Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: ACLU prohibited from joining gang rap case [View all]jberryhill
(62,444 posts)44. It probably isn't
Is your problem that he is not guilty under the statute, or is your problem the statute itself?
These two issues keep getting crossed in the discussion.
Whether he is guilty of the crime charged, or whether what he is charged with should be a crime, are two different questions.
So I'm wondering if the argument is:
1. "People should be able to profit from artistic works about a crime in which they were a conspirator."
Or
2. "This guy was not a conspirator in a crime about which he made an artistic work."
Are you arguing for #1, #2, or some combination of both?
If the point here is #2, then, sure, people get tried for stuff and found not guilty all of the time.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
62 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
If they allowed amicus briefs on one side, they'd have to allow them on the other
onenote
Feb 2015
#7
That's true - but this is a novel prosecutorial theory, and if a conviction occurred,
Yo_Mama
Feb 2015
#13
You don't need a Weatherman to know which way the wind blows. (Bob Dylan, who once claimed he
merrily
Feb 2015
#36