On Monday 07 July 2003 19:58, Tyler Durden wrote:
> >"The bottom line is what the victim feels," he said. "Is the victim
> >threatened? Is the victim alarmed? >Hey, that's a crime."
>
> Interesting logic here. Someone writes something not-so-nice about
> somebody on a list and now that person is being "cyberstalked" even
> though they're not a subscriber. And now, the stalk-ee is a victim of
> a crime. And now the person who said something "not-so-nice" has
> committed a crime.
That standard is used increasingly often. I've had it used against me,
more than a decade ago. Just fit this in with "conspiracy" and
"attempt" and other fuzzy crimes; they're good for prosecutors because
they don't demand hard evidence and juries in practice tend to side
with the prosecution. ("If he didn't commit the crime, they wouldn't
have arrested him.")
Welcome to the new thought crime, where you don't even have to have
thought the forbidden, thought; it's enough that someone thinks you
thought it.
> Funny enough, I don't rmember seeing any of Prof Rat's posts, and
> I've never even killfiled him.
Many of the nodes filter out mattd/proffr's posts. I think Jim Choate's
node (see http://einstein.ssz.com/cdr) delivers his posts, along with
viagra ads and other garbage.
--
Steve Furlong Computer Condottiere Have GNU, Will Travel
"If someone is so fearful that, that they're going to start using
their weapons to protect their rights, makes me very nervous that
these people have these weapons at all!" -- Rep. Henry Waxman
