Quote:
Originally Posted by flameswin
answers in red
|
I'm not a lawyer, but I believe the law still takes a dim view of aiding and abetting. It's my guess that if it could be proven that the drunk was in a state, capable of causing a serious accident, and it that there was enough evidence in the tweet to tie the tweeter and drunk together, that prosecution may be possible. However, it would probably be a landmark case, and not meant for all cases of tweeting the position of a checkstop in general.
I guess it comes down to the question of "How liable are you for what you put in the air?" And each case would have to be tried individually.
My guess is if the act of tweeting the position of a checkstop signiifcantly hampers the police's ability to execute the checkstop, that some sort of law will get passed. And when that happens, you can blame the tweeters that probably don't have enough sensitivity to realize the potential harm they may be creating.
Believe it or not I have railed against overregulation most of my life, in attempts to keep our society as free as possible. As far as the "slippery slope" is concerned, we are well down the slope and heading further. However, that doesn't negate the fact that we have to find a successful solution to the problem of drunk driving. To date, the checkstop is our best solution, and doing anythiing that circuvents it, I believe is irresponsible, and in the long run contributes to loss of freedom by encouraging more regulation. Besides, I am paying for the service through my taxes, and I want the "best bang for my buck". By tweeting the position of the checkstop, you are in a small way cheating me and everyone else who pays taxes.