What if an anti-abortion terrorist (as opposed to a sane person who is merely anti-abortion) had actively claimed to have gotten information on victims from that site? What then?
At the moment, all the discussion has wrangled back and forth on whether or not he had the right to publish this information, and no one can prove it actually harmed someone. Obviously, if direct harm is attributed to his speech, the no yelling 'FIRE' in a crowded theater restriction applies. If no direct harm has come of the site, then the First Amendment applies.
So, hypothetically, what would it mean if a terrorist came out and said, "I used the information on his site to find and choose my targets"? At that point he has aided a terrible criminal action by providing this information.
Granted, it is available elsewhere, but he has tailored his information to the specific needs of a group of violent criminals, with the hopes it would help them. Is not the intent of the creator then to aid and abet a crime, even if he has no direct contact with the criminals?
So speaks a close-minded, negative and conservative person. Do you follow the old "spare the rod, spoil the child" idea as well?
Treating children the way you described is a recipe for neurotic, diffident children. Children need guidance, yes, but they are not stupid. Take the time to explain why they should or should not do something. They will get the message.
In this particular case, there was absolutely -no- reason for the child not to feel proud of her work. Discrimination is a fact of life, and the sooner a child can come to terms with that reality, the better. Far better for a child to learn about prejudice through a controlled experiment than to be taunted or attacked because he or she is "different"
Slashdot Mirror
At the moment, all the discussion has wrangled back and forth on whether or not he had the right to publish this information, and no one can prove it actually harmed someone. Obviously, if direct harm is attributed to his speech, the no yelling 'FIRE' in a crowded theater restriction applies. If no direct harm has come of the site, then the First Amendment applies.
So, hypothetically, what would it mean if a terrorist came out and said, "I used the information on his site to find and choose my targets"? At that point he has aided a terrible criminal action by providing this information.
Granted, it is available elsewhere, but he has tailored his information to the specific needs of a group of violent criminals, with the hopes it would help them. Is not the intent of the creator then to aid and abet a crime, even if he has no direct contact with the criminals?
So speaks a close-minded, negative and conservative person. Do you follow the old "spare the rod, spoil the child" idea as well? Treating children the way you described is a recipe for neurotic, diffident children. Children need guidance, yes, but they are not stupid. Take the time to explain why they should or should not do something. They will get the message. In this particular case, there was absolutely -no- reason for the child not to feel proud of her work. Discrimination is a fact of life, and the sooner a child can come to terms with that reality, the better. Far better for a child to learn about prejudice through a controlled experiment than to be taunted or attacked because he or she is "different"