|
I am usually a champion of the right to read whatever we want. Indeed it is a slippery slope because if religious fanatics ever got in charge, they could easily make it illegal to read something that is not in agreement with their particular religion (like Pagan or Buddhist spirituality, which they find 'satanic' for example.)
However, I also believe strongly that no one has the right to harm anyone else.
But, the question is: how do you know if the person was just reading the offensive material for recreation/information, or was actually intending to act upon it?
How to resolve this?
Here's an idea: Why not apply the same standards used in a court of law to determine whether someone had attempted murder. Whatever standards regarding evidence indicating INTENT are in a court of law could be applied here. So if it is determined that there is the INTENT to be violent, then appropriate action could be taken, just as it would in the case of someone discovered to be planning a murder.
Isn't it true that if a person paid an assassin, for example, but the assassin had not yet carried it out, the person could still be convicted for attempted murder?
Apply the same standards to intent to commit acts of terrorism.
It would still be a grey area in most cases, probably.
Not an easy solution on this.
|