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.

Politics : Libertarian Discussion Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mama Bear who wrote (2680)	5/9/1999 1:10:00 AM
From: Mama Bear	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13056

There is an interesting civil trial ready to start in Maryland. A fellow hired a hit man to kill his wife, child, and the child's nurse so that he could collect money (~$2 million) from a settlement that the child received. The hit man bought a book from a company called Paladin Press, which detailed how to commit a contract killing. Paladin Press is being sued and is trying to use the First Amendment as a shield from responsibility. Believe it or not I have a hard time seeing how Paladin doesn't have civil liability. I suppose the argument could be made that the murders would have occurred with or without the book. While I don't think the First Amendment protects works from being subject to criminal liability, I have a hard time with it being used as a hiding place if direct harm can be shown. However, I seem to be on the opposite side of the fence from a lot of Constitutional scholars. I thought it would be an interesting subject to debate in this forum. Here is Nat Hentoff's op-ed piece which appeared in today's Washington Post: search.washingtonpost.com Barb

To: Mama Bear who wrote (2680)	5/9/1999 2:01:00 AM
From: Andy Thomas	Respond to of 13056

Neocon makes a good case for why so many of us are disappointed with the republicans, for the republicans only offer a different flavor of statism, not real liberty with all of its attendant responsibilities. FWIW Andy

To: Mama Bear who wrote (2680)	5/9/1999 4:15:00 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13056

Barb, by definition unjust laws are unjust. However, they are laws, and we do not each of us get to decide which laws we find "right for us"... I do not invoke phantom victims, but risks to the community (need I say, "of individuals") that are more speculative and moral, and therefore less susceptible to definitive, objective resolution. However, just because something is doomed to be the subject of debate does not mean that it cannot be the basis for action. The individual has rights against the community, but the community has a right to protect itself from grave hazards... Barb, since I appear to be older than you, I can only think that when you were in high- school you ran with a very ignorant crowd, since it was well known even in "the dark ages" that marijuana was ubiquitous... Actually I believe that gathering yeast is not a very complex process, but it wouldn't matter since it is a common product used for legitimate purposes. Since everyone in this country who follows the news has some idea of the transshipment routes for heroin and cocaine, I do not believe that if any considerable supply came from this country it would be unknown to the public, no...