Posted on 03/24/2008 9:55:48 AM PDT by Free ThinkerNY
Someone in Kentucky recently introduced legislation for that:
http://www.wtvq.com/content/midatlantic/tvq/video.apx.-content-articles-TVQ-2008-03-05-0011.html
The powers that be will chip away at our freedom slowly, because politicians know that they can’t act suddenly. They need some sort of pretext.
I hold out hope that the coming reckoning will result in a Third Great Awakening.
I suspect it will result in Revelation 17 and 18.
Don't be so dramatic.
The road to everyone's home is also patrolled by the police and in case you haven't gotten your driver's license yet, the use of those roads is a privilege not a right.
So, would you shut the police down too, then? They didn’t do any better at stopping the thefts than CL did, and those police-patrolled roads you mention were utilized in the crime just as much if not more so than the website.
>>How does requiring posters to provide verified information violate personal liberty?<<
One is not supposed to be required to “show their papers” unless a)what they are doing is not a right or b)what they are doing falls under “reasonable cause” for police action.
If I stand on the corner and say to a friend, but in quiet earshot of others, that I think Bush is a criminal, nobody can demand that I show ID before I can say that.
Requireing people to provide verified information is the equivalent of requiring me to show my papers before I can exercise my right to free speech.
The constitution protects us from this sort of thing, even if that very protection injects some risk into our culture. It is considered well worth it.
If I were a Gazelle, I would rather live freely in the dangers of the Savanna than in relative safety in a zoo. But like it or not, my countrymen, more every year, are voting for the zoo. I will leave before they finally lock the gate - and lock it they will.
The tradition of anonymous speech is older than the United States. Founders Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay wrote the Federalist Papers under the pseudonym "Publius," and "the Federal Farmer" spoke up in rebuttal. The US Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized rights to speak anonymously derived from the First Amendment.
>>The road to everyone’s home is also patrolled by the police and in case you haven’t gotten your driver’s license yet, the use of those roads is a privilege not a right.<<
And the police have the right to try to trace the “fake ad” poster with all the technology and laws at their disposal.
But really, you make my point, for driving on roads is not a right, as you say, it is a priviledge. But using the internet is a right, just as walking along the road is a right. And you have the right to do that without showing ID unttil the cops see you kicking someones fence or running out of someones house with their stuff. Until then they cannot inhibit your free use unless you give them probable cause (drug dealers on the corner, for example).
Stuff like this is not that uncommon.
A few years ago a neighbor beat up his wife and disappeared. (The cops came round my front door looking for him). When his wife came home from work later, she found a crew packing up the contents of her house - they had been sold by the husband. The guy had a legal contract and everything - after all, the husband had lived there several years and told them the stuff was his. The crew wasn’t backing down - as far as they were concerned, they bought the contents in good faith.
The wife worked out an agreement - the crew left some furniture that was special to her, her personal things, and the contents of the kids rooms.
Indeed. But how hard would it be for Craigslist to say they will delete any ads that state "free for the taking" instead if shrugging their shoulders and saying "oops"?
Just a thought.
Some ads really do have stuff free for the taking... usually old, heavy furniture that is worth less than the cost of paying someone to haul it away.
But even if it is free you should still be dealing with the person who owns it and verify that face-to-face. Just walking into someone’s home and taking stuff based on a post on an internet site is simple burglary. If not, a thief could make an ad in relation to a target house, then walk in and take stuff, and if caught claim the ad gave authorization.
That’s obviously preposterous in any other medium and the same holds true here. The people who took his stuff are thieves, pure and simple, and no one but they are responsible for their own behavior.
Some people don't have an inherent sense of self-preservation. I would immediately think about the 2nd Amendment before trying something this stupid.
The same thing happened to another victim a few months ago. CL was on notice that it's vapid staff was out to lunch. Or did not give a damn. Or think its funny. Or were drunk on the job or high on weed or picking their feet.
It's all CL's fault. But for CL's popularity this event would never have happened. Wait a few weeks. It may happen again. And again. And again. Unless somebody puts a stop to it by filing a lawsuit for $$$$$$$$$$$ millions.
Sorry. I do not agree. I say sue CL for millions. Let the chips fall where they may.
As long as the poster of the ad and the operators of Craig's list are also prosecuted, go for it. But don't prosecute these people and absolve Craig's list from any responsibility.
Go back and read the posts. Your reply makes no sense. The police did not invite the looters to take the goods.
That's a fact. I wonder how many things aren't available to us because of the current bussiness/litigation climate?
BTW, how the heck does Craigs list operate? They don't seem to have any financial purpose, except perhaps to drive the print newspapers classifed sections out of business.
LOL If there had been an address on the item on the bulletin board, I wouldn't have asked the restaurant manager where the puppies were. Your initial post didn't indicate there was an address. ;)
That whole statement, and especially the last one, is one of the most goofy, anti-freedom, anti-personal-responsibility statements I have ever seen on this particular site (other than quickly zotted threads).
Really? So you don't think a business owner should accept some responsibility for things posted on the bulletin board HE put up in HIS business? I guess we disagree on that. It is HIS BUSINESS and HE PUT UP THE BULLETIN BOARD. If he doesn't want the responsibility for what is posted DON'T PUT UP THE BULLETIN BOARD.
Life is risk.
Including for the owner of a business.
>>That’s obviously preposterous in any other medium and the same holds true here. The people who took his stuff are thieves, pure and simple, and no one but they are responsible for their own behavior.<<
Your whole post adds some much needed adult clarity to this thread. It also made me thing about a very good, but longwinded analogy.
What we assume to be true, at a root level is this:
1. Someone used a tool (CL) to hurt another person.
2. Someone used the ad created in #1 to take property from another person.
3. An innocent bystander was ultimately hurt by this (the guy that actually owned the stuff).
4. Some are suggesting that CL should somehow be responsible and self (or otherwise) policed so this can’t happen.
First, numbers 1 and 2 are basically the same thing: Someone feels justified in helping themself at someone elses expense. The proof is in the lady that actually called the police. It is what any reasonable and responsible person would have done. The reasonable part of her told her that it was not right. The responsible part of her told her to call the police. Those that simply took stuff without verifying with the owner are at the very least, unreasonable and, at worst, petty theives.
But to the analogy:
If a drunk driver kills an innocent motorist, we are sad for the innocent motorist but to apply 1-4 above we would end up with something like this:
1 and 2. Person gets drunk and kills a pedestrian with their car using their tool (license and car and alcohol).
3. A person is hurt by this (killed).
4. Some are suggesting that those supplying the license, car and alcohol should somehow be responsible and self (or otherwise) policed so this can’t happen.
Now, the party that supplied the license actually CAN police itself, and not just because it is the government. Rather, it is because the license itself is not a right. It is a privelege.
But the other two? Good luck creating a cost effective way for them to keep their product out of the hands of a person who has the ability to pay them for it. And any solution would be draconian and unconstitutional anyway, since even a drunk without a license has the right to buy and own a car. They just may not be able to drive it legally on public roads.
Responsibility for the driver lies with him alone. Well, also with the issuer of the license if he has proven he drives drunk, which is why I have a beef with low fines for serious drunk driving offenses. But I digress. Bottom line is that in a free society that gives adults freedom to pursue happiness (and the responsibilities that come with it) those are the only two parties which bear responsibility for how products were used the driver and the licensing agency. Period.
CL is a powerful tool, like a Glock, and can be used for good or evil depending on the user. But it is not the company’s responsibility to track all the users of it’s product.
And if someone really is suckered by a CL ad (barring purchase fraud like dvd box with a brick in it), they can consider it “educational”. Caveot emptor.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.