RE: Freedom (was ACLU spam)

["Tom Hansen" <thansen@moscow.com>]

Greetings Visionaires -

This topic brings to minda question (or dilemma) that was presented in my
freshman ethics class at North IDaho College a number of years ago.

Question:  How major of a crime would your closest and dearest friend have
to commit before you turn him/her in to the police?

Everybody draws a line somewhere to separate appropriate behavior from
inappropriate behavior.

Take care,

Tom Hansen

***********************************
Work like you don't need the money.
Love like you've never been hurt.
Dance like nobody's watching.

- Author Unknown
***********************************

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Rounds [mailto:ltrwritr@moscow.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 2:38 PM
To: vision2020@moscow.com
Subject: Re: Freedom (was ACLU spam)


Legally, you can have a conversation, build a website or write a book for
that matter about an illegal act.

In this country there are lots of groups that have done just that.  It runs
the gambit from tax protesters on the far right to those who sabotage trees
so they can't be logged on the far left to NAMBLA which is orthoganal to the
whole process.

To put it another way, we could go out and sit in a coffee shop and plan out
in maticulous detail in public view how to rob a bank.  We haven't broken
the law.  Now I would hope if our police force got wind of it, they would
start asking a lot of embarassing questions but it isn't illegal to shoot
the breeze about a bank robbery.  IF, on the other hand, you start casing
the bank, buying weapons, etc.... then you can get nailed for conspiracy.

If you know that a crime has been committed and you keep silent, you are an
accessory after the fact and could be charged.  The concept of "knowing"  is
a bit slippery though.  I may know for example "that all politicians are
crooks" but I can't prove it.  If I saw a bribe go down, then I really do
know, not just having an opinion on the issue.

There are many fringe elements in this country, starting with NAMBLA and
working through the list to the American Nazi Party and KKK.  I think they
should all have web sites and be able to put their manifesto out for all to
see.  It is by holding them up to a very bright light that we can see what
they really are.   Then when we know, people will make rational decisions
about supporting them.  I have a lot of faith in people and I beleive that
most of the fringe elements will stay tiny clubs with a few lost souls
hanging out in somebody's basement.

Let them go underground and become crafty and good at misleading and
beguiling folks and then they will grow, but in the bright light of the
public eye, we will see them for what they really are.

I'd love to take credit for that it I think its Robert Heinlein that first
put that concept in print

Mark Rounds


>Its not an issue of thinking.  It is an issue of advocacy, and aiding and
>abetting.
>
>MR
>
>Question...  Can you be convicted of aiding and abetting a crime if you
just
>talk about the crime or explaining how to accomplish it or not talking
about
>the crime if you know it has occurred?
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Ry Jones" <rjones@airgap.net>
>To: <vision2020@moscow.com>
>Sent: Monday, June 10, 2002 1:08 PM
>Subject: RE: Freedom (was ACLU spam)
>
>
>> > From: Scott Dredge [mailto:sdredge@yahoo.com]
>> > I would expect that your "what
>> > would you do" scenario would be played out much in
>> > the same way that people are reacting to priests
>> > molesting children.
>>
>> They committed a crime, raping kids. They should go to jail. Is it so
hard
>> to understand that?
>>
>> > --- Mike Rush <mike.rush@cableaz.com> wrote:
>> > These people are going adter 12 year olds to have sex.
>>
>> And as soon as they do, they commit a crime and get a trip to jail.
>>
>> > > WHat will you do if they
>> > > come after your 12 year old (assuming you have one)?
>>
>> Shoot "them".
>>
>> Amazing that neither of you can see the difference between talking about
>> something and doing it.
>>
>> Child rapers will always be with us. As soon as they act on the desire,
we
>> should endeavor to put them away. You can't arrest someone for thinking
>> about something... yet. Is this what you're advocating? Anyone that
thinks
>a
>> subversive, illegal thought should go to jail?
>>
>>
>
>