Re:This isn't about freedom of speech or linking..
on
Linking Dangerously
·
· Score: 1
lit crit folks get major mileage from the notion of a "speech act", in which a power dynamic within a group ensures that the words of one are automatically realized by others. think of a king in his court saying how great it'd be if X just dropped dead - the nature of the power dynamic in the court is such that someone will surely kill X. point is, the king knows that engaging in speech is tantamount to action (it's good to be the king), making him responsible for the action.
18 USC 842 seems, IMHO, to be aimed at people who engage in violent acts through speech acts, eg the masterminds behind attacks or killings or whatnot. say lou reed takes a completely devoted tribe of mutant piglets and teaches them how to light a fire and play guitar, and then mentions that it'd be great if a particular barn burned down. when it does, is he responsible, even though the piglets set the fire? sure he is! and we need a law to that effect.
but you can engage in a speach act only when you know that someone who is listening will turn your words into actions. to be a mastermind, there must be a plot, and plotters to carry out your wishes.
Austin was no mastermind. no prestige in any group afforded him the power to engage in action by speech alone.
there seem to me to be two readings (remember, IANAL!):
* 18 USC 842 is meant to apply to speech acts, eg masterminds, in which case Austin has not broken this law
* 18 USC 842 applies to speech with no predictable connection to any particular act, in which case it sounds wildly unconstitutional.
Slashdot Mirror
lit crit folks get major mileage from the notion of a "speech act", in which a power dynamic within a group ensures that the words of one are automatically realized by others. think of a king in his court saying how great it'd be if X just dropped dead - the nature of the power dynamic in the court is such that someone will surely kill X. point is, the king knows that engaging in speech is tantamount to action (it's good to be the king), making him responsible for the action.
18 USC 842 seems, IMHO, to be aimed at people who engage in violent acts through speech acts, eg the masterminds behind attacks or killings or whatnot. say lou reed takes a completely devoted tribe of mutant piglets and teaches them how to light a fire and play guitar, and then mentions that it'd be great if a particular barn burned down. when it does, is he responsible, even though the piglets set the fire? sure he is! and we need a law to that effect.
but you can engage in a speach act only when you know that someone who is listening will turn your words into actions. to be a mastermind, there must be a plot, and plotters to carry out your wishes.
Austin was no mastermind. no prestige in any group afforded him the power to engage in action by speech alone.
there seem to me to be two readings (remember, IANAL!):
* 18 USC 842 is meant to apply to speech acts, eg masterminds, in which case Austin has not broken this law
* 18 USC 842 applies to speech with no predictable connection to any particular act, in which case it sounds wildly unconstitutional.
thoughts?