Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jamok99 who wrote (54967)	9/13/2001 2:58:28 AM
From: Joe NYC	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Jamok, I guess for prosecution, there would have to be a prior knowledge that the money was going to be used for a criminal or illegal act. If there is a plausible deniability, you just keep the person on the list of potential troublemakers, and when anything else comes up, the authorities may put effort in collecting evidence that the suspect knew what the money was going to be used for. Anyway, the response should be proportional to the level of threat, not limited to any arbitrary standard. Suppose this country is under some threat (suppose some killer infectious disease), and based on the public health experts, the only way to overcome is not to have a great number of people in the same room at the same time. But right to assemble great number of people in the same room fall under the freedom of assembly (which I am not sure if it is explicitly or implicitly stated either in constitution or some law). Don't you think it would make sense to temporarily suspend this law, until the infectious disease is overcome? That to me is a proportional response to the threat at hand. Joe