[42518] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: On Internet and social responsibility
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Schwartz)
Mon Sep 17 16:00:03 2001
From: David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com>
To: <goemon@anime.net>
Cc: <gmirsky@axiowave.com>, 'Andy Walden' <andy@tigerteam.net>,
David Schwartz <David.Schwartz@merit.edu>, <nanog@merit.edu>
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 12:54:37 -0700
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0109171238160.9767-100000@anime.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <20010917195438.AAA13069@shell.webmaster.com@whenever>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Mon, 17 Sep 2001 12:40:17 -0700 (PDT), Dan Hollis wrote:
>On Mon, 17 Sep 2001, David Schwartz wrote:
>> >How it's >applicable to foreign terrorist organization that=
uses
>>American company to >spread its ideas?
>> Because if American companies want to spread the speech of=
foreign
>>terrorists, that's their right. The government of the United=
States should
>>not be prosecuting them for the content of their speech.
>But you *can* be prosecuted on content, e.g. death threats.
>
>-Dan
=09Yep. And the freedom to do what you want with what is yours does=
not include
the right to club me over the head with *your* bat. Freedom of=
speech is
pretty darn near absolute in the United States, with a small=
number of
(usually) carefully circumscribed exceptions. But it's one=
principle among
many, certainly.
=09There is a difficult border between speech and action. If I tell=
you I'll
give you a thousand dollars if you kill a particular person,=
that's speech.
In fact, there are any number of criminal acts that can be=
committed purely
by the content one expresses.
=09Some engage in legal hairsplitting and argue that it's not=
really the
content of your speech (the ideas you wish to express) that are=
being
suppressed. For example, when I hire a hitman, it's not the=
speech that's the
issue but the offer of contract. This argument is somewhat=
persuasive in the
'hire a hitman' case, but I don't find it so in the 'death=
threat' case.
=09If I state, "I presently intent to kill Jack Smith if he doesn't=
mail me
$500 in cash", what is there in that other than the content of=
the idea I
wish to express? Freedom of speech is not some contextless=
absolute. It's a
very important principle among other primary principles.
=09DS
