2 ms·
It's exactly the same thing. What defines a crime is intention. For instance, firing a gun is not a crime per se. Or in the case of the United States, even bui
by hcarvalhoalves 13y ago
It's exactly the same thing.
What defines a crime is intention. For instance, firing a gun is not a crime per se. Or in the case of the United States, even building one isn't illegal, since no one made a law to make it so. [1]
On the other hand, attempt to shoot, shooting or killing someone, are all possibly crimes, depending if there's intention and the circumstances (e.g., self-defense).
So in your example, if someone makes materials for political enemies, first you need to prove intention or connection to the crimes committed by these parties (I'm assuming you don't mean illegal/controlled materials here). Then, when this person is sentenced, the judge can rule about restricting access to these materials anymore (for instance, restricting him from getting a job in industry). It's the same case as hackers sentenced for years away from computers.
[1] http://www.cracked.com/article_17016_7-items-you-wont-believe-are-actually-legal.html http://www.cracked.com/article_17016_7-items-you-wont-believ...
- AnthonyMouse 13y ago>It's the same case as hackers sentenced for years away from computers. Which always was, and remains, complete nonsense. If someone steals a car, you don't prohibit them from driving their own car to work after they return to society. The analogy the proponents of this nonsense will present is that it's more like lawyers being disbarred or bankers being prohibited from working in the financial industry. But that analogy fails, because prohibiting you from using a computer is not the analog of prohibiting you from being a lawyer or a banker, it's the analog of denying access to the court system or the ability to use money.