 | | Laws about sex.... (was something else)
|
|
(...) Right! We have some impressively vague and unenforced laws. For example, apparently Bill Clinton and Gary Condit(1) may both be "sex offenders" under DC law, since adultery is illegal in DC. Matters not whether all parties involved consent or (...) (23 years ago, 13-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Laws about sex.... (was something else)
|
|
(...) OK, here's a nicely vague one for you. (URL) (23 years ago, 13-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Laws about sex.... (was something else)
|
|
That's just beyond belief. I can't adequately express the outrage I'm feeling over the stupidity of the judge that actually let this happen (make no mistake, the judge is the only one to blame for this, he has the ultimate power in the case). I (...) (23 years ago, 13-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Laws about sex.... (was something else)
|
|
(...) 10 years! he should have got twenty, he was already on probation, He probably would have done it evetually and locking him up hardly counts as a loss to society! I think what society gains from the removal of the risk he posed far outways any (...) (23 years ago, 13-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Laws about sex.... (was something else)
|
|
(...) So, you're saying that the government can arrest me for fictional writings about something that is illegal, but never took place anywhere but in my head? And that it's right?! -Duane (23 years ago, 13-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Laws about sex.... (was something else)
|
|
(...) Let me add to that. Fictional writings that were never published or distributed and intended for my own private use (enjoyment?). (...) (23 years ago, 13-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Laws about sex.... (was something else)
|
|
(...) Yes Look if someone has convictions for bomb making and you find a fake plan of a bombing campaign in his home, your gonna put 2 and 2 together and put him away. How do you know it was 'fake' he's gonna say that isnt he. Same in this case (...) (23 years ago, 13-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Laws about sex.... (was something else)
|
|
I hope you don't live in the US and have any power in elections. If you do, I should look into citizenship in other countries. Writing a PRIVATE journal of fantasy has absolutely nothing to do with an ACTUAL crime, nor even intent. If we start (...) (23 years ago, 13-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Laws about sex.... (was something else)
|
|
(...) No, actually, you're not. At least, you shouldn't. If they're fiction, they have no base for a nonfictional case against you. If you HAD the materials for a bomb in the house, that would be one thing, but plans? You scare me. (...) Yes, the (...) (23 years ago, 13-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Laws about sex.... (was something else)
|
|
Hmmmm...I guess I'd better burn all those sci-fi stories I was writing, i'd hate to thrown in prison for starting a war and killing thousands of people...oh and the way some of those people died...I must be deranged to ever have thought such things (...) (23 years ago, 13-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Laws about sex.... (was something else)
|
|
(...) Well if the guy lived in Northern Island I bet he'd be put away under the prevention of terroism act. In the right climate a government will make for itself, laws strong enough to defeat the current challenge against it. My earlier answears (...) (23 years ago, 14-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Laws about sex.... (was something else)
|
|
(...) I see now - you don't live in the US, so you just can't quite appreciate the freedoms we have (they're eroding, though, unfortunately. And if more people in the US think like you, they'll erode much faster). (...) YOU. Him I may never run (...) (23 years ago, 14-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Change of direction
|
|
(...) I can't beleive your more scared of me! When we're you intending to run into me? you've already acknowledged I live in a different country. Is your fear of governmental oppression intellectual or paranoid? (bit below the belt, but what the hey (...) (23 years ago, 14-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Laws about sex.... (was something else)
|
|
(...) True. This in fact appears to be true of all governments, no matter whether they start out just and democratic or not. And that's my issue with government, it's what our founding fathers tried to combat, imperfectly. We have a bill of rights (...) (23 years ago, 14-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Laws about sex.... (was something else)
|
|
(...) I'm glad somebody agree's with me :-). (...) Actually here in the uk we are having problems with increasing amounts of both government and buracrecy. I read the other day that half of our new laws come from Brussels. The European Union is (...) (23 years ago, 14-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Laws about sex.... (was something else)
|
|
(...) over (...) case). (...) Disbarred??? How about dragged into the street by his hair and stoned to death? What kind of idiot creep judge hasn't read the first amendment? Chris (23 years ago, 16-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Laws about sex.... (was something else)
|
|
(...) Interesting. It was illegal in England too, under the Puritanic rule of Oliver Cromwell. Curiously though, of all the cases brought to trial throughout London, only one ever secured a conviction - in most cases, the jurors wouldn't register a (...) (23 years ago, 16-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Laws about sex.... (was something else)
|
|
(...) follow-on article at the bottom too, but that is terrible. I mean, the guy is a convicted child molestor, on probation. So, maybe reconsider his probation or schedule some more therapy[1][2] - something appropriate. But to convict him in that (...) (23 years ago, 16-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Laws about sex.... (was something else)
|
|
(...) That was a rhetorical question, right? I am sure that almost all judges have, but, scarily, more and more no longer know or care what it means. (which that survey I posted a link to recently brings out.) (1) That said I can't advocate (...) (23 years ago, 16-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Laws about sex.... (was something else)
|
|
(...) Could you elaborate on this a bit? Thanks. (23 years ago, 16-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Laws about sex.... (was something else)
|
|
(...) It's entirely possible that a PRIVATE journal entry (I'm reluctant to call it a "journal of fantasy" since it's difficult to establish after-the-fact whether a journal was intended as fantasy or as a plan of attack) can represent one's (...) (23 years ago, 16-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Laws about sex.... (was something else)
|
|
(...) That's true, but I think Tom's point is that this is a dangerous thing to allow the courts. Even if it can sometimes avenge or even prevent crimes, the link between most kinds of writing and future events is too tenuous to generaly admit as (...) (23 years ago, 16-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Laws about sex.... (was something else)
|
|
(...) <snip> (...) I can agree that if the writing was a breach of a predetermined parole condition, then he does deserve to be punished. If it was not, then I feel that it is an invasion of privacy which cannot be tolerated. The individual in the (...) (23 years ago, 16-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Laws about sex.... (was something else)
|
|
(...) Yeah--a journal is, traditionally, a private forum for articulating one's thoughts. A letter to the papers could easily be construed as a statement of intent. I'm still torn, though; in college I argued passionately for the impossibility of (...) (23 years ago, 16-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Laws about sex.... (was something else)
|
|
(...) Erm - so that someone can nit-pick and flame me? I did write a load of stuff in reply to this, then deleted the lot. It just occured to me that I'd then have to spend the next year trying to explain 'irony'. What's the betting I have to anyway (...) (23 years ago, 16-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Laws about sex.... (was something else)
|
|
(...) This seems problematic. The minute a crime is committed, presumably they have no idea whodunnit. So who exactly forfeits rights? And which ones? I guess I disagree. Among our rights (which are not forfeited even as a suspect) are due process. (...) (23 years ago, 17-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Laws about sex.... (was something else)
|
|
(...) I'd hate to put words in Jason's mouth. But when I read his text I immediately thought about how your constitution has allowed persecution and discrimination on the grounds of political views and race in the last 50 years. I can think of no (...) (23 years ago, 17-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Laws about sex.... (was something else)
|
|
(...) This even happens on Lugnet: (URL) (...) It is about to become law in New York State. There are plans to do the same in the UK: (URL) (...) Indeed. Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 17-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Laws about sex.... (was something else)
|
|
(...) What you are saying is very true. I was skipping over a whole lot of details (due process, search warrent, etc.) and going directly to the loss of certain rights as a convicted criminal. In jail, certain rights are removed or reduced. (At (...) (23 years ago, 17-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Laws about sex.... (was something else)
|
|
(...) And this is something we need to be extremely carefull of. Anyone can become a suspect. Probing of suspects (and witnesses) must be based on careful documentation of the expectation of finding something. Extreme care must also be taken to keep (...) (23 years ago, 17-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Laws about sex.... (was something else)
|
|
(...) Originally to produce a state where the citizenry would have it in their power if they ever deemed it necessary to overthrow the governance by force. Now to maintain (and try to get back to) a state where the citizenry would have it in their (...) (23 years ago, 17-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Laws about sex.... (was something else)
|
|
(...) Ah, I get it. So, what you're saying, is that the whole democratic process is just for show. You place your vote, you elect your leaders, but at any time you can up arms as a mob and take them out again. Okay, sorry, that's unfair. Every (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Laws about sex.... (was something else)
|
|
(...) Democratic election is not just for show. It is a first attempt at getting things right. And we have 200 years of showing that it works out pretty well. (There have been some roadbumps along the way, but that's true for everyone.) Not (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
