Talk:Myths: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
do we need the section? |
|||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
: besides the one attorney general that made a snide remark about terrorism in the LibertyDollar case, i don't think that this is in any way a 'common misconception', so i'd question whether we need to have the 'terrorism' section at all.--[[User:Nanotube|Nanotube]] 04:02, 24 March 2011 (GMT) | : besides the one attorney general that made a snide remark about terrorism in the LibertyDollar case, i don't think that this is in any way a 'common misconception', so i'd question whether we need to have the 'terrorism' section at all.--[[User:Nanotube|Nanotube]] 04:02, 24 March 2011 (GMT) | ||
I agree. All yes for removing terrorist stuff? [[User:EvanR|EvanR]] 00:10, 30 March 2011 (GMT) | |||
Revision as of 00:10, 30 March 2011
Terrorism
From the linked Wikipedia page:
- The USA PATRIOT Act defines terrorism activities as "activities that (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the U.S. or of any state, that (B) appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping, and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S."
This definition is broad enough that it could probably be applied to the Bitcoin system. IANAL but I imagine lawyers could pretty easily demonstrate that Bitcoin is 'dangerous to human life' because the Four Horsemen can use it for evil [drug-dealers, money-launderers, terrorists, and pedophiles.] It can 'influence the policy of a government by coercion' by removing options such as Federal Reserve dollars. (C) might be tricky to prove. PLATO 22:34, 23 March 2011 (GMT)
- besides the one attorney general that made a snide remark about terrorism in the LibertyDollar case, i don't think that this is in any way a 'common misconception', so i'd question whether we need to have the 'terrorism' section at all.--Nanotube 04:02, 24 March 2011 (GMT)
I agree. All yes for removing terrorist stuff? EvanR 00:10, 30 March 2011 (GMT)