Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2003 :: October ::
Shakespeare's "first serious critic" revealed by
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.2084  Tuesday, 28 October 2003

[1]     From:   Allan Axelrod <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 27 Oct 2003 14:25:46 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.2067 Shakespeare's "first serious critic" revealed by
Stanley Wells in TLS

[2]     From:   Larry Weiss <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 27 Oct 2003 16:37:00 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.2067 Shakespeare's "first serious critic" revealed by
Stanley Wells in TLS

[3]     From:   R. A. Cantrell <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 27 Oct 2003 20:22:28 -0600
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.2067 Shakespeare's "first serious critic" revealed by
Stanley Wells in TLS


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Allan Axelrod <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Monday, 27 Oct 2003 14:25:46 -0500
Subject: 14.2067 Shakespeare's "first serious critic" revealed
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.2067 Shakespeare's "first serious critic" revealed
by Stanley Wells in TLS

>In regards to the responses to my questions regarding the legal
>rights of owners to destroy property of historical importance:
>
>Thank-you Allan Axelrod for your summary of the legal aspects of
>this problem.  It's reassuring to know that, at least in *some* cases,
>action could be taken to prevent such destruction.  Since you seem to
>know about these things, is it true that it is illegal to destroy
>*any* paper currency, even your own?

EXTRACT FROM CRIMES (CURRENCY) ACT 1981  [Australia]

Defacing or destroying current coins or current paper money

 16. A person shall not, without the consent, in writing, of an
authorised
     person, wilfully deface, disfigure, mutilate or destroy any coin or
     paper money that is lawfully current in Australia.

 Penalty:

     (a)     in the case of a person, not being a body corporate -
$5,000
             or imprisonment for 2 years, or both; or

     (b)     in the case of a person, being a body corporate - $10,000.

Allan Axelrod

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Larry Weiss <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Monday, 27 Oct 2003 16:37:00 -0500
Subject: 14.2067 Shakespeare's "first serious critic" revealed
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.2067 Shakespeare's "first serious critic" revealed
by Stanley Wells in TLS

>Larry Weiss, I'm surprised at your easy acceptance of such a
>possibility.  Granted, it's an unlikely occurrence.  And I do respect
>the rights of private property.  But it still seems to me that there are
>certain types of property that (should) carry with them certain
>responsibilities and obligations.  Take, as a possible example, a
>heritage building.  Isn't it true that while such a property can be
>owned privately, the owner cannot demolish it, or substantially alter
>its appearance?

As I am the victim of such a law, I can confirm that it is, sadly, so.
By fiat, the local government has determined that my townhouse is part
of a "landmark district" although, candidly, its architecture is
pedestrian and out of keeping with the architecture of the adjacent
buildings.  Nonetheless, I am forbidden to alter the facade in any
fashion (no matter how much it would improve the property's appearance),
even to conform it to the styles of the adjacent properties, at least
without going through a lengthy and expensive proceeding involving the
retention of  architects, contractors and specialized lawyers without
any assurance that an improvement would be approved.  On the other hand,
I am affirmatively enjoined to maintain the current appearance of the
property, at my own expense.  There is no dispute that this regulation
adds to the cost of maintaining the property while at the same time
reducing its market value, as the number of potential buyers willing to
assume the restrictions is less than the number who would prefer not to
be restrained in the use of their property.  This may sound like a
taking of private property for public use, but no compensation (just or
otherwise) has been offered, and the courts have held that the
Constitution does not apply in such cases.  On the other hand, my taxes
rise annually with no credit for the reduced  value of the property, its
enhanced costs or the supposed benefits I am providing to the public by
owning a landmark building.

Fortunately, I am not aware of any like restrictions on the use of
personal property (for the difference between personal and real
property, see Andy Jones's 27 Oct. post re Hamlet), except the principle
of droit morale enshrined in the Berne Convention, which forbids the
owners of art works from deliberately altering them in a fashion which
"would be prejudicial to [the artist's] honor or reputation" (17 USC
sec. 106A(a)(3)(A)) or  intentionally or by gross negligence destroying
a work "of recognized stature" against the will of the author (17 USC
sec 106A(a)(3)(B)).

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           R. A. Cantrell <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Monday, 27 Oct 2003 20:22:28 -0600
Subject: 14.2067 Shakespeare's "first serious critic" revealed
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.2067 Shakespeare's "first serious critic" revealed
by Stanley Wells in TLS

>I will
>simply conclude by saying that I find myself aligned with those who feel
>that it would be...nice...if there were some provision ensuring that
>items of historical importance could be viewed by interested parties
>when required.

I'm surprised that eminent domain has not been mentioned in this thread
(so far as I'm aware). By the way Gary, We will need Your house to store
a few things that are historically important to Us.

All the best,
R.A. Cantrell
<
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, 
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 
The S H A K S P E R Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>

DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the
editor assumes no responsibility for them.
 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.