So we already have limits on speech.
The limit is not on speech. The limit is your acceptance that there are consequences for which one is responsible. Don't you get it? YOU decide whether to be civil, or not. If not, you are obligated to accept consequences.
Conspiracy to commit a crime, is itself a crime.
1. For criminal conspiracy to be an indictable offense, two or more people must be involved in the conspiracy. A lone person thinking to commit a crime is not guilty of conspiracy to commit a crime. One does not conspire with one's self.
2. All conspirators must have specific intent to commit the crime. If two people conspire to rob a bank, and convince a third to be their driver, but do not tell the driver the intent of their visit to the bank, the driver is not part of the conspiracy and cannot be so charged.
3. In most States, there must be some definitive, purposeful action toward the commission of the crime by at least one of the conspirators, such as buying masks to rob the back in point #2. Until that overt act, there is no indictable criminal conspiracy.
ok. so your point is that it is...
For criminal conspiracy to be an indictable offense...
writing a book telling people to commit a crime
No, that is not my point. If I write about committing a crime, pursuant to my comments in post #33, with whom have I conspired
You need to review what the law says, not what you think.
You cannot parse those three points regarding criminal conspiracy, and indict on their separate commission. In most States, all three must be in play before a crime is declared to have occurred
Does my book tell people to go commit a crime? Do I look like I'm wearing a clown suit? DO NOT assume my motive. I'm merely describing a scenario. I'm not telling anyone to go do it.
EX we should never allow anyone to kill anyone. So self defense, police doing their jobs etc are all criminals because if you allow someone to kill someone that is a slippery slope.
EX we should never allow anyone to kill anyone. So self defense, police doing their jobs etc are all criminals because if you allow someone to kill someone that is a slippery slope.This actually sounds like an amazing proposal.Classical "self-defense" is supposed to "mitigate the threat" and NOT simply, "fill-'em-fulla-led" cuz dem bad.
The only banning; the only censorship should be that of individual, personal choice. Why must we accept that only others can make these choices for us? As I argued with HistoryBuff, to abdicate that choice to someone else is a matter of weakness, not strength.
So if someone tries to kill you and you end up killing them, you think you should go to prison for 25 years? if a cop tries to arrest someone and they pull a gun and shoot at the cop, in ensuing gunfight the guy is killed, the cop should go to prison for 25 years?That seems logical to you?
Killing another human, even in "self-defense" should carry a mandatory manslaughter charge.This seems manifestly logical to me.
So in your world, police don't exist. because no cop is ever going to go on a call if they can go to prison for doing their job. No one has the right to defend themselves because doing so is a crime. This is a society that cannot function.
DEFENDING YOURSELF IS NOT A CRIME.Killing another human being is the very definition of MANSLAUGHTER.
It seems like it would perhaps maybe sort of kinda be nice to live in a world where police could NEVER kill another human with IMPUNITY.
those 2 statements contradict each other. Defending yourself is fine, but if that defense ends up killing the other person, you go to prison. Which means that can't really defend yourself.
But making it a crime for a police officer to kill someone under any circumstance would guarantee no one would be a police officer.
SELF-DEFENSE =/= KILLING ANOTHER HUMAN
But making it a crime for a police officer to kill someone under any circumstance would guarantee no one would be a police officer.I disagree.I do not believe that police cadets EXPECT to kill people (like Judge Dredd).
There is no shortage of brutally efficient NON-LETHAL options.
jesus man, how many times
ok. but when defending yourself, the possibility that the other person could die is always there.
Your point that I am automatically committing a crime by publishing a book describing something, is NOT CORRECT. Get it?
why do you keep going off on tangents instead of addressing my point directly.
One punch could kill someone.
When you get behind the wheel of an automobile, the possibility that another person could die is always there.
if you are writing a book calling for people to commit a crime, then yes that should be a crime. Get it?
relatively likely possibility during their career.
Try re-reading my post #29; a direct response to your justification of censorship
By having an attitude that there are acceptable reasons to ban books [your example: calling for violence] disregards a very important principle: You thereby attempt to censor ideas.
You may not like those ideas, therefore, let's eliminate them? No.
You create civil legislation that violence that results in the loss of life or property of another is illegal. Does this legislation work in 100% of cases? No. What if it only deters 10% of people? Do you decide that's not good enough, so ban the provocation of ideas? NO!
What do you think democracy is? That everyone agrees with one another? That forcing everyone to think the same way is democratic?
Ninety-five percent of officers go through their entire careers without discharging their weapons.
