I am Not Exactly TJIC
The "I am Spartacus" line is being used currently with regard to Travis Corcoran: "I am TJIC!"
I just wrote this in response to NoOneOfAnyImport's post on the topic, and thought you might be interested.
I'm in an odd position here. I think that Travis Corcoran is surfing close to an unpleasant edge, and that edge's proximity makes it difficult to be a full-throated advocate on his behalf.
In other words, his actions are close enough to illegal to make an arguable case. I am not judging them to be illegal, just that the question of legality is there and it is not a settled issue in my mind.
I would say that if TJIC's fairly careful statements are deemed to be illegal, than so too would be the hundreds -- or thousands -- of Twittered and emailed literal death threats to Sarah Palin, not to mention uncountable threats to President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and so on.
There are issues of intent and ability and so on, and for many years almost everyone has been given a pass on these things. TJIC was not, in my opinion, planning to kill politicians. But he was not joking, either, it seems to me. I read the entire comment thread (thanks to NoOneOfAnyImport's link to it), where he explains his position in more detail, and I disagree strongly with his recommended solutions and actions.
Nevertheless, much worse has been said for years -- and it is apparently considered acceptable by dint of it being left alone.
Selective enforcement is the antithesis of a nation of laws.
I will add this, though -- if he is considered guilty of 18 USC §2102 (below), then they should arrest him and prosecute him using due process -- and only deny his rights as a citizen under that due process. Failing that, they should leave him alone entirely. And if they are not going to similarly process the other thousands of death threats, then they are without justification to single this fellow out.
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/102/2102
The problem for me is that he seems, in my opinion, a rather poor standard-bearer for the cause of First Amendment rights. It would not surprise me if the ACLU decides to take up his defense.
I am for the rule of law. TJIC describes himself as an "anarchocapitalist." There are points upon which we would agree, but the overall theme of suggesting the killing of politicians merely because they have chosen that line of work is one I must reject utterly.
Despite this disagreement in principle, I do hope that the law treats him fairly and equitably (by doing nothing to him) -- for it does seem to me that he is not in fact a real threat. My solution working for his case would be kinder than one he would recommend -- for he has suddenly become a political figure of sorts, and thus -- perhaps -- fair game in his view.
===|==============/ Level Head
I just wrote this in response to NoOneOfAnyImport's post on the topic, and thought you might be interested.
I'm in an odd position here. I think that Travis Corcoran is surfing close to an unpleasant edge, and that edge's proximity makes it difficult to be a full-throated advocate on his behalf.
In other words, his actions are close enough to illegal to make an arguable case. I am not judging them to be illegal, just that the question of legality is there and it is not a settled issue in my mind.
I would say that if TJIC's fairly careful statements are deemed to be illegal, than so too would be the hundreds -- or thousands -- of Twittered and emailed literal death threats to Sarah Palin, not to mention uncountable threats to President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and so on.
There are issues of intent and ability and so on, and for many years almost everyone has been given a pass on these things. TJIC was not, in my opinion, planning to kill politicians. But he was not joking, either, it seems to me. I read the entire comment thread (thanks to NoOneOfAnyImport's link to it), where he explains his position in more detail, and I disagree strongly with his recommended solutions and actions.
Nevertheless, much worse has been said for years -- and it is apparently considered acceptable by dint of it being left alone.
Selective enforcement is the antithesis of a nation of laws.
I will add this, though -- if he is considered guilty of 18 USC §2102 (below), then they should arrest him and prosecute him using due process -- and only deny his rights as a citizen under that due process. Failing that, they should leave him alone entirely. And if they are not going to similarly process the other thousands of death threats, then they are without justification to single this fellow out.
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/102/2102
The problem for me is that he seems, in my opinion, a rather poor standard-bearer for the cause of First Amendment rights. It would not surprise me if the ACLU decides to take up his defense.
I am for the rule of law. TJIC describes himself as an "anarchocapitalist." There are points upon which we would agree, but the overall theme of suggesting the killing of politicians merely because they have chosen that line of work is one I must reject utterly.
Despite this disagreement in principle, I do hope that the law treats him fairly and equitably (by doing nothing to him) -- for it does seem to me that he is not in fact a real threat. My solution working for his case would be kinder than one he would recommend -- for he has suddenly become a political figure of sorts, and thus -- perhaps -- fair game in his view.
===|==============/ Level Head