"Nuremberg Files" Appealed 55
Here's the
AP story.
The $109 million judgement against the "Nuremberg Files" is being appealed. This is the Web site that listed abortion providers with the implied message "Someone should kill these guys." As they were murdered, their names were crossed off the list. It should be said that nobody claims any direct connection between the murderers and the Web site. This is the most important case on the Internet's boundary of free speech, unlawful threats, and incitement to violence.
Here's what I thought of the site (Score:1)
The "Nuremberg Files" site has absolutely no chance of winning in court. Their site put people in a "clear and present danger" of being murdered. I support free speech; but only up to the point where it creates a physical danger to someone else's well-being. Violence is not the way to solve this or any other problem. The court clearly did the right thing in these circumstances.
Note: I actually know one person who was on that list. Strange thing is, he has never even done an abortion, he only supports a woman's right to have one.
The Limits Of The First Amendment (Score:2)
As long as it isn't used to kill people.
There are two problems with the 'Nuremberg Files' as I see it:
1. The people listed had their personal and private information on there without consent.
2. The maintainer of the site kept a track record of the fates of the persons listed.
This is what the first amendment was meant for (Score:3)
These guys are disgusting. It is also disgusting the number of laws which ban thoughts and speech. Politically incorrect speech is grounds for expulsion from some colleges and most jobs. Freedom of speech is not adjustable. Either speech is free or it is not.
--
Re:Damn, this is hard (Score:2)
Re:I have to agree (Score:2)
You do not have a constitutional right to be fat, dumb and happy, protected from anything that might be offensive, embarassing, frightening or unsettling.
Re:Damn, this is hard (Score:2)
This is protected speech according to current first amendment doctrine. You can also advocate the violent overthrow of the government. To be prohibited, the speech must be "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." See Brandenburg v. Ohio.
Re:Cleaner solution (Score:1)
Defacing someone's web page is NOT a white hat activity.
LK
Re:Was it John Adams... (Score:1)
No it doesn't, that's a lie. Or are you going to tell me that no abortion doctors were murdered before Horsley and the ACLA went into operation?
Perhaps it's a celebration of what has happened to these people, but NO WHERE on the site was anyone encouraged to use violence. The goal of the Nuremberg files website was to gather information on abortion doctors because the ACLA and Horsley believe that one day there will be trials held against them. Many Nazis escaped the Nuremberg trials because of lack of evidence, they wish to see nothing like that happen again.
If their stated goal is truly what they want, the "incite violence" arguement goes out the window.
LK
Re:I have to agree (Score:2)
What do you think about telephone directories? In my local yellow pages there is a big section titled "abortion". If someone has it in his mind to off an abortion doctor, Horsley's site doesn't do much to help him.
What this case is about is one group of people trying to silence people who feel differently than they do. If planned parenthood had put up a similar list, giving the same information it would have been considered a public service. Just because it was a group opposed to abortion who placed the information on their site, it's considered a "threat". Where does that end? If someone feels threatened, does that mean that you threatened them? FACE has even been carried to such an extreme that a man was sentenced to over a year in jail for parking a truck across the streed from an abortion clinic.
LK
Use Nuremberg Files information for other purposes (Score:2)
1. Someone is going to be less likely to murder one of them if there are 10 witnesses nearby.
2. If we can let everyone who looks at one of the doctors know how s/he makes a living perhaps some of them could be shamed into a different profession.
3. If there is video of us being nothing but non-violent, the police would have a harder time justifying the abuse that pro-life demonstrators have had to endure in the not so distant past.
LK
Re:I have to agree (Score:2)
Every time someone tries to urge someone to stop doing something, be it smoking, eating meat, or aborting pregnancies you could call it psychological warfare, calling it that doesn't make it wrong.
If they weren't intending to threaten these people or intimidate them then ask yourself what they were intending when they put this up with dripping blood font and compared it to the Nazi War Crime Trials?
It's about trying to change minds. If you think that eating meat is murder, you'd be just as free to compare commercial farms and slaughterhouses to death camps. Have you ever seen an abortion? It can be a bloody procedure, what's wrong with depicting it in that light?
Things which you find uncomforatble aren't threats just because you don't want to see them.
LK
Re:Was it John Adams... (Score:2)
LK
Re:I have to agree (Score:2)
In other words, it's different when it comes to abortion doctors. Or people who agree with you.
Doing my taxes makes me uncomfortable, changing a nasty diaper makes me uncomfortable, the thought of some loons putting up my name and all my vital information on a list with the names of others (and some that have been crossed out because they're murdered)... well that threatens me. And yet again it's all in the context.
You have no right to anonymity. If you're ashamed of what you do, maybe you shouldn't be doing it.
LK
Re:Was it John Adams... (Score:2)
No threats were made, the claim that there was is an obvious attempt to silence people who hold a different opinion. It's a violation of the ACLA's first amendment rights.
Why not go the ultimate step and volunteer to adopt and raise these children themselves?
Why not hold people accountable for their own actions?
LK
Re:Thank goodness for one calm head (Score:2)
If you believe that, then you're either ignorant or a liar. FACE is even being used to arrest protestors who sit across the street from abortion clinics and pray. FACE is to prevent people for blocking clinics and threatening employees. If someone "feels threatened" by a group of people sitting across the street praying, that is enough for the police to roust them. It's not about protecting doctors anymore, it's about silencing people who disagree with the pro abortion position.
LK
Re:free speech is more robust than you think (Score:2)
You have the right to feel or not feel anyway that you want to about any issue, but please don't try to hang it on being a single male. I too am a single male, and I care deeply about the issue.
Even if fanatical anti-abortion xtians think abortionists should die
Several points here. Point #1. Not all of us are christians in the anti-abortion movement. I'm a neo-pagan.
Point #2 Those who advocate violence are not doing so to be punitive, if they were Norma McCorvey (Jane Roe) would be dead, they believe that violence is justified when one is defending the life of a child. I don't think that anyone would dispute that deadly force would have been justified to take out the guy who was shooting kids in that school yard in Stockton CA. They abortion the same way.
Re:I have to agree (Score:2)
Where do you draw the line. Is an action intimidation simply because someone feels intimidated? How long will it be until something that you feel strongly about will be politically unpopular. When will protest pages on the internet that list e-mail addresses be called incitement to mail bomb?
Intimidation is one of the biggest inhibiators of speech!
Being afraid of shame isn't the problem of whoever is exposing the sameful things that you do. Over the course of my life, I've done many things that I'd prefer that people not know about. However, if someone gets the goods on me and chooses to tell all of those things, it's not intimidation regardless of how I feel about it.
Governmental and corporate influence is a far bigger threat to free speech than a list of names.
LK
Re:It isn't about the first at all. (Score:2)
Just can't stand the idea of someone holding a different opinion than yours huh?
LK
Re:Was it John Adams... (Score:3)
Re:I have to agree (Score:2)
I also think it's false to say that the list "puts doctors in clear and present danger." This is because it gives nothing that a telephone book doesn't. It is in some sense the same as the Napster case - people providing an index that could be used for illegal purposes (although non-commmercial copying may not actually be illegal).
I think the list maintainers are evil people - but they have a right to say what they like.
-Dave Turner.
Re:Thank goodness for one calm head (Score:1)
1. I don't believe that you are sorry at all. 2. I do not believe that you should be prosecuted for being a rude person. 3. I have heard all of the "common sense" that i want to hear from people that want others prosecuted for expressing an opinion. I heard it from the so-called right in the 60's and 70's and now I am hearing it from the so-called left.
Whether the site incites people to violence is up for debate, but do you honestly think that its some liberal, atheist, or Satanic conspiracy to shut down the "message?" It doesn't seem more likely to you that they simply don't like the idea of someone keeping a public tally of who's been successfully killed, who we haven't gotten too yet, and who we almost got, but need to go back and finish off?
Conspiracy as in all of these people got together and said "here is our big secret plot to shut down those that do not believe what we do"? No, I certainly do not believe that in the slightest.
I do believe that the individuals involved in the court action, including the judge, were all of the same general belief that I have heard for a number of years around campuses, that the harm of words is in the eye of the harmed. They see the words in the message as the "harm" and do not want anybody saying or writing them.
Taking that to court would fly as well as another recent case, where an author of an "assassains" manual was taken to court as a conspirator to a murder. It did not fly, so these guys took another route, inventing "harm" from a strikethrough text entry.
This is just a twisted extention of that nonsense.
Visit DC2600 [dc2600.com]
Thank goodness for one calm head (Score:2)
However, the problem lies with the people trying to shut the site down because they can not stand any criticism of abortion.
The document does describe abortion as murder. Perhaps this is the message that the folks bringing the charges actually wish to silence?
This topic was on 60 Minets (CBS Network TV) on 15 October, 2000. Another case was mentioned. Someone went to jail for parking a yellow Ryder moving truck in front of an abortion clinic. That was deemed some sort of implied "threat".
I certainly hope when the advocates for the doctors and the state, in both cases, manage to make someone "feel threatened" just because of what they are driving or a view that they hold, that those advocates will just turn themselves in at the local jail and save everybody the trouble of a trial.
There was no act of violence or threat of violence in either case and if you really want to get down to it, the only people, in either case, that were taking any life at all were the doctors when they killed the flesh of the fetus. Whether you consider that "murder", as the web site operators do, or if you just consider it a simple operation, as the doctors and patients do, the fact remains that the only people in these cases that actually destroyed a cell are the doctors.
If anybody actually wants to stop these doctors from being murdered, perhaps they should chase the murderers instead of the webmasters and truck renters?
Visit DC2600 [dc2600.com]
Re:This is what the first amendment was meant for (Score:1)
Wait a minute, I have an idea. Why not put up a web page [bluescreen.org.lu] which lists the names, addresses, license plates, and the kitchen sink of the top level MPAA executives who initiated the suits against DeCSS?
Re:Was it John Adams... (Score:1)
Except for the dripping blood font...
Re:Damn, this is hard (Score:2)
"Well I never told them to go out and kill those darkies. I mean sure I told them about how they were taking jobs away from them and liked to rape their woman and weren't really humans at all... but I never meant for them to go and kill people."
Speech does have context. Try to pretend otherwise but it does. If I walk up to a buddy and say in a cheerful voice "Hey you bastard! What's going on?" it's just two guys greeting each other. But if I say it to someone I don't know in a irrated tone of voice then it's possibly a prelude to a fist fight.
Re:Here is the current link (Score:2)
The kind of information we need is material that will be acceptable in a court of law for identifying the child-killer and for proving the specific kinds of participation that each individual had in aborting children. We need the following:
1) Photos or videotapes of the abortionist, their car, their house, friends, and anything else of interest (as many and as recent as possible);
2) Current and past personal data including date and place of birth, home and business addresses and phone numbers, Social Security numbers, automobile plate numbers, names and birthdates of spouse(s), children and friends; Now why in the world would they want the names and birthdates of spouses, children and friends? Are they expecting to try these people too for something they didn't even do? Goering's family weren't even indicted at Nuremburg (which they're comparing this too) much less tried and he was the second in command of the Third Reich. ?
3) Criminal records, including driving record, mug shots, and fingerprint card;
4) Civil suit record, including informative depositions and divorce file (if any);
5) Affidavits of former employees, former patients, former spouses;
6) Newspaper clippings, news videos;
7) Statements of factual interest from investigators or pro-lifers who have had regular dealings with the abortionist;
8) Contemporaneous notes, journals, or diaries by surveillance workers, sidewalk counselors, or picketers; and
9) Anything else you believe will help identify and convict the abortionist in a future court of law. This one really irritates me. Do they honestly think that they are going to get these guys into a court of law? They're going to have one heck of a time getting a retroactive law into effect. They mean for these people to get the death penalty and it's pretty obvious the only way for this to happen will be if they give it out in their own court of law
We can end the Abortion War if we ram the images of the babies being slaughtered into the minds of every citizen in this nation.
Now I don't think this one needs much explanation. When ever you refer to being at war it's pretty obvious what you're getting at. When you use language like "babies being slaughtered" you're not going for the warm and fuzzy feeling. They are trying to incite rage in their audience and coupled with the names being crossed out, the dripping blood and of course the language it's pretty obvious what they're aiming for. So I will agree with you on one point. No they never flat out say "Go kill some doctors." It's just extremely heavily implied. They may be fanatics but they aren't stupid.
Re:Was it John Adams... (Score:2)
Nope. If they cared as much as they claim they do then why aren't they out there giving these woman help on alternatives to abortion, instead of making veiled threats towards the doctors? How about helping the woman support these children? Why not go the ultimate step and volunteer to adopt and raise these children themselves?
Re:I have to agree (Score:2)
And I agree with you about trying to compare with commercial farms and slaughterhouse to death camps, but how many meat packers do you know that have been gunned down by a animal rights activist? It's all in the context.
Things which you find uncomforatble aren't threats just because you don't want to see them.
Doing my taxes makes me uncomfortable, changing a nasty diaper makes me uncomfortable, the thought of some loons putting up my name and all my vital information on a list with the names of others (and some that have been crossed out because they're murdered)... well that threatens me. And yet again it's all in the context.
Re:I have to agree (Score:3)
Oh really? What about giving out their children's names? That's not listed in the telephone directory. Car tag numbers? Nope, not there either. The information contained on this site was much more then you could get out of a telephone book.
With that in mind the point of this website wasn't really to get someone out there to kill these doctors. It was to get around a existing law without having to get legislation passed. If you have a view point that you want others to adhere to but you can't get it passed into law or have the current law change, why not just frighten the people that are doing what you don't like into stopping? A few doctors get killed because of what they're doing, you put up a site with other doctors information on it and then cross out the dead ones. The one's on the list, and even those off it that are afraid of being put on it, will probably give really serious thought to getting into another line of medicine that doesn't require them to wear body armor and have a body guard. The whole thing is psychological warfare.
This is pretty close to the line of unprotected speech and when it comes right down to it I say they crossed the line on this one. If it had really just been common information available via yellow pages then I would say no, but they gave much more detail then that. If they weren't intending to threaten these people or intimidate them then ask yourself what they were intending when they put this up with dripping blood font and compared it to the Nazi War Crime Trials?
It isn't about the first at all. (Score:2)
If prosecuters can provide a reasonable argument that these these people helped provide criminals with usually hard to get information and provoked them into illegal acts, they're going to go on trial for murder too.
I can't wait to see their upcoming web video of abortions, maybe I'll put up an at home coathanger style abortion and let people decide which one is best for "God's Children."
BTW, the decss comparison sucks and has nothing to do with this case, if computers are all you can relate to then you've got a problem.
Damn, this is hard (Score:2)
My gut feeling tells me that this desicion was correct, while the deCSS desicion was wrong. Why?
I guess the difference lies in the fact that this list was a threat to those doctors freedom (not ot mention life), while deCSS if merely redistributing some cash.
So, the only thing more important than one persons freedom is other peoples freedom.
But, as I said, this isn't easy
Re:I have to agree (Score:2)
Napster allows people to copy other people's files. That may or may not be illegal, depending on the file, the author's permissions, the file's owner's consent, etc. This site incites people to commit murder, which is always illegal. By crossing names off, it provides a sort of reward to the people who commit these crimes.
This isn't about the speech on the site. They can criticize these doctors and their actions without demanding that the doctors be killed.
To paraphrase, this site's right to swing its fist ends at these doctors' noses.
Josh
Re:I have to agree (Score:1)
let's be clear - speech is NOT free (Score:2)
This is (theoretically) a democracy, and we're supposed to have more civilized ways of public discourse than assassination. Or advocating it. It is not and should not be legal to threaten publically the life of another human being or advocate their demise. What sort of pathetic, empty "right" is that? What's the 1st Amendment for, if not the protection of human rights, chief among them the human right to life?
This is not a slippery slope. There are many methods of disagreement and speech. You're still free to disagree with anybody. But democratic states are founded on one principal: We're stronger together than alone. The purpose of a group is to protect its members. We do that with laws. Your right to run your mouth is not more valuable to the group than my right to breath.
speech is NOT free - which is a problem (Score:1)
How do you judiciate where the line is? If you say "Some should kill that Saddam Hussein character before he causes more trouble" people around you will agree or not, but few will say that he deserves to live. Mostly they talk about the problems with killing him - How hard it would be, and that someone would just pop up in their place.
So then, how do you decide who it's okay to say that about? What if someone's dead already? What if you advocate abortion - Is that the same as advocation of a human's demise?
We must protect all speech (Except for things such as threats - I agree that that is assault) because it is so difficult to decide where it should begin and where it should end. Even deciding what is and is not a threat is difficult enough, as evinced by this story.
Advocating someone's demise, then, should not be made illegal. If I want to say "someone ought to kill those automakers who make SUVs, thereby indirectly causing hundreds of deaths and tons of pollution", that should be my right - Whether I believe it, or not. Threatening them should not be; Killing them isn't already. Saying someone should be killed is one thing, and killing someone is another. Unless I actually contracted (or requested) someone to kill someone, I don't think I can really be held accountable (Well, by law maybe, but not by reason) for their death if someone else offs them. I didn't point the gun, and I didn't pull the trigger.
We are supposedly guaranteed the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness above all else. They should be considered in that order as well. In other words, if my liberty or happiness depends on your death, it is not appropriate. (This says some bad things about the death penalty, as well.) But the state has already infringed heavily on our right to pursue joy by illegalizing victimless crimes such as drug use and prostitution (in most places.) People are frequently illegally incarcerated, or their life terminated.
So if you're going to bring that up, you might as well just accept that all speech can be made non-free. I personally don't accept that. I won't defend your right to say any cockamamie thing to the death, because I value my life more than my country, which is probably another thing wrong with the USA today - But I digress. The point is, if we start controlling speech that does not directly harm another, where do we stop? At what point does it become illegal to make negative claims about the RIAA because you could incite someone to violence against them by saying they suck?
The RIAA SUCKS! (I can always hope...)
Re:Thank goodness for one calm head (Score:1)
That conspiracy is called the government, and this isn't the only issue they're guilty of doing the wrong thing on.
Peaceful and violent anti-abortion protesters alike have been arrested. Obviously, some of them deserved it. Some of them didn't. I do agree with the actions of the police when they arrest an entire group when one member of the group gets out of hand, though.
Want to know why? Good, because that's the subject of my next paragraph. To wit, a group is responsible for policing itself. If it does not take this responsibility, then it's the government's job to take over and make sure things stay frosty and cool. The P.D. wants things to run smoothly. Keeping society running smoothly is their job. If you are part of a protest group, and you see someone getting out of hand, it is your responsibility as a member of that group to stop them.
This is why you should be careful who you associate with.
Re:Was it John Adams... (Score:1)
Be careful who you pick to fight your battles for you.
----------
Re:Thank goodness for one calm head (Score:1)
I'm sorry, but will you please pull your head out of your ass for a second so you can hear some sense?
Whether the site incites people to violence is up for debate, but do you honestly think that its some liberal, atheist, or Satanic conspiracy to shut down the "message?" It doesn't seem more likely to you that they simply don't like the idea of someone keeping a public tally of who's been successfully killed, who we haven't gotten too yet, and who we almost got, but need to go back and finish off?
Note: I don't support pulling the site. I'm a huge First Amendment supporter. But to suggest that there's some kind of conspiracy to silence any anti-abortion opinion is just insane.
----------
Re:Damn, this is hard (Score:2)
This is false; it crossed their names off and appended a gloating commentary each time a doctor was killed. The court decided that this was incitement, which seems reasonable.
I have to agree (Score:1)
Anyone who thought that posting a list of abortion doctors saying they commit crimes against humanity, with a group so fervent in doing "God's Work" often enough to kill in cold blood, knew they were creating a hit list. It would be parallel with posting a list of child molestors in a prison wing. After all, you're just warning people who did what crime, which is public knowledge, but people with common sense know how most everyone feels about those who prey on children, especially in prison . . . It's just asking for trouble and doing nothing else.
Just my two cents. I hope the appeal fails. This list puts all doctors in clear and present danger, who appear on it, since it gives away their home addresses.
Dragon Magic [dragonmagic.net]
People's rights (Score:2)
And this list gives much more than names. It gives a list of address of people who perform abortions. Usually you can look in a yellow pages and find the name of a clinic, SOMETIMES finding a doctor's name, but not always. And not all clinics perform abortions. But this site was asking for information like family names and information, license plate numbers, etc.
If you haven't noticed, there are zealots out there killing these "monsters", just because they can or will perform abortions. Giving access easily to personal information, cars they drive, their children, etc., is just asking for trouble. And as such, should be illegal. And this is perfectly in line with the First Admendment.
BTW, notice how the people who say "All speech is protected" get insightfuls in this post, and those who agree that speech which places others in personal harm get no moderation? Where's the priorities?
Dragon Magic [dragonmagic.net]
Comming late to the game (Score:1)
As for the parallels between this and the DeCSS, while both are extremes of the free speech spectrum, it seems this is the only one that would lead to depriving someone of life - as in Life, Liberty, and the persuit of Happiness.
Was it John Adams... (Score:1)
Re:Use Nuremberg Files information for other purpo (Score:1)
that any doctor performing an abortion is not going to be "shamed into a different profession" in fact, most likely they dont CARE at all if someone knows they perform abortions. Get this...they might actually be PROUD of it.
free speech is more robust than you think (Score:1)
i don't care much about abortion, as a single male it's not currently an issue i have any vested interest in one way or another.
I find the ruling at hand to display a dramatic two-facedeness on the part of our governmental bodies considering that many states have now mandated that all local PDs publish names, photos, addresses, and rap sheets for convicted sex offenders.
Legislators believe that these people are so great a danger that we must publicly track their every move.
Living in Texas, I frequently hear people say things like, "Yeah, we otta dew whut th' dee-id in th' ol' wess an' jis shoot th' feelthy basterds..." concerning every class of criminal from murderers down to litterbugs.
So I wonder, if I made a page advocating the death penalty for sex offenders and then linked to the GOVERNMENT-REQUIRED city police websites showing their addresses, names, ages, rap sheets, and photos.... would I be making censorable speech??
Even if fanatical anti-abortion xtians think abortionists should die, and they say, "Ah shur wish somun wud kee-yul them ayborshiniss" -- is it not their inalienable right to support the murder of abortionists, and to publicly say so?
There are some days I get so sick of hearing xtians go on and on about their irrelevant dead jewish guy, that if I had a button that would kill everyone with a fish or Jesus Is LORD! sticker on their car, I would sit on the goddamn thing for hours just to make sure I'd gotten them all.
Like the man's tagline says: "Intolerant people should be shot!"
---
the problem with teens is they're looking for certainties.
the best defense is no defense (Score:1)
You're quite correct. I glossed over quite a bit of my background thoughts to keep the post relatively brief.
What I didn't say is that:
because i am a single white male who chooses not to reproduce, the issue of abortion has less of a direct affect on me. some people believe in an abstracted universal Lady Justice who is watching to make sure the right thing is done by every entity, and is offended if the right thing is not done by any entity. these people tend to feel that it is important for them to keep Lady Justice from ever being offended, whether through action or inaction.
however, i don't subscribe to this notion. My Lady Justice is not abstract -- *I* am she. i have a rather strong need to satisfy my inner concepts of what is (un)acceptable, and if i transgress nobody castigates me more than I do. but fortunately the universe is not my responsibility, so once the act in question leaves my personal sphere, it is not subject to the laws i hold for myself (this is the very essence of sovereignty, personal or patriotic). since i will never be in the position of deciding whether or not i should have an abortion, i choose not to have a strongly-formed opinion because:
1)it's too easy for people to make judgements about how others should/did act in a given situation, and not so easy to truly sympathize with the agonies behind those decisions. i try not to be one of those people. if the decision is not mine to make, nor does it affect me (leaving aside our offense to Abstract Lady Justice), i will keep my goddamn mouth shut. if i (as do we all) can still maintain a very pleasurable life in the face of the thousands of real, everyday people that are being murdered as i type and you read, then surely i can get over the fact that someone, somewhere might be deciding whether or not to have an abortion WITHOUT MY INPUT. [and i'll be honest, when i was younger i did spend a lot of late unrestful nights worrying about the proverbial starving children in Africa. The lyrics to "We are the World" are forever burned into my mind". But after several years i reached a point at which i had to let it go -- to help myself and as many people as seemed possible, but leave the universe to figure Itself out].
2)unless i am facing the situation myself, my opinion of what is right or wrong is stillborn and of little value other than as stimulus for an entertaining debate.
you're right that i have a right to my feelings and can inform others of my opinions. but, thank god, i also have the right to not exercise that right, which is something i rather wish more people would do these days -- everyone thinks that reading a book or watching a "20/20" feature makes them "an informed and empowered member of society". it is my perception that people have confused information with understanding.
Information may want to be free, but Understanding must be paid for through patience, reticence, experience, and empathy.
Several points here. Point #1. Not all of us are christians in the anti-abortion movement. I'm a neo-pagan.
good point. let me restate that as, "Even if some people who are opposed to abortion believe that abortionists should die..." the rest of my thoughts still hold -- i.e. that if person L believes that person C has committed an act that deserves death, i support person L's right to pronounce person C worthy of death both publicly and frequently.
Point #2 Those who advocate violence are not doing so to be punitive, if they were Norma McCorvey (Jane Roe) would be dead, they believe that violence is justified when one is defending the life of a child. I don't think that anyone would dispute that deadly force would have been justified to take out the guy who was shooting kids in that school yard in Stockton CA. They abortion the same way.
this is exactly the issue upon which i based my post.
i wasn't making any statements about the validity of the defense-of-self or defense-of-others line of reasoning. i do find it interesting that our society seems very confused about whether involuntary death is a Good or Bad thing. e.g. those in america who are politically against abortion are usually (not always, but there is a statistical correlation) for the death penalty. Conversely, those who don't feel abortion should be regulated also tend to be against the death penalty. One also used to be able to separate people by their support/opposition of war, but these days conservatives distrust the military as much as liberals despise it.
But why the seeming contradictions? In all cases (Donne's "All whom the flood did, and fire shall o'erthrow / All whom war, dearth, age, agues, tyrannies, / Despair, law, chance hath slain...") the processes of organic matter have been interrupted to the point of termination. In all cases, death has occurred. Yet very, very few people think of themselves as pro-death, whether the justification be "Protection of Society" or "Planned Parenthood".
This is a 'slippery slope' issue, and once you say, "involuntary death is permissible, sometimes even desirable" you lose any credible authority to suggest, "we cannot permit the taking of human life". Otherwise you have to do a lot of ethical gymnastics to qualify why killing is okay. Unfortunately, this is where everything breaks down because, of course, each of us believes that she has the only right set of justifications.
Death and Life are hardly seperable phenomena; one really requires the other, at least in our existence, and it's difficult to take seriously anyone who claims the inviolability of human life while promoting it under a different name.
i think with these clarifications we may agree more than was originally evident.
thanks for responding to my post.
---
the problem with teens is they're looking for certainties.
Re:Thank goodness for one calm head (Score:1)
To the point that feminists for life, catholic priests, libertarians and anarchists all were spied upon, oh my! That is fact not conspiracy, again fact not conspiracy.
(note period above)
Re:Use Nuremberg Files information for other purpo (Score:1)
Excerpted from their site
There is a common stereotype that all pro-lifers support radical acts of violence. This simply is not true and we are here to represent the majority of pro-lifers who do not support violence. We firmly believe that violence and abuse have no place in the pro-life movement. The misguided extremists who take part in clinic bombings and abortionist shootings are not supported by mainstream pro-lifers and do not speak for us. Violence is contrary to what the pro-life movement stands for and hurts our cause. The extremists who have embarrassed the movement and damaged its credibility disappoint us.
We challenge those who unfairly perpetuate the stereotype of pro-lifers as violent to recognize that allowing this stereotype to continue benefits no one. It makes the minority of violent radicals believe they have more support for their actions than they truly do, encouraging them in their activities. It stifles constructive dialogue on common ground issues such as lowering the demand for abortion.
We also challenge those who promote/engage in violent activities in the name of "life" to find peaceful means of expressing the pro-life message. We recognize that, as pro-lifers, it is our duty to educate others about abortion with patience and kindness, rather than continuing the cycle of loss and violence that abortion initiates. There are better ways.
Re:I have to agree (Score:2)
The following is a somewhat objective site on this very matter. Planned Parenthood vs. American Coalition of Life Activists Trial Transcripts and Documents [lektrik.com]
Here is the current link (Score:2)
show me where on this site that they specifically say "Go kill you some doctors"
Chris Welsh
Anarchists for Life
http://www.mindspring.com/~anarchsforlife/afl.htm
Re:Damn, this is hard (Score:1)
"Directly" as in "you people go now and kill these murderers"? No. But it did provide them the motivation, and the information needed for those who wanted to hurt those doctors. It doesn't take a genius to see the consequences of encouraging people to take care of things, and then giving them the tools (info) to do it.
Besides, I dont recall the owner of the website putting his own name, address and personal information on it. Was he being a coward? Defending his right to privacy? Didn't think no one wanted to know his personal details?(I could be mistaken about it, tho. It's been long, and they pulled the website already)
I am not a citizen of the USA, but while Im in favor of Free Speech as a rule, Im a stronger believer in the Rights to Privacy. By posting something that wasn't avaliable to the general public, the doctors' rights to privacy were violated.
Just my 2 cents worth...
Re:I have to agree (Score:1)
At issue is a Web site called "The Nuremberg Files" that listed hundreds of abortion doctors accused of committing "crimes against humanity" and invited readers to send in doctors' addresses, license plate numbers and even the names of their children. " (4th paragraph of the AP article)
I don't know about you, but last time I checked a telephone book I couldn't find out my license plate numbers, nor when I checked my parent's listing in the phone book could I find out my name, hell, sometimes I can't even find an address for a phone number.
As much as I believe in free speech I just can't seem to find a way to justify this. If they had merely posted a list of the doctors who performed abortions I would have no problem, but to me posting the names along with the addresses & phone numbers (both home and clinic), children's names, license plate numbers, etc of these people does present a "clear and present danger" both to them and their family, especially since its presented with the (implied) message that "someone should kill these guys", while knowing full well that some people are perfectly willing to kill people who provide abortions.
IANAL but to me that is not free speech, to me that is closer to conspiracy to commit murder. Or perhaps it would be better to compare it to handing out a listing of the addresses of blacks, asians,and other minorities to someone you know is a white supremisict (sp?), you know that it'`s quite likely he/she will do something, does that mean you should not take any responsability for it?
-GreenHell
Re:Comming late to the game (Score:2)
Also included in the site was any information they could get people to send them about the listed people - up to and including home address,license plate #'s, children's names, schools & pictures, social security #s...etc. They encouraged people to essentially stalk doctors by following them around, taking pictures of them, their homes & cars, and digging up any info they could to send to the Nuremburg Files...
I'm pretty rabidly in favor of free speech, but I think this amounts to invasion of privacy and an implicit threat to the doctors' & nurses' lives & families.
Then again, I used to check that list worriedly fairly often for names I knew...
Re:let's be clear - speech is NOT free (Score:1)
Re:People's rights (Score:1)
I must admit that I noticed this as well. All of these posts were "below your threshold", but I read them because I could not agree with the "all speech is protected" attitude. I'm afraid that people who need to read this side of the argument are not going to because they are not being modded up.
Is it perhaps the desire not to look like a hypocrite? "Well, if I say that this website was bad and this ruling was wrong, do I ruin all the inroads we're trying to make for DeCSS?" No way! Owning blueprints for a bomb and suggesting the annihilation of an "undesirable" population with that bomb (including a list of where to get the materials, turn-by-turn directions for finding the population, and a check-list of your progress) are not the same thing. IANAL, but the former I'd consider to be freedom of speech... the latter I'd assuredly call harmful and, therefore, illegal.
Not that anyone will ever read my comments, since this is my very first post and will automatically have a low score.