From: clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Date: 9 Sep 92 02:36:03 GMT
Organization: Elegant Communications Inc., Ottawa, Canada

In article <255@ulogic.UUCP> hartman@ulogic.UUCP (Richard M. Hartman) writes:
>In article <3761@ecicrl.ocunix.on.ca> clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis) writes:
>>The KKK is another example.  Allowing their freedom of speech, no
>>matter what they say hasn't resulted in opposing speech causing it
>>to die out, no, they just keep coasting along, ebbing and flowing,
>>and killing people along the way.  The illegality of the actions
>>certainly doesn't stop them does it?  A reasonable anti-hate law
>>would have a better chance at keeping their numbers smaller.

>I disagree.  It is actions that matter, not the intent behind those
>actions.  If I beat someone up I should be punished.  Whether I beat
>him up because he is of another race, or because I didn't like the
>way he dressed, or because he owed me money is irrelevant.  The crime
>is assault, and is already covered by the law.  Anti-hate legislation
>makes such things more difficult to prosecute because you now have to
>go a step FURTHER and establish that the assault was racially motivated.
>Since it is a practical impossibility to establish what was in someone's
>mind at any point, such legislation is merely a waste of time.

What are you talking about?  The legislation we're talking about doesn't
do that.  It's anti-incitement legislation - ie: *before* the violent
consequences.  Assault is still assault.  Murder is still murder.
[In case it matters, Canada so far hasn't generally adopted the
"violation of civil rights" model that the US has, as in the federal
charges pending against the policemen that beat Rodney King.  But
a few similar laws are appearing.]

On the other hand, it may be a "practical impossibility to establish",
but courts do it all the time.  Ie: 1st versus 2nd degree murder.
Malfeasance versus misfeasance.  Legally sane versus legally insane.
Etc.

>Anti-hate legislation is a waste of time for the legislature to
>come up with, and for the courts to prosecute.

If you're assuming that the legislation is against "racist assault".
It's not.

>Existing laws exist
>to cover the crimes regardles of motivation, and they are easier to
>get convictions for.

Well of course, but by that time somebody's dead.  It should seem
reasonable to anyone that life is a more valuable right than free
speech.  The trick is determining where allowing the latter will
violate the former.

>1) the courts are a branch of the government

But the jury isn't.  While the jury *is* instructed on what
constitutes the law, it is they, not the government, who decides
whether the "tests" of the law pass or fail.

>2) at one point in history, it was obviously false beyond a
>	reasonable doubt that the earth was flat.  the fact that
>	you can get 12 people to agree w/ you does not make your
>	side "the truth" in any objective sense, only a legal one.

Where's the incitement to commit violence?  Who gets hurt?  Where
does this "theory" impinge in any way upon the rights of anybody
to life and limb?  Did the purveyor of the theory *know* the
theory was false?

The analogy falls down because it doesn't meet the
requirements of the law.  Which, stated baldly, is that speech
that can be banned must violate the civil rights of others
in a non-trivial way.  Ie: permitting the speech will result
in a unacceptably high likelyhood of violence.

At worst, if Gallileo was brought to trial, only two of the three
tests would pass.  Harm would certainly fail.  "knowingly false"
would probably fail.
-- 
Chris Lewis; clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca; Phone: Canada 613 832-0541
Psroff 3.0 info: psroff-request@ferret.ocunix.on.ca
Ferret list: ferret-request@ferret.ocunix.on.ca
Newsgroups: news.admin,misc.legal.computing