[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [dvd-discuss] Two articals
- To: "'dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu'" <dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu>
- Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Two articals
- From: Jeme A Brelin <jeme(at)brelin.net>
- Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 18:53:53 -0700 (PDT)
- In-Reply-To: <E06ADA0073926048AD304115DD8AB6BC9D679C@mail.onetouch.com>
- Reply-To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
On Tue, 16 Oct 2001, Richard Hartman wrote:
> > Aren't they conspiring to criminal action?
>
> No. Talk is cheap. You can _talk_ about it all you want. It
> only becomes criminal once you _act_ on it.
Not quite. It's criminal conspiracy BEFORE the act if you specify time,
place, and manner of the criminal act.
So we can say "On Tuesday morning at the Courthouse, let's go do some
crimes!" and that's not criminal conspiracy. But if we say "On Tuesday
morning at the Courthouse, let's bludgeon any judge we see with a giant
mackeral!" THAT is criminal conspiracy and prosecutable.
I am not a lawyer, but that's what we were told when we were forming the
Independent Media Center.
J.
--
-----------------
Jeme A Brelin
jeme@brelin.net
-----------------
[cc] counter-copyright
http://www.openlaw.org