From: Steve Schear <azur@netcom.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 08:32:29 +0800
To: tzeruch@ceddec.com
Subject: Re: Thoughtcrime   (Re: My War)
In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.32.19970609183534.0069ac1c@netcom13.netcom.com>
Message-ID: <v03102800afc399044c85@[10.0.2.15]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



I call bullshit on this whole line of reasoning!

All prohibition of speech should be based on the judgement of whether or
not specific individiuals (not general groups or socienty at large) can be
reasonably be deduced to be at immediate risk or be harmed from that speech.

>Looking at synthetic child porn may be purely a thought crime, but it
>involves breaking a lot of societal taboos.  If someone does not have the
>self-restraint to not look at mere pictures, will they have the restraint
>to avoid comitting actual crimes?  Pornography is not like reading Rosseau
>or Locke since rational enlightenment is not the goal.
>
>Logic != Emotion
>
>But what happens when we deal with individuals who are entirely driven by
>emotions, and by the basest emotions possible?

I find lust to be a noble urge.

What happens when you sell high-power autos to immature consumers which can
only be used as promoted by traveling at speeds well in excess of safe?

>
>Although you can argue that people may be able to look without touching,
>the reason they are looking in the first place involves a release of the
>beast within.  How many such people are we willing to trust to keep that
>beast on the chain.  The law is currently structured to answer "none" to
>this question, and this may be the proper answer.

Following this line of reasoning, isn't it appropriate that any
attractive/exciting experience which gets the adreneline pumping (with the
possibility for abuse and injury to third-parties) be regulated?

>
>With guns and explosives, there is greater likelyhood that someone will
>injure themselves or their own property on a destructive binge.  This type
>of expression is more benign, though I don't think it represents the
>better angels of our nature.  But I see no threat to me personally from
>such people.

I think some families in Oklahoma City may disagree.

>
>Similarly with most drugs...
>
>But I would not want to have someone leave the two components to a binary
>nerve gas on a shelf...

Now you've transgressed from speech to possession.

>
>Something that is in and of itself a turning away from reason and giving
>in to emotion, and the ultimate destination of that path if it is followed
>will result in injury to others, especially innocents, is something that
>should be regulated.

Regulated or banned?  I find war to be the best such example, but we still
have massive armies and a military-industrial complex don't we?

>
>This form of "information" is an addictive drug, with the side effect is
>that it destroys others much more than it destroys the abuser,

Can you back up this assertion with clinical data?

>
>This does not mean that I am any less a civil-cyber-libertarian..

I believe it means you are a wanna-be Libertarian.

--Steve