-> 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.
 DA> I forgot to mention that I don't agree with that provision of the 1994
 DA> Crime Act.  I was just pointing it out.
 
 Noted...
 -> 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
 -> committing the act is the one responsible for it.
 DA> However, it will be interesting to see if the federal justice
 DA> department will apply that provision of the 1994 Crime Act against
 DA> "Earth First!" who published an environmental enemies list which the
 DA> alleged Unabomber used as a hit list.  I don't know how far "Earth
 It would require them to be consistent.  Don't let's hold our breath.
 If someone in the Nixon administration illegally obtains FBI files it's
 a felony, but if Clampett's toady's do it it's a bureaucratic blunder.
 Can you say "hypocrisy" boys and girls?
--- FMail 1.02
---------------