Comments | dh003i: Our Fascist State and Martha Stewart

dh003i

Our Fascist State and Martha Stewart

Mar 06, 2005 19:18

Now that the State has finished the fascist imprisonment of Martha Stewart for engaging in non-crimes, they've committed her to house-arrest, as if she's some kind of dangerous criminal. This is clearly a ludicrous attempt by the State to embarrass, humble, and humiliate Ms. Stewart. However, she is apparently of such high dignity that she ( Read more... )

Comments 10

(The comment has been removed)

dh003i March 10 2005, 02:36:31 UTC

Sure. No problem.

pope_guilty March 19 2005, 06:39:15 UTC

She lied to the government during a criminal investigation.

That's a crime, no matter how much you wish it wasn't.

dh003i March 19 2005, 17:27:50 UTC

She lied about something that wasn't a crime to begin with in the first place. And she lied about it in an informal interview. As I pointed out above, what she did was not a crime. But there was no chance of her getting a fair trial: the jury was a bunch of disgusting schmucks who wanted to bring her down, no matter what the reason.

And what is so difficult to understand about the fact that legislation does not make right and wrong? That it does not make the naturally criminal act (e.g., rape, murder, wrongful imprisonment) somehow ok.

pope_guilty March 19 2005, 18:05:45 UTC

What transgresses morality is wrong.
What transgresses law is crime.

(We may disagree on the following; it's not important. I'm defining the terms as I'm using them in order to avoid conflict arising from confusion over terms.)

Regardless of your opinion of the morality of the law, she comitted a crime. Lying to the feds is against the law and is hence a crime. The fact that she was being interviewed about a noncrime is irrelevant to the law.

dh003i March 19 2005, 18:33:59 UTC

What transgresses what law? Laws, as you use them, are just arbitrary declarations. The Nazi's had plenty of laws; ya know, those laws prohibiting anyone from protecting Jews from murder.

What is important is natural law. Her actions were not criminal by natural law.

However, it is not even clear that Ms. Stewart transgressed fiat-legislation. By no means can we reasonable claim she had a fair trial. It was nothing more than a witch-hunt. In fact, the very laws that the gov't claims Stewart broke constitute unconstitutional violations of due-process. See Mercer, Illana. Convicted for Fearing Conviction:

Thread 9