Comment: Uh....nope

(See in situ)


We hold that a man has the right to make a legal defence even if he has murdered but the legal process is the process by which we determine his guilt or innocence.

The wrong was the murder. The murderer had no right to do this wrong. Now whether to do is to be or to be is to is a matter lest left to Sarte and Kafka and do-be-do-be-do is best left to Sinatra.

The simple fact is that we look upon freedom as having constraints. My right to punch you stops at your nose. Or "do as you please as long as you do no harm", the old libertarian maxim. If your words do harm, you have a burden under this law. Shouting fire in a crowded theatre when there is in fact no fire is held to be THE example of this law or "limitation of free speech". It's held as wrong and we hold no RIGHT of yours to be wrong in this case.

Keep the litmus test of HARM clearly in mind, and the doctrine means material, physical harm to a person or property. And there's historically a mens-rhea component at work there, that "wilfully and knowingly" aspect...just to muddy things up a bit...

Most of those who think so actually don't and most of those who think sew actually rip.