-> PN> DA> In fact, the 1994 Crime Act makes it a federal felony against
-> a PN> DA> speaker if a listener actually commits a violent crime
-> after PN> DA> hearing the so-called "incitement."
-> PN> ...and now it's a bad law that is coming around to bite him on
-> his ass.
-> DA> That law/provision would not apply unless someone who read his
-> DA> message went and actually tried to harm the legislator.
-> It seems, if I'm understanding what you are saying, that you'd hold
-> the original person who made the "incitement" liable for an act
-> committed by another person.
I forgot to mention that I don't agree with that provision of the 1994
Crime Act.  I was just pointing it out.
-> I think this is an area we're gonna be
-> in some disagreement: I don't believe that what anybody _says_ is
-> responsible for an act by another person.  It is the act that I'd be
-> inclined to look to the law to remedy or punish, as the person
-> commiting the act is the one responsible for it.
However, it will be interesting to see if the federal justice department
will apply that provision of the 1994 Crime Act against "Earth First!"
who published an environmental enemies list which the alleged Unabomber
used as a hit list.  I don't know how far "Earth First!" went in their
suggestions as to what should be done against their enemies.
--- PCBoard (R) v15.3/M 10 (06-04-96 17
(1:231/875)
---------------