it is sensible to outlaw some speech
because of what it MIGHT cause, I'm saying that it is sensible to
criminalize (or extend civil liabilty to) some speech after it has caused
something.

Just as the Courts have done.  Pre-emptive restriction is unworkable and
probably counter-productive.  However, that doesn't mean that consequences
of speech can be confered to the speaker.

J.
-- 
   -----------------
     Jeme A Brelin
    jeme at brelin.net
   -----------------
 [cc] counter-copyright
 http://www.openlaw.org