"Nuremberg Files" Decision Overturned

PeterMiller writes "ABC News is running a story on a US federal appeal court that threw out a record $109 million verdict against anti-abortion rights activists. From the article: 'If defendants threatened to commit violent acts, by working alone or with others, then their [works] could properly support the verdict,' Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski wrote. 'But if their [works] merely encouraged unrelated terrorists, then their words are protected by the First Amendment.' My question is, what does this do to every other lawsuit claiming a website, movie, video game or song lead someone to a violent act?" Readers may recall that this case involved an anti-abortion website which published the names and addresses of doctors who provided abortion services, and cheered whenever one of them was killed. Our previous stories are here and here. The Appeals Court's opinion reviews the history of the case, and the finding that the statements on the website were not true threats under U.S. law and were thus protected speech. There used to be a number of mirrors of the site available - most of them seem to have disappeared, but this one is still up, minus the lists of doctors.

Comments

Re:The Importance of Freedom of Speech

[DunbarTheInept]

Good point. There should be a mod category for "Where the hell did that come from?"

Re:This is about responsibilty.

[DunbarTheInept]

You misunderstood the logic. The court is drawing a line between TELLING someone to commit a crime and merely providing information that was then later used to commit a crime. If the website in question had ever said "Go kill these guys" THEN it would be in the same class as Charles Manson.

Re:Unfortunate decision

[William Tanksley]

and I totall disagree with you - the only reason the pro-lifers are willing to go so far as to kill someone they disagree with is BECAUSE they are fundamentalist christians.

That's preposterous. Millions of people have killed for less reasons when they weren't fundies; I'd be willing to bet that most of the people who killed abortion doctors didn't do so because they opposed abortion, but rather because they were angry at the doctor for some other reason.

I wouldn't be surprised if some of them were pro-aborts who were angry at the doctor for performing an abortion on their wife or daughter without their "permission" or something -- or who were shocked at the grief trauma their wife was going through after they (the husband) forced her to get an abortion.

Forced abortions are all too common. Too many people still see abortion as less stigmatising than pregnancy.

-Billy

Re:Unfortunate decision

[William Tanksley]

All your rudeness aside:

I agree. Even if my posting were entirely correct (and I assert that it almost certainly is), it FAR from excuses the fundies who HAVE killed abortion doctors. In fact, it EMPHASISES their guilt. They're blatant hypocrites, and my message DEFINITELY was in error in not calling them on that.

Now, put your rudeness back in:

I disagree. I'm not spewing shit, I'm telling it like it is. The simple fact that you hate christians and disagree with them doesn't make them ALL murderers, and it doesn't remove any guilt from anyone else.

Back On Topic: I believe that this judgement was a mistake. "Free Speech" is intended to be political speech, not violence or personal slams; this ruling does NOTHING to protect free speech. I believe the list was properly shut down, since it was NOT a political expression, but rather was a reckless endangerment and a violation of privacy.

-Billy

Re:ACLU Non-Partisian

[Phillip Birmingham]

This was fought tooth and nail by that bastion of non-partisian free speach advocates the ACLU right?

I don't know -- should we go see what they say, or just keep guessing?

From a press release concerning the original verdict, which you'd have found if you had let a thought get past the medulla oblongata, and actually gone to look:

The ACLU of Oregon believes that the safety of the physicians and clinic workers who provide abortion services can be protected without compromising the fundamental protections of free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment. Our involvement as a friend of the court in this case has been designed to help the court find the appropriate line between protected and unprotected speech under our Constitution. We will continue to play that role as this case moves forward.

...

Prior to trial, we argued that the Court should have adopted a stricter constitutional standard in this case to distinguish between unlawful threats and protected speech. We still believe the jury should have been asked to determine whether the evidence showed that the defendants intended to threaten these abortion providers.

BTW -- there's no "a" in "speech" and only two "m"s in "amendment". Hope this helps.

Re:ACLU Non-Partisian

[sheldon]

Actually it was the Nazi Party who wished to march in Skokie back in '76 I believe.

The reason why it is more signifigant that the Nazi Party wanted to march and not the KKK is because Skokie is a heavily Jewish populated suburb of Chicago.

Re:ACLU Non-Partisian

[sheldon]

"Call your local Police or FBI office and tell them you plan on killing the President. Then count how long until you door is busted down and you're hauled off in handcuffs. "

Oh heck just send an email to whitehouse.gov

It takes about three days before they come to talk with you.

When I was working at a University back in around '94 or so we had a high school kid come into the public labs and sent off such an email.

Silly kid didn't think that the public labs have video cameras in them... He got a stern lecture by the secret service, but they didn't haul him away in handcuffs.

I don't know about this...

[Millennium]

If any websites could be said to encourage terrorism, it's these sites. I'm pro-life myself, but terrorism just plain goes too far. I don't see how the Appeals Court could possibly be blind enough to see that this site wasn't encouraging violence against these doctors.

And even if they weren't encouraging violence against said doctors, their lists were a marked privacy violation. I very much doubt those doctors were asked if their personal information could be put up on the Web. That's another count against it, perhaps far more damning.

However, I suppose there's an upside to this. If this one managed to get through the court system, then I don't see how any site could fail to get through it in the future. Or, to put it another way, if they'll defend this, they're likely to defend anything.
----------

"pro-choice" more accurate than "pro-abortion"

[isaac]

Those calling themselves "anti-abortion" have defined themselves by what they are against - the act of abortion.

Those calling themselves "pro-choice" have defined themselves by what they are for - the right of a woman to choose whether or not to carry a child to term.

"Pro-life", while not inherently descriptive, has become shorthand for "in favor extending the legal definition of human life as beginning at conception, and of extending the attendant rights and protections to the zygote/embryo/fetus at that point". I'm not a fan of this term, because it's less precise than "anti-abortion".

I could see the term "pro-abortion" being used accurately to describe those who favor the act of abortion itself - the only example I can think of would be forced abortion/sterilization that has taken place in parts of China as population control measures.

Of course, many from each side like to tar the other with terms like "pro-abortion" (inaccurate insofar as "pro-choice" != "pro-abortion"; it's not about the act of abortion but about the decision to carry a child to term belonging to the woman carrying it.), "anti-life" (who would describe themselves as "anti-life"? This is just the classic semiotic game of attempting to redefine your opponent's position through loaded words with multiple connotative/denotative meanings.), or "anti-choice" (a favorite of some on the "pro-choice" camp. Technically accurate, inasmuch as an abortion ban removes choice, but similarly loaded as in the last example).

I'm wasting a lot of wind here, so I'll recap:

• anti-abortion = opposed to the act of abortion
• pro-choice = supporting a woman's right to choose whether or not to carry a child in her own body to term
• pro-abortion = in favor of the act of abortion, advocating the act itself

Make sense?

-Isaac

Re:Freedom of speech and privacy

[Art Tatum]

Whilst I agree wholeheartedly with the concept of free speech, surely the line has to be drawn when that speech includes personal information, such as somebody's address ?

This would be called a phone book.

Re:This is about responsibilty.

[SEE]

George W. Bush is a murderer, having ordered air strikes that killed innocent people in Iraq. He lives at 1600 Pennslyvania Avenue, Washington DC.

Okay, now if anybody kills Bush, I'm partly responsible, because I said that he's a murderer and where he lives, right?

Steven E. Ehrbar

Re:This is about responsibilty.

[Bob McCown]

Look at Switzerland, every male over 18 is required by law to have an assault rifle in the house, and they have a really low crime rate

Do you have any statistics to back this claim up, or even a place that will tell me if the gun ownership is really a law? This smacks of an Urban Legend.

Re:This is about responsibilty.

[Bob McCown]

Yea, I did a bit of digging, and found out a few interesting facts. Yes, they are required by law to own a gun, and 75 rounds of issued ammunition. Its checked every year. BUT, even given that law, 18% of Swiss households have a gun in them, compared to 29%. Odd...

Re:Unfortunate decision

[scrytch]

> He loves you and wants to have a relationship with you.

Prove it.

--

Re:Unfortunate decision

[scrytch]

Do you think I care about your works of fiction?
--

Re:Unfortunate decision

[scrytch]

Prove there isn't a rhinocerous in the other room.
--

Re:This is about responsibilty.

[Barbarian]

Japanese cinema is loaded with violence, yet there is little overall violence in Japan.

Indeed. And there doesn't seem to be an increase in tentacle sex crimes in Japan, even though tentacle rape hentai is readily available.

A tale of two rulings

[kzinti]

Much as I despise these right-wing wackos, I love my First Amendment even more. So I'm pleased that the court would defend it.

Something more that interests me is what happens when you consider this ruling in light of another one covered here on /. not too long ago in this story:

http://slashdot.org/yro/01/02/26/1622248_F.shtml

And the CNET article referenced from the Slashdot discussion:

http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-4930756.html? tag=nbs

The gist of the story is that the high school students published satire aimed at his high school principal on his own time, and on a web site entirely independent of the school. When the school district tried to punish the student, he sued and won. The court ruled that the school had no jurisdiction over the student's speech rights as practiced on his own time and his own equipment. And rightly so. You high school kids still have some speech rights in the eyes of the courts.

Now consider today's case, in which the court said that the anti-abortion speech is protected, including the "hit lists", so long as the speech doesn't directly threaten to commit violent acts. Wow. Juxtapose this case against the high school case from some weeks ago and tell me what you see.

How long is it going to be until we hear about some high school kid publishing a hit list on his personal web site? I thinking here of a list a teachers, administrators, bullies, and the like... of course, this kind of thing is probably happening already, but now it's protected. Are more kids going to start doing this kind of thing? How will the school districts react? Will they continue to suspend and expel... or will they just call the police?

It's a fascinating situation. It's great that speech rights on the Internet are seeing some protection, especially for students, but I'm wondering how these new protections are going to be interpreted by today's high school kids, and what the repercussions are going to be when they start pushing the envelope with them.

--Jim

Re:A tale of two rulings

[Dirtside]

Publishing a "hit list" (with, I assume, the implied or express intent or desire to cause the list members harm) is different from simply publishing a list of people you don't like, including information like their home address, phone numbers, etc.

Encouraging harassment or violence against these people should be illegal, but what's the difference between a simple list with no other information (but one posted by someone who hates the people on the list) and an identical list posted by someone who is simply trying to provide a directory of contacts? I *understand* what the difference is, but legally, unless you can prove that the person has intent to commit harm or harassment against the people on the list, there's no difference.

This is of course separate to the issue of, should it be legal to publish someone's private personal information (home address and telephone numbers, for example) without their permission? Yes, you have a right to free expression; don't I have a right to privacy? (Apparently not, in this country...)

Re:A tale of two rulings

[rgmoore]

It depends on the hit list. If it were a list specifically saying "I want to kill these people", it would probably not be protected- especially if a search of his home turned up any additional evidence of plans and/or ability to carry out their murders. If it were a list of "Bullies and Worthless People at My School" it should (by analogy with this abortion ruling) be perfectly fine. Of course that's only in theory. In practice, the author might very well be arrested for making threats, have his home searched, his computer and anything vaguely weaponlike in his home seized, and his life made generally miserable. Even if he eventually won a lawsuit defending his right to publish such a list that would be small consolation for the suffering he experienced. Vindication may be something, but it's not as good as never being accused in the first place.

This is a vital case

[Thagg]

I applaud the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals for this courageous decision. It must have been very hard for them to separate their disgust for the Neandertals who run the site from their respect for the principles of the First Amendment. I don't think that the courts can make value judgments on speech without degenerating into the worst form of censorship.

The cure for bad speech is truly more speech. This ruling will make it much harder to quash unpopular or politically incorrect speech, which is great. Kudos, again, to the 9th Circuit!

thad

Media bias in the headline...

[killbill]

And whilst I'm burning Karma anyway... anyone notice the headline contradicts the story?

Headline: Court: Abortion Threats OK

From 2nd paragraph: "If defendants threatened to commit violent acts, by working alone or with others, then their [works] could properly support the verdict," Cricuit Judge Alex Kozinski wrote (typo theirs, judge describing why the verdict against the site was not supported)

Well, which is it? Does the AP writer have an agenda here? That's a pretty big mistake to make on a headline... they are starting to look like slashdot :)

Bill

The simple solution

[OWJones]

The simple solution to all this is to post all possible private information about the owners of the site. If they want the first amendment, they can have it, just as long as they realize the consequences.

NOTE: I consider myself to be a big advocate of the Bill of Rights. I think even the KKK should be able to adopt a highway or hold a rally, regardless of the hate, provided the hate is not a direct call to arms with specific wheres and hows. It's one thing to post the postal (or even home) addresses of congressmen if you want a bill to pass or not. It's another thing to get a child's school schedule and address, and praise people when that kid's parent is killed on the way to pick up that child. The site was a clear "Here's where you need to go and when" for attackers.

-jdm

This is disturbing

[Ravenscall]

Mainly because, if I follow this correctly, merely saying you are going to harm or kill somebody constitutes a crime.

I have said this many times, and never really meant it considering I have yet to off anybody, but the truly disturbing implication here, especially under the threat of workplace shootings and whatnot, If I were to say it now, I could be prosecuted.

This sounds suspiciously like a police state.

Re:This is disturbing

[rgmoore]

Mainly because, if I follow this correctly, merely saying you are going to harm or kill somebody constitutes a crime.

Good thing you don't follow it correctly, then. The law was intended to illegalize inciting violence against people. There's already case law showing that there is not a free speech right to incite violence (e.g. inciting riot), so in theory nothing is lost through this law. Similarly, there is no law against making a casual claim about doing violence ("My coworkers make me so angry sometimes I want to kill them"), but making a credible threat of violence against somebody (shaking a fist and saying, "Shut up or I'll pound you") is alread illegal (assault). The issue in this case is whether simply listing peoples' names and what they've done wrong is actually inciting violence (not protected) or just expressing an opinion (protected). AFAIK the site carefully avoided explicit calls for any specific action against the listed doctors but did use various suggestive tactics like putting their faces on wanted posters. The defendants won on the narrow grounds that their site was not actually inciting violence but did not challenge the underlying constitutionality of the law.

Re:This is disturbing

[Dyolf Knip]

Well, just because we're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't actually out to get us.

Besides, a lot of people couldn't care less about something like this, so someone has to take up the apathy slack.

--

Re:Freedom of speech and privacy

[Lord Kano]

Most of the information that was published on the Nuremberg Files webpage was available through the yellow & white pages.

It's not like they were saying "He usually eats lunch at McDonalds at 11:45 am, the McDonalds is located at 1121 Main Street, and the overlapping police patrols are 12 minutes apart..."

This was an assault on free speech, Pure and simple. If this had been a site run by HCI and gave the same type of details about gun dealers do you think that there would have been any lawsuit?

LK

Re:This doesn't seem to apply to /. concerns...

[Lord Kano]

One's a tool to perfectly good program that will let you view your own DVDs on your own computer, the other is a tool and encouragement for illegal action.

So, peaceful protest is now illegal?

LK

Re:Unfortunate decision

[Lord Kano]

Whether you are pro or anti choice.

Your bias is showing.

I should hope we can all agree that using gestapo tactics to scare physicians by posting their addresses, names of spouses and children, phone numbers, children's schools and so on is just plain wrong

Gestapo tactics implies secret, covert, or untraceable means of persuasion. Neal Horsley made it known who he was, and what his agenda was. I think that the website was less about intimidation than it was about shame. It was about trying to make pariahs out of these "doctors". I'm not going to invite Dr. Slepian to my Labor Day barbecue if I know what type of OB/GYN he is. No, you're not going to get invited to my kids' birthday parties if you make a living by killing children.

If we happen to attend the same church, I'm not going to sit beside you. I'm not going to do business with people who do business with you.

Having a right to privacy is not the same as having a right to anonymity.

The people who wrote this site clearly intend that the doctors on the list be targeted for murder assault, and harassment

I suppose that depends on how you define harassment. If you mean, refusing to do business with, or letting others know how someone makes his living, or cutting off contact with, I suppose that could be one of the intents.

LK

Re:Safety versus Speech...

[Lord Kano]

People died because of it.

No, people died because there are some people among us who feel that using force to accomplish their goals is acceptable regardless of what the law says.

I am 100% in favor of Neal Horsley and the Nuremberg Files web page, and I am against unnecessary use of violence as well. There is no contradiction. Let people say whatever they want, but when you commit murder, you cross the line.

LK

Re:OT: Use of the "Anti-Abortion"

[Lord Kano]

Sadly the bulk of people who call themselves pro-life are shown by their actions to really be anti-choice.

If you want to stretch the logic that far, we can call you anti-choice as well. You're opposed to allowing people the choice of what to put on their web pages.

You are anti-choice. I am pro-choice because I think that Neal Horsley should be allowed to choose what he puts on his web page.

LK

Re:What about the rights of the victims

[Lord Kano]

What about the right to privacy of the people who were killed?

Too bad they advertise their services in telephone directories huh? How can you advertise your services in one place, but demand to not be listed in another? These people are roaches in the kithcen who do not want the lights turned on.

What concerns me here about this website is not that they were happy when ppl were killed, but that they must have followed people around and stalked them to procure such information, thus violating their right to privacy.

You have a right to privacy, not a right to anonymity. Horsley would have been wrong if he planted hidden cameras in their homes, or bugged their cars or offices, but as I said, you have no right to anonymity.

LK

Re:Unfortunate decision

[Lord Kano]

I consider phone calls every night at three in the morning for an hour harassment.

I consider people threatening to sue me for speaking freely to be harassment.

the fact is, this is not about you and your church not doing business with this person, because clearly you won't.

Our society has a right to know who they are, so that we can make a decision whether or not to do business or associate with them.

If you want abortion to be illegal, join our system, and convince more then 50% that it is wrong. Don't do it by killing people, harassing them, and going outside the law.

In order to legalize abortion, the left didn't do this. They got an activist court to legislate from the bench. How can you demand that we go about doing this in this way, when you side didn't?

LK

I have a little Karma to burn off.

[Lord Kano]

You so called "pro-choice" people who are opposed to free speech are an enigma to me.

You are in favor of people doing something that definately causes the death of a human, but are opposed to people doing something that maybe, might have, could have, encourged someone else to cause the death of a human.

If this were 150 years ago and a slave had risen up and killed his master, you assholes would be saying "But slavery is legal! That nigger should have taken the whipping like he was supposed to!"

And we, the abolitionists, would have said "But Mandingo is a human being who was defending himself."

You would have responded "You republican kooks just don't get it, keep your laws off of our slaves!"

Give me a fucking break! The Nuremberg Files web page had the stated goal of compiling information about abortion providers so that in the future if and when abortion becomes illegal they can be prosecuted for crimes against humanity. Do you know what the Nuremberg Trials were? In Nazi occupied europe it was legal to murder millions of jews, gypsies, homosexuals, and political opponents of the Nazis, but they committed crimes against humanity.

You're not "pro-choice" you're "pro-abortion", if you were truly "pro-choice" you'd be fighing for free universal birth control. You only desire to have an out for your own irresponsibility. You want to be able to punish children for your mistakes.

This is an issue of the politically correct thought police wanting to silence people who disagree with them.

If PETA had a web page that listed beef distributors and their personal information, there would be no outrage. You wouldn't see all of these liberals screaming that they're inciting violence.

LK

Re:I have a little Karma to burn off.

[Lord Kano]

If you're trying to equate a woman's body with what was essentially considered a matter of property laws, then prostitution should be legal.

Yes. Why should it be illegal to sell something that it's perfectly fine to give away?

IIRC, it wasn't that the list listed all these people, but that the names of the murdered doctors and patients were crossed off the list (as opposed to being deleted). It took on the air of a checklist.

As well as patients who died from complications from botched abortions. Are you going to say that they incide abortion providers to commit malpractice?

Pro-choicers do want birth control, and tend to consider abortion as a worst-case scenario.

Why is it a worst case scenario? Maybe because even they too know that it's wrong?

The pro-lifers tend to be religiously driven, and are hence the ones anti-contraceptive.

I'm a neo pagan, there are many people who draw their opposition to abortion from sources other than religion. I keep a bix box of condoms next to my bed. Granted, I may not get to use them as often as I'd like, 2-3 per week is enough for now. Pro contraception, pro innocent life.

Besides, laws don't work that way. If something becomes illegal, it's only illegal after the point it was passed. If it didn't work that way, can you imagine how may people would be in jail after they raised the minimum drinking age to 21?

Ex post facto only applies to the laws of the US. As I said before elsewhere in this thread, it was perfectly legal for the Nazis to murder 12-13 million people in Nazi occupied europe. That didn't stop them from being tried for crimes against humanity by an international tribunal. HELLO! Nuremberg Files-Nuremberg Trials, that is the Creator's Rights party's goal. To eventually have abortion doctors tried for crimes against humanity by internation tribunal.

30 million dead babies would seem to justify that.

On the other hand, animal rights people tend not to build pipe bombs. And, again, the issue wasn't the list itself, but how the murder victims were "check off."

So anti-hunters have never done anything violent? The greenies have never spiked trees to stop logging?

In general, looking at your utter confusion, I hope you're in the half of US citizens that don't vote...

I voted for Bush, and unless by some miracle Buchanan or Keyes gets the republican nomination in 2004, I'm voting for Bush again.

LK

Re:I have a little Karma to burn off.

[Lord Kano]

We like abortion because we are a democratic nation where the majority rules.

Roe V. Wade did not become case law because of a majority of the population supporting it, it because case law because a majority of 9 judges supported it.

Where is your proof that most of the members of our society are in favor of abortion on demand?

Lastly, the constitution is designed to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

You don't need freedom of religion, if you're a WASP. You don't need freedom of speech if you only talk about how great the current administration is. You don't need to keep and bear arms if you live in a GREAT neighborhood where police response time is under 3 minutes.

LK

Re:I have a little Karma to burn off.

[Lord Kano]

>>Ummm....prove that.

I don't have to prove it. It is a true statement, Roe V. Wade was decided because of the votes of 9 justices, they did not consider the feelings on the majority of Americans.

>>Besides, if any elected official even tries to restrict abortion in this country, he/she will seriously jeopardize their chances at re-election due to the fact that women are the majority when it comes to voting.

A majority of women in this country are pro life. Since they carry the babies, they know better wen we do that they are alive.

Whether or not a politician risks his job depends on where s/he's from. Someone from pennsylvania who does, isn't in too much trouble. Someone from California who tries will get lynched. All depends on the politics of your state.

>>Personally, I think abortion is a private issue and should be left up to the couples, not the politicians.

I respect your right to hold any opinion, even if it is a stupid one. Do you also think that euthanizing old people who are no longer useful is a private issue that should be left up to families and not politicians?

If not, why not?

LK

Re:I have a little Karma to burn off.

[Lord Kano]

>>Abortion is legal, murder is not.

Slavery WAS legal. Wifebeating WAS legal. Raping your wife if she didn't consent WAS legal. Since when does legaliy have anything to do with morality?

>>I can't believe this is *still* an issue in the US,

Slavery was an issue in the USA for nearly 100 years. ( and a couple hundred before the country existed on this continent)

>>the Christian Right is alive and well and trying to push their agenda on to everyone.

That is a lie. I am a neo-pagan, there are athiests and agnostics that are just as pro life as any christian, how to you explain them?

Re:Unfortunate decision

[Lord Kano]

EVERYONE knows the real reason this site exists, and it is NOT business relations.

Just because you feel threatened doesn't mean that you are threatened.

Umm - excuse me, but last I looked, the court system was a part of our government. What using the courts to give us our rights back is worse then using harassment and murder to take them away again?

What was that you said about convincing over 50% of the population that I am right? That's not how Roe V. Wade became case law.

LK

Re:Unfortunate decision

[Lord Kano]

hell, you probably already did with our braindead president.

You mean the president who has appointed the most diverse cabinet in american history?

somehow I think that you probably do think that it is justified to kill doctors who do things you don't like, but you won't embarass yourself by stating that here.

Unlike most of you pro aborts, I'm very careful about who I have sex with. Being the only chick at the bar who said yes isn't good enough for me.

I wouldn't be with a woman who would murder my child. Even if if you would.

Since you bring it up, I DO think it's appropriate to shame and embarass abortion providers to attempt to sway them away from the practice.

LK

Re:Unfortunate decision

[Lord Kano]

It's not about ME or YOU, it's about the woman

It's about the baby.

Do you have to carry the baby?

So then you concede that it is a baby.

Do you have to get stuck in the situation of having to drop out of school because you ahve to care for a child? Perhaps permanently sitting you on the welfare role?

Have you ever heard of adoption?

DO YOU OR DO YOU NOT THINK THAT KILLING ABORTION DOCTORS IS AN ACCEPTABLE THING?

Though I would never do it myself because I believe it to be murder, I can't tell other people whether or not they should do it. How can I impose my morals and judgements on other people?

Sound familiar?

LK

Re:The judges are right

[Lord Kano]

You go tell what you said right there to my friend who was raped when she was 15 and put the child up for adoption.

Even those of us who are opposed to abortion have little problem in the case of rape or incest. However those only acount for 4-6% of all abortions in the US annually. It's a red herring that the pro abortion people use to try to muddy the water.

And how her boyfriend dumped her 3 weeks after the condom broke and she got pregnant.

And her baby should be punished for this because?

I'm off to start a website advocating the murder of anyone who is stupid enough to believe in "god".

Where on the Nuremberg Files web site did they advocate doing harm to anyone? Have you ver even seen the site?

LK

Here is the site in question

[Lord Kano]

This is the original Nuremberg Files list of abortion doctors.

http://www.christiangallery.com/atrocity/aborts. ht ml

Have a look for yourself.

Re:Unfortunate decision

[Lord Kano]

>>You cannot claim a moral high ground if you're using the same tactics as your opposition. You must be above them in *all* respects.

Not true, I'm going to take a little shortcut here. The US was able to take the moral high ground over Nazi Germany in WW2. The US was still waist deep in racism, sexism, and religious bigotry, but we weren't hearding people into gas chambers.

>>Looking at abortion doctors accused of murder, and activists accused of murdering the doctors, I can't tell the difference.

Let me help you. The doctors are the ones who kill children.

LK

Unfortunate decision

[HunterD]

I find this to be a very unfortunate decision. The people who are running this site are doing so as a direct attempt to scare people away from offering legal reproductive services. Whether you are pro or anti choice, I should hope we can all agree that using gestapo tactics to scare physicians by posting their addresses, names of spouses and children, phone numbers, children's schools and so on is just plain wrong.

The people who wrote this site clearly intend that the doctors on the list be targeted for murder assault, and harassment. I personally feel that this invokes the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" clause - these people's very lives are in danger because of this web page.

Hopefully the supreme court will overturn this, and won't pat these domestic terrorists on the head, and approve the ability for people to create on-line hit lists.

Re:Unfortunate decision

[HunterD]

No, of course picketing of corperations shouldn't be stopped. Heck - people who want to picket at abortion clinics should not be stopped (though i do support bubble laws).

The difference lies in three places:

1. Many of these people were actually unlisted.
2. People generally don't picket at the houses of the corperate officers - they picket at the offices. There is no need for these people to be circulating private addresses.
3. People generally don't go killing CEOs because they are upset about corperate policy. People DO kill doctors who provide abortion services.

the third one is really the important one. When an environemental group compiles a list of corperate offices to picket do they cross off the names of people related to those companies that have been murdered? No. Do the Nuremburg people do this? Yes.

Don't forget that three doctors have been shot shortly after being added to that list. I know correlation does not prove causation -> but there is deffinitly enough correlation to make one wonder....

Re:Unfortunate decision

[HunterD]

Sure, and I suppose that we should deputise them all too, so they can legally hunt abortion doctors.

and I totall disagree with you - the only reason the pro-lifers are willing to go so far as to kill someone they disagree with is BECAUSE they are fundamentalist christians.

where else would they learn to be so judgemental of other people as to believe that they have the right to richously desend upon these doctors as if they were the avenging angel micheal himself.

do your homework - ALL of the people who have murdered abortion doctors are fundies, ALL of them.

Re:Unfortunate decision

[HunterD]

I think it's clear that the site was about pushing people to use any terrorist tactics that they have at their disposal to try and stop these people.

I certainly consider taking pictures of the doctor, his children, and his wife and then mailing them to the doctor to be harassment.

I consider phone calls every night at three in the morning for an hour harassment.

I consider driving past a person's house constantly with binoculars to be at least suspisious.

the fact is, this is not about you and your church not doing business with this person, because clearly you won't. It is about people like Neal Horsley and perhaps yourself (I don't know) using any means necessary to harass and murder these people out of what they do.

If you want abortion to be illegal, join our system, and convince more then 50% that it is wrong. Don't do it by killing people, harassing them, and going outside the law.

Re:Unfortunate decision

[HunterD]

I consider people threatening to sue me for speaking freely to be harassment.

Oh - that's a good one. You think that to get people who are targeting your family, friends, children for harassement, and possible murder to be LESS damaging then to sue the person who started it.

that's fscking hilerious

Our society has a right to know who they are, so that we can make a decision whether or not to do business or associate with them.

Oh, so suddenly knowing children's names, and the residence of these people is necessary to not doing business? unless you are a door to door salesman I don't buy it. Even if you are, you would be the one intruding. Face it - you are trying to come up with bullshit excuses so that people can continue to use this site as an accomplice to murder. EVERYONE knows the real reason this site exists, and it is NOT business relations.

In order to legalize abortion, the left didn't do this. They got an activist court to legislate from the bench. How can you demand that we go about doing this in this way, when you side didn't?

Umm - excuse me, but last I looked, the court system was a part of our government. What using the courts to give us our rights back is worse then using harassment and murder to take them away again?

Re:Unfortunate decision

[ethereal]

The people who are running this site are doing so as a direct attempt to scare people away from offering legal reproductive services. Whether you are pro or anti choice, I should hope we can all agree that using gestapo tactics to scare physicians by posting their addresses, names of spouses and children, phone numbers, children's schools and so on is just plain wrong.

I'm unaware of any right to not be made afraid because of the things people say about you, especially if they're true. Should it be illegal for people to let on that you have a nice watch since you walk home through a bad neighborhood every day? I wouldn't be thrilled either if it was my name on that web site, but I can't complain too hard if the information could have been retrieved by anyone with a few hours to spare.

I'm not a rabid pro-life supporter, but I don't see why posting publicly-available information in any forum should be illegal. Information is a tool; it's neither good nor bad and just possessing knowledge neither hurts nor hinders anyone's life. It's what you do with the knowledge that counts, and I do agree that anyone who uses such info to harm abortion providers or their families should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. But muzzling information just because "someone might get hurt" is a bad justification IMHO.

Re:Unfortunate decision

[anomaly]

I am a Christian who strongly opposes abortion.
What these people are doing is definitely wrong. God would not support their efforts.

I do understand their line of thinking - even though they are wrong in what they are doing.

Here's what they are probably thinking:
a) Abortion=murder
b) murder=wrong
c) this murderer kills dozens of babies
d) the law protects the doctor - and the doctor makes a profit.
e) The doctor should be stopped because murdering the doctor means fewer overall murders.

I agree with the first statement - because life begins at conception.

This idea used to be shot down by the theory that we evolve in the womb.
Now we know that all of the necessary genetic information that makes you "you" and me "me" is present and complete when the sperm enters the egg.

As such, science supports the idea of life beginning at conception.

(didja ever notice that planned parenthood never mentions the idea of 'baby' when they run their ads? Their latest campaign only mentions 'choice' and 'rights.' They don't want to mention 'baby' because it undermines their position to acknowledge the personhood of the one being sucked into a sink.)

The second statement is supported by the "top 10" (10 commandments)

Where they get all fuzzy is that they try to justify stopping a person from doing more evil acts.

This really demonstrates a low view of God.

The God I worship promises that He will ensure justice. (Not the kind of lame, weak, inequitable so-called justice we find in the courts; but rather completely equitable justice.)

When God judges, the punishment fits the crime. Perfectly.

When people do evil things and seem to get away with it (for example, many believe that OJ killed two people) God knows and will respond in a truly just fashion. If OJ did that, I believe that God will make sure that he is held accountable for what he did.

And that I am held completely accountable for the things that I have done. "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God"
I am thankful that
"God demonstrates His love for us in this: while we were still sinners, Christ died for us" -

"believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved"

Abortion is killing of developing humans. Those human's rights should be protected by our government. Today they are not. I hope that someday in the future the government will extend human rights to developing humans. It's sad that they don't do that today.

Regards,
Anomaly

BTW - God loves you and longs for relationship with you. IF you would like to know more about this, please contact me at tom_cooper at bigfoot dot com

Re:Unfortunate decision

[anomaly]

There's a large difference between Hitler and an unborn child.

The Biblical position is against murder, not a total rejection of all killing.

I have no issue with putting criminals in prison.

It is not wrong for people to defend themselves.

Re:Unfortunate decision

[anomaly]

Why are you so angry about this?

Why are you so angry at God?

He loves you and wants to have a relationship with you.

Re:Unfortunate decision

[anomaly]

"Whether something is right or wrong is not boolean"

I submit to you that if there is a creator who made all of us, then He has the right to determine as a boolean what is right or wrong. If there is a transcendant God, He and only He can definitively say what is good or what is bad.

In the scheme of things, if there is a God, it really doesn't matter what I think, or for that matter what you think. There is only one standard - His.

If there is not God, then you are free to do as you please.

I also believe that you have stumbled into a logical fallacy. Killing is not forbidden by my "religion." Murder is forbidden.

WRT "Thou Shalt Not Kill" - The Bible was written in Hebrew, and as I understand it, a direct translation would be "murder not shall you" (Hebrew is read right to left)

The Bible has been translated, and that does mean that it is difficult to clearly interpret the precise meaning of every passage, but that does not make the Bible impossible to understand.

When I don't fully understand the meaning of a passage, I'll look at multiple translations (word for word, and thought for thought) as well as reading some history to better understand the context of the passage.

Saying that the Bible wasn't written in English and is not therefore reliable is a dodge by people who don't want to follow the Bible's teachings.

(BTW - the 10 commandments says not to use God's name improperly - without reverence and respect, and yet people seem to think that murder is somehow worse than abusing God's name.)

I'm not a vegan. The Bible doesn't suggest that I should be.

Suicide? A bad idea. God gave you life and thinks that you should keep living until He decides that you shouldn't

If God wanted to force you to worship Him, He would and could in a moment.

I do not worship a God I do not know - I have a personal relationship with Christ - He changed my life.

BTW - I'm not "after you" - I'm just doing what you are doing - hanging out in a portal where some interesting discussions happen. You're the one who wrote to me - I was simply posting in a discussion.

If you would like to know more about why I believe that there's a God and about His love for you, please write me at tom_cooper at bigfoot dot com

Re:Unfortunate decision

[anomaly]

1. According to www.m-w.com,
Murder is: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought

Killing is: to deprive of life.

Thus, all murder is by definition killing, but all killing is not murder.

Even the Bible recognizes the right to lawfully kill people. (To head off at the pass anyone who wants to weigh in on this, I do not believe that it is appropriate to stone people for committing adultery. As a Christian I am not bound by the requirements of the Jewish laws.) If the killing takes place within the boundaries of the law it is not murder. Technically speaking, this means that abortion is not murder, even though it definitely ends a human life. I believe that we should value human life more highly than we do in our culture, but that is a different issue.

2. Why can't you accept that? A 1 second old has those rights. When does that first second begin? Human gestation takes 38-42 weeks, but babies removed from the womb prior to the "normal" gestation period are granted human rights privileges as soon as they leave the womb. Today our technology is such that babies born before 24 weeks have very poor odds of surviving, but that's a technology issue. It used to be that it was babies born before 30 weeks, and before that it was 35 weeks.... Technology and medical capability determine that today. When will human rights begin once our technology is sufficiently advanced that conception to "birth" can occur outside the mother's body? It's a slippery slope. I submit to you that human rights should be conferred at conception.

3. Hitler intentionally committed crimes against humanity. He could have been put to death because he was a criminal. Unborn babies have not harmed anyone - at least not intentionally. I disagree with your interpretation of the Bible. Could you elaborate?

4. That's not very tolerant of you. :-)
BTW - Do you ask trolls to stop trolling? I am not trolling here, but simply following the command of my God. "Go into all the world and make disciples"

There's a difference between people who claim to be Christians and those who ARE Christians.

If I claimed to be a vegan, but you saw me having steak and eggs for breakfast each day, it would be hard to believe me when I said I was a vegan.

Jesus said
"By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another." John 13:35

If people behave in a way that is not loving - consistently angry or hateful, it's doubtful that they are really Christians.

Please don't think that Christianity is Jerry Falwell. There's a lot more to it than a dusty irrelevant book and a charicature.

Please let me know if you'd like to know more about this topic. (If not, I won't chase after you.)

Re:Unfortunate decision

[anomaly]

Could God stop you from committing suicide? Certainly. Would He? No.

He would not because this would mean that you were being compelled to obey. He gives people free will to choose whether to do what is right, or do what is wrong.

God tolerates evil in the world because He is merciful - He wants all people to follow Him.

If God were to wipe out evil, He would wipe us all out. It's His mercy that allows us to continue to be here.

Regards,
Tom Cooper

Re:Unfortunate decision

[Kohath]

> 1. Many of these people were actually unlisted.

So if information takes more than 10 minutes to find, the publishing of that information is not Free Speech?

> 2. People generally don't picket at the houses of the corperate officers - they picket at the offices. There is no need for these people to be circulating private addresses.

So, because you can't think of an immediate justification for publishing something, and you don't like it, it's not Free Speech?

(Example justification: If the doctors forget where they lived, they could look it up on the web site. -- But I'd guess that this isn't a good enough justification given the fact that you really, really don't like the message.)

> 3. People generally don't go killing CEOs because they are upset about corperate policy. People DO kill doctors who provide abortion services.

So, all anyone has to do to get all anti-corporate websites shut down is kill a single CEO? Someone might just take you up on that. (Of course, then you'll be sued for $109 million. That is, unless your post was Free Speech.)

Free speech is real simple. Either you have it or you don't.

Re:Unfortunate decision

[Dr.Evil]

So sites that publish the corporate addresses of companies they want picketed, for example, shuld be suppressed? That doesn't make any sense. The simple fact of the matter is that this is a group that wants these "doctors" to stop offering these "reproductive services." You might find their tactics distasteful (I do, too, despite my obvious bias), but they were publishing information that was either publicly available or gathered by legal means. That was never even the issue. The issue was always whether the website itself constituted a threat, as you quite correctly point out.

The original court hearing the case agreed with your reasoning, even going so far as to say that merely feeling threatened was enough to prove it was a threat. That's a dangerous precendent in any case, one that could have an enormous chilling effect on free speech.

I personally doubt that the Supreme Court will hear the case. The current Court isn't all that fond of First Amendment cases anyway, and one this politically loaded isn't one that either the right- or left-wingers on the Court will want to touch all that badly. There's no conflicting Circuit opinions to resolve here, so they'll most likely leave it alone.

Re:Unfortunate decision

[Dr.Evil]

You disagrree with what I say, so I'm automatically a troll? I hope to God you're not a moderator...

As a matter of fact, I have followed this case, from the start. Have you? You seem to be a little confused. There is not now, nor was there ever any evidence that any violent behavior was being solicited, actively or otherwise. Period. If there was, this would be an open and shut case, now wouldn't it? They certainly never said, "This is a list of doctors we want killed." The only arguments for a "threat" were the "political climate" and the feeling of being threatened expressed by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs' mere perception of it as a threat, and nothing more, convinced the jury to award them $109 million and order the web site shut down. There was no basis for the judgment or the award, and the Circuit Court has quite rightly set the record straight.

Whether they included convicted murderers among their number or not doesn't enter into it. Free speech is free speech - anyone can exercise it, to the degree the Constitution allows. The speech itself cannot be demonstrated to be an overt threat or solicitation to murder. So instead you want to use the straw man argument of "But they associate with criminals, so they must be trying to encourage criminality." Perhaps it's base to rejoice in the death of a person, no matter what evils they've done, and perhaps it's immoral to publish so many details of an individual's private life. I certainly wouldn't stoop to such tactics, nor would most Pro-Lifers. But it's not illegal. Of course, I guess opinions from Pro-Lifers don't matter - we're just trolls, right?

Re:Unfortunate decision

[radja]

> Second: At what point does a fertilized human egg become a person? I cannot accept that a single-celled microscopic organism has the same rights as I do.

well that's really the whole problem, isn't it..
It can be argued, successfully too, that human life starts at fertilization of the egg, as soon as you have a cell with a complete set of genes. However, what is NOT clear is whether this single cell is a person. A bit like an acorn. an acorn is the start of oak-life. but if I step on an acorn (let's say I did it on purpose, to continue the analogy with abortion) did I kill an oak, or did I prevent an oak?

just wondering though (very OT) why is it that people who are not into organized religion say they believe in _A_ higher power, rather than 'higher powers' ?

//rdj

Re:Unfortunate decision

[Richy_T]

There's a large difference between Hitler and an unborn child.

It's the moustache right?

Rich

Re:Unfortunate decision

[Brand X]

"doctors" "reproductive services."

In quotes, no less.

Did you actually follow the original case? There was a lot more to it than "feeling threatened". The maintainers of the site counted among their number convicted murderers who had perpetrated their crimes in the same clause. They were actively soliciting similar behavior against the people on the list. Someone mod this %@#$@% troll down... what idiot thought him insightful?

Re:Unfortunate decision

[Dyolf Knip]

First I'd like to say that you've been remarkably civilized in your posts. There's quite a character further up going on about how abortion doctors are all neo-nazis practicing their witchcraft on teenage slut whores, etc, etc. Your keeping this to a real discussion is very much appreciated.

One question I have is that you've made great mention of a difference between murder and killing. Please elaborate.

Second: At what point does a fertilized human egg become a person? I cannot accept that a single-celled microscopic organism has the same rights as I do.

Third: what's the difference between Hitler and an unborn child, biblically speaking? The bible says "Thou shalt not kill", not "Thou shalt kill only those who don't deserve to live". Hell, it doesn't even make provisions for self-defense.

Fourth, you have every right to, but please stop trying to make converts here. You seem to enjoy your theology, and that's great. I'm truly happy for you. But until the day my potted plant bursts into flames and starts giving me The Word of God, neither I nor many other people here are going to accept that Jerry Falwell's speeches and some 3000 year old book have any basing in fact nor much bearing on modern topics.

--

Re:Unfortunate decision

[epicurus]

yeah, it's pretty sick, and so is the crap that the KKK spouts off, but just because I think it's wrong, or you think it's wrong or 99.9% of the nation thinks it's wrong, doesn't mean they don't have a right to free speech.

Doesn't matter what they say, as long as they don't actually do anything, they're free to say it...if you weren't allowed to say/publish something just because somebody didn't like it, that'd mean you don't have feedom of speech - maybe gays, blacks, jews, you etc. wouldn't be allowed to speak out for their causes, and that'd be a shame.

But, I guess the real shame is the fact that there are evil bastards out there that feel the need to publish hate material.

Re:Answer me this

[HunterD]

Ahh - but a web site that was intended for the purpose of people finding doctors that give abortions would not be listing their home addresses, nor would it have lots of personal information about them, such as children's names, schools, spouses, spouses places of work and so on.

the information on this list is intended for only two purposes, harassing and murdering abortions providers. period, end of story.

The examples you brind forward would not contain they type of personal information that could be gleened from the Nuremburg files.

Re: A right you don't care to defend is no right.

[HunterD]

First off, I stand by my "Yelling Fire" statement, because the reason that is not protected speech is because it represents a clear threat to the lives of the people in the theater. I think the connection to this is clear, and does not need to be spelled out (but I will if anyone does not get it).

as far as your comments on racism & tobacco - This web site is not JUST about proclaiming that abortions are harmful or should be banned - it is also about providing terrorists with a hit list of doctors to murder, and is inciting people to do just that. Your example leaves one wanting when it comes to a comparison.

And yes, I DO think that (barring perhaps a regression or two to the ways of the past when a particularly conservative group gains control for a short period of time) we have evolved past the need to legislate christianity into our laws by making things like abortion illegal (which is a purely religious move).

I really believe that our society will not any time soon descend back into racisim, church control of state, women holding an inferior status, or banned abortion. Happly I think we as a society have for the most part worked past all of those.

Re:Only in the USA.

[HunterD]

what? now fetuses are a racial group that needs protection?

the difference here I think is that we ALL were fetuses at some point. We were not all jews at some point.

But hey, you can continue to live in your mideval dark ages, condemning everthing that does not fit in your religion's tiny world view. In the mean time, I will live in this society which values people's choice of religion. (and don't think for a moment that banning abortion is not a religion issue)

Re:How about "the hellmouth"

[HunterD]

that by far has to be one of the worst arguments against me yet.

this has ABSOLUTLY nothing to do with anything you mentioned.

what this has to do with is a group is supplying a known group of terrorists with personal information with the ACTUAL intent that these people get killed.

one word: CONTEXT

Re:Only in the USA.

[HunterD]

My ass it wasn't a troll

So all of a sudden everyone who even supports abortions are murderers? Hmm - I've never killed anyone....and I help to keep abortion legal by working with NARAL (National Abortion Rights Action League). I would think that makes your logic flawed - but then again, I think it's clear that it is.

As far as the tantrum - you may not like it, but that is exactly how the far right is acting. (Oh, since we can't ahve our way being as mos of the public doesn't buy our bullshit, we'll just start killing people, and make impassioned speaches about tissue that we think should have a name)

And no - I don't have to know you to be able to make that republic judgement. You said you advocated killing abortion doctors, so you support people going outside of the system, instead of using it. clearly you are not respecting the establishment of our government (oh that's right - now that it's not run by clinton, who I can only assume you thought was pimping for the jews or some other assenine idea, maybe you feel like you are working with the republic)

I stand by my judgement of you on that.

Finally - your last fool point. I don't need "liberal activists" to tell me that the NRA, the christian coalition, the Neo Nazis, the KKK, the Anti Choice movement and the waco fucks out at ruby ridge or the montana freemen are all basically branches of the far right. Sure, each has a different objective:

NRA: keep guns
Anti-Choicers: Woman should have no right to choose if a man carries is seed to term or not
Christian Coalition: Get all these non christians out of this country
Neo Nazis: Get all these Jews out of the country
KKK: Get all of these blacks out of the country

hrm - I see alot of similarity there.

face it, the far right is based on the idea of hatign that which is different. Hell the CONCEPT of conservative (keep things the same) really pushes in that direction.

if you want a country where you can opress women, kill jews and blacks, and carry as many guns as you want - fine, but go found it somewhere else.

Re:Absolutely disgusting

[josepha48]

Funny... I'd have to agree.. then what ..

... then we can have a list of all the people who do piercings as well. Then we can have a list of all the people who are not catholic, and so on and so on. While it may be free speach, what about the rights of the people that DON'T want there names listed? Don't they have a right to privacy? Does this mean that someone can start listing my name on some anti somethign web site because I don't agree with them. While this may be a win for Free Speach, it is a violation and loss for privacy as well.

So what about someone who set up an anti gay site or an anti semetic site? Would that be free speach if they gave names and addresses of gays or jews? And then some of them started showing up dead????

I don't want a lot, I just want it all!
Flame away, I have a hose!

Re:Absolutely disgusting

[josepha48]

Then we need some!

I don't want a lot, I just want it all!
Flame away, I have a hose!

Re:This is about responsibilty.

[ethereal]

If the defendant can reasonably claim that the film he watched incited him to commit the act, and that hence he is not responsible, then he can reasonably claim to be innocent.

If incitement from a film to do violence were a reasonable claim of innocence from the effects of your actions, then how much more powerful would be the argument advanced at the other Nuremberg trial: "I was just following orders". I wasn't incited, I was in the SS and they ordered me to do it! If your conclusions about European governments are true (and in general I would say they are not, but just for argument's sake), then this is exactly the wrong standard to use to prevent future holocausts in Europe.

I believe in strict personal reponsibility - it's nobody's fault but yours if someone tells you to do something, you do it, and it was illegal. In some cases if you were given false information, you may be able to in turn go after whoever it was that convinced you to take your actions, but even then you are responsible for the actions you take. And I doubt that a defense of "but somebody on the Internet said it was OK to blow up abortion clinincs" would fly very far in court (at least I hope it wouldn't). You can't blame your mistakes on taking the advice of random untrusted strangers, on the 'net or anywhere else.

Re:What about the right of privacy?

[HiThere]

You're right. That's the best way of thinking about it that I've encountered.

What is being violated is the right to privacy. And that's why the names of federal agents should be kept secret too. That was a correct decision that was made on the wrong grounds. Privacy is the criterion that should have been used. People, to be secure in their persons, need to have their privacy protected. There's always somebody who doesn't like who you are or what you stand for. So people who don't willingly choose to be public personalities (like, e.g., movie actors) should have the right to privacy.


Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.

Re:Absolutely disgusting

[HiThere]

And then there's the question of accuracy. What if the information isn't accurate? Do you get to apply for a retraction? Whee! More laws!

Or, perhaps the laws governing the accuracy of credit records could be extended? Whee! More regulations!

If regulations/laws are going to have anything to do with this, then they will need to be crafted very carefully. The recent history of the legislature doesn't promise well for laws, and the recent history of the executive branch implies that regulations might be even worse. But either might be better than an international treaty, which is what might really be required to do much about this.


Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.

Re:list addresses of anti-abortion murderers

[The Cunctator]

Too bad the AC's comment was modded down, It's pretty funny:

ARMS RACE! We need a site listing the home addresses of anti-abortion crusaders who have committed murder, calling for THEIR deaths. As well as a list of the anti-abortion crusaders who contributed to the web site listing the doctor's addresses. When the dust settles there will be no one left alive with a strong opinion on abortion. ALL YOUR FETUSES ARE BELONG TO US!

The AYBABTU ref is unnecessary, but the idea of rivaling web sites causing the elimination of all people who care about an issue, one way or another, is pretty good satirical SF. Not only that, it points out an interesting contrast between government-sponsored justice/violence and vigilante justice/violence.

--

I agree with the verdict but...

[sterno]

I think that it would be oh so lovely if we had federal statutes to protect the privacy of such information. If it is given that the addresses, phone numbers, etc, of these doctors was publicly available information, then it seems well within the rights of the publishers to put all of that information together even in that context.

But the question is, should that information have even gotten to them in the first place? Should they be able to publish that private information without authorization from those doctors? I tend to think not.

---

Turnabout is fair play

[TWR]

So, what we need to do is put up a web site with the name, addresses, routes to work, etc. of the people who put out the Nuremburg Files. Let's see if they like it when their kids are being followed by people carrying guns and there are protesters on their front lawns.

The only good defense against hate speech is more speech...

-jon

Re:my anti-m$ website can go back up

[wesmills]

Thanks. We all really appreciate that. Especially the customer service and support people that have nothing to do with crafting company policy or writing software.

---

Re:my anti-m$ website can go back up

[nyet]

No, no, no, no.

THEY'RE more like the independant contractors that were working on the (incomplete) Death Star when those pesky rebels blew the fucker up.. hell, they KNEW they were working for the Evil Empire (tm), and thus knew that they in for. You can't do that kind of work without building up some serious negative karma, man.

Re:From a european view,

[tenchiken]

The difference being that the United States consitution (remember that pesky document) preserved individual freedoms above the interest of the society.

The second is not the case here. That is what this trial was about.

For the most part, rules that exist in Europe simply can not be maintained here. We are too diverse of a socity, with too much different backgrounds etc. Therefore natural self-interest (aided and abeited by the constitution) keeps thoose who would cause violence for personal reasons in line.

Hence, no Hitlers and a much more conservitive society.

This is a police state?

[GauteL]

You know the difference between just saying "I'll kill you", and the actual _real_ threatening of people?
An actual death threat makes a normal life rather impossible, due to the imminent fear of being killed everytime you go to bed, or go out og the house, or just about any situation.
Personally I dislike people who yell "I'll kill you", I find it crude and unpleasant, but I wouldn't want to see you prosecuted for it. If however, you looked me in my eyes and told me in a way I found to be truly sincere, that you would hunt me and my children down at night, then yes I would file charges against you, and I would be _very_ glad that this kind of law applies. The same goes for letters threatening to kill. If I file a complaint, you may of course be innocent, and that is up to the courts to decide.
This story isn't even _about_ this. The slashdot-crowd just goes way too far sometimes.

Re:1st amendment is a good thing... ponder

[Bob Uhl]

And seriously, these pictures of aborted fetus's[sic]? Yuck the people who made this web site are fscked up!

And the people who shredded said ftuses are not fscked up? I think that it's a useful thing to demonstrate that what they destroy is not a lump of tissue but a human being. An arm, a hand, a head--these illustrate that we are not dealing with a tumour but with a man.

List of School Girls that walk home alone

[bug_hunter]

Finally the law will let me put up the list of address's where teen schoolgirls commonly walk alone and would be easily abducted.
Everytime one of them gets kidnapped/assulted etc I'll put a little cheer on my website.

What part is exactly the freedom of speech there?
Is a list of address's a view? An opinion?
Is my "freedom of speech" to list address's more important than other people's saftey??

Just trying to put things in perspective.

Re:Can't have it both ways.

[ajs]

Both left leaning liberals and right wing conservatives want it both ways all the time.

Well, since we're making sweeping generalizations, here's one: Libertarians want to re-write the constitution for their own agenda, but seek to do so by weakening key points of interpretation.

Case in point:

Now if we can only educate people as to why free speech should be defended even when they don't like the content.

I dislike Nazi ideology. I will actively seek to discredit (truthfully) the arguments of Nazi proponents and stop others from falling for the party line. However, I will defend people's right to speech the same way Noam Chomsky did. If a Nazi wants to write a book, in which he questions World War II history, I say let him have his press. If an anarchist wants to say "down with the government", more power to him (or her). If an anti-abortion advocate wants to say that doctors should be confronted with the horror that they instill in others, I don't agree, but go you forth and speak!

When a person posts the name and address of another person in with literature advocating harm to that person, I don't care if the target is Steve Balmer, Richard Stallman, the undersecretary of defence or the very person to whom I am responding; it's just wrong. On what basis? When you incite people to kill, you create a weapon. When you point that weapon and it goes off, you cannot claim "I knew it was loaded, but it's the gun's falt for firing."

If you were talking to ONE person, and discussed this, I would say that you have put it in that person's hands to make a decision, but when you're dealing with a mob of unknowns through a publishing mechanism (say, the Web), you know that someone out there is going to be unbalanced enough to do the deed.

Let me put this another way: if I walk into an asylum full of violently insane people, unlock the doors, tell them that the president is evil and must die and then I tell them exactly where he will be later today... would you say that I have just conspired to kill the president? In what way is it different if I say the same thing on a Web site? If I lay out the plan to kill someone, and suggest that it should be done, I am at the very least conspiring to commit 1st degree murder, am I not?

I have 2 disclaimers: 1) I never got the chance to read the original threats. If they were of the form, "here are the people that you should talk to," then I can't see a case. If they were of the form, "here are the people that need to pay for these crimes, and don't deserve to live," then I absolutely feel that the first amendment has nothing at all to do with this. 2) I am not a lawyer. Do your own research. These are just opinions.

Re:This is actually a great post

[ajs]

Your argument is classically known as a strawman. You state "I want X. I'm going to get X. I'm ENTITLED to X. If your Y needs get in the way, you'd better watch out."

First off, this statement cannot be mapped to the post to which you reply. Especially "I'm going to get X" and "you'd better watch out."

You procede to demonstrate that your statement is one that is used to limit rights. Yes, clearly. Too bad no one said it.

The post to which you replied was discussing the harm that would come to those who engaged in a legal activity which some do not agree with.

Let me quote: "A bunch of kids' rights to go to school without being harrassed, threatened or hurt because of what their parents do for a living just got trashed."

Here we have the pivotal argument: is it legal to publish information which is intended to cause harm to come to specific persons. We're not talking about posting anti-abortion literature (which I defend your right to do all day long). We're talking about saying that someone should die and then posting their name and address.

As far as I'm concerned, this is loading the gun and aiming the gun. Even if the gun goes off on its own, I don't buy that you are innocent of the murder.

Re:Thank you.

[ajs]

You ask a lot of questions, so they must be taken in turn:

• "There is a large contingent of people who think that what the people on this list are doing is completely and totaly abhorent and wrong. These people don't have the right to speak out against the people on this list?"
  
  Of course they have that right. As well they should. Let's make no mistake, no one who defends the bill of rights can reasonably turn around and say that speaking out against someone for their deeds is wrong.
• "They don't have the right to seek them out and try to convince them that what they're doing is wrong?"
  
  Again, of course they do. You have every right to publish a list of abortion doctors and suggest that people write them letters, call them or send them email. Personally, I think this is rude, but clearly defended.
• "They don't have the right to call them murderers?"
  
  I'm not sure. Clearly the law has determined that abortion is not (always) murder, so to call someone who practices abortion a murderer may be slander. I am not a lawyer, but I wouldn't take the chance if I were you. I would go for, "Dr A. is an abortion doctor, and I think abortion is murder." It makes your take on abortion clearly your take and you clearly accuse Dr A. of nothing other than abortion.

However, none of what you ask goes to the core question: can you post a list of people with their addresses and say that someone should kill them? If that is, indeed what was done, then I cannot see why it should be protected speech. You are inciting to murder. Would you be happy if I put up a list of pregnant mothers with their addresses and said that these children should be terminated with or without their mother's consent?

Re:a little less abstract then

[ajs]

Free speech shouldn't be limited if you want bubble-gum

No, nor should it be limited because you want anything. It should be, and is, limited to protect the freedom of others. This is why you cannot lie in a way that damages others. This why you cannot write up a plan for the assassination of the president and distribute it (but you *can* write up a list of reasons why he should die).

In this case, I contend that the particular speach involved (regardless of the hot-button topic of abortion) constituted a threat and plan for serious harm to individuals, published to a wide and willing audience. This is, as far as I can tell, like pointing a gun at someone's head and then saying that you're not responsible for murder because you're not the one who pulled the trigger.

This is exactly the kind of speach that we're not supposed to let people get away with, beucause it damages the freedom of others to, as the Declaration of Independance put it, "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." The person seeking an abortion is only harmed indirectly. We should be concerned about this, but not so much as to infringe on free speach.

We should be very concerned that idiots who hide behind a rhetoric of saving life advocate and promote murder. I won't tell you if I'm pro-life/choice, but I will tell you that I feel ashamed of the actions of these people as a human being.

Re:This is actually a great post

[ajs]

punish the people who are infringing them. What's so hard about that?

Right on, brother! In this case, that happens to be the people with the Web site that published names and suggested that these are people to harm. That's clearly conspiracy to commit a crime, and under our law that's a crime.

I can only guess that the judge felt there was sufficient disclaimer on the page to nullify the threats and suggestions that they made elsewhere. I would not buy it, and I hope that another court overturns it.

Common sense = BS

[Kohath]

I didn't really get the point of the rest of your arguments, but common sense is really a BS concept.

You can argue that anything, no matter how off the wall, is just common sense.

Try it... bigger is better -- it's just common sense. Smaller is better -- it's just common sense. See?

Re:Common sense = BS

[Kohath]

Ahh. But "I FEEL endangered, therefore you're a criminal for making me FEEL that way" isn't a real great legal concept either. Anyone can choose to feel any way they want.

Free speech is certainly more important that feelings.

a little less abstract then

[Kohath]

I read the post. It agreed (as you seem to agree) that free speech should be limited for the sake of abortions.

Well, free speech shouldn't be limited because you want abortions. Not even if you really, really want abortions.

Free speech shouldn't be limited if you want bubble-gum, or world peace, or your MTV either (or "to feel good about yourself", or "a pleasant trip to school", or "because you hate right wingers").

Because my free speech is mine. And laws and the constitution are there to prevent you or the government from taking away what's mine. And what's more, this protection is provided to everyone equally. (Hooray.)

(I could swear I just said this in my prior post.)

BTW: I can read all your arguments and analogies in favor of taking away this particular free speech that you don't like. They simply don't matter. (Do arguments in favor of slavery matter? If I came up with 6 good reasons we should all come to your house and steal your car, would the reasons matter?)

Yeah, algebra IS cool

[Kohath]

It follows simple rules of logic. It doesn't use weird analogies. This is NOT an example of algebra:

A is like B, and I think B=3, so A must equal something like 3, and you said it was 7, so that's libel and you must be in the 10th grade to think that.

Oh well.

And as for the site in question, the court was really pretty clear. It's OK to (Y) "help someone else find a doctor", because that's free speech. It's not OK to be (Z) "killing the doctor", because that isn't free speech, and it's bad for the doctor.

Algebra again : "help someone else find a doctor" (Y) != "killing the doctor" (Z)

Re:if A then B != if B then A

[Kohath]

Yep.

You have incited the posting...

[Kohath]

You have now incited the posting of doctor's credit cards. Me and the doctors will be suing you for $109 million dollars.

Next, I'll be suing Slashdot for inciting your incitement. I'll be rich!

I wish Slashdot would post more stories like this. (Oh no! Now I'll have to sue myself!)

And so forth...

Fire in a crowded theater

[Kohath]

This phrase is the one of the most regrettable things ever uttered in the history of American law.

The day that all freedoms are abolished and all independant voices are silenced in this country, it will be justified with "... after all, you can't yell FIRE in a crowded theater."

The next argument will be: "you need a license to drive, why shouldn't you need a license to " (watch TV, write an essay, have children, cut hair, own a pet, carry a gun, walk, eat, breathe, etc.).

Re:Fire in a crowded theater

[Sodium Attack]

And don't forget "It's to protect the children."

This is actually a great post

[Kohath]

This is actually a great post. It completely illustrates the reason for a constitutionally constructed society.

The attitude is clear:

I want X. I'm going to get X. I'm ENTITLED to X. If your Y needs get in the way, you'd better watch out. If you stand in my way with your Y, I'll take away your Z and anything else I have to, including your W. I'm going to get X.

In this case, X="an abortion", Y="Free Speech", Z="money", and W="freedom".

Try X="guns" or X="money" or X="a pizza" or X=anything. Fill in the other variables with things you'd like not to be taken away.

The reason for laws and a constitution is to prevent this type of attitude from prevailing.

Freedom of Speech -- You can't be absolutist about

[werdna]

it, unless you are absolutist about it. We have seen many people on Slashdot complaining loudly about First Amendment issues regarding intellectual property and encryption enforcement, but where are they today, when the opinion seems to call for a result of which they don't approve.

Mind you, I'm left of Che, and despise what these people did. On the other hand, I think Judge K (a Reagan appointee, highly conservative/libertarian politically, but a brilliant (and very funny!) jurist) got this one right. Slam-dunk, yes absoulutely, right.

You have every right in the world to make truthful statements in your own words free of intervention from the state, at least here in the United States. This right is fundamental, and guaranteed to all citizens.

You have every right to be offensive as hell, and even a bit dangerou in your speech, so long as you are not creating a real "clear and present danger," which is an enormous standard to overcome. Just as with the Nazis in Skokie decades ago, we must let hateful people be hateful, so long as they are not actually committing or clearly dangerously inciting a crime.

Of course the speech is hateful. Of course its invasive and intimidating. Of course.

But if we don't permit the speech we hate, we have no cause to support the speech we love.

Re:The judges are right

[taxman_10m]

It goes beyond religion.

There are athiest prolifers: http://www.godlessprolifers.org

And there are libertarian arguments against abortion: http://www.l4l.org

To view the issue as a "religious issue" is as incorrect to view slavery as a religious issue simply because many of the arguments surrounding its practice in the US were religious in nature.

Re:Free to kill

[Steve B]

If "Old West-style wanted posters" aren't to be classified as threats

It's well established that, for example, an "Old West style wanted poster" with a picture of Bill Clinton declaring him to be wanted for Perjury, Sexual Assault, Accepting Bribes, etc (or, if you prefer, with a picture of Dubya Bush declaring him to be wanted for Election Fraud) is protected political speech. The intent is clearly to denounce the target as a "crook"; and denoucing politicians as crooks is a venerable tradition.

It does get a bit greyer when the subjects are not public figures. IMO, a good civil case for harassment, at least, could be made.
/.

Re:This is about responsibilty.

[Steve B]

No one can rationally claim that a particular movie, video game or website "made" them commit a particular crime. But that doesn't mean that we can't assess the contributory impact of such media on crime.

You can "assess" until the cows come home. What is forbidden is government action, outside a limited range of incitement to imminent lawless activity which the court found not to be present in this case.

Blurring the distinctions between "X is bad", "The government has the authority to suppress X", and "The government should in fact suppress X" is a common from of sloppy thinking (when done accidentally) or propaganda (when done deliberately).
/.

Justice Holmes' Bogus "Yelling Fire" Argument

[Steve B]

As for the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" defense for limiting speech

How many people realize that this sound bite originated as a lame rationalization?

The case in question, Schenck v. United States, arose from the prosecution of Schenck for distributing anti-draft leaflets in violation of the Espionage Act of 1917. The analogy between peaceful distribution of literature and causing a panic with a false fire alarm is dubious, to say the least. Less generously (but more accurately), the analogy is an intellectually dishonest evasion of the Constitution.
/.

Re:1st amendment is a good thing... ponder

[johnathan]

these illustrate that we are not dealing with a tumour but with a man.

A man ?

--

Re:Freedom of speech and privacy

[Dr.Evil]

Addresses are publicly-accessible information, as are criminal and driving records in most states - hell, the USPS sells mailing lists to junk-mail advertisers. Credit cards, on the other hand, are not.

Unpleasant, perhaps, but hardly a boundary case for free-speech considerations.

Re:There's a difference...

[Dr.Evil]

They asked for the doctors to be murdered, but left out the nickel.

They absolutely did no such thing. Whatever else you may say about the site, they were very careful to never use the words "murder" or "reward." That's what the whole case turned upon - whether without those words the site constituted a threat. They did cross out the name of one doctor the same day he was murdered rather than simply remove it, but that's the closest they ever came to solicitng, condoning or encouraging murder.

Re:Freedom of speech and privacy

[Dr.Evil]

Interesting point. I'm still not sure that there aren't ways to obtain residence addresses by legal means, though. Law enforcement, for example, needs ways to find where someone physically lives, not just where they get their mail.

Re:There's a difference...

[Dr.Evil]

My feelings of being threatened do not constitute a legal basis for calling something a threat. I might be mentally ill, suffering from paranoia. Whether someone feels threatened is not the proper litmus test to apply.

You're also missing the point - the web site never advocated physical harm of any kind to these abortionists or their families. The use of Wanted poster and Most Wanted List-style layouts doesn't make them overtly threatening - the FBI doesn't advocate the killing of its Ten Most Wanted. The name of the site (The Nuremberg Files), its motif, and so on, were to draw parallels between the Holocaust and abortion - a perfectly legal and valid act of political speech. There are other purposes to publishing so many details of daily schedules and so on, as well - to insure, for example, that these abortionists were picketed by protesters everywhere they went, in front of their neighbors, the parents of their children's friends, etc. Those activities are also protected free speech, despite efforts to throttle them at nearly every level.

It is not possible to prove conclusively that the intent of the site was ever to solicit harm in any way, "context" be damned. Absent that necessary legal proof, there is no basis for suppressing the site or for granting such an obscenely large cash award.

Interesting, incidentally, that you would pick butchers as your stand-ins for abortionists in your scenario. Poetic.

Re:So we can now yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater

[Dr.Evil]

You can't prove that. For a more detailed explanation, see my post here. There are other, perfectly legal reasons to have posted the information they did. Just because you infer a certain intent doesn't make that legally proveable.

Re:So we can now yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater

[Dr.Evil]

The difference, I think, lies in the credibility of the inference. The inference that moviegoers would not run in panic spontaneously seems on its face (prima facie) to hold more water than the inference that no abortionist on the list would ever have been shot if this website hadn't existed, and thus that the website incited their murder. There are fewer external factors that can cause one than the other, knowing what we do about normal human behavior, sociopathy, and psychopathy.

Re:This is about responsibilty.

[Dr.Evil]

Warning: I'm about to fly my self-righteous flag - the karma loss doesn't concern me.

Violence breeds violence. Exposure to violent media may not cause violence, but I'm certain it makes it easier to condone certain kinds of violence: revenge killings, capital punishment and other kinds of retributive justice, and so on. Are the people behind the Nuremberg Files any different?

Is a society that sends the message that the extermination of innocent lives is acceptable, no matter the well-intentioned reason, any different?

Please note: I do not condone the Nuremberg Files as moral, nor the killing of abortionists. That's my whole point, though - when a society says that it's okay to kill under any circumstance (except maybe self-defense - that's a boundary case), it's poisioned the well. Abortion is just such a poison.

Re:So we can now yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater

[Dr.Evil]

That's a ridiculously weak connection.

Yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre has the potential for immediate, causal effects of demonstrable harm. People would not run in panic, most likely causing some to be trampled or otherwise injured, if you never yelled "Fire!"

In this case, however, you cannot prove that any harm came to any abortionist because of direct action by the website, or that any who were harmed would not have been harmed had the website not existed. For the "FIRE!" analogy to work, any harmful action in question must be conclusively shown to be a direct result of the speech.

Re:The judges are right

[Betcour]

What a bunch of crap far-right bullshit !

Have you ever seen the effect of a godless society.

Hum yeah, western Europe ? Much less violence than in the land-of-the-biggot USA. And as far as I know there aren't any school shooting in Russia either...

Ha! Wait, you're seeing it right now. As America moves further and futher away from God

Seing how Bush is prez and Aschroft is where he is, I'd say America gets more religious every year.

you will see more school shootings

The stats say they are less and less, but I guess you don't know how to read either...

and you will see the morons in this country scratching their heads and saying "gawsh, guess we need more gun control".

Well, the country with the most school-shooting is also the one with the most gun/capita. Coincidence ? It's hard to kill 20 people in 10 minutes with just a kitchen knife.

some people actually believe in something.

Yeah, some believe in a huge pile of bullshit and then try to force it down the throat of those who don't believe the same. I've seen what's happen when religion is controlling the country (Iran or Afghanistan anyone ?) so let's get it out of here as soon as possible.

Re:Safety versus Speech...

[Tackhead]

> 1) If you go to http://xxx.yyy.zzz/aaa.htm, you will find a link to DeCSS code, [ ... ]
>
> 2) If you go to 123 Anytown street, you will find an abortion doctor.
>
> The second one was just declared "okay." The first one, at various points in time, has been declared illegal.

Point of information:

The first example was declared as a violation of a section of the DMCA. The second was declared as not an incitement to commit murder. These are entirely different things, and for good reason.

Although I also feel that this is a weird juxtaposition of cases, my feelings don't enter into it. The operators of both sites got hauled into court for totally different things, and the judges were ruling on totally different sets of laws.

It is not - and cannot be - the job of the the legal system to deal with that issue. If Congress passes laws that say rape is punishable by 2-5 years in prison, but horse-rustling is punishable by hanging, then horse thieves hang, and rapists walk.

It's hard enough for a judge to be consistent with the relevant precedent for any one case. It's impossible - even in theory - to make it all consistent with some imaginary standard whereby different things are deemed differently-naughty.

The standard whereby different things are deemed differently-naughty and penalties are assigned is called "law".

Congress writes it. Judges rule on it.

Sometimes, Congress writes it without regard to the big picture. When this happens, Judges still have to rule on it, and they have to rule in accordance with what Congress wrote, not what they may personally believe is "fair".

Or would you rather have both the Legislative and the Judicial branch not doing their jobs?

What's the difference...

[stank]

What's the difference between a site that posts the name of abortion clinic doctors, and a site that posts the names of IRS workers? Both sites encourage murder, but one is shutdown by the government while the other is given free speech rights. I believe they both should be considered free speech.

Look at: http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,40102,00 .html

Do you think the judge would have ruled the same way had his name been on the list?

Answer me this

[Illserve]

Would you have objected to the decision if the website were one that listed pictures and addresses of anti-abortion activists in order to "watch out" for them?

My initial reaction to this website was also one of disgust, but now I have to admit I'm torn between thinking a line should be drawn here or not. Are we or are we not in favor of free speech?

And if so, why not in this particular case?

Here's another one... what if a site listed doctors that provide abortion for those seeking one and provided exactly the same information. It could still be used as a hit list. Would you want to see that gone also?

It's a very slippery slope, and I'm not sure there's a ledge to grab onto.

This doesn't seem to apply to /. concerns...

[Fleet Admiral Ackbar]

Putting up a list of abortion docs isn't like mirroring DeCSS. In one case, you are providing an idea. In the other case, you are providing a tool.

I doubt that someone who had a page encouraging music "piracy", but providing no tools, would be the target of a lawsuit. The only difference is the emotional appeal, and liberal "sacred cow" status, of fetus vacuum operators...

Re:So we are back to free speech?

[bnenning]

Next time that someone calls me PC, I'll just ahve to say "Why thank you, no, I don't advocate sick twisted fucks advocating and celebrating the murder of healthcare providers..."

Perhaps you don't realize that nobody here is defending the content of these people's speech. There is a large difference in saying that you disapprove of what someone is saying and demanding that the authorities punish them. It is the latter approach that "political correctness" is associated with.

OT: Use of the "Anti-Abortion"

[pnatural]

groups that are opposed to abortion are called "anti-abortion", and yet groups that promote the act are called "pro-choice". shouldn't the name-calling be consistent? in other words, it should be "anti-abortion" vs. "pro-abortion" or "pro-life" vs. "anti-life"? oh, wait a minute, doing so would cast those favored by the media in a negative light. can't have that!

i know i'll sound like a conspiracy nut, and i know i'm at risk for losing karma (can't get blood out of a stone, tho), but this obvious bias by /. and all major media really pisses me off. yeah, yeah, i know slashdot is only parroting the news stories of others, but if the editors would take a minute and think for themselves instead of blindly following the party line like the sheep they claim to despise, the world might be an ever-so-slightly better place.

and please, before flaming me for having a different view than yours, read the fucking post and tell me where i have promoted one view or another.

flame on!

The problem with rights

[Peter Eckersley]

This is quite an interesting example of why "rights" are not a suitable basis for social policy.

Rights at the most fundamental level are contradictory. In this example, one person's right to free speech is contradictory to another's right not to be threatened or murdered. In general though, people's rights will always be entangled when we live in the same spaces and interact.

The only ethically consistent approach is to identify a set of values, and make decisions based on those values. Of course, we disagree on what those values should be, and so (for example) the left will call for censorship in one case and the right in another.

We may choose to support a set of rights because we believe, on balance, that those rights will have a net positive ethical impact. But it seems wise to regard those rights as a guide, rather than an absolute framework.

Without being a lawyer, or a US citizen ;), this decision looks very political. Previous judgements have ruled that although burning draft cards or copying DeCSS are actually speech, such speech should not be protected because of its side effects. Those precedents don't seem to have had much of an impact here...

What about the right of privacy?

[mwalker]

This case just outlines the need for a Privacy Bill of Rights. The Court is absolutely right - this speech is protected by the First Amendment.

But it should be absolutely banned under a Privacy Bill of Rights. Those people should be able to rant and rave about how Planned Parenthood is Hitler all they want, but they should not be able to violate the privacy rights of these doctors. Best Buy and Safeway shouldn't be able to sell my purchase profile from my "Safeway Club Card" to direct marketers and my health insurance company. Digital consumer profiles and personal profiles should be identified as tradeable items that are the intellectual property of the identified person.

If ever there was intellectual property, it's your own name, address, and SSN. And publishing people's names against their will along with other identifying information, for the purpose of having them executed or any other malicious reason (even calling them at dinner to sell them life insurance) should be explicitly prohibited.

at least, that's what i think.

Re:OT: Use of the "Anti-Abortion"

[Stevis]

and please, before flaming me for having a different view than yours, read the fucking post and tell me where i have promoted one view or another.

Let's see, how about:

doing so would cast those favored by the media in a negative light. can't have that!

This states that those called pro-choice in the media would be considered negative by being called pro-abortion. Therefore, you call call pro-abortion a "negative" thing, promoting an anti-abortion view.

Which is your right of course. I myself am pro-choice and anti-abortion. I'd like to see it never happen, but I'm not the one carrying the baby to term. I'd like to see adoption become a more viable option, but until that time...

And I do have a problem with anti-abortion, pro-death-penalty people calling themselves "pro-life". Not that you have displayed any evidence of this hypocracy (or any hypocracy, for that manner), just saying.

Stevis

1st amendment is a good thing... ponder

[ka9dgx]

Ok, so now the actual people breaking the law get blamed instead of their cheerleaders... I can live with that.

I could also put up a list of Telecom companies (that really suck) executives up for the same treatment?

It's interesting to ponder this at length.
--Mike--

Re:1st amendment is a good thing... ponder

[dwbryson]

I bet you if execs had their names up there they would come down REAL fast. But does it strike anybody else like total propaganda bullshit? i mean look at that mirror, it sounds like the church of scientology kinda stuff. I can't believe people buy this stuff no matter what their views on abortion are. Stuff like this

" The banner-head above summarizes the philosophy of Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood. Like Adolf Hitler, Margaret Sanger considered herself to be part of a genetically superior elite who had to protect themselves against "hereditary taints." She set out to start a "New Race" - "A Race of Thoroughbreds." This elitist attitude is clearly at odds with the leftist, social worker image that is commonly attributed to her by the mass media. "

And seriously, these pictures of aborted fetus's? yuck the people who made this web site are fscked up!

Re:1st amendment is a good thing... ponder

[ciole]

Unless you offend a powerful special interest. Imagine the response to a site collecting & providing information on police officers who participate in busts of non-violent drug offenders. How helpful would this precedent be to them? Still, it is a step forward.

Re:This is about responsibilty.

[technos]

From the AP:

JAPAN -- The Associated Press reports: "According to a 1996 survey by the Supreme Court, of the 37,395 marriage arbitration cases filed by women in Japan's family courts, one-third involved complaints of domestic abuse. The majority ended in divorce... According to a study of domestic violence released in May by Tokyo Metropolitan Government, the first-ever done in Japan, one-third of the 1,183 women with partners in the survey said they had been battered by their husbands or boyfriends."

From a NOW blurb:

..concluded in their comprehensive study of domestic violence that nearly 35 percent of women in over 2000 American families had been subjected to one or more attacks by their husbands in the previous year before divorce...

Sounds pretty even to me..

Assassination Politics

[cananian]

This case has a real bearing on the future of that Assassination Politics guy, doesn't it? I mean, isn't he in jail right now for *proposing* something almost exactly like what the anti-abortion folks *did*?

Instead of verbal cheers, though, his proposal was to actually send the assassins money to show his support. But again without any causal link...

Anyone out there thinking the same way I'm thinking? Isn't this relevant to his case?

Re:Assassination Politics

[Animats]

The Assassination Politics paper raises an issue almost identical to the abortion clinic one. Bell was arrested under a criminal statute for an act that's clearly political speech.

Bell is taking a very American position, too. Mark Twain made this clear a century ago, in "A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court". In a dictatorship, taking out the dictator takes out the government. In a democracy, leaders are easily replaced. This is a fundamental edge democracies have. There's an archaic notion from the era of monarchies that war has to be fought by killing all the grunts first. That notion has no place in a democratic society.

threatened to commit violent acts

[selectspec]

threatened is the key word here. You can't threaten people with violence.

Re:The judges are right

[Datafage]

Hold on. Having sex does NOT make you a slut, not only teenagers get abortions, and using condoms does not guarantee you won't get pregnant, only greatly reduces the chance.

Further, there is a line between "unborn child" and "living, breathing person," despite what you seem to think. Is an egg a living, breathing person when it has just been penetrated by a sperm, and merely a single cell? What about when it's 16 cells? Or 128? That CANNOT be called a "living, breathing person" by any stretch of the imagination.

-----------------------

Re:Let me guess- You have a penis?

[Datafage]

Well, I do, and this guy is the type of guy I hate for giving males a bad name. The Holocause is utterly and completely incomparable to abortion. Beyond belief.

-----------------------

Re:OT: Use of the "Anti-Abortion"

[Datafage]

I myself am pro-choice and anti-abortion.

Sorry, you can't be on both sides of the fence. You're either against it or for it. Let me put it this way: let's say you were alive back in the 1800's, and we were discussing the issue of slavery. Would it be reasonable for you to say, "I'm anti-slavery but pro-plantation owner's rights?" I don't think so.

He's not on both sides of the fence. He wishes abortion did not have to occur, but he wants women to have the right to have it done, if they desire. Anti-abortion, pro-choice. Think for a bit, expand your brain, and you will understand.

Further, you can be anti-slavery, and yet still want plantation owners to have their rights, it just so happens you don't think those rights include slave ownership. You're thinking far too much in terms of black and white, dividing people into one of two camps, the line of thinking that is the source of a great deal of the problems with this country.

-----------------------

Re:The Importance of Freedom of Speech

[Baldrson]

For every Klan site and every kill the abortion doctor site, there's a cryptome.org or a peacefire.org who couldn't function without basic freedom of speech laws. For every nutcase redneck who promotes white power, there's a rainbow coalition website who would have been edged out by our republican, white congress, some of whom were in office and voted against civil-rights legislation in the 60's.

It is important to watch for threats and illegal behavior, but to be truly fair, free speech decisions must almost always come down in favor of the speaker.

Too much talk and no action is what has gotten us into the situation we now face. As long as people feel inhibited from slandering, libeling and even censoring everyone who discusses sensitive issues people will merely continue talking about the issues and things will only get worse.

The sooner we start throwing the "nutcase rednecks" in prison for the the opinions they hold, preferably injecting them with estrogen so they are more passive and feminized while being raped by HIV ethnic gangs, the sooner we can get beyond all this mere talk and start seeing some serious Y-chromosome specific retroviruses being engineered and spread through the world's transportation infrastructure.

Re:The Importance of Freedom of Speech

[Baldrson]

How about an option to make one's threshold be on "Total" as in, the total number of moderator points that have gone into promoting or suppressing a given piece of prose?

Doesn't everyone want to see all the items that some people care enough about to spend moderator points either promoting OR suppressing? Well, OK, maybe not everyone, but I know I certainly want to see those posts.

Re:The Importance of Freedom of Speech

[Baldrson]

"+3 Baffling"

A rating certain to be applied to virtually all posts which have even the remotest bearing on reality -- which probably bears on their conspicuous absence.

Re:OT: Use of the "Anti-Abortion"

[E-Rock]

Some do. I like, pro-choice, anti-choice.

Re:This is about responsibilty.

[nublord]

Hence there is little violence in European countries.

Do you have some data or links to back this up? I'm not asking this because I disagree with your or think I smell a rat. I ask becuase I'm curious just how low the violence is over there. From what US media shows me Europe has lots of rampant car chases through downtown and riots at soccer games (yes, I know the media isn't painting a true picture).

According to the Bible...

[Arker]

Both are murder, if I have read the bible correctly.

Actually, the only mention of abortion in the entire bible the best I remember is in Exodus 21, and it quite clearly does not consider it murder or even near.

Exodus 21:22 (KJV) If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

Exodus 21:22(YLT) And when men strive, and have smitten a pregnant woman, and her children have come out, and there is no mischief, he is certainly fined, as the husband of the woman doth lay upon him, and he hath given through the judges

This was the punishment for destruction of property.

Though the new testament doesn't seem to mention abortion at all, that very silence is quite telling, considering that it was a hot topic of the day. If the authors of the new testament had thought it was murder, it's rather inexplicable why they wouldn't have said so, many pagans at the time did. So it seems only reasonable to think they must have agreed with the old testament on that subject.

The irony of the present abortion debate, then, is that the driving force behind the anti-choice lobby is clearly fundamentalist christianity - and not only does the bible they claim as ultimate authority not agree with them, it clearly disagrees with their position.

"That old saw about the early bird just goes to show that the worm should have stayed in bed."

free speach or enabling violence

[jeffsenter]

I think what is missing here is that the abortion opponents not only said doctors are bad because they are performing abortions and these are the doctors, but it also provided addresses to aid in the violence against doctors. It is one thing if someone puts out a violent video game where someone shoots somebody, but it is another if someone includes in that videogame the contact info of the person they encourage to be killed.

my take on this

[evilWurst]

Okay, earlier today I posted in anger (gasp!) in reponse to some moron. I owe it to more levelheaded persons to do something reasonable as penance =)

The web site wasn't posting addresses of clinics and saying "go picket". It was posting addresses of the doctors (and I am told their family members also, and other abortion supporters/workers). No, they didn't specifically say "go kill these people", or it would have been a very short trial. But they said "pressure these people, and we don't mind if they get hurt, wink wink nudge nudge".
Mafia members who say the same about a person end up in jail when that person gets shot.


There is free speech, and there is assisting in murder. The question is: which one was that site? The first trial said murder, the second said speech. I personally hope the third trial overturns it, because people on those lists are being killed.


And either way, if the ruling is too harsh it sets a bad precident for freedom. If the web site gets off free, the mob rule wins. If they get fined into oblivion and censored, it becomes precedent for more censorship.


Either way, some things, whether you call it a life or not, will die. One way, adults will die also.

Absolutely disgusting

[Temporal]

So, when can we be seeing a site listing the names and addresses of the people who maintained this thing and anyone who ever mirrored it? I wonder if that would make them feel a bit differently...

------

So we can now yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater

[cworley]

I always thought that the litmus test for responsibility and free speech was exemplified by "yelling fire in a crowded theater".

You're not physically harming anyone, or telling people to trample one another, yet you are responsible for the consequences.

These people have done the same, yet they are not held responsible?

Re:So we can now yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater

[sulli]

Yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre has the potential for immediate, causal effects of demonstrable harm.

Unless, for example, the theater is on fire. In which case you would be stupid not to.

Re:So we can now yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater

[blair1q]

What say then we put up a list of all the assassinated presidents, along with just the wounded ones, and then we list all the sitting presidents we want dead? Or just state the concept here, which is the same thing?

If any Secret Service agents want to handcuff me and discuss it, you of course know where to find me, but keep today's ruling in mind.

--Blair

Fair Play

[loki2eng]

The pro-choice lobby should put up a parody web site with the judges labelled as murderers (they after all are allowing people to encourage the murder of medical profesionals) along with thier home and work addresses. The best part is the judges can't do anything about it without reversing their ruling. See how they like it.

Re:This is about responsibilty.

[Fencepost]

What this lawsuit says is that people who see a violent film and then commit a violent act are innocent. Is this reasonable?

Just to clarify, because it's easy to misread the message I'm replying to on a quick glance: The above quote is basically what the lawsuit implies, though I think they'd say (and to some extent I agree) that the responsibility is shared. The decision is basically reversing that and saying that the person committing an act is solely responsible, not the creator of material that might have provoked that action (note that "might").

I doubt that this would affect cases where there's clear evidence that said material provoked a crime - if I put up a site instructing people to commit a crime I'd expect to remain somewhat liable, just as I would if I promised some sort of reward (presumably any reward, personal, financial or spiritual). If this countered that, the there'd be no repercussions if someone (e.g. Matthew Hale, leader of the First Church of the Creator) put up a page saying "Go kill a Jew today for God" or if some disgruntled spouse put up a page saying "I'll give $10,000 to the first person who kills my husband/wife."

-- fencepost

Re:The Importance of Freedom of Speech

[Fencepost]

Would you still feel this same way if I published your home phone & address against your wishes? How about if I asked if someone could please use this information to harrass you (literally) to death?

I think the second question there is what would get you into trouble - the first while objectionable is legal, the second is at best questionable. Heck, following your next question on identity theft is Forbes criminally liable along with the New York busboy who was impersonating people on it's "wealthiest people" list? After all, they provided the base information.

-- fencepost

Propaganda

[localman]

anti-abortion rights activists

Can both sides at least agree to call each other by their chosen names, "pro-life" and "pro-choice"? I'm tired of all the name-calling and propaganda tactics.

I'd also like to remind everyone that the vast majority of people who are pro-life are as disgusted by these extremist acts of violence as the everyone else.

This is a tough issue, and we'll never all agree, but I let's at least be civilized about it.

Re:This is about responsibilty.

[Richy_T]

And, despite the films implied, was also quite happy to send back fleeing escapees and Jews.

Rich

Context of information

[arunkv]

A lot of the comments are trying to claim that if information is freely available (like address), then it's fair game for it to be made available elsewhere. But sometimes context is important. A list of all residents of Chicago is different from a list of all doctors who perform abortions and need to be eliminated.

Two-pronged movements

[Animats]

That's a tough decision. The appellate judge seems to have decided it correctly, though.

Historically, a useful trick for a political movement is to have two arms; the highly visible part that works through the political process, and the extremists who do the dirty work. There are endless examples; the U.S. Revolutionary War, the IRA, the union movement, the U.S. civil rights movement, the green movement, and now the anti-abortion movement. It's a tactic independent of ideology.

If the goon movements are secretly working with the lobbyists, it's a straightforward conspiracy case. But sometimes they really are independent. This is most likely where some strong ideology or religion is involved, one strong enough to motivate people to kill.

This may start a new kind of publicity war. The pro-abortion movement could retaliate by publishing the names and addresses of anti-abortion lobbyists. Unions may start publishing names, addresses, and pictures of CEOs they don't like. (The AFL-CIO already names names). Unclear where this leads. Probably to increased sales of armored cars, which are popular in countries with a strong anti-business faction.

my anti-m$ website can go back up

[mr_gerbik]

Now I can resume my website that publishes the names and addresses of microsoft employees in hopes that it shall bring them to an early demise. MUAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

-gerbik

Re:my anti-m$ website can go back up

[mr_gerbik]

I'm glad you appreciate a GOOD JOKE. Lighten up my friend.

I would work for Microsoft if I could.. but they said my coding was too solid for their taste.

-gerbik

Re:This is about responsibilty.

[KahunaBurger]

actually, they got him on conspiracy didn't they? It's all well and good to talk about doing things, tell other people they should do things, but the second you and/or they do one action to further the conspiracy (say I buy some ski masks after we talk about robbing a bank), that's when you're gonna be in trouble

Doesn't work. The web site provided names and addresses of specific doctors, This could reasonably be counted as conspiracy as they did some of the leg work in planning an attack.

Anyway, the orriginal post irks me excessivly. This sort of "responsibility" rhetoric that claims that finding anyone but the "trigger man" guilty is (IMHO) actually counter to imposing real responsibility on people. Its reductionist thinking that holding one person or group responsible negates the responsibility of any other person. No one can rationally claim that a particular movie, video game or website "made" them commit a particular crime. But that doesn't mean that we can't assess the contributory impact of such media on crime. But black and white thinkers who have to send one person to hell and let the rest of the world off pure innocent have a hard time dealing with that.

Kahuna Burger

Re:So we are back to free speech?

[KahunaBurger]

Now we can once again TALK about something and actually be covered by free speech instead of having to toe the line for the politically correct speech of the day.

Thanks, the post above your's hadn't made me want to vomit enough...

Its nice to know that the concept of not advocating murder and terrorism is now "politically correct". And just of today, even! Next time that someone calls me PC, I'll just ahve to say "Why thank you, no, I don't advocate sick twisted fucks advocating and celebrating the murder of healthcare providers..."

You guys need to seriously get some perspective. I can only hope this BS gets overturned in a higher court.

Kahuna Burger

Thank you.

[KahunaBurger]

I'm glad I'm not the only one on this crazy group that sees any rights for people past the first two ammendments to the USC. (Or that thinks freedom can be restricted by someone other than the goverment)

I love the fact that this was labled Your Rights Online. Yeah, your on line rights are doing fine. Your offline rights to provide or recieve reproductive health services just took a trip to the shitter. A bunch of kids' rights to go to school without being harrassed, threatened or hurt because of what their parents do for a living just got trashed. But hey, it's FREE SPEECH so everything's good....

The people who run this page are disgusting terrorist fucks, and they just got the green light to keep going. You'll excuse me if I don't feel any increase in freedom from that. As far as I'm concerned, my world just got a little less free. But you'd have to let go of two preconceptions to see why, and most /.ers are really attached to those.

Actually, you're wrong.

[legLess]

Only Libertarians understand where the line should be drawn.

You're missing the point: Libertarians don't have any moral high ground here. What all sides are arguing about is simply that: where to draw the line. Examples:

• Dick the Republican wants to place censorware in all public libraries. Of course he'd say he's doing this to protect children: that's his "clear link to real damage."
• Jane the Democrat wants laws restricting publications that advocate crime, or are perceived to advocate crime. Her "clear link to real damage" is protecting a women's right to choose and doctor's a right to live.

A freedom of speech argument won't work against these people because you don't have the same definitions of "legal speech." Each one will say "We want to protect free speech" but none will mean the same thing.

To say that Liberatarians are superior just because you happen to agree with them is as naive and false as any other bigotry. To put it another way, you can't argue from your own definitions when your conclusion is based on those definitions. First you must agree about your terms.

Look, if you lived in a society where "abortion" was legal up until 12 years of age (permise of a brilliant Philip K. Dick story), or were suddenly transplanted there, would you feel morally justified in killing the doctors who killed 11-year-olds for a living? Sure you would. It's disgusting - no free society should have people legally employed in killing other human beings (leaving the death penalty out of this - that's another argument entirely). That's how anti-abortionists feel.

If you want to have a credible argument on any issue you must understand your own position, then you must understand your opponent's position.

question: is control controlled by its need to control?
answer: yes

Re:Actually, you're wrong.

[ruin]

Look, if you lived in a society where "abortion" was legal up until 12 years of age, or were suddenly transplanted there, would you feel morally justified in killing the doctors who killed 11-year-olds for a living? Sure you would.

Fuck no I wouldn't. In such a case, terrorism would do little to make anyone happier. It wouldn't change the culture, and it wouldn't stop any further abortions. Unless you think there's something magical about violence that repeated applications of it will eventually result in moral action.

What kind of reprobate has no other means of expression other than muderous action?

--

if A then B != if B then A

[Otis_INF]

See title
--

Oh, the humanity!

[Otis_INF]

You know what's really stupid about this? That this is about 'freedom' of speech, while it's not about freedom at all. You know what real freedom is? A 13 year old girl who can get birthcontrol for free, any woman who can have a SAFE and HUMAN abortion when she wants, gay people who want to get married.

That's right. Today in the Netherlands, 2 gay people official marry. Because here, real freedom is implemented. We have abortion clinics, the lowest amount of childbirths among teenagers in the world, and the lowest amount of anti-abortion fanatics.

Also, to the people who think abortion doctors kill babies: they don't. They remove cells from a body, like when you give blood at the hospital, or when your butt gets a liposuction. Think about the 30 million CHILDREN you kill every time you're wanking at night and the semen hits the sheets, or when your wife gets her period.

Abortion is only called abortion when the cells developed from the conception are not forming all basic human characteristics, thus before the 26th week.

Oh... and 'pro'-life, means 'in favor of' life. Doctors have also lifes. Think about that for a change.
--

Re:This is about responsibilty.

[shren]

If the defendant can reasonably claim that the film he watched incited him to commit the act, and that hence he is not responsible, then he can reasonably claim to be innocent.

Argh, the crap we put up with in our society.

People should be held responsible for the things that they do. Nobody should be able to claim "but they said to do it!" You did it - noone else, and you didn't even stop to think why other people wern't doing it. Maybe people would be a little more eager to unhook themselves from thier propaganda nipple if they could be made to realize that they can never disavow responsibility for thier own actions. They may do it legally, they may lie, they may hide, but they will have to live with what they did for the rest of thier lives.

Nobody considers giving the Nazis any slack, despite the fact that most of them "just followed orders". They don't deserve any. The fool who follows is just as guilty as the fool who leads. You'd think that this and other authoritiarian cults throughout history would teach us that the "he dared me to" legal/social defense simply cannot be tolerated.

Tocqueville warned us a hundred and fifty years ago that individualism was the only virtue that could save democracy. We must rebut the idea that membership in a hivemind somehow clears your sins away, before it goes too far.

Re:This is about responsibilty.

[shren]

The philosophical debate about moral responsibility regarding coherced actions is a reasonably long one.

My view on the matter:

If I'm in an evil army, and I have a gun, and my superior says, while pointing a gun at me, "Kill those villagers", then, while I am not the primary motive force behind the death of the villagers, I still hold some responsibility.

Not too much - my "commander" could just as easily killed them himself. He wants me to, probably so I'll crack and follow all of his orders in the future. I'd like to think that in this situation I'd die trying to kill the commander, but of course that's just a fantasy, an ideal, a hope. I might kill the villagers, or myself, or lock up completely and not do anything.

The important thing is, where did this evil army come from? Such a thing can not be built without many, many people knuckling in and obeying a malign collective. When the army exists, and I am conscriped into it, I have no choice except to obey or die. When the army is just beginning, when things are at thier beginning, the choice is to obey, or not to obey. The primary moral failings here happened long before I was placed in this situation, when people said things like, "Yes, Hitler's a bastard, but he's doing great things for the economy, so I'll back him.", and set the stage for me being in front of a bunch of villagers with a gun much later.

To prevent such things from happening, the "He told me to" defense must not be considered morally valid.

Re:OT: Use of the "Anti-Abortion"

[Tejota]

You're confused about the difference between promoting something and working to keep it legal.
You would be justified in calling someone who promoted abortion as pro-abortion. Just as you would incorrect to call someone who worked to defend a womans right to control her own body anything but pro-choice.

Sadly the bulk of people who call themselves pro-life are shown by their actions to really be anti-choice.
Ghandi and the pope are pro-life. But Dubya and his crowd aren't against killing. The are only against reproductive choice.

Freedom of speech and privacy

[Salsaman]

Whilst I agree wholeheartedly with the concept of free speech, surely the line has to be drawn when that speech includes personal information, such as somebody's address ?

What if they were publishing the doctors' credit card numbers instead - would that still be protected as free speech ?

Re:Freedom of speech and privacy

[Tyrannosaurus]

I agree with your point! I wonder how the court would have ruled if I published a site with the justice's names, home addresses and phone numbers, and a scorecard for their maiming/killing.

I bet they'd reconsider.

---

The judges are right

[sphix42]

As much as I disagree with the reason for the web site and as much as I am pro-choice, I feel the judges are right....I would not want to be charged for anything because of actions of someone else based on my words.

Having my cake, but not eating it.

Re:The judges are right

[rppp01]

Anytime religion is introduced into the picture, this kind of thinking becomes predominant. They claim to respect others' rights and only their 'god' can judge, them, but then those same people turn around and try to legislate their morality on everyone else.

They are the uncivilized ones. And this world will remain uncivilized until this mindset is removed.

Re:The judges are right

[UltraBot2K1]

Can't say that I agree. It saddens my heart to see these people got off scotch free. Of course, we're talking about a government that advocates the murder of thousands of unborn children, so making it okay to kill a full-grown adult couldn't have been THAT far off.

It disgusts me when slutty hellbound teenagers would rather murder their own children than spend $12 for a box of fucking condoms. Hell, most colleges and free clinics will give away condoms FOR FREE. But then again, that would be too much effort, so they'd rather wait until they get pregnant and then break out the ol' rusty coathanger and kill their offspring. And we call ourselves a civilised nation, what a fucking joke.

What's even more ironic is that these people who claim to be against the murder of unborn children (who are still living, breathing people, BTW) somehow think it's okay, nay justified, to kill full grown adults. What a sick twisted society we live in.

I'm off to start a website advocating the murder of those who ran the anti-abortion website.

Re: Some data isn't "private".

[startled]

I suspect the plaintiffs did little if anything to protect the information they were bothered about appearing on the defendant's site. Even if they did, once discovered (again like DeCSS), can they protect it? Where is the IP right in your address and phone number?

This is bullshit. I know some doctors that are harassed by these assholes, and they DO try to protect their privacy. Almost all of them try to keep the information secret-- they know what the dangers are. It inevitably gets out, because they follow them home. They follow their neighbors home, too, and impersonate other people to try to find out more about the doctors.

Yes, it's all legally obtained. Just like a very long list of credit card numbers can be legally obtained. Is is legal to post them? Probably not, but I'm really not familiar with the reasoning the court would use to say so.

Re:The Importance of Freedom of Speech

[pjl5602]

...there's a rainbow coalition website who would have been edged out by our republican, white congress, some of whom were in office and voted against civil-rights legislation in the 60's

I think you have some facts wrong about who voted for and against the Civil Rights Act.

The House passed the bill 289 to 124, where 80% of Republicans and 63% of Democrats voted yes.

The Senate passed the bill 73 to 27, where 21 Democrats and 6 Republicans voted no.

Who fillibustered the Senate for 14 hours against the passage of the bill?&nbsp That's right, it's the Democrate "white n*gger hater" Robert Byrd.

Re:This is about responsibilty.

[Fishstick]

>What this lawsuit says is that people who see a violent film and then commit a violent act are innocent. Is this reasonable?

Um, no. But that isn't what the appeal judgement said. The guys who ran a website pointing out the Doctors who performed abortions do not have to pay $109 Mil because others who saw their website went and killed doctors. A court had originally said that they were guilty of inciting to violence, this appeal judgement overturned that. (from the way _I_ read it)

So to put it in your terms is that those who make a violent film and then members of the audience are inspired to go commit murder are innocent.

---

Re:This is about responsibilty.

[IronChef]

It's no myth. Here's one link. You can easily find others if you look.

The fact is, guns aside, America just has a more violent culture than most other industrialized nations. Guns don't make people into killers, and it is possible to have a society where there are lots of guns and little crime. America just isn't that place for some reason -- we should try to find out why.

Re:it easier to trash the kids isn't it?

[Dyolf Knip]

I would tend to think the unprotected sex that led to the pregnancy to be self-destructive

Since when do pregancies occur only through unprotected sex? There is not one single way to have completely safe sex (same-sex relations aside), except for having NO sex. Should a couple that took every precaution be forced to raise or at least bear a child because of a roll of the dice?

What about people who want kids and cannot reasonably care for it? Should we force them to abort? Why not - its the same theorey

No, it's not the same theory at all. Being pro-choice is about not demanding that a woman bear a child. This is rather the exact opposite.

--

Re:This is about responsibilty.

[SquadBoy]

Ok so you think that just because some people have weak minds that the government should be allowed to control what we hear, see and say. Just throw think in there also. I'm sorry but even if there was a proven link between violence in the media and people doing bad things it would not be worth it to give up any freedom because of this. And yes the person is responsible for what they do. Otherwise all I have to do is have someone post a reply to this telling me to shoot you between the eyes and if I do so it is that persons fault because they incited me to do it :). Of course according to this it's all about the beer. And of course if you look at this and other stats like it during the 90s with all the violence in the media the crime rate has been going down. Let's see maybe crime has more to do with poverty and social justice and since the European countries in which crime is lower do a better job of taking care of the poor maybe that is the reason it is lower and not the censorship. I like the beer theory best myself. Now someone please tell me to go shoot this guy!

Re:The Importance of Freedom of Speech

[SquadBoy]

It is also important to note that Holmes was writing in dissent. It amazes me how many people do not know or ignore that fact.

Re:The Importance of Freedom of Speech

[SquadBoy]

That would be wrong. Justice Holmes wrote that opnion in dissent. The law in fact is such that you do have the right to yell fire in a theater. You may want to look here and here to understand why.

GODWINS LAW!

[electricmonk]

Has anyone taken a look at the mirror that michael provided in the posting? They just skip right into it.

Arrrragh! Run away, run away!

Re:This is about responsibilty.

[Fat Rat Bastard]

... And there is hardly any violence in a totalitarian state (well, at the citizen level anyway). That is the price of freedom my friends. Live in a society where you have a lot of freedom and some people who will abuse it, or live in a country with no freedom to abuse. I choose the former.

If you don't have anything nice to say, say it often.

Re:The Importance of Freedom of Speech

[skwang]

Free speech only goes so far. I am all for free speech and expression in any form, but some of the other issues that the courts must decide on include:

• Clear and Present Danger
  It is illegal to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. The only case I can remember is a 1950's case where the Supreme Court ruled that inciteful speech is still protected. The case (Tortechelli vs. Chicago? something like that but spelled correctly) involved a man (T) who was holding a anti-"everyone except for white anglo-saxon males" rally in a Chicago theater. After a major riot broke out ouside theater, the police arrested the man. The court found that his speech is still protected and that the police did not have the right to arrest him.
• Fighting Words
  It is illegal to say, "I will kill you." If I actively say to your face that I hate you for whatever reason and say I am going to kill you, that speech is not protected under the 1st amendment. As you can see there is a fine line where this kind of speech crosses over. In this case, the judge decided that it the anti-abortion Web site was still on the Free Speech side and not the other.
• Slander and Libel
  If I post flagrantly incorrect information about you and you sue me (in a civil court), I cannot claim free speech because the speech is libel (slander is a verbal "lie"). The most famous case was a Hollywood actress who sued the National Enquirer for printed false information about her. The publication claimed freedom of speech, but the court ruled in favor of the actress. Note:this is a civil case, not a criminal one. There is nothing inherantly criminal about slander or libel that is contrary to the first amendment.

While the Supreme court often does rule in favor of the speaker in these cases, they must also weight into account the criteria above. I am sure there are even more subtler/obscure criteria that the court considers when ruling in a freedom of speech case.

Re:cheers??

[JCCyC]

I got rather lost in the legalese, but it appears that in fact the jury did decide that this line had been crossed. This makes the Appeals Court decision somewhat unusual.

Easy. They did it to please Dubya and help their careers.

Marvelous land you have there, where decrypting a digital disc is illegal but encouraging murder isn't.

Can't have it both ways.

[Archangel Michael]

Both left leaning liberals and right wing conservatives want it both ways all the time. They want free speech when it suits them, and don't when it doesn't. Only Libertarians understand where the line should be drawn. If speech causes real damage and the link is clear between the damage and the speech cause, then there is a legal recourse.

This is the rational for not being able to yell "fire" in a crouded theater. The causal reaction to the speech is likely to cause real damage.

Now if we can only educate people as to why free speech should be defended even when they don't like the content. That would be real education.

Re:This is about responsibilty.

[poot_rootbeer]

What this lawsuit says is that people who see a violent film and then commit a violent act are innocent. Is this reasonable?

That's not what this decision says at all. It says that if a person sees a violent film and then commits a violent acts, then the producers of the film are innocent.

-Poot

YRO vs. Abortion, Death Threats

[sulli]

The reason people here are so hard-core about free speech is that it's explicitly protected by the Constitution, which abortion is NOT (though it has been found to be protected implicitly through an understood right to privacy), and it continues to be eroded by a wide array of opponents. There is no equivalent text in the constitution that protects abortion to the same degree.

That said, explicit threats are wrong and illegal. The court ruled that the authors of this web site did not cross the line from harassment to an illegal, specific threat on an individual's life:

If defendants threatened to commit violent acts, by working alone or with others, then their [works] could properly support the verdict," Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski wrote. "But if their [works] merely encouraged unrelated terrorists, then their words are protected by the First Amendment."

On the merits, anyway, this case is not about abortion at all - it's about death threats, for which the perpetrator is liable in a wrongful-death lawsuit. This web site did not constitute an illegal death threat. End of story.

cheers??

[prelelat]

I don't really agree about abortion but "I" don't think that gives me a right to chear when a person who does is killed died or what ever. If you beleive that abortion is bad then your just as bad as the other person to be rid of a human being. Wheather or not its grown any.

Re:cheers??

[markmoss]

There's a big difference between being morally wrong and being illegal. A "Christian conservative" who cheers when someone is killed really needs to go back and read the New Testament again... But it's not illegal unless they are actually telling people to go out and murder.

Admittedly there is a rather fuzzy line between talking about how bad someone is and encouraging his murder, and maybe if I looked at the web site I'd think they crossed it. I got rather lost in the legalese, but it appears that in fact the jury did decide that this line had been crossed. This makes the Appeals Court decision somewhat unusual. In general they won't overrule the jury or trial court on a finding of fact except for clear bias or an egregious error utterly unsupported by the evidence. But here the jury was overruled on a finding of fact.

Re:The Importance of Freedom of Speech

[Tyrannosaurus]

Would you still feel this same way if I published your home phone & address against your wishes? How about if I asked if someone could please use this information to harrass you (literally) to death?

What if I published your credit card numbers or social security number? Have I commited a crime if I never used that info for identity theft? What if someone else did?

My point is, not all speech is protected. Yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater is against the law. If I abuse you with 'fighting words' (following the Supreme Court's definition), you can legally beat my lights out.

Limitations do exist--its not 'all-or-nothing' as you would have us believe. My opinion in this particular case is that the court dropped the ball, and went with the letter of the law rather than the intent of the law.

---

What about the rights of the victims

[dh003i]

What about the right to privacy of the people who were killed? What about how their rights were violated when some fucking son-of-a-bitch followed them to their house, wrote down their house number, and their liscence plate number? What concerns me here about this website is not that they were happy when ppl were killed, but that they must have followed people around and stalked them to procure such information, thus violating their right to privacy.

So DeCSS sites must be legal now! Yay.

[jonskerr]

After all, if a website doesn't actually facilitate the crime, terroristic or not, as this judge has ruled, then putting DeCSS and links to DeCSS must be equally protected, since these sites aren't actually committing any crimes.

Re:The Importance of Freedom of Speech

[wanderung]

republican, white congress, some of whom were in office and voted against civil-rights legislation in the 60's

Quite the racist aren't we? Not to mention uninformed. Check out the below link about the Civil Rights Act of 1964 along with the voting records. More Democrats voted against the bill than did Republicans.

http://www.congresslink.org/civil/essay.html

Two days later, the Senate passed the bill by a 73 to 27 roll call vote. Six Republicans and 21 Democrats held firm and voted against passage.

The Importance of Freedom of Speech

[Bonker]

When I attended UT, I had dinner from time to time with an Iranian exchange student who couldn't beleive that Americans got away with so much in the way of criticising our leaders and the rich and powerful. I had to explain to him the difference between a threat and criticism, but he still couldn't beleive how liberal we were and how public we could be with our speech.

He did see, however, how important it was for us to keep hold of these freedoms, even if it meant sacrificing some safety. (I'm certain that the abortion doctors don't agree with me, but...)

For every Klan site and every kill the abortion doctor site, there's a cryptome.org or a peacefire.org who couldn't function without basic freedom of speech laws. For every nutcase redneck who promotes white power, there's a rainbow coalition website who would have been edged out by our republican, white congress, some of whom were in office and voted against civil-rights legislation in the 60's.

It is important to watch for threats and illegal behavior, but to be truly fair, free speech decisions must almost always come down in favor of the speaker.

These words are as true today as they were 50, 100 and 200 years ago: 'If it doesn't work for everybody, it doesn't work for anybody.'

Re:The Importance of Freedom of Speech

[$pacemold]

> republican, white congress, some of whom were in office and voted against civil-rights legislation in the 60's

I'm sorry, Senator Robert Byrd is a Democrat.

Re:The Importance of Freedom of Speech

[Anoriymous Coward]

My phone number is in the book. It should be relatively easy to find out where I live.

The problem is with the harassers and the terrorists, not with the people who provide them with information. I don't see a difference between telling someone how to make a bomb and telling someone the home address of your mutual enemies.

--

Re:The Importance of Freedom of Speech

[blair1q]

There are any number of canonical limitations on free speech.

There are a countably infinite number of arguments against limitations on free speech, and a smaller but no less infinite number of arguments for them.

Which is moot so long as the federal courts have decided to politicize their decisions rather than maintaining the nation we won in the Revolution.

--Blair

Re:The Importance of Freedom of Speech

[mhamel]

A politic or an idea should always be judged by it's effects rather then by it's promises. An idea which is defended up to the death of some innocents loses a lot of it's appeal. The French and Russian revolutions where all about great ideas. Ideas Which were worth figthing for. The French wanted liberty, equality, and friendship among mens. But when Robespierre instored the "Terreur" for the sake of those ideas. When he want on killing the men he perceived has enemy of those ideas, he killed more then his enemies. He killed the ideas he was fighting for. Staline fell in the same trap. Free speech is great because it permits men to live a better live. It permits men to grow in wisdom, freedom and keeps them going forward. But freedom of speech is never going to be more important then the lifes of mens and womens it was first supposed to help. Mourir pour des idées d'accord mais de mort lente d'accord mais de more lente Georges Brassens Sorry for my bad english, but I had to answer.

Unrelated Terrorists?

[blair1q]

Unrelated?

Seems like if you apply a few degrees of Kevin Bacon to it I bet you would find that the people doing the shooting are not all that unrelated with the people doing the slandering and intimidating.

So now it's okay for, say, November 17 to come into the US and incorporate a 501(c)(3) front that recruits members for November 17 as long as it says "kill them with kindness" in the title?

There's a lot of bad craziness in this ruling. They reach back to a left-wing supportive ruling with at least as much bad craziness in it in order to support this instance of courtly insanity. It's almost as though they're trying to tangle this obvious case of hate-speech/violence in order to get a legal excuse to re-review the previous one. When the Supreme Court gets this, they can either validate the concept of violence-enabling speech as free speech, or they can fix it across all the cases cited.

And while I would agree that speech calling for violence necessary to revolutionize the government is clearly protected--it's the reason for the 1st Amendment--I don't agree that speech calling for violence against individuals engaged in medical practice should be protected. The government is not a doctor, and political action should be sufficient to decide the fate of such doctors. If political action is not sufficient, then your quarrel is with the government, not the doctors, or you're just plain wrong. In fact, I'm leaning towards the attitude that calling for violence against any person by name rather than a governmental institution is just plain wrong, though that would take some careful defining in a world where we place or inherit people in governing positions as an institution of one.

--Blair

This is about responsibilty.

[Urban Existentialist]

There is a central question here. Where does the responsibility lie? If a film portrays a violent act, and someone who watches that film then goes and commits that act in real life, who is responsible?

If the defendant can reasonably claim that the film he watched incited him to commit the act, and that hence he is not responsible, then he can reasonably claim to be innocent.

What this lawsuit says is that people who see a violent film and then commit a violent act are innocent. Is this reasonable?

Perhaps in some instances it is. The general public is, well, stupid and impressionable. European governments have recognised this for sometime, and take care of these issues for them by implementing strong censorship of violence. Hence there is little violence in European countries.

Should America foillow this lead? I think that if they can demonstrate the innocence of the defendant and think this is reasonable as the Europeans do, then yes. This is an undecided question though.

You know exactly what to do-
Your kiss, your fingers on my thigh-

Re:This is about responsibilty.

[ryants]

European governments have recognised this for sometime, and take care of these issues for them by implementing strong censorship of violence. Hence there is little violence in European countries

Japanese cinema is loaded with violence, yet there is little overall violence in Japan.

How does that figure into your argument?

Ryan T. Sammartino

I kinda have mixed feelings about this.

[snoop_chili_dog]

I don't like abortion, and I truly believe that there is a mass injustice being done in this country. There is a great parallel between what happened in Nazi Germany and what is happening in America today. One group of people has had there basic right to humanity stripped from them. It saddens me even more to see a noble cause such as women's rights supporting this. It smacks of hypocrisy for a group that claims that they have been discriminated against due to physical state commiting the exact same violation of human dignity. (Yes I do think it is a sin. I won't apologize for that.) On the other hand, I don't think it is right to advocate people being killed because they disagree with them.

The question here is whether cheering at someones death and suggesting that you'd like for them to die is acceptable. I don't like the idea, but to deny them their right to free speech would be to deny everyone. That's why we have to protect even people like this. After all, I thought this link was funny.

www.whowouldyoukill.com

There's a difference...

[CyberDawg]

My question is, what does this do to every other lawsuit claiming a website, movie, video game or song lead someone to a violent act?

I see a difference between a video game that portrays violence in an abstract (albeit realistic) setting, and a Web site that active encourages murder. If the owners of the site had offered a nickel for each doctor killed, that would be considered "murder for hire," which is quite illegal. They asked for the doctors to be murdered, but left out the nickel.

From a european view,

[Cryogenes]

this debate seems truly strange. In Germany, for example, it is simply illegal to publicly encourage acts of violence, whether or not anybody acts on them. This is not a law which worries people and hardly anybody ever tries to break it. I consider myself an extreme liberal, but I see no problem here. On the other hand, if Bob cries 'Kill Joe' and Henry actually does it, then Joe's relatives cannot sue Bob for damages. Everybody is responsible for their own actions only. I wonder, if it would be legal in the US to shout for the death of all (insert any racial/cultural minority here) followed by a list of addresses? This would certainly land you behind bars for several years in any European country.

Lists of Spies

[loydcc]

If this list isn't a direct threat then how come so many governments get bent out of shape when the name of one of their spies is published? Why not then openly list the names of all spies who operate in the USA. Surely there's no danger from a list of names.