Re: The "Gandalf 3".I think McSpotlight should take a clear stand against violence.
In which case the support for the Gandalf 3 should be clarified.
Without detailed legal documents (charges, court proceedings, etc.,
as for the McLibel case) what's presently on the McSpotlight site
(4/12/97) makes it hard to judge whether the question is of free speech
or not - if one accepts that
** it is not a right to "broadcast" encouragement to commit (physical) **
** violence. ["broadcast" = one-to-many media] **
E.g., the "radio mille collines" was (apparently) important in encouraging
the _political_ genocide of about 500,000 people in Rwanda in
April 1994.
The argument of self-defence (that non-human animals suffer violence
from which they can't defend themselves) does not apply if one
accepts that
** (physical) violence should only be used in the absolute minimum **
** level necessary for (effective) self-defence. **
The present documents
(http://www.mcspotlight.org/campaigns/current/gandalf/bissues.html)
> Stoneaton: Whitechurch farm - Tom Osbourne of
> Mendip Farmers Hunt Club hospitalised after being hit
> with a spiked club and acid sprayed in face.
> ...
> East Sussex - Justice Department post mousetrap-based
> booby traps to Shamrock Farm employees L Ford and T
> Welburn. Razor in envelope sent to Shamrock vet Paul
> West.
taken in context, in all honesty, appear to encourage the anti-human
violence. Reporting has an emotional content as well as a formal
content.
Note that the assumptions marked ** are axiomatic. If you don't
agree, then you don't agree.
Whether or not the Gandalf 3 should be in prison for what they
wrote, I'd have to see much more detail on the Web.
Boud.
