Appeals Court Finds "Nuremberg Files" Site Unlawful 650
Greplaw writes "The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled this evening that an anti-abortion website that featured "wanted" posters of various abortion doctors constituted a "true threat." The website, called The Nuremberg Files, is therefore not protected by the First Amendment and is illegal under a 1994 law prohibiting threats against abortion doctors. The full opinion of the court is available on Findlaw. This case marks one of the first times that a website has been ruled to constitute such a threat." Our previous story has the background on the case. The District Court found the website was an unlawful threat; a three-judge panel of the Appeals court found that it wasn't; and now the entire Appeals court has found, by a 6-5 vote, that it was indeed unlawful. The case could be appealed to the Supreme Court next. The accepted definition of a threat unprotected by the First Amendment is one which "on its face and in the circumstances in which it is made is so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate and specific as to the person threatened, as to convey a gravity of purpose and imminent prospect of execution", and there is considerable dissent among the judges over whether a website can or cannot meet that standard.
So umm. . . . (Score:3, Funny)
Shall we go around on the censorship thing or just do the whole entire pro-life VS pro-choice thing.
I'm game for either.
Pro-choice, because there are too many damn people already!
Re:So umm. . . . (Score:2)
You mean pro-death-to-humanity.
Choice doesn't necessarily mean everyone is gunna pay doctors to use their high-tech coathangers on them, then shoot them and their whole family.
Cripes that got extreme fast, I'd hate to see what a markov chain would do to all the texts regarding abortion.
The bottom line: (Score:4, Insightful)
Publishing same information with encouragement to kill the people on the list: Not Okay
Understanding the Pro-Life movement's basic argument and agreeing with it are totally understandable. Understanding the steps to get from "life begins at conception" and "life should be protected" to "kill abortionists" requires understanding huge leaps in logic.
Re:The bottom line: (Score:5, Insightful)
> "kill abortionists" requires understanding huge leaps in logic.
Not really--think about it in simple, logical terms, and the natural conclusion of the anti-abortionist argument is that abortion doctors are performing a murder with every abortion they do. If life begins at conception, abortion doctors are taking lives. Is it acceptable to use deadly force to prevent someone from murdering other people? Yes, in most Western legal systems, moralities, philosophies, and religions, it is acceptable to use deadly force if it is the only way to stop one person from murdering another--at least, if that threat is immediate.
So, in this vein, the anti-abortion crusaders who think it's okay to kill abortion doctors are standing on logical ground. If they're right that "human life begins at conception, " then they can even claim to be standing firmly on moral ground.
That isn't to say I agree in any way or condone the murder of abortion doctors. First of all, I don't really care when human life begins--conception, birth, or otherwise. Who can know for sure? Why should I care?
I'm pro-abortion. The oft-used terms are "pro-life" or pro-choice," but I think that's just so much marketing claptrap--the debate is about abortion, not lie or choice. I think everyone is for both life and choice, in their general meaning, so I always use the straightforward and honest terms "pro-abortion" or "anti-abortion."
At any rate, I'm pro-abortion because I think it makes sense. Firstly because, as I said, no one can say with any real meaning when human life begins. Short of God himself telling us in person what he considers to be the point at which human life begins, it's an unanswerable question since it's entirely religious or philosophical and can have no definite scientific answer. Secondly, abortion serves a useful practical purpose of population control, which is important in the modern world. Thirdly, I value sex and see it as an essential part of the human experience which everyone should freely enjoy, but no methods of contraception are 100% effective. Fourthly, it's almost impossible for young people to both care for a baby and go to school, and in this day and age school usually has to last until around 21-22 years old (college) to ensure a decent living--so abortion is a necessity to make sure young people can enjoy sex without having it ruin their lives. Fifthly, almost every developed culture since the ancient Greeks practiced abortion or infanticide right after birth--this includes Christians up until the last couple of centuries; until medical sciences started showing the development of babies inside the womb, the Church held that life began when the baby popped out.
I'm also pro-abortion, finally, because it's not my damn business to tell a woman what she can or cannot do with her own body. If she wants to let someone shove a metal rod into her uterus, that's her business, not mine. Whether there happens to be a bunch of cells in her uterus at the same time makes no difference--inside her body, her rules stand.
Re:The bottom line: (Score:5, Insightful)
"Fifthly, almost every developed culture since the ancient Greeks practiced abortion or infanticide right after birth--this includes Christians up until the last couple of centuries;"
You are correct that cultures such as the Roman Empire practiced abortion, but perhaps you have not actually read what the actual Christians actually thought about it:
"...you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is born..." - Didache [newadvent.org]circa 100AD
"Thou shalt not slay the child by procuring abortion; nor, again, shalt thou destroy it after it is born." - Epistle of Barnabas [newadvent.org] circa 74AD
"And near that place I saw another strait place into which the gore and the filth of those who were being punished ran down and became there as it were a lake: and there sat women having the gore up to their necks, and over against them sat many children who were born to them out of due time, crying; and there came forth from them sparks of fire and smote the women in the eyes: and these were the accursed who conceived and caused abortion." - Apocalypse of Peter [newadvent.org] circa 130AD
...and so forth. If you are interested in more, searching for 'church fathers' and abortion on google would do you well.
The Church never defined when life began. The only discussions one could enlist on this point would be some musings on when ensoulment happened, but even then, it was agreed that it is still murder. This is often trotted out by pro- abortion Christians, but if you actually read the documents they point to(such as the 25th chapter of Augustine's Enchiridion [newadvent.org]) you find a different story.
"no one can say with any real meaning when human life begins."
"[it] can have no definite scientific answer"
Only if one has an idealogical axe to grind. Read an intro to biology textbook sometime, and you will find a fit with the definition of life.
Secondly, your opinion that this ok's abortion would be criminal negligence in any other case. Third, you obviously don't believe it, or at least you act that way, because you willing to risk the possibility of a loss of human life. It would only be unimportant if you have already decided that it isn't a human life.
"abortion serves a useful practical purpose of population control, which is important in the modern world"
I suppose when one lacks a basic respect for human life, one can come to conclusions like this. Despite the fact that even the UN is starting to worry about population decline [un.org], talking about such things as raising fertility and adjusting migration laws(read the PDF at that link).
"Thirdly, I value sex and see it as an essential part of the human experience"
Ah, the crux of the issue. "Who cares if it might be a human life? It's in the way of my rutting." I'd laugh if this weren't so damn pathetic. It's exactly this type of idiotic lack of self control that leads directly to the type of STD epidemics we see today. Essential? Go ask an AIDS patient if they still think their sexual activity was "essential." Or wait until you get the news that you have the honor of living with herpes the rest of your life, and then contemplate whether it was "essential."
"it's almost impossible for young people to both care for a baby and go to school"
Well, then, I am the master of the nigh impossible. I did it twice. And I am not alone, nor am I exceptional in that regard. I was a full time parent, a full time student, and I held down a part time job on the side. It didn't require "killing one's child." But it did require "personal resposibility," a concept that is probably lost on many
"I'm also pro-abortion, finally, because it's not my damn business to tell a woman what she can or cannot do with her own body"
Of course, that isn't the issue. The issue revolves around whether or not that woman is harming someone else's body. The location of that body is immaterial. If that baby is human, she has no damn business killing it.
Creedo
Re:The bottom line: (Score:2, Insightful)
IF that baby is human...
Why does our society allow for late-term abortions in the events of incest or rape? It's still a "human baby," no? Do you think these exceptions should be scrapped?
Which life has more "rights" if the woman's health is at risk should she attempt a delivery? Should the woman be allowed to have an abortion to save her own life? Why?
It is truly encouraging to hear that you are tenacious enough to raise your kids while going to school and holding down a job. Unfortunately this world is full of people with less determination and character than yourself. Why saddle them with unwanted children that they're too lazy, ignorant, and selfish to raise properly?
What is society's compelling interest in seeing every pregnancy through to conception? If this were truly an accurate view of society's beliefs, why aren't we teaching issues such as prenatal care in schools? Why aren't pregnant women being charged with "fetus abuse" when they smoke or drink or eat unhealthy foods?
If fetuses are truly human beings, why don't we have funerals for miscarriages? Clearly society considers a fetus and a baby two very different things.
Re:The bottom line: (Score:2)
Why does our society allow for late-term abortions in the events of incest or rape? It's still a "human baby," no? Do you think these exceptions should be scrapped?
Because our society is becoming decadent and sick and losing respect for human life and dignity? Yes, those exceptions should be scrapped! What did the baby do in those cases to deserve death? Do you consider it civilized to murder a child for the crimes of the father?
Which life has more "rights" if the woman's health is at risk should she attempt a delivery? Should the woman be allowed to have an abortion to save her own life? Why?
That is always a hellish choice to be given. It's like separating a pair of lethally-conjoined siamese twins, where only one can live after separation, but both will die if not. Which one do you kill? There is NO right answer. And yes, some moral questions have no right answer--I believe story of Orestes, in Greek myth illustrates such a dilemma, where there was no right answer.
It is truly encouraging to hear that you are tenacious enough to raise your kids while going to school and holding down a job. Unfortunately this world is full of people with less determination and character than yourself. Why saddle them with unwanted children that they're too lazy, ignorant, and selfish to raise properly?
Why is a crime to murder your toddler if you're too selfish, lazy and ignorant to raise him? Why does society still consider child abuse an appalling crime? Why, then, is it okay to murder a child before birth if his existance after birth will be a burden or inconvenience to you?
What is society's compelling interest in seeing every pregnancy through to conception?
I think you mean "to birth..." but anyway: a society that does not protect its weakest, most defenseless, most innocent members is a sick society. Do you really want to live in a society where the weak are allowed to live only if their existance is convenient to the strong?
If this were truly an accurate view of society's beliefs, why aren't we teaching issues such as prenatal care in schools? Why aren't pregnant women being charged with "fetus abuse" when they smoke or drink or eat unhealthy foods?
We don't charge parents with child abuse when they let their kids eat junk food, either. And anytime anything related to sex is taught at school, a certain segment of the population screams that we're "encouraging kids to have sex!" There goes pre-natal care... Post-natal care used to be taught in schools--it was called "Home Economics". I think someone considered it sexist, so you don't see it except in "backward" states like Louisiana.
If fetuses are truly human beings, why don't we have funerals for miscarriages? Clearly society considers a fetus and a baby two very different things.
It is well known that women go through the same grief from a miscarriage as they do from losing an already-born child. It has also been observed, though it is not politically correct to acknowledge, that women who have abortions frequently suffer the same kind of grief. And the question is, not what society does, but what should it do? What kind of society do you want to live in?
Re:The bottom line: (Score:3, Insightful)
Hmm, Noah's flood? Soddom and Gemorrah? Ordering Abraham to sacrifice Isaac (or was that the other way around)?
Biblical authority (which you weren't using btw) is a wonderful thing. You can find a quote for anything. Heck, I saw a guy pull a quote out of the bible that was basically instructions for cleaning off mildew.
Jesus preached "turn the other cheek". How can anyone justify killing someone based on that? Remember "Thou shalt not kill?" Of course there's also "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live".
Pick and choose. You can support any side you want. And if that doesn't fit your need you can just go to another religion's great books.
Not so common sense (Score:3)
That's so easy to say, and I've said it many times in my life. But if you look at it, it's not as clear as you state. Let's examine two possibilities and see how they measure up against common sense.
Theory 1: There exists some "thing" that created the universe and the life within it.
Theory 2: At some point in time a universe appeared from nowhere, full of matter and energy. Over billions of years, clumps of debris formed into clouds, stars, planets, etc. On at least one planet, random atoms came together in complex formations to create molecular machines. From these, cellular organisms sprang forth with limited reactive abilities. These in turn grouped together to create very complex life forms, culminating in the self-aware human beings we know and love today.
The more I let my mind ponder each theory in turn, the more the second one sounds like a great science fiction story. There are so many random occurances resulting in complex patterns.
The first theory, however, starts to seem dodgy when one attempts to personify the "thing" by calling it the "creator." Images of an old man with a long white beard and robe sitting in the clouds is obviously quite silly, but it's what people tend to think of and thus dismiss the theory out-of-hand.
Worse things happen still when power and politics come into play. Seeing the violence some people commit in the name of religion and a creator made it easy for me to dismiss the possibility, for I assumed anyone willing to do so must be completely wrong. It wasn't until I looked for myself at the arguments that I was able to separate spirituality from religion.
And damnit, I sure can't wait to find out the answer! ;)
Re:The bottom line: (Score:5, Interesting)
That sounds all fine and dandy until you put "authority" into the equation. If I read a law book and find out it's a $100 fine for running red lights, that doesn't give me the AUTHORITY to go out and fine people $100 for running red lights.
I wrote ~20 pages on fundamentalism and that was pretty much the summary of it all.
As a Christian who understands this very simple verse
Romans 12:19, "Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord." (which by the way is 'written' in the OT). Yes the law is in the Bible but NO YOU ARE NOT GIVEN THE AUTHORITY TO ENFORCE IT!
I find it disturbing and disgusting that people who claim to be Christian are so obviously acting against the will of their God.
I don't agree with abortion, I think it's wrong. But I also realize it's not my place to force my views onto people. I'd rather abortion were legal and people didn't do it because they didn't want to than force them to not do it. Smoking is legal and many people choose not to. Same with alchohol.
Stupid, stupid people advocating murder in the name of God or anything. Is the concept of "authority" really that difficult?
Ben
Re:The bottom line: (Score:2)
But of course that's the last method you need to use to stop abortions. For many years it was illegal to perform them in the U.S. That law was overturned and they are now legal. Instead of advocating murder, change the law.
Note I'm only speaking to the statement that the logical was reasonable. I understand you were not advocating their position. I just want it to be clear that those that advocate murder in any case have no logical argument.
Re:The bottom line: (Score:2)
Re:The bottom line: (Score:3, Insightful)
Some weeks ago we had a
The web site was blocked by ISPs after that court ruling.
US
I posted: Europeeans/Germans have different views than US citicens. A peacefull society is -- for us -- more important than calls to arms by mad people.
Interesting that suddenly even an US poster is able to draw a line between free speach and call for riots.
angel'o'sphere
Re:The bottom line: (Score:2)
It's w2k, how long do you think it'll live on its own anyway?
seriously, you can't just go around forcing your opinion on others and justifying killing those who hold different beliefs than you. Because that's what we're talking about here, the *belief* that life begins at X.
anti-abortionists killing doctors is the same as khemer-rouge killing the educated or inquisitors killing heritics.
Re:The bottom line: (Score:2)
Posting a list-of-shame for those who you have a political grudge against is one thing. Calling for some form of justice against these individuals and then noting when members of the list have been killed is entirely different.
Once the "Nuremberg Files" site became a deadpool, they were effectively a tool used to make death threats against those who appeared on it.
I don't believe Amnesty or even Greepeace resorts to these tactics.
Re:The bottom line: (Score:2)
You're delightfully iconoclastic! This will certainly be controversial! You are obviously intelligent!
No direct link to the site? (Score:3, Informative)
And the obligitory google cache [216.239.51.100]
Abortion is Bad (Score:2)
Re:Abortion is Bad (Score:2, Insightful)
Regardless of your views on abortion.... (Score:5, Informative)
Heres the old site archived in a sense:
http://www.lancasterlife.com/atrocity/
Heres the newer site:
http://www.christiangallery.com/atrocity/a
One of the more disturbing/interesting(guess it depends on your views) about the above site is how they list all the abortion doctors they have info on... black for alive...greyed for MAIMED.. and strike-through for killed(they call it fatality)...
And my friends wonder why i think religion is such a big joke...
P.S. learn how to copy & paste
Re:Regardless of your views on abortion.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Regardless of your views on abortion.... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Regardless of your views on abortion.... (Score:2)
Race and sex are facts of life; religion is a choice, specifically a choice to believe in an explanation of the world around us that hasn't held water for several hundred years.
Religion is a joke in the way that a modern person maintaining that the human frame can not withstand velocities in excess of 30mph would also be a joke.
TWW
[SIGH] Re:yeah, i totally 100% agree.. (Score:2)
Yes and that was the first failed nation huh? You point out one attempt, and they also sough to exterminate all religion..did i once say do that? people can belive what they like as long as they dunt put it on me.. I think Communism was a little different in case you haven't noticed.
of course america never had an ounce of innovation or free thought, because our founding fathers were too religious..
Your right! lets make black people 3/5 of a person! all are founding fathers were not total religious zealots.. in fact if you know anything about it most of them saw a need from seperation of church and state.. or did you forget why a lot of euro's came over here in the first place? Ever here of Quakers?
its good to think before making such generic, unsubstantiated statements like that.
Look at your own
Re:[SIGH] Re:yeah, i totally 100% agree.. (Score:2)
thanks i've been told that a few times before
Black people being 3/5 of a person had nothing to do with whether they are human or not, it was for population statistics, which had only to do with representation in Congress.
NO but it does have to do with the founding fathers not being as forward thinkers as most people liked. it was for population for the census to decide how many reps came from each state. And they were not citizens.. they were property. and they where no considered humans back then.. property.. you could kill one, and then you had to pay the owner compensation, but you would not go to jail.. so it just validates my point
and you sir need to read history, for you are the apparent moron.. it can be fixed thoe.. go read
Re:Mass Control (Score:2)
Religion is a forced(look at history and most places in world today) form of mass control. Laws, Morals don't need to be contrived from somthing like that.(USSR being one very bad example, still forced, but not religious(glorification of their leaders aside)).
So you think withour Religion we would have Anarchy? I think without religion we would have had a lot less wars in the past 5000 years..
Obviously I am not going to convince you that God exists,
your right
Re:Mass Control (Score:2)
There is not always a clear dividing line between "religion" and "politics" with both religious organisations wielding political power and political organisations using either religion or some other kind of faith to support their position.
Re:Regardless of your views on abortion.... (Score:2, Funny)
Oh, yes, and thanks to Alex Chiu [alexchiu.com] and Zeosync [zeosync.com], I've stopped believing in science, too.
Re:Regardless of your views on abortion.... (Score:2)
AlexChiu for president!!!
ok.. back to the ganja for me..
Re:Regardless of your views on abortion.... (Score:2)
Gee now whos the ignorant biggot?
I respect other people's beliefs as long as they don't push it on me, unfortunately most HARDCORE religious people do try to show people who don't "see the truth" that they are wrong and try to convert them. I live in a small town on the east coast that is big area for Gays to come and have fun and relax[New Hope, PA]. And every nice weekend in the summer you get the good christian people coming out on the corners handing out pamphlets(glossy and waste of paper and not-recylable) to all the people walkin through the town(gay or not) that they are sinning for even being in a town that is openly supportive of gays..
And by the way its really disgusting when these people handing out the flyers have their 7 and 8 year old kids handing them out as well.. how much you wanna bet the majority of those kids grow up to be homophobic or gay bashers?
Re:Regardless of your views on abortion.... (Score:2)
Re:Regardless of your views on abortion.... (Score:2)
They just make the toys. The union rules prevent them from actually flying in the sleigh with me. Besides, it's not such hard work, and when else do I get to go out of the house?
Re:Regardless of your views on abortion.... (Score:2)
Don't get me wrong, I'm not in favor of abortion (though I won't get into that argument). However, if you're going to make claims about some facts, you might want to check on them. Especially when trying to defend a site like the Nuremberg Files.
Re:Regardless of your views on abortion.... (Score:2)
The difference being that the people being sentenced to prison/capital punishment did something to deserve it. The baby did nothing. If people were going around advocating the execution of random people who others thought to be an inconvenience, your argument would fit. But, thankfully, that hasn't come to pass yet.
Having an abortion is one of the rare sacrifice that one makes. It is one of the clearest statement that "I AM NOT READY TO BE A PARENT!"
Try this sacrifice: don't have sex till you're ready to be one. Take responsibility for your own actions, instead of killing someone else for them.
Not to absolve the horny idiots who are irresponsible enough to be pumping out these kids when they weren't ready. But to friken encourage them to carry the baby to term is a huge mistake.
Why? If you're not ready to be a parent, give the kid up for adoption. But don't make a baby pay for your mistakes. It's analogous to me hitting you with my car and maiming you, and then killing you because I don't want the inconvenience that your lawsuit and medical bills and all that are going to cause to my life. You did nothing wrong, and are getting shafted in the penultimate sense because of it.
Take responsibility for your own actions. Don't give me this cop out about "I'm doing it for the KID'S sake! Really!" If you're that worried about their living conditions, give them up for adoption. At least the kid will have a life, and will have a family who loves them. That's more than you'd be giving them...
Advocating Murder.. (Score:3, Insightful)
But hey, the people posting it are innocent of any crime if they dont actualy do the killing!!
MY ASS.
Re:Advocating Murder.. (Score:3, Insightful)
IANAL, but they obviously would be guilty of crime of conspiracy to commit murder, and of many other crimes (such as aiding and abetting).
Same old web problem (Score:5, Insightful)
What the judges should be asking themselves is not 'does something on the web constitute a threat' but rather 'if they put this on a billboard in times square, would it constitute a threat'.
Re:Same old web problem (Score:2)
if someone put hardcore lesbo porn on a billboard in timesquare, would that be allowed? Using your logic, the web shouldn't be allowed to have the information at all. Its perfectly fine for the web to have a lot of whacked out weird junk on it, while not really ok to have that on a billboard. So you're logic that "if you shouldn't put it on a billboard then you shouldn't have it on the internet" should be reversed, if it shouldn't be on the internet, it shouldn't be on a billboard.
The 'Target Market' (PNI) (Score:4, Insightful)
Hopefully it could be shown in court that the vast majority of /. readers are not likely to perform such an act, regardless of how inflammatory the statement maybe. In the case of bloody-minded anti-abortionists, however, this is obviously not the case.
My point is this: In previous rulings concerning this exception to the first amendment, it has been the case that the audience could be observed to be a volatile mass and thus likely to be swayed by hateful and threatening speech. Regarding websites, this issue becomes murky and threatens to turn any ruling either way into the dreaded first step down a slippery slope. I should expect my example above illustrates how this could be used to control expression in any number of forums.
What's the point anyway (Score:2, Interesting)
To me this just seems to be a pissing contest.
If the US says it's illegal to put that info up on the site it will move offshore.
This is not about right-to-life versus pro-choice, it's about extremists who fuck everyone because they can't play nice. From the little-league mom who punches an umpire to the religious nut trying to blow up a bus load of tourists.
new update: (Score:2, Informative)
Pure propoganda......they say "They [judges] say it is illegal to publish names"....
right...that's "all" they are doing...just being a phonebook
crappy flash animation (Score:2)
LOL
What this really means about our rights (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's consider what's going on here. The web site in question created "wild west" style posts of abortion doctors, and updated lists of those doctors that had been assassinated. (There are a number of criminal cases where physicians were attacked--even killed--because their name appears on hit lists.)
Now, we enjoy a right a free speech. But we do not have a right to threaten the safety of other individuals. When threats are made against individuals, the balance of interests between individual expression and individual safety shifts to the threatened.
Now, let's be clear about this. The hit lists were not mere trash talking in a chat room. They were not even generalized expressions of rage about doctors who perform abortions. Instead, they were lists created with the express, explicit purpose of organizing others to harm physicians. This is not my interpretation of the site mirrors I visited. This is also the opinion of most of the 9th circuit. Now, only a bare majority of the court felt the threat was sufficiently immediate to tip the balance for individual safety. But most of the court sided with the opinion that the site was designed to promote violence against doctors.
We should be cautious about restrictions on freedom of expression. And it seems that this is exactly what has taken place here: A serious, careful, factually detailed analysis for the circumstances of this case. There are no categorical rulings about web pages. This is not even a "technology" story, except for the fact that the hit list was online. (The same ruling might have obtained if the lists were merely on paper and sufficiently circulated.)
So, while I'm don't enjoy opinions that side against the big 1st A, I have to realize that our liberty in expression must, like all liberties, reach a limit when it bumps up against other rights and interests. I have to side with personal freedom and liberty.
As a closing note, I don't like abortion either. And I also don't like capital punsihment. But we should not let passion excuse us from the political process. Murder is wrong. If we disagree with a person's practice and work, we have a system of laws to change, or live by if we fail in this endeavor.
Re:What this really means about our rights (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem is that abortion has been taken outside the realm of the political process and capital punishment has not. People can vote on whether or not they want their state executing criminals. But people cannot vote on whether or not they want abortion to be legal in their state.
Glad to hear it. (Score:5, Interesting)
Besides, these people could never be put on trial anyway, at least not in the United States. That would be "ex post facto" - making something illegal after it's already been done - and that is unconstitutional.
And even worse, the site names doctors that don't even do abortions! I personally know one of the doctors listed, and he has never performed an abortion in his entire career. All he's ever done is told women where they could go if they wanted one. And for this, he's somehow made his way onto the anti-abortionists shitlist.
Not "ex post facto". (Score:2)
If these people are judged to be actively threatening people by putting their names on an open 'hit list', while openly encouraging their deaths, and celebrating when a death occurs - then they have violated existing laws. That's exactly what they are on trial for - it's not for new laws, or even new interpretations of law. This is a judgement that clarifies that the act they went through with does break the law.
Just like a person committing fraud online in the U.S. can be convicted of interstate fraud, no new rules are required for convictions of organized threats just because they are online.
:^)
Ryan Fenton
Re:Glad to hear it. (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, duh. There's people I'd be happy to see dead, too (osama bin laden, for ex.), should it be illegal for me to say that? Am I some sort of accomplice if I mention that the world would probably be a better place tomorrow if both Yassir Arafat and Ariel Sharon had unfortunate "accidents"?
Besides, these people could never be put on trial anyway, at least not in the United States. That would be "ex post facto" - making something illegal after it's already been done - and that is unconstitutional.
I'm not real clear on the history, but i think the real Nuremberg trials were pretty ex post facto, too--not that putting abortion doctors on trial for crimes against humanity is anything but stupid.
--
Benjamin Coates
good. (Score:2)
This should stand imo, and if it doesn't, then are system is more broken than I thought. On a side note, why does everyone feel the need to bring religion into this? So you either believe in God or you don't. (And, either you believe in abortion or you don't) Personally, I don't care what you believe, just try to play nicely and not bash each other....
Re:good. (Score:2)
it's called free speech. oh, wait...
Re:good. (Score:2)
--
Benjamin Coates
Torn! (Score:5, Interesting)
Before you flame, I'm not saying that the court killed free speech (yes I read it), only that it makes me sad that any speech should be so inflamitory that the courts can justify shutting it down.
i'm not trying to change your mind on abortion (Score:2, Interesting)
i used to think abortion was okay. i used to think i was "enlightened" for thinking so.
but after careful, deliberate thought something occurred to me: we don't know with absolute certainty that a fetus is not a living being. sure, the supreme court says that a fetus isn't viable until 6 months and therefore can be aborted, but i don't trust the supreme court any farther than i can throw clarance thomas.
what do the scientists say? they seem to be just as divided on this subject as the rest of the population. and this is the heart of the matter: we cannot say with absolute certainty when a fetus is a living being.
now, in almost every other aspect of human life, when the stakes are high, we tend to exercise more restraint. "err on the side of caution" as the saying goes. why are we so certain in this case that, since we can't be sure, it's okay to abort these pregnancies when we don't really know?
the last was rhetorical, of course. if i made you stop and think for a second, i've done my job. if you jerk your knee and retreat into the same old tired arguments, i've failed.
i hope you just stop and think. don't blindly believe what your teachers told you, don't believe what eMpTV tells you, and please, for the love of everything sacred, don't believe what CNN tells you. stop and think.
Re:i'm not trying to change your mind on abortion (Score:2, Insightful)
rather; will it have parents to love it and care for it.
You should probably go vegan to - just use the same type of "deliberate thinking" to sort the issue of eating dead animals out.
moderations:
troll: 3
insightful: 1
That's what we get for trying to keep religious belief out of our schools. (nope, i'm not an american)
Re:i'm not trying to change your mind on abortion (Score:2)
ok, let us think about this gem for a minute.
say johnny is born to a loving family. mom and dad do everything just right, and little johnny is plenty happy. 4, 5, 6 years pass. then one day, the unthinkable happens: the parents both die in a car wreck. there are no other living relatives to take care of little johnny. with your line of thinking, it would then be time to kill the boy, 'cause there's no parents left to "love it and care for it".
(nope, i'm not an american)
don't worry, we won't hold that against you when some big bad man takes over your country and we have to come save you.
Re:i'm not trying to change your mind on abortion (Score:2, Insightful)
Plus there is always the extremely kooky idea among the educated and/or enlightened that your body is actually your own and that you have the right to exert control over the natural processes that of your body. However, that runs against the concepts of "surrendering yourself to G*d" that is so common in many of the religions and it is those ideals that are used to deny women the right of controlling their reproductive processes through law.
Re:i'm not trying to change your mind on abortion (Score:2)
so since "most people" do not disagree with you, you must be right? Logical fallacy.
You are simply trying to deflect the conversation onto something irrelevant by trying to take my statement as a personal attack.
I'm sorry, but being called "kooky" (your word) "uneducated" (your term) and "unenlightened" (again, all you) constitutes a personal attack in my book. I think it is you who are trying to deflect the argument.
I accuse no one that disagrees with me on something that is of a non-factual basis un-enlightened or un-educated.
Wrong: you just did.
I will accuse someone that obstinately argues from a position based on factual error that can be credibly disproven of being either ignornant or unenlightened and having an ulterior motive to ignore fact.
Or perhaps said person has a set of facts that contradict your own? Or perhaps interprets the facts differently than you?
However, once again I will state that the assertion that I laid out to be quite prevelant among people that I would personally consider educated and enlightened on the particular issue.
Again, since the view is prevelant [sic], it must be correct? You do seem to be the product of American higher "education" if you believe that the majority is always right.
The right of a woman to terminate a pregnancy did not exist at the federal level until RvW.
your original post, emphasis mine:
and it is those ideals that are used to deny women the right of controlling their reproductive processes through law
you said "are used", present tense. The period before RvW is the past. Again: tell me what law exists today that "denies" a woman these "rights"?
Regardless, the issue for me comes down to the belief of whether or not a fetus that hasn't developed to the point of even being able to have rudimentary perception is morally worthy of consideration over the moral rights of a woman to control her reproductive processes.
have you ever seen a new born baby? I have: three of my own. And let me tell you, their perception of the world is far below rudimentary. Should it therefore be acceptable to "abort" them after birth?
In a broder sense it also includes whether one considers it a moral right of a human to exercise control over their bodies.
and what about the moral rights of the fetus? You admitted above that even a blastocyst is alive. Does it not then have the right to exercise control over its own body?
Re:i'm not trying to change your mind on abortion (Score:2)
Then why the repeated references to your opinion being that of the majority? Either you are intellectually lazy, or you are trying to skew the discussion by introducing irrelevant but popular sentiment. In either case, all of your position looses merit.
Actually, I was calling myself and those that are like-minded kooky. You are trying to read a personal insult to you in my post that does not exist.
If the insult truly does not exist, I suggest you take greater care in your choice of words.
I suggest you stop dwelling on it.
I cannot stop what I have not begun.
However, there is a continous effort by groups in this country (usually of superstitous persuasions) to change the law of the land in regards to that matter and so it becomes an ongoing issue.
And what is the point of this? Are you such a liberal that you would deny the right of those with whom you do not agree to advocate changing the law of the land? Or perhaps you simply could not discuss this subject rationally without taking a swipe at people who have faith and/or religion ("superstition" to use your term)?
I would argue that a newborn's ability to communicate via vocalizations (crying when its hungry/etc) and react to environmental stimuli via touch suggests that it has a well developed and functioning nervous system that goes well beyond rudimentary perception.
Well that's all fine and dandy today. But tomorrow, you or someone just like you will make the argument that newborns perceptions are not as developed as yours and mine, and therefore it is just as appropriate to kill said newborn.
I'll try to clarify that credible scientific evidence suggests that a fetus in development has a nervous system incapable of relaying any sensory information as far into development as 15 weeks. Without a nervous system it is incapable of even the most rudimentary preception as a result.
Key word here: suggests. Until next week, when the evidence "suggests" something to the contrary. Which leads straight back to my original point: what if you're wrong about the "when"? If so, you would be guilty of advocating murder. Plain and simple. And it's my opinion that, barring conclusive evidence to the contrary, it is best to err on the side of caution. Is that concept so difficult to grasp?
Your statement leads me to believe you have either failed to read my post carefully or have failed to comprehend my position.
I have failed to do neither, but instead have chosen to take issue with your position. Or is your opinion above reproach?
Going beyond that into the second trimester, however, my argument starts to get on shaky ground as we are dealing with a developing fetus that is potentially capable of feeling things like pain.
Potentially. Perhaps you should admit to yourself that you simply do not know exactly when any given fetus can feel pain, and therefore any criteria used to determine when an abortion is "morally acceptable" is arbitrary and flawed at best, and at the worst, murder.
Re:i'm not trying to change your mind on abortion (Score:2)
But to me, the whole discussion makes no sense. In civilized countries (Europe) people don't debate this issue so intensely. People are cheap, and unborn people are even cheaper. The world does not need more people; humanity already overuses natural resources of the planet. What this world needs is better life for those who are already born, and for those children who are wanted.
If this discussion [in the society] continues, soon it will be a crime to not marry; it will be also a crime not to have sex with everyone around you - because in each of those cases one less person is born, and therefore "killed". This is an argument as reasonable as any of those somebody's-else-internal-organs-watchers.
Re:i'm not trying to change your mind on abortion (Score:2)
by that line of thinking it would be okay to "abort" a pregnancy after birth. what a concept.
In civilized countries (Europe) people don't debate this issue so intensely.
and what in the name of spider-man does that have to do with anything? last i checked, this post was about a ruling in america.
oh, but of course: everything the europeans do is correct because, well, they're europeans.
People are cheap, and unborn people are even cheaper.
and soon, me and people like me will be the cheapest of all because we disagree with the State. don't worry, they'll never come for you.
What this world needs is better life for those who are already born, and for those children who are wanted.
what this world needs is for all life to be valued.
If this discussion [in the society] continues, soon it will be a crime to not marry; it will be also a crime not to have sex with everyone around you
sorry, that's a logical fallacy, namely the slippery slope. try again.
Re:i'm not trying to change your mind on abortion (Score:2)
Not a new one. Many cultures practiced infanticide. But, as I said, I don't care anyway.
and what in the name of spider-man does that have to do with anything?
It was a suggestion to grow up, as a society ;-) Cynicism rules the world, even in USA. It is just more convenient to argue about 1000 abortions ignoring at the same time suffering of -billions- of people elsewhere. A pacifier, if you like.
and soon, me and people like me will be the cheapest of all
IMO, we all already are, and always were.
what this world needs is for all life to be valued.
Well, if a poor woman does not want to carry the fetus, then you should volunteer and offer your own body instead! Be consistent, do what you preach. I don't care.
Moderators on crack... AGAIN (Score:2, Informative)
The point is, this gentleman has made a very decent argument in favor of pro-life. There is nothing rude, offensive, or inappropriate about this posting. It's intelligent and well written.
Why the hell is he being negatively moderated?
This post is NOT a troll, you fools! Attention to moderators: just because YOU disagree with someone's ideas, DOES NOT give you the right to silence them. I am sure not everyone on
But that won't stop assholes with mod points. Just note that you will be meta-moderated accordingly, and I am one of those who meta-moderates daily.
Re:Moderators on crack... AGAIN (Score:2)
thank you for making a damned good point. more importantly, thank you for labeling me pro-life in lieu of "anti-abortion" or "abortion foe" or some such tripe. you don't know the agony it is to be mislabeled so frequently by the mass media and it's adherents.
truth be told, i don't give a rats ass about karma, but i did want this particular post to be read. again, thanks.
Re:Moderators on crack... AGAIN (Score:3, Insightful)
In opposition to the latter part of your statement, I do think it's wrong. But that's my personal opinion, which is nicely trumped by the first part of your statement, leaving me pro choice as you are.
That's why it's pro-choice, not pro-abortion as we are often mislabeled by the pro-life crowd.
Serious question (Score:2)
One thing that's always annoyed me about the anti-abortion position is that so few of the believers have the courage of their convictions. The pro-life movement doesn't talk much about scenarios like these, although you'll see a few folks who are willing to stand up and say these girls must carry the child to term no matter how bad it messes her up. The rest hide behind "except in cases of rape and incest" phrases as if people born of rape are somehow less human than those of us conceived out of love.
Speaking as both a father of an adopted child and as someone who's pro-choice, I'm very aware of the consequences of abortion. It's a hideous act, but the reality of not having it available is worse in my opinion.
It's Pro OTHER PEOPLE'S choice (Score:2)
Now, the issue isn't so much your individual choice. The issue is imposing your choice on others. Some people are always going to seek out abortions. This maybe because of irresponsibility, medical problems, rape, etc. Who knows all the possible reasons. The fact remains, some people will want/need abortions.
The only thing outlawing abortion will do is put these people at risk. It will stop some abortions, but not 100% of them.
I think your approach is the right one. If you don't like it then you can try to educate people to see your point of view. Talk with them. Provide them more information if they ask for it. Don't yell "murderer" in their face. Don't create "Wanted Posters".
I wonder how the people of the site would feel if a counter-site appeared listing their personal information on it?
This is a tough one (Score:3, Insightful)
This case revolves around what's a "true threat", as in extortion and assault. (Assault is a threat of violence, like pointing a weapon at somebody.) The defendants identified specific people as targets, some of whom were killed by other, unrelated persons. This is less than assault, but more than political speech. It's really tough to decide where it belongs.
Note that this is a civil case. There are only money damages involved. Nobody goes to jail.
I think this says it all (Score:2)
SYLLABICATION: terrorist
PRONUNCIATION: trr-st
NOUN: One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism.
ADJECTIVE: Of or relating to terrorism.
OTHER FORMS: terroristic --ADJECTIVE
terrorism
SYLLABICATION: terrorism
PRONUNCIATION: tr-rzm
NOUN: The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
I thinks this describes those behind "The Nuremberg Files" pretty accuratly. They, like Osama Bin Laden, are just too cowardly to do the dirty work themselves. Instead they push some weak minded religious zealot into doing it for them. At least Bin Laden admitts to his crimes.
It's about time somebody called it what it is! (Score:2)
"I don't like what you do or say, therefore you must die". Terrorism, plain and simple. It is NOT free speech, and it has no place in a free and democratic society.
Absolutely Ludicris! (Score:2)
Of course this is a threat!
This would have taken no time to remove if it were a listing of Pro Life women to rape and impregnate.
Without getting into my "Sometimes abortions should be allowed until the age of 25" rant let me tell you how amusing I find the current Pro Lifers having to deal with homosexual sex scandals. Hardly Pro Life now is it?
At least in the 80s they were banging women.
An Indirect Illegal Act is still an Illegal Act (Score:2)
It is an utter falicy to asume that the Internet is somehow detached from common laws. These rules still apply, and it is no use claiming that there is 'no juisdiction'. Especialy when the law in question is one common to almost all of the world.
What this is about is if it is okay to indirectly threaten the life of someone. In my opinion, the indirect urging of someones death is proportionaly responcable for that death. Regardless of if the threat is published on the web, in a news letter, by samizdat or on the side of cows.
It is ironic that the site names its self after Nuremberg, yet claims the same defence.
New website (Score:2)
Get photos and publicly available address info for the people responsible for that website. Make "Wanted: Dead or Alive" posters.
Turnabout is fair play, and it's a golden opportunity for parody
-
acid test (Score:2)
Nuremberg Trials Not Retroactive! (Score:3, Interesting)
The Geneva Conventions in question were first ratified in 1864 and later modified in 1906. They dealt with the treatment of the sick and wounded. Additions were made to the conventions in 1929 concerning the treatment of prisoners of war. There were more modifications made in 1949, but by then the trials were long done.
The Hague Conventions were first ratified in 1899 and modified in 1907. They dealt with certain kinds of weapons (such as chemical weapons) and outlined the treatment of both prisoners of war and civillians.
The Kellogg-Briand Pact, ratified in 1928, outlawed war as a tool of national policy (ie. aggression).
There were also a few other laws that were brought up (such as the naval law against false flags and such), but these were the big ones.
As can be seen, all of these treaties were drawn up well before the start of World War II. More importantly, Germany signed on to each and every one of these treaties, bringing themselves under their jurisdiction. This is similar to the way that Milosveic is being brought to trial for violations of the Dayton Accords (to name one) he signed on to years earlier.
Of course, the people who maintain the Nuremberg List are those kinds of people that, if you begin to understand their "logic," you should seek professional help...
Direct threats (Score:3, Informative)
Of course a web site can meet that standard: (16 pt type) KILL THIS MAN (picture) (name and address) (why he should die) (suggested assassination methods, where to buy sniper rifles, car bombs, etc).
It is illegal to say "Kill this man", when it's clear that you really mean it, and it's still illegal if you direct this message to the general public (through a web site, a broadcast, or a speech) rather than a specific person.
The question is whether this particular web site meets this standard, because it does not explicitly tell anyone to kill the abortionists it identifies. It's a borderline case. It's pretty clear that the authors of the web site hope someone will do something bad to the persons named, but it may not even say abortionists should be killed (or even harassed) - it just attracts those who do believe that. IMO that is the web site authors' intention, but if they were careful about what got recorded in e-mail or print, that may be impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
Think about the principles here in a less emotional case. How about a web site that says "Commodity traders are scumbags who ought to be shot", and "John Doe is a commodity trader". It leaves it up to the reader to complete that syllogism. Is this protected speech? Is the author responsible if some unsuccessful investor reads the web site, then in fact shoots John Doe?
How about if the web site doesn't explicitly say anything against commodity traders, aside from a URL like "commodityfraud.com"? It just gives the traders' name, address and picture - and it is going to be found by people with a grudge against commodity traders.
I think the "nuremberg" web site lands somewhere between those cases. It is knowingly set up to be easily found by those who do want to kill abortionists, it makes it easy for them to find their victims, and it probably avoids directly telling them to kill but gives a certain amount of moral encouragement.
Re:Ruh roh (Score:2)
<IANAL>
The 9th Circuit Court is based in San Francisco and has a reputation for making "surprising" decisions. Attorneys along the west coast routinely scratch their heads at 9th Circuit decisions.
That's not to say their decisions are overturned by the Supreme Court at a rate higher than those of other Circuit courts (I honestly don't know), nor is it to imply that this decision would surprise lawyers everywhere. I haven't even read the decision yet, so I haven't the foggiest notion. I'm just pointing out that if they're off base, this wouldn't be the first time the 9th Circuit Court pulled an inexplicable decision out from under their robes.
</IANAL>
Re:Ruh roh (Score:2)
What appears to have been missed is that there is a serious problem with laws granting special protection for doctors and special protection for police officers. Or indeed any law to grant special protection to an arbitary group of people...
Re:Ruh roh (Score:3, Insightful)
I imagine that could be (ab)used by organized crime to put out hits on people. "Your honor, it's been shown that a website cannot immediately threaten someone. I didn't order that person killed, I just posted it on my website".
Besides, that's not the precedent anyways. "Immediately threaten" hah, someone made that crap up.
All that's necessary is for the victim to feel that their life is now in danger. I don't know about the rest of you, but if someone put up my picture on a kill-list, I'd feel like I was in real and immediate danger.
Re:Ruh roh (Score:3)
But I think the real issue is to not treat online publication any different than other forms. If someone took out an add in a national newspaper and published personally identifying information of abortion clinic doctors, along with claims that they deserved to be killed for crimes against humanity, I think it would be considered an immediate and clear threat to those doctors. On the other hand, if the newspaper ad would not be considered illegal, then neither should the website.
The whole thing makes me uneasy. I don't want to silence anyones opinion, but I think that they can freely express their opinions without directly threatening people. At the same time, most of the information found there could be looked up in a phone directory by anyone really wanting the information anyway, which makes banning publishing it on the internet seem a little silly. That aspect is kind of like the "they think terrorists can't type" thing with cryptography. I really believe that anyone who is "dedicated" (or insane) enough to their cause to go shooting people in the name of being pro-life is probably going to be able to find out the address of the doctors at their local abortion clinic.
Will the Supreme Court overturn this? (Score:2)
As far as the Supreme Court goes, I think I agree with the above poster that they will overturn it. The Court has made it pretty clear its activist (though conservative) bent on free speech issues - it will interpret the first amendment broadly when dealing with so-called hate speech (cf. RAV v. St Paul [bc.edu] ) and extremely narrowly when dealing with obscenity (cf. Erie v. Pap's AM [cornell.edu] ). Rather than address the contradiction the Court persists in the myth of content-neutrality (see Scalia's bizarre and brazen construction of the notion in the RAV decision, rightly trounced by White as manufacturing a standard of "underbreadth"). It's likely to see this as protected speech here if past decisions are any clue.
Then again, I could see the argument being made that if we protect this kind of speech we would have to protect a website by terrorist sympathizers listing names and addresses of prominent American Jews (perhaps with the names of WTC victims crossed out) and describing the glory of suicide bombing infidels. I read that O'Connor has publicly warned Americans to expect civil liberties restrictions in the wake of 9-11 so such an argument could be pretty persuasive to the Court.
Re:There is no change. (Score:2)
That isn't to say that advocating illegal activity is automatically non-protected speech, but just that there is a point where expression becomes too "dangerous" to be protected. This may offend those with an especially idealistic view of the First Amendment, but is really a necessity in the real world.
It is not that it becomes "too dangerous", it is that beyond a certain point the speaker becomes an accessory to the crime (or a co-conspirator). Also, I believe that inciting someone else to commit a crime is a crime itself.
Re:They deserve it. (Score:2, Insightful)
Comparing a doctor who performs abortions to Hitler is hardly fair.
Re:They deserve it. (Score:3, Informative)
It is too bad that the fundies have seized hold of this issue and bundled it with their twisted worldview.
The real question is when do you call your "bundle of cells" a human being. I believe that long before a baby is born they should be given the same basic human rights you and i enjoy. Just because a fetus cannot speak for themselves does not mean that they are inanimate objects that can be flushed down the toilet without regard.
eggs and sperm (Score:3, Insightful)
So either change the chant to "diploid human life is sacred" or change the chant entirely.
Danny.
Re:They deserve it. (Score:2)
Most mothers get abortions because they cannot care for the child or if the unfortunate fetus has a major defect; in essense the child would live in hell from day one, it has long been clear that such conditions foster criminal adults and other counter/non-productive members of society. The alternatives, adoption agencies and foster homes, are full beyond capacity already, do not always provide better conditions and are funded by tax dollars. What is your solution to these problems? Abortion is not a good alternative, but it is the best we have.
And what about cases where the mothers life is directly dependent on that she not have the baby? Do you kill fetus or mother? Both are are innocent. You post fails to address these issues, I suggest you consider them before forming an opinion.
Re:They deserve it. (Score:2)
Statistically speaking, children that grow up being neglected by parents are almost certain to become unproductive adults. These are the conditions the children would be faced with should they not be aborted.
Handicapped persons - why don't we kill the grown up ones too eh? They're a drain on society right? Nah, you don't want to pay more tax, you'd rather get the latest computer to play Quake, never mind that numbers of handicapped persons are on the decrease due to technology anyway.
I can't speak for everyone, but if I'd rather die that have a defective mind, those parents that abort these children likely feel this way about whatever part of the fetus is disabled. And yes, I've instructed my relatives to pull the plug if I ever become a vegetable.
Mother's life dependant: Well obviously if the mother dies before birth, both would die so it's not an either/or proposition.
Think again. The technology exists to support developing children outside of a natural womb. [slashdot.org]
You still have failed to provide me with a better alternative, instead insisting on continuing your moral crusade. Come back when you have answers.
Re:They deserve it. (Score:2)
Besides, what makes us human isn't being a zygote or having human DNA, it's a functioning, developed human brain. When the development of the fetal brain is at the level of a cat, as far as I'm concerned, destroying it is equivalent to killing a cat. A cat that is growing in an adult human's body.
Re:They deserve it. (Score:2)
Re:They deserve it. (Score:2)
The collection of cells that are aborted are not children. They cannot feel nor think. They are just that: a collection of cells. Now they have a potential of becoming sentient, feeling humans. But while they are nothing but a collection of cells, they are not human.
How can you "murder" something that cannot feel, isn't self-aware and cannot think? Cattle has all those qualities, yet we feel no remorse when we kill them in the millions so we could eat them. You cannot be against abortion because those cells have the potential of becoming human. If you did that, then you must be against masturbation, since all those sperm have the potential of becoming a human under the right circumstances. Just like those aborted cells had the potential of becoming human under right circumstances.
If you don't want abortion, fine. You have the right not to get an abortion (if you were woman that is). But you cannot go around demanding that other people must live according to your rules! You don't have the right to force others to act and think like you do!
Re:They deserve it. (Score:2)
do you have kids? i don't ask to enflame the issue, merely to grasp your understanding of the financial responsibility of raising children. a relative of mine summed it up quite nicely: you never have enough money to raise kids. granted, that's only a quip, but the flip side is simple in that if you cannot afford to raise a child, the State will happily help you out (in America, at least, where the ruling took place).
You can't just walk into an abortion clinic nine months pregnant and get an abortion, by the way
ever heard of partial-birth abortion? it's a procedure that is used to "terminate a pregnancy" right up until the last minute. and it's legal in some states, IIRC.
It would be nice if, once in my life, I could debate this with someone who doesn't need to make references to various nazis or dumpsters full of body parts when presenting their case. (not that you are that kind of person pnatural, it's just a general complaint.)
point taken. but also consider the motivations of those who do make those arguments in that they typically do not make them out of malice, but out of desperation to have what they (and I!) believe to be murder ended.
Re:No Free Speech for the Enemies of the People (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:No Free Speech for the Enemies of the People (Score:2)
Bullshit.
Go to Google right now and search for pro-life websites. Go ahead. You know what will show up. There will be about a gajillion different results turned, and 99.9% of those are completely unaffected by this case, nor will they be so affected in the future. It is one thing to promote a certain viewpoint, it is quite another to specifically advocate and celebrate the murder of those who oppose that viewpoint. Such violent advocacy is -- and should be -- against the law.
And by the way, I would be saying the exact same thing were the roles reversed, and it was a pro-choice site advocating the murder of pro-life advocates. (Funny how that never happens, though.)
Aside: GodDAMN I am sick of the term "PC" being thrown around every time a judicial ruling comes down that the neoconservative crowd doesn't like. That is a tired, tired term and doesn't say anything substantial.
Re:No Free Speech for the Enemies of the People (Score:3, Insightful)
The Nuremberg files and sites like it are nothing more than the whiney rants of immature people who want to force the world to do things their way. In the USA, we call this "fascism." Intimidation through threats of violence is in NO WAY protected by the Constitution. Strictly speaking, our own government is only permitted to threaten force in the protection of everyone's rights (in which they too fall to the same human weaknesses of us all).
Lost in the noise of these temper tantrums are the real contributions made by those people who adopt babies that nobody else wants, or help to convince the parents of a young girl that she is not evil for becoming pregnant, and that she should not be thrown out on the streets. But then again, those people probably read the "Judge not, lest ye be judged" bits of the Bible a little more carefully than the foot soldiers in the "Army of God."
Re:charge the nut with murder (Score:2)
Get a clue, people. The crime is committed by the person who does the killing, not the people spreading info.
Now, if these people were offering incentives to kill the doctors, it'd be a different story. But theyr'e not, and if some twisted psycho kills one of these doctors, it's not the fault of the website operators.
Once again, you're placing blame for other people's actions on a third party, and punishing the third party. Kinda like abortion. Parents screwed up, so let's kill the kid. Everyone's happy, right?
Re:charge the nut with murder (Score:2)
Re:What would this lead to? (Score:2, Insightful)
Christans BELIEVE (using absolutely no facts in judgment). Atheists DISBELIEVE (using absolutely no facts in judgement). It is an interesting religion, in that it denies all underlying faiths in all religions.
This is a fallacy in your reasoning. To say one "disbelieves" is to attribute a positive action to some person. The very term "atheist" denotes a lack of positive action. In other words, an atheist fails to believe. Simply failing to believe in something is logically different than actively disbelieving it. The very definition of the term is a lack of religion.
Sometimes it is convenient for theists to attempt to place an atheist in the same philosophical realm as themselves. In doing so, a theist is usually attempting to force the atheist to justify his "belief," and thereby relieving the theist of the impossible task of justifying their own. Unfortunately for the theist, this is not sound reasoning at all. It is just a refined method of saying, "prove God doesn't exist."
Not a Photoshop job at all!! (Score:2)
worst doctored photo ever (Score:2)
!!seineew era sresu pohsotohp efil-orP
Oi, umlaut please. (Score:2, Informative)
Thats Nürnberg.
If you are going to be pedantic, at least use the correct spelling yourself.
Re:The Website is clear and present danger (Score:2)
Re:I'm not surprised. (Score:2)
A similar site that merely complained about abortion and suggested that people do everything in their power to stop it would be perfectly legal. The problem is that they're listing names, addresses, and phone numbers. This means that the site becomes a tangible threat to specific individuals.
That's where they crossed the line from merely espousing their beliefs.