Slashdot Mirror
Appeals Court Finds "Nuremberg Files" Site Unlawful
Greplaw writes "The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled this evening that an anti-abortion website that featured "wanted" posters of various abortion doctors constituted a "true threat." The website, called The Nuremberg Files, is therefore not protected by the First Amendment and is illegal under a 1994 law prohibiting threats against abortion doctors. The full opinion of the court is available on Findlaw. This case marks one of the first times that a website has been ruled to constitute such a threat." Our previous story has the background on the case. The District Court found the website was an unlawful threat; a three-judge panel of the Appeals court found that it wasn't; and now the entire Appeals court has found, by a 6-5 vote, that it was indeed unlawful. The case could be appealed to the Supreme Court next. The accepted definition of a threat unprotected by the First Amendment is one which "on its face and in the circumstances in which it is made is so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate and specific as to the person threatened, as to convey a gravity of purpose and imminent prospect of execution", and there is considerable dissent among the judges over whether a website can or cannot meet that standard.
How is this conversation going to go?
:)
Shall we go around on the censorship thing or just do the whole entire pro-life VS pro-choice thing.
I'm game for either.
Pro-choice, because there are too many damn people already!
Need help treating your acne? Come here!
Publishing public information: Okay
Publishing same information with encouragement to kill the people on the list: Not Okay
Understanding the Pro-Life movement's basic argument and agreeing with it are totally understandable. Understanding the steps to get from "life begins at conception" and "life should be protected" to "kill abortionists" requires understanding huge leaps in logic.
I have been pwned because my
that was not a first post type post man!
:) ) and posted a comment. . . .
No shit, wasn't aiming for first;
3 or 4 (5 already? shnitz) years, first time I have gotten first post.
Weird.
Just hit refresh, read story, read part of the article (speed reading rocks.
bizzare.
Need help treating your acne? Come here!
Wow, I agree that doctors shouldn't be threatened...but this is just a small chip in the bone that is our first amendment. However, I think the Supreme Court will overturn the Appeal's Court and rule it lawful because seriously, if you think about it, a website cannot "immediately threaten" someone. So, not to fear. Our trusty, conservative, Supreme Court will rule in favor of freedom. ....
Hargun
Think nothing is impossible? Try slamming a revolving door.
For those who aren't to familiar with it all
b orts.ht ml
:)
Heres the old site archived in a sense:
http://www.lancasterlife.com/atrocity/
Heres the newer site:
http://www.christiangallery.com/atrocity/a
One of the more disturbing/interesting(guess it depends on your views) about the above site is how they list all the abortion doctors they have info on... black for alive...greyed for MAIMED.. and strike-through for killed(they call it fatality)...
And my friends wonder why i think religion is such a big joke...
P.S. learn how to copy & paste
..is NOT free speech. And by advocating I don't mean simply saying "Oh, so and so is evil and should die." Advocating is going on to provide details like where the victim to be lives, what their schedule is like, etc.
But hey, the people posting it are innocent of any crime if they dont actualy do the killing!!
MY ASS.
This seems to me to be another issue where people have decided that the fact that something is on the web makes it different from other mass media. It may (or may not, given the state of most search engines today) be a more effective means of dessiminating information, but it's goal is the same as that of print magazines or tv or annoying "lose 30 lbs in 30 days" messages: getting information to a large number of people.
What the judges should be asking themselves is not 'does something on the web constitute a threat' but rather 'if they put this on a billboard in times square, would it constitute a threat'.
Narrative
Like they did in December 2000, huh?
Peace, or Not?
Is it just me or does the image http://209.41.167.182/repentance.jpg on their live abortion cams page look like a photoshop job.
For the weak of heart its not an abortion pic but one of protestors with pro christian picket signs. It looks like they changed the original messages on the signs tho.
At least rev phelps of www.godhatesfags.com fame has real protestors with real signs.
The 9th Circuit is the most totalitarian of all the circuit courts. The 9th Circuit has a well earned reputation for promoting big brother statism. The philosphy of the 9th Circuit is anti-civil-liberties, and very pro intrusive big government. You can thank Bill Clinton.
I think another site that guy had abortioncams.com is just as bad because it was cams out side planned parenthoods and said people were going to kill thier babies when infact some went in for check up, STD test birth control pills or to work, and it was detring people because they were being harrased by the psychos holding the video camera.
People like that need to relized that just because they are Jesus reaks (no offesne to Christians there is a big differnce between a Christian and a Jesus Freak)doesn't mean they are gonna get thier way in America there is a seperation between Church and State so once they say the word "God", like they always have to and do, they instantly kill their arguement.
And if they wanna play the "God" Game then the constitution proves them wrong because women have the "God" given right to make children when they are willing and able to. if they are not willing well medcine has changed the answer from Tough to a medical bill.
For the record, I'm pro-choice. With that in mind, here's my 2 pennies.
I don't really think that this was a good decision. While I am very glad that this site won't be able to target medical professionals, this eats me up. On this arguement, I suppose websites that displayed information on overly-zealous anti-abortion activists would be shut down in a similar fashion - oh wait, I forgot, its only those pro-life people who kill for their cause...
Hopefully it could be shown in court that the vast majority of /. readers are not likely to perform such an act, regardless of how inflammatory the statement maybe. In the case of bloody-minded anti-abortionists, however, this is obviously not the case.
My point is this: In previous rulings concerning this exception to the first amendment, it has been the case that the audience could be observed to be a volatile mass and thus likely to be swayed by hateful and threatening speech. Regarding websites, this issue becomes murky and threatens to turn any ruling either way into the dreaded first step down a slippery slope. I should expect my example above illustrates how this could be used to control expression in any number of forums.
sig-free as of 28 July 02!
To me this just seems to be a pissing contest.
If the US says it's illegal to put that info up on the site it will move offshore.
This is not about right-to-life versus pro-choice, it's about extremists who fuck everyone because they can't play nice. From the little-league mom who punches an umpire to the religious nut trying to blow up a bus load of tourists.
He must've pissed them off, they photoshopped his placard so it says C*nt!
Finally! Someone with enough balls to speak the truth.
These murderers have been given free reign to kill as many babies as they like. The government won't do anything about it, so it's up to us.
Thanks for posting, friend.
HEAR ME PUNY MORTAL!
YOU WILL FOREVER BE SLUG FOOD WHEN YOUR LITTLE PUNY MORTAL HEART STOPS BEATING! 3000 SLUGS SHALL COME FORTH AND EAT YOU PIECE BY PIECE SLURPING AT YOUR BRAIN!
FOR I HAVE SPOKEN! THE GREAT SLUG!
please dunt throw salt on my kids!
<strikethrough> Horsley, Neal abolishabortion@yahoo.com </strikethrough>
... in a religious fervor, they kill innocent people. what makes them different than the islamic militants from a few months ago?
too bad that's not the case. these people are crazy
mod this as flamebait as much as you want, but i'm one guy who isn't about to have the wills of someone else put upon me. i don't interfere with your freedoms, so don't interfere with mine.
"If you're going to go around killing children, you've got to expect some fierce opposition"
So I guess it's a good thing that they're not killing children. They're extracting cells that have the potential to become children.
Wait, sorry, was thinking for myself there, couldn't have that. Let me go back to the mindless crap being pushed at me.
I don't understand people who claim that humanity doesn't need some form of mass control. Without a system of laws, morals, and controls we would have anarchy.
Obviously I am not going to convince you that God exists, but I don't understand why you think "mass control of the people" is unnecessary.
Well, if it makes the mods feel any better, I just learned my lesson. It was off topic, and I should have known better than to bother. Guess I just hate letting people get away with faulty logic.
Science may someday discover what faith has always known.
looking at the new Nuremberg Files, 6 new names have been added...plus a crappy junior-high schooler flash animation of what they think of the 6 judges.
Pure propoganda......they say "They [judges] say it is illegal to publish names"....
right...that's "all" they are doing...just being a phonebook
Why are people so protective of children and babies? Because they're defenceless human beings who deserve the right to grow up and fulfill their potential. Unfulfilled potential applies doubly to unborn children. Why not allow murdering small babies? They can't talk, they have no personality and are otherwise useless, right?
Grow some moral fibre please. If you kill unborn children you deserve as much compassion as Hitler.
fine......it's obvious where you stand on the issue...but the point of discussion is whether your or your oppenent may advocate harming or killing of those whose views are on the opposite side of yours.
Read the opinion carefully. While any ruling on 1st amendment rights deserves careful review, this one, on the whole, strikes a balance in favor of liberties.
Let's consider what's going on here. The web site in question created "wild west" style posts of abortion doctors, and updated lists of those doctors that had been assassinated. (There are a number of criminal cases where physicians were attacked--even killed--because their name appears on hit lists.)
Now, we enjoy a right a free speech. But we do not have a right to threaten the safety of other individuals. When threats are made against individuals, the balance of interests between individual expression and individual safety shifts to the threatened.
Now, let's be clear about this. The hit lists were not mere trash talking in a chat room. They were not even generalized expressions of rage about doctors who perform abortions. Instead, they were lists created with the express, explicit purpose of organizing others to harm physicians. This is not my interpretation of the site mirrors I visited. This is also the opinion of most of the 9th circuit. Now, only a bare majority of the court felt the threat was sufficiently immediate to tip the balance for individual safety. But most of the court sided with the opinion that the site was designed to promote violence against doctors.
We should be cautious about restrictions on freedom of expression. And it seems that this is exactly what has taken place here: A serious, careful, factually detailed analysis for the circumstances of this case. There are no categorical rulings about web pages. This is not even a "technology" story, except for the fact that the hit list was online. (The same ruling might have obtained if the lists were merely on paper and sufficiently circulated.)
So, while I'm don't enjoy opinions that side against the big 1st A, I have to realize that our liberty in expression must, like all liberties, reach a limit when it bumps up against other rights and interests. I have to side with personal freedom and liberty.
As a closing note, I don't like abortion either. And I also don't like capital punsihment. But we should not let passion excuse us from the political process. Murder is wrong. If we disagree with a person's practice and work, we have a system of laws to change, or live by if we fail in this endeavor.
Fetuses are not children.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
That is so obviously photo editted ... obviously by someone who sucks usings photoshop.
... do we REALLY know? Nope, because factories that MIGHT build equipment to manufacture weapons would also be targetted .....
:-)
:-)
the best sign is the one that says:
HOMOSE
MUST BE
ARREST
yes - i understand that it's meant to be "Homosexuals must be Arrested" - but the word "Homosexual" could never fit on that sign.
The mentality of the Christian Right has always tormented me though. I do not understand how someone can be so concerned about the lives of unborn children, but not of people trying to feed their born children and just happened to be in a house that was next to a factory that gets hit by a cruise missle launched 500 KM away. What was that factory doing? Supposedly building weapons
At least the Anarchists for Life have a consistent argument. Start working towards improving conditions for womyn so that having children is feasible in ANY condition, and at least that would make the act of abortion less likely to be a desperation act. But then again, they aren't part of the Christian Right...
Do I completely agree with them - yes and no. But this is not a pro-life/pro-choice/anti-life/anti-choice debate.
I'm confused was it:
1. Because the posters were on the Internet? Everyone knows the Internet is made from computers. Geeks like computers. Slashdotters are geeks.
or
2. Because it has to do with the First Amendment. The First Amendment is about free speech. Slashdotters like free things, especially beer.
Most aborted fetuses can hardly be called "children". Most abortions occur when all the cells are simply a small bundle of identical cells - removing them is no different than when a woman has her menstrual cycle and flushes it down the toilet.
Comparing a doctor who performs abortions to Hitler is hardly fair.
Oh, the poor oppressed murderers need our compassion, give me a break.
I actually, see nothing on that web site advocating taking the law into your own hands. It just says they should be tried like Goebles, which is spot on.
How about if americans in general stop renaming every place they can't be bothered to pronounce right? Nurnberg, NOT Nuremberg.
And yes, the anti-abortionists are sick fucks.
Get your head out of the sand and find out what's going on.
In my mind, the site's talk of trying these individuals in legitimate courts does no more to mitigate the list of names crossing out those who have been killed than a disclaimer saying "don't download these programs unless you already own a licence" protects a warez site. Regardless of what precisely is said, it's clear what is meant. I'm sure I'm not the only person to come away with the understanding that to the site's author, more crossed-out names are better. Keeping in mind the history of anti-abortion terrorism, the real intent of this site doesn't seem very ambiguous.
Besides, these people could never be put on trial anyway, at least not in the United States. That would be "ex post facto" - making something illegal after it's already been done - and that is unconstitutional.
And even worse, the site names doctors that don't even do abortions! I personally know one of the doctors listed, and he has never performed an abortion in his entire career. All he's ever done is told women where they could go if they wanted one. And for this, he's somehow made his way onto the anti-abortionists shitlist.
I'm gonna go out and kill some unborn kids right now. Where are those tissues and the stump-porn I bought? If you want, I can send you the results to use in your propaganda campaign.
"It's overkill, of course. But you can never have too much overkill." - Anonymous Slashdot Coward
If you are pro-life, or have other non-PC beliefs, forget about the Bill of Rights. I hope that the Supreme Court bitch slaps the Court of Appeals.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
I believe that abortion should be legal up to 1 year after birth.
I may agree with abortion. I may not. No matter what I think, abortion is legal. One can lobby against abortion, but shooting people who are doing something that is legal, if controversial, is not just murder, it is a stab at democracy, the rule of law, and anything else that makes a free country. You may applaud people who kill abortion doctors because you agree with their view. What happens when the same religious nuts start picking on somebody else, somebody you like? What if they go after you? Dictatorships are cool as as long as everything goes like you want it. However, when you disagree with the Fuehrer, head mullah, or whatever, you're dead. Think about it. Better still, take a vacation in places where religious, anti-democratic goons hold sway.
I say abortion should be legal up to 1 year after birth.
They're killing babies, you're suggesting killing a full grown human who has proven that he or she can be successful in life. How does this not make you ten times worse?
Most mothers get abortions because they cannot care for the child or if the unfortunate fetus has a major defect; in essense the child would live in hell from day one, it has long been clear that such conditions foster criminal adults and other counter/non-productive members of society. The alternatives, adoption agencies and foster homes, are full beyond capacity already, do not always provide better conditions and are funded by tax dollars. What is your solution to these problems? Abortion is not a good alternative, but it is the best we have.
And what about cases where the mothers life is directly dependent on that she not have the baby? Do you kill fetus or mother? Both are are innocent. You post fails to address these issues, I suggest you consider them before forming an opinion.
Besides, what makes us human isn't being a zygote or having human DNA, it's a functioning, developed human brain. When the development of the fetal brain is at the level of a cat, as far as I'm concerned, destroying it is equivalent to killing a cat. A cat that is growing in an adult human's body.
Regardless of what you believe in as far as abortion goes, what possible other explanation could an anti-abortion site have for listing Doctors that peform the abortions addresses,etc. other than for harrasment/possible violence?
This should stand imo, and if it doesn't, then are system is more broken than I thought. On a side note, why does everyone feel the need to bring religion into this? So you either believe in God or you don't. (And, either you believe in abortion or you don't) Personally, I don't care what you believe, just try to play nicely and not bash each other....
Sent from your iPad.
For those of you out there that claim to be pro-life, let me ask you this: if an abortion is prevented because of you, would you be willing to adopt the child? Would you be willing to do this in every situation where you played some role in preventing an abortion? If you can't answer yes to both questions, you're a fucking hypocrite.
Severely mentally retarded children?
All religion does is hold back innovation and free thought throughout the past 5-10000
and thats why the soviet union did so well.. they were experts of free thought.
of course america never had an ounce of innovation or free thought, because our founding fathers were too religious..
its good to think before making such generic, unsubstantiated statements like that.
Successful in life? Who knows what child will be successful in life. So who cares if kill any kid right? Give me a break.
Handicapped persons - why don't we kill the grown up ones too eh? They're a drain on society right? Nah, you don't want to pay more tax, you'd rather get the latest computer to play Quake, never mind that numbers of handicapped persons are on the decrease due to technology anyway.
Mother's life dependant: Well obviously if the mother dies before birth, both would die so it's not an either/or proposition.
This makes me so angry that someone would abuse the right to speech to the point where there is no choice but to suspend it. It only takes a few reasonably well organized sociopaths to ruin freedom.
Before you flame, I'm not saying that the court killed free speech (yes I read it), only that it makes me sad that any speech should be so inflamitory that the courts can justify shutting it down.
"as plurdled gabbleblotchits on a lurgid bee" - Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz. (One man's humorous is another mans flamebait)
Check it out for yourself. Cells. Caution not for the weak of heart.
It is too bad that the fundies have seized hold of this issue and bundled it with their twisted worldview.
The real question is when do you call your "bundle of cells" a human being. I believe that long before a baby is born they should be given the same basic human rights you and i enjoy. Just because a fetus cannot speak for themselves does not mean that they are inanimate objects that can be flushed down the toilet without regard.
Ok smartguy. If you're willing to make such stupid comments, let's see if you can put your money where your mouth is. For each abortion you prevent, adopt the child. If you can't do that then, like someone else said on here, you're a hypocrite.
Fetuses are not children.
certainly not. however, there is debate as to if they are human. they may be, they may be not. it seems to me, that with such high stakes (potentially taking human life) that it would only be prudent to exercise some iota of caution.
There's no shortage whatsoever of people wanting to adopt children.
n/t
If someone kills a person on this list, and that website is in the killers cache, the people who created/maintain/host/donate the website should be tried for murder.
if i were on jury they'd fry.
and thats why the soviet union did so well.. they were experts of free thought.
:)
Yes and that was the first failed nation huh? You point out one attempt, and they also sough to exterminate all religion..did i once say do that? people can belive what they like as long as they dunt put it on me.. I think Communism was a little different in case you haven't noticed.
of course america never had an ounce of innovation or free thought, because our founding fathers were too religious..
Your right! lets make black people 3/5 of a person! all are founding fathers were not total religious zealots.. in fact if you know anything about it most of them saw a need from seperation of church and state.. or did you forget why a lot of euro's came over here in the first place? Ever here of Quakers?
its good to think before making such generic, unsubstantiated statements like that.
Look at your own
Then why are there so many left to adopt?
I'm not sure why you consider this to be a "small chip". The First Amendment has never been absolute. There has always been some limit to what people can say, especially if they are advocating some illegal activity.
That isn't to say that advocating illegal activity is automatically non-protected speech, but just that there is a point where expression becomes too "dangerous" to be protected. This may offend those with an especially idealistic view of the First Amendment, but is really a necessity in the real world.
Obviously the question of "what is protected" is a very tricky (and not well-defined) question. But this is why these cases are generally taken to the higher courts, where fuzzy legalities are better handled (rather than in the legislative side, where things are generally seen as black or white.)
Really, the process of reviewing controversial material is not something new, or really anything to be alarmed about. Although the courts in the United States tend to be very protective of the First Amendment, there are, of course, cases where things are taken too far. But this process is, by no means, an indication of the death of the first amendment.
seriously, if you think about it, a website cannot "immediately threaten" someone.
Just as the small vibrations of air caused by voice cannot hurt anyone, but walking into a bank and yelling that "anyone who doesn't hand over their money will die" is still illegal.
Where?
Right. That's why there are boatloads of kids in orphanages and street kids roaming about the city, joining gangs and becoming the sores of society we throw in prisons on a daily basis. "Give me a break".
Like I said, put your money where your mouth is. Go to an abortion clinic and offer to adopt every child that would have been aborted that day. If you can do this, excellent (personally I'd prefer to see kids living if there's a good chance), but if you can't, shut up.
Ever heard of supply and demand?
FYI, there are less people willing to adopt than there are orphaned children. If this wasn't true, orphanages would have no reason to exist because children would be adopted almost immediately after their birth.
You really have no clue, do you?
Then again, shouldn't expect better from an Anonymous Coward.
And for the record, I am libertarian. Which probably means that by comparisson, the stupid socialist fuck in this discussion would be you. Why am I not surprised?
but i wish i could.
i used to think abortion was okay. i used to think i was "enlightened" for thinking so.
but after careful, deliberate thought something occurred to me: we don't know with absolute certainty that a fetus is not a living being. sure, the supreme court says that a fetus isn't viable until 6 months and therefore can be aborted, but i don't trust the supreme court any farther than i can throw clarance thomas.
what do the scientists say? they seem to be just as divided on this subject as the rest of the population. and this is the heart of the matter: we cannot say with absolute certainty when a fetus is a living being.
now, in almost every other aspect of human life, when the stakes are high, we tend to exercise more restraint. "err on the side of caution" as the saying goes. why are we so certain in this case that, since we can't be sure, it's okay to abort these pregnancies when we don't really know?
the last was rhetorical, of course. if i made you stop and think for a second, i've done my job. if you jerk your knee and retreat into the same old tired arguments, i've failed.
i hope you just stop and think. don't blindly believe what your teachers told you, don't believe what eMpTV tells you, and please, for the love of everything sacred, don't believe what CNN tells you. stop and think.
nt
That's a weird thing to talk about. I think in some cases children that are born with such severe mental defects may be better off dead. After all, what kind of life can you live if you're incapable of operating at all?
Shrug. I hope i don't have to deal with that.
There may be a shortage for part-grown children, but not for babies.
Statistically speaking, children that grow up being neglected by parents are almost certain to become unproductive adults. These are the conditions the children would be faced with should they not be aborted.
Handicapped persons - why don't we kill the grown up ones too eh? They're a drain on society right? Nah, you don't want to pay more tax, you'd rather get the latest computer to play Quake, never mind that numbers of handicapped persons are on the decrease due to technology anyway.
I can't speak for everyone, but if I'd rather die that have a defective mind, those parents that abort these children likely feel this way about whatever part of the fetus is disabled. And yes, I've instructed my relatives to pull the plug if I ever become a vegetable.
Mother's life dependant: Well obviously if the mother dies before birth, both would die so it's not an either/or proposition.
Think again. The technology exists to support developing children outside of a natural womb.
You still have failed to provide me with a better alternative, instead insisting on continuing your moral crusade. Come back when you have answers.
For those of you out there that claim to be pro-life, let me ask you this: if an abortion is prevented because of you, would you be willing to adopt the child? Would you be willing to do this in every situation where you played some role in preventing an abortion? If you can't answer yes to both questions, you're a fucking hypocrite.
Your stupidity amazes me. Of course i wouldn't adopt every child i saved. But i would attempt to find others that would.
If someone puts up a website advocating the death of the president, they'd be tracked down and arrested pretty quickly. But if someone puts up a site advocating the death of Dr.Joe Blow because he performs abortions (regardless of where you fall in the abortion debate, please be intellectually honest enough to admit that is the main thrust of this site), we should do nothing and consider it free speech? The doctor's name and address are posted, the site is doing everything but providing some kook with the gun. Of course the people behind sites like these don't have the backbone to pull the trigger themselves, so they count on some mentally unstable freak to do the dirty work for them (which gives real insight into whether they really believe what they're saying). You can put up a pro-life site and give 1000 reasons why abortion is wrong- that's free speech. The minute you start advocating the death of others, you've crossed over some boundary and I'm confident the supreme court will see that.
Alex Chiu is just a folkloric idiot who probably never took any science class. What's really incredible, is how people that can talk about randomized patterns and entropy, can claim seriously to have broken Shannon's.
I'm not surprised. Seeing as we had Bill Clinton a pro-abortion President in office for 8 years that Federal Judges some of whom he could have appointed would side against this website.
I'm not sure how this site is supposed to be different than those redneck KKK websites that tell people to go out and kill blacks, jews, catholics, immigrants, and any other group of people that aren't white and protestant. Those are of = social value (depending on your point of view on abortion), and are legal so I don't see why this site shouldn't be.
It seems to me that it could be said, in court, that if someone kills an abortion doctor because of this decidedly inflammatory site, the site owners, operators, etc. could be held accountable as some type of accomplice to the crime? Especially if the address, etc. was procured there. I am decidedly not a lawyer but it makes some sense to me. An interesting side not: Weren't the Nurnberg trials about the people who ordered all the killings, not the people behind the triggers? If so, then the site operators are exactly like their example, in this case ordering killings, instead of pulling triggers? Apparently hypocrisy is ok, if you have the right cause.
If abortion is murder then mastrubation is genocide.
Oh well, back to my "penthouse".
Seems like you have a totally different meaning for "Jesus Freak". Jesus freak is a term that has been popularised by certain christian pop/rock bands, and generally means a person who loves Jesus with all of their heart (ie: a good christian). This has nothing to do with beliefs about abortion, etc. Although you could argue that good christians should believe that abortion is bad.
However this is a traditionalist belief, not based on a pasage from the bible (I'm not including those idiots that like to take verses out of context, such as the good old "An eye for an eye"). Belief in the right or wrong of abortion depends on when you class a growing human to be, well human. Some christians do not have a problem with very early abortions such as the morning after drugs, but pretty much all are against late stage abortion. It'll probably be considered a sin, but then again so is a lie. Whereas late stage abortion would be considered murder due to the growing human being more identifiable as a human.
However this is not just a problem with "christians", I personally prefer non religion specific terms such as religeous zealot, etc. Or just plan whackos, what does their religion matter?
Lets look at this logically.
:0)
1: A site that seems to be deeply against abortion posts all known doctors connected to that procedure. The names, adresses and phone numbers are all public knowledge (try phone book).
2: It is seen, by many doctors and others, as a threat to the doctors/families lives.
3: Law suit filed stating that web site is not covered under 1'st Amendment rights.
I'll bring up a few discussion points. First, since religion seems to be frowned in this place, I'm dismissing it from all my arguments (read below on rant about religion).
First, you can find many doctors in the Yellow Pages. Many support abortions, and even advertise such. That isn't illegal. You can also walk into the office, and you'll VERY LIKELY see a plackard of all the doctors in that facility. This isn't illegal, either. From the above 'legal stuff' you can do, reprinting _public knowledge_ is legal.
However, the accusation made is saying they are advocating/supporting this violence. It is true that that web site does, infact, have doctor damage charts indiciating the following: Alive, maimed, Killed. The way I'm understanding this accusation is that of the "Yelling Fire in a theater". The damage chart with contact info is supposedly the direct call to action. Yelling an emergency word like "Fire" is the description and directly implies "Get the fuck outta here!!!".
Lets look at this this from a different angle. What if I listed all the leaders from all the countries of the world. Then by thier names, I put thier address, phone number and recent medical troubles. Would I be advocating any harm done to these poeple? How about if I made an essay or 2 about political assassinations. Would I be considered making a violence advocating website?
Now lets talk about groups that do similar things. the KKK is known to hate "niggers". Why is that? I don't know, since KKK idiots are too incoherent as to why the hate blacks. However, from one I know, the KKK wants them dead. Or lets visit neo-Nazis. What do they advocate? Well, nothing except widespread destruction of the Jews. Hitler started with that plan. All they want to do is finish it. Why doesnt the government shut these places down? It is PROTECTED SPEECH.
Now I'm asking, What is the difference between "Widespread Destruction of a Race" and listing certain doctors, with the possible intent of Injury/Death ?
Religion Rant: Why does so many people in here dismiss and/or insult religion? Unlike most slashdotters, most of the US (and other countries) have strong ties in religion (mainly Christanity). Flatly insulting someones faith is GUARANTEED to TURN them diametrically against your ideas. I'm a Catholic, and I have many atheist friends. I implemented a polity with myself a long time ago: dont mention religion unless asked. Period. If you have an argument and you use religion as the "Trump" card, you've LOST. One time, a good friend (an atheist) got into a religious debate. I using facts about faiths, claimed that Atheism is a religion. Why? God is undetermined (cannot prove or disprove). Christans BELIEVE (using absolutely no facts in judgment). Atheists DISBELIEVE (using absolutely no facts in judgement). It is an interesting religion, in that it denies all underlying faiths in all religions. Regarding Abortion: I have successfully argued being against abortion. Remember what I said above: mention religion, lose argument. RANT ENDED. ahh I feel better now (sorta like after taking a dump- core dump that is
If someone put up a similar site for judges, (and their families) then started picking them off one by one in their homes, I think there might be less dissent.
These people are nazis hiding behind the 1st ammendment.
Of course web sites can constitute a true threat. Any way to transmit information can. The internet is a tool. Tools can be abused. This site is way, way over the line.
=brian
Wait ! There are millions of wankers killing billions of soon-to-be babies when they surf online porn. All those "babies" are defenseless spermatozoids. You have to stop those wankers, and I guess by force according to your "moral fibre"...
That's right, you can't speak for everyone. So why do you support murderers who speak for the child saying "I may not exist".
And if there is technology to support unborn children outside of the womb, where is your silly argument about the safety of the mother anyway?
A valid point. Agreed, argument withdrawn. But you still have not addressed other problems I stated, I will join you in the ranks of the anti-abortionists only if you can solve those. Your moral arguments will not sway me, as they are idealistic for the reasons previously stated.
Beer. The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems.
So either change the chant to "diploid human life is sacred" or change the chant entirely.
Danny.
I have written over 900 book reviews
"Why are people so protective of children and babies? Because they're defenceless human beings who deserve the right to grow up and fulfill their potential. Unfulfilled potential applies doubly to unborn children."
The collection of cells that are aborted are not children. They cannot feel nor think. They are just that: a collection of cells. Now they have a potential of becoming sentient, feeling humans. But while they are nothing but a collection of cells, they are not human.
How can you "murder" something that cannot feel, isn't self-aware and cannot think? Cattle has all those qualities, yet we feel no remorse when we kill them in the millions so we could eat them. You cannot be against abortion because those cells have the potential of becoming human. If you did that, then you must be against masturbation, since all those sperm have the potential of becoming a human under the right circumstances. Just like those aborted cells had the potential of becoming human under right circumstances.
If you don't want abortion, fine. You have the right not to get an abortion (if you were woman that is). But you cannot go around demanding that other people must live according to your rules! You don't have the right to force others to act and think like you do!
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
Not only that, but from a strictly biological standpoint, a foetus is a parasite, living off the host's bodily fluids, and causing harm to the host organism.
"Comparing a doctor who performs abortions to Hitler is hardly fair.
"
Especially considering that one of the first things Hitler did when he came to power was outlawing abortion
So when do we start killing Christian fucktards that keep killing doctors? When did they become the judge of man, considering that they have taken part in there own share of brutality over the ages?
I believe in choice, but I also believe it should be educated and stressed choice, and not be rash reaction. Any of you "good" Christians who kill doctors deserve none less then death.
Have you lost the faith? Is god lacking in his ability to punish people who do wrong, whose specific right is to judge man shared with no other.
I hope that the bomb blows up in your hand, or that you come to your senses. And you wonder why these other groups go after Christians? I guess they remember what happened last time you were in power? This kind of crap only encourages revenge and more death. And don't believe god will protect a bunch or murdering freaks. Yeah yeah, they are murdering babies, but now you joined the club with them. Buy your little lake in hell and burn with those you hate.
If these people are judged to be actively threatening people by putting their names on an open 'hit list', while openly encouraging their deaths, and celebrating when a death occurs - then they have violated existing laws. That's exactly what they are on trial for - it's not for new laws, or even new interpretations of law. This is a judgement that clarifies that the act they went through with does break the law.
Just like a person committing fraud online in the U.S. can be convicted of interstate fraud, no new rules are required for convictions of organized threats just because they are online.
:^)
Ryan Fenton
...mine too!!
such as the caution of electing to terminate a pregnancy when you are faced with the reality that you do not have the financial resources or maturity to responsibly raise a child.
You can't just walk into an abortion clinic nine months pregnant and get an abortion, by the way. As the Supreme Court dictated in Roe v. Wade, abortion in the first trimester is acceptable, abortion in the last trimester is unacceptable, and the second trimester is kind of a grey area. It gets more detailed, like when the health of the mother is at risk, but basically that sums it up.
It would be nice if, once in my life, I could debate this with someone who doesn't need to make references to various nazis or dumpsters full of body parts when presenting their case. (not that you are that kind of person pnatural, it's just a general complaint.)
I am a pro-choice advocate. Woman's body, woman's choice. There is nothing I have seen, read, or be taught that shows me abortion is wrong. I won't go into details because that's not the point.
/. is as pro-choice as I am. In fact, it's probably half. This post should be mod'ed up and up and up so that it gets read by everyone. If only half the posts on /. were this insightful.
The point is, this gentleman has made a very decent argument in favor of pro-life. There is nothing rude, offensive, or inappropriate about this posting. It's intelligent and well written.
Why the hell is he being negatively moderated?
This post is NOT a troll, you fools! Attention to moderators: just because YOU disagree with someone's ideas, DOES NOT give you the right to silence them. I am sure not everyone on
But that won't stop assholes with mod points. Just note that you will be meta-moderated accordingly, and I am one of those who meta-moderates daily.
Why bother.
Or supporting death penalty AND opposing abortion both at the same time "since life is sacred"..
The ignorance of these people is unbelivable...
Yeah, -1 troll, I know..
"There is a terrorist behind every bush"
when you are faced with the reality that you do not have the financial resources or maturity to responsibly raise a child.
do you have kids? i don't ask to enflame the issue, merely to grasp your understanding of the financial responsibility of raising children. a relative of mine summed it up quite nicely: you never have enough money to raise kids. granted, that's only a quip, but the flip side is simple in that if you cannot afford to raise a child, the State will happily help you out (in America, at least, where the ruling took place).
You can't just walk into an abortion clinic nine months pregnant and get an abortion, by the way
ever heard of partial-birth abortion? it's a procedure that is used to "terminate a pregnancy" right up until the last minute. and it's legal in some states, IIRC.
It would be nice if, once in my life, I could debate this with someone who doesn't need to make references to various nazis or dumpsters full of body parts when presenting their case. (not that you are that kind of person pnatural, it's just a general complaint.)
point taken. but also consider the motivations of those who do make those arguments in that they typically do not make them out of malice, but out of desperation to have what they (and I!) believe to be murder ended.
I often wonder what would happen if the women in the anti-abortion league who participate to violent acts would be raped (sorry for the grammar... ;b) ?
It might be of greatest interest to see if they go on with saying you can't abort...
--
Arkan, who like to believe he can do what he wants with his body
!!seineew era sresu pohsotohp efil-orP
I can do little, but I hope I can help all viewpoints become / remain recognized. I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it (and be heard ;).
Stay strong on your viewpoints, even in the face of the very liberal-oriented discussion on Slashdot. I fear your view is rarely delivered here, so do not lighten up!
Many people here would rather not take notice of conservative and/or right-wing views. Those people need to wake up and realize the hyprocrisy of their myopia.
:)
Why bother.
This was clearly done with the gimp.
You are the anonymous coward after all ...
Thats Nürnberg.
If you are going to be pedantic, at least use the correct spelling yourself.
It's crappy but interesting; they add the judges to their hit list. The best part though is the last frame; "P ALIGNCENTERFONT TIME"
LOL
Many anti-abortionists advocate the death penalty, which is nothing but post-natal abortion.
I think the comment on "whether a website can or cannot meet that standard" is misleading. This is Not an issue.
It is an utter falicy to asume that the Internet is somehow detached from common laws. These rules still apply, and it is no use claiming that there is 'no juisdiction'. Especialy when the law in question is one common to almost all of the world.
What this is about is if it is okay to indirectly threaten the life of someone. In my opinion, the indirect urging of someones death is proportionaly responcable for that death. Regardless of if the threat is published on the web, in a news letter, by samizdat or on the side of cows.
It is ironic that the site names its self after Nuremberg, yet claims the same defence.
As far as the Supreme Court goes, I think I agree with the above poster that they will overturn it. The Court has made it pretty clear its activist (though conservative) bent on free speech issues - it will interpret the first amendment broadly when dealing with so-called hate speech (cf. RAV v. St Paul ) and extremely narrowly when dealing with obscenity (cf. Erie v. Pap's AM ). Rather than address the contradiction the Court persists in the myth of content-neutrality (see Scalia's bizarre and brazen construction of the notion in the RAV decision, rightly trounced by White as manufacturing a standard of "underbreadth"). It's likely to see this as protected speech here if past decisions are any clue.
Then again, I could see the argument being made that if we protect this kind of speech we would have to protect a website by terrorist sympathizers listing names and addresses of prominent American Jews (perhaps with the names of WTC victims crossed out) and describing the glory of suicide bombing infidels. I read that O'Connor has publicly warned Americans to expect civil liberties restrictions in the wake of 9-11 so such an argument could be pretty persuasive to the Court.
Ever notice that alot of these pro-lifers [or anti-choice] people are the same who eat meat, live in buildings and otherwise displace millions of other lifeforms for their own comfort.
Its interesting that the lifes they choose to protect are only the unborn fetuses of unwilling parents.
Why don't they spend their energy helping parents who want kids but can't afford things like child care, food, clothing!
Oh thats right, self-righteousness on the part of some christian bible-thumper. I'll let you in on a secret, the bible is just a fairy tale made to a) control the mass and b) comfort irrational fears.
I say down with the website, more space on the web for something productive now.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
Would anyone like to create a new website?
:)
Get photos and publicly available address info for the people responsible for that website. Make "Wanted: Dead or Alive" posters.
Turnabout is fair play, and it's a golden opportunity for parody
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
If some anti abortionists target a doctor then they should be targeted in return with added interest. For ever doctor killed there should be a massacre of anti-abortion activisits (dressed
up as an accident of course like Wacko) when they haved one of their bible thumping meets. They'd
soon get the message and if not they'd soon be all dead anyway,
No I'm not trolling , these are my genuine views.
I have heard of partial-birth abortion. You are correct that it can be done right up to the last minute. It is still illegal to perform an abortion in the last trimester except to protect the health of the pregnant woman.
There's an excellent discussion of D&X abotions at religioustolerance.org which lists the typical reasons for partial-birth abortion:
The fetus is dead.
The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would place the woman's life in severe danger.
The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would grievously damage the woman's health and/or disable her.
The fetus is so malformed that it can never gain consciousness and will die shortly after birth. Many which fall into this category have developed hydrocephalus.
In addition, some physicians violate their state Medical Association's regulations and perform elective D&X procedures - primarily on women who are suicidally depressed.
If you read the article you'll see that in cases of fetuses with hydrocephalus "It is not unusual for the fetal head to be as large as 50 centimeters (nearly 20 inches) in diameter and may contain...close to two gallons of cerebrospinal fluid." The passage of the fetus through the vagina would be extremely traumatic unless D&X is done, no?
make those arguments..out of desperation to have...murder ended
How desparate would you feel, knowing that the fetus you are carrying suffers from hydrocephalus, has no chance of survival after birth, and you will need to push an object 20 inches in diameter through your vagina because the procedure that would have removed it safely was outlawed by morality-driven religious zealots in Congress?
I hope that I have opened your eyes a little, especially regarding the issue of partial birth abortion. The women who are forced to remove a dead or unviable fetus via late-term D&X are usually EXTREMELY traumatized by the process; they wanted a child and things went horribly wrong towards the end of the pregnancy. Political grandstanding, complete with graphic depictions, rubs a lot of salt into those wounds.
I also found this link (refreshingly free of banner ads depicting a partial birth aborion) Late Term Abortions: Legal Considerations which is worth a read.
I think of myself as a pretty tolerant person, and you seem quite rational. Unfortunately not everyone is capable of recognizing that, "freedom of choice" aside, there are legitimate medical reasons when abortion is warranted to protect the woman. Consider this statement by the National Council of Catholic Bishops, "We have received inquiries whether the National Conference of Catholic Bishops would lend support to a ban on partial-birth abortion that would include an exception for the health of the mother. We want to state again that such an exception is too broad. We look for the elimination of abortion, beginning with the banning of partial birth abortion, without reservation or exception."
Contrary to most of the comments posted here, most pro-life advocates do NOT condone, nor agree with killing, harassing, or harming abortion clinic workers, doctors, etc. Most intelligent pro-lifers realize that the activities that go on in an abortion clinic are currenly LEGAL and performing ILLEGAL acts to try to stop these activities is totally worthless. The right way to go about it is to work to get the laws changed.
I'm just disappointed about all the comments being made here depiciting all pro-life people as hypocritical morons that are blinded by religious beliefs. Yes, some pro-life people are that way... but the majority are not. The majority just feel that it is wrong to end an innocent life. And to debunk the perceived hypocracy of being pro-life and pro-death penatly... there is a significant difference between the two... abortion is ending a life that has done nothing wrong... has done nothing to harm society... or others... putting someone to death for murder is ending a life that was not innocent... that purposely took away someone else's right to life. If you cannot see that difference then I feel sorry for you.
--
"What do you want me to do? Whack a guy? Off a guy? Whack off a guy? Cause I'm married."
This is a laughable decision. The rigth to free speech is not holy. There is no RIGHT to threaten others, intimidate them or otherwise infringe on their personal liberties. Your personal rights do not supercede others.
I can't believe this is even being debated. In a civlized country(Which the US is not), people are aware of the tradeoff of liberties. There are libel and slander laws to prevent people from making false claims. Is that protected under free speech?
And for those who disagree with me and claim this website is harmless, post your addresses and real names. This is simple and obvious incitement to murder.
In the vein of "capitalism" let me offer the thought that being anti abortion is entirely consistant with "capitalism" as defined by capitalism.org, follow me here.
:)) Thus you have given the fetus/cluster of cells permission to be there. Now rape and incest are a different matter, since consent of equal parties isnt the case, but they are less that 1-2% of all abortions. With the acception of rape or incest(here we can make an exception depending on the respective rights of each party?), is meerly allowing people to be irresponbile for their actions by allowing them to violate the most basic freedom that fetus has.
There are two questions here, is it entitled to human rights, and what if its rights conflict with my right to do what i want with my body(ill happily recognize this one).
Lets start with the first.
A severed human limb has no potential for life on its own, neither does an egg or sperm. They simply don't have the genetic material necessary to exist as a complete human being. The foot is differentiated, and the egg and sperm need to be paired to get a complete human chromosome. Thus a fetus/cluster of undifferentiated cells, are not physical the equivalent of a severed foot. They aren't, nor can they ever be human. You might be able to complare them (functionally) to a funtionally challened human being(handicapped or retarted). So then what kind of rights does a fetus have, the same as you or I? those of a minor child? those of a person too mentally handicapped to have any legal responsibility? The point is that some of them have fewer rights than others, but they are all guaranteed their right to life, as it is the most basic right one has, followed by liberty, property.
Someone sighted "everyone has the right to enjoy sex" and the difficultly of going through pregnancy, since contraceptives arent perfect, as grounds for legalizing abortion. Let me get this straight, sex, without concequences, is your right, but a fetus doesnt even have a bare minimum number of rights that we given to minors and such?
I maintain that by having sex, you are contractually accepting the potential concequences of your actions (pregnancy being obvious, this is sex people, it's how we procreate
Any constructive critques, am i missing something?
----- Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.
Here's a quick acid test for you: Change the subjet from "abortion preforming doctors" to "key devleopers of linux" or "top execustives at Microsoft," and see if you opinions change any.
Mod point free since 2001
If you keep your pants on, you won't have to kill it.
Oh, the irony.
And you're probably too stupid to understand it.
You are demanding that others apply your rules to their interactions with you.
These pro-choice/pro-abortion posts are getting redundantly selfish - it's always "my rights" or "you can't tell me what to do".
One thing that's always annoyed me about the anti-abortion position is that so few of the believers have the courage of their convictions. The pro-life movement doesn't talk much about scenarios like these, although you'll see a few folks who are willing to stand up and say these girls must carry the child to term no matter how bad it messes her up. The rest hide behind "except in cases of rape and incest" phrases as if people born of rape are somehow less human than those of us conceived out of love.
Speaking as both a father of an adopted child and as someone who's pro-choice, I'm very aware of the consequences of abortion. It's a hideous act, but the reality of not having it available is worse in my opinion.
"Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
Some choice words from Mr Hicks;
"Your not a person till your in my phonebook."
"We gotta come to some new ideas about life folks ok? I'm not being blase about abortion, it might be a real issue, it might not, doesn't matter to me. What matters is that if you believe in the sanctity of life then you believe it for life of all ages. That's what I hate about this child-worship syndrome going on. "Save the children! They're killing children! How many children were at Waco? They're killing children!" What does that mean? They reach a certain age and they're off your fucking love-list? Fuck your children, if that's the way you think then fuck you too. You either love all people of all ages or you shut the fuck up."
"If you're so pro-life, don't lock arms and block medical clinics. Okay? Lock arms and block cemeteries. Let's see how committed you are to this premise. I want to see pro-lifers at funerals with crowbars opening caskets, going 'Get out!'"
There were plenty of "pro-life" plantation owners. Like you, they used the bible to justify all of their actions.
Over 70% of all anti-abortion activists are men.
100% of them will never give birth.
That's so easy to say, and I've said it many times in my life. But if you look at it, it's not as clear as you state. Let's examine two possibilities and see how they measure up against common sense.
Theory 1: There exists some "thing" that created the universe and the life within it.
Theory 2: At some point in time a universe appeared from nowhere, full of matter and energy. Over billions of years, clumps of debris formed into clouds, stars, planets, etc. On at least one planet, random atoms came together in complex formations to create molecular machines. From these, cellular organisms sprang forth with limited reactive abilities. These in turn grouped together to create very complex life forms, culminating in the self-aware human beings we know and love today.
The more I let my mind ponder each theory in turn, the more the second one sounds like a great science fiction story. There are so many random occurances resulting in complex patterns.
The first theory, however, starts to seem dodgy when one attempts to personify the "thing" by calling it the "creator." Images of an old man with a long white beard and robe sitting in the clouds is obviously quite silly, but it's what people tend to think of and thus dismiss the theory out-of-hand.
Worse things happen still when power and politics come into play. Seeing the violence some people commit in the name of religion and a creator made it easy for me to dismiss the possibility, for I assumed anyone willing to do so must be completely wrong. It wasn't until I looked for myself at the arguments that I was able to separate spirituality from religion.
And damnit, I sure can't wait to find out the answer! ;)
Freedom to fear. Freedom from thought. Freedom to kill.
I guess the War on Terror really is about freedom!
From my memory of the last time the Nuremberg List was posted on Slashdot, I predict that there will be at least two dozen posts talking about how the Nuremberg trials after the end of World War II were retroactive. They weren't. The surviving leaders of Germany and Japan (and the other Axis countries) were tried for violations international laws Germany had signed well before WWII.
The Geneva Conventions in question were first ratified in 1864 and later modified in 1906. They dealt with the treatment of the sick and wounded. Additions were made to the conventions in 1929 concerning the treatment of prisoners of war. There were more modifications made in 1949, but by then the trials were long done.
The Hague Conventions were first ratified in 1899 and modified in 1907. They dealt with certain kinds of weapons (such as chemical weapons) and outlined the treatment of both prisoners of war and civillians.
The Kellogg-Briand Pact, ratified in 1928, outlawed war as a tool of national policy (ie. aggression).
There were also a few other laws that were brought up (such as the naval law against false flags and such), but these were the big ones.
As can be seen, all of these treaties were drawn up well before the start of World War II. More importantly, Germany signed on to each and every one of these treaties, bringing themselves under their jurisdiction. This is similar to the way that Milosveic is being brought to trial for violations of the Dayton Accords (to name one) he signed on to years earlier.
Of course, the people who maintain the Nuremberg List are those kinds of people that, if you begin to understand their "logic," you should seek professional help...
First, I want to congratulate you on a well written argument. I don't really agree with it, but it was well written and thought out.
Now, the issue isn't so much your individual choice. The issue is imposing your choice on others. Some people are always going to seek out abortions. This maybe because of irresponsibility, medical problems, rape, etc. Who knows all the possible reasons. The fact remains, some people will want/need abortions.
The only thing outlawing abortion will do is put these people at risk. It will stop some abortions, but not 100% of them.
I think your approach is the right one. If you don't like it then you can try to educate people to see your point of view. Talk with them. Provide them more information if they ask for it. Don't yell "murderer" in their face. Don't create "Wanted Posters".
I wonder how the people of the site would feel if a counter-site appeared listing their personal information on it?
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
This maybe a topic for another time, but the fact that this information appears online doesn't have any bearing on it's legality or availability.
Would / should the ruling be any different if they were to print the information out in a pamphlet and hand it out at a rally?
Of course the point in this case is moot, there have been mirrors moved out of the country long ago.
Get some balls. Your life is no more meaningful than the ant you killed on your front porch. People need to feel they are important and to feel important there needs to be a why to life. Thus the human ego cannot accept that nothing really matters without becoming a sociopath.
Why is it that the more intelligent you are the more you see the flaws in 2000+ year old logic. Where as the backwoods fucks that live by me are Penecostal Holiness snake wielders.
Pretty much the photo with the small body in the hand looks really horrible, but also terribly like a fake. Consult some web site with echography of foetus at various degree of gestation (I can't find again the adress maybe try to CD Atlanta). The proportion seems really really wrong.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
The accepted definition of a threat unprotected by the First Amendment is one which "on its face and in the circumstances in which it is made is so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate and specific as to the person threatened, as to convey a gravity of purpose and imminent prospect of execution", and there is considerable dissent among the judges over whether a website can or cannot meet that standard.
Of course a web site can meet that standard: (16 pt type) KILL THIS MAN (picture) (name and address) (why he should die) (suggested assassination methods, where to buy sniper rifles, car bombs, etc).
It is illegal to say "Kill this man", when it's clear that you really mean it, and it's still illegal if you direct this message to the general public (through a web site, a broadcast, or a speech) rather than a specific person.
The question is whether this particular web site meets this standard, because it does not explicitly tell anyone to kill the abortionists it identifies. It's a borderline case. It's pretty clear that the authors of the web site hope someone will do something bad to the persons named, but it may not even say abortionists should be killed (or even harassed) - it just attracts those who do believe that. IMO that is the web site authors' intention, but if they were careful about what got recorded in e-mail or print, that may be impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
Think about the principles here in a less emotional case. How about a web site that says "Commodity traders are scumbags who ought to be shot", and "John Doe is a commodity trader". It leaves it up to the reader to complete that syllogism. Is this protected speech? Is the author responsible if some unsuccessful investor reads the web site, then in fact shoots John Doe?
How about if the web site doesn't explicitly say anything against commodity traders, aside from a URL like "commodityfraud.com"? It just gives the traders' name, address and picture - and it is going to be found by people with a grudge against commodity traders.
I think the "nuremberg" web site lands somewhere between those cases. It is knowingly set up to be easily found by those who do want to kill abortionists, it makes it easy for them to find their victims, and it probably avoids directly telling them to kill but gives a certain amount of moral encouragement.
See this op-ed column to see what passes for tolerance on some campuses.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
And just because you feel it should be so does not give you the right to speak for them. That right belongs to the mother, who is responsible for the life. You have no legal right to take her decision, and no ability short of constant surveilance to be sure she doesn't make it.
All this doctor killing nonsense is the work of ignorant, bloodthirsty individuals who use religion as a scapegoat to support their need for violence and hatred. And to think Jesus taught tolerance and walked with prostitutes (if you think a prostitute did not know and practice abortion in the 1st Century AD, think again)...
Hey freaks: now you're ju
No really, if they've ruled the site constitutes a real threat, then it's a fairly simple jump to say that they're threatening George W. Bush, who they added to the list. I'd think the Feds might be interested in that.
Of course, besides accusing Gee-Dub of not being a real Christian (whatever), they also say Clinton is "clearly Satanic and demon-possessed." I love these guys. Or I would, if they weren't dangerous in terms of inciting dumbshits to bomb the clinics and shoot the doctors through their windows at home.
I see them as being as much a human as a boil and everything else that isn't an independant life form grown from the body. Since a fetus cannot live without being in a parasitic relationship with its host mother, it is not logically an independant life form.
Twenty bucks says that original poster is against masturbation.
You bring up a good point: this is about the potential for human life. Something I haven't seen so far in this discussion is that, given how technology has progressed, if it isn't already possible, it will soon be the case that a variety of human cells can be "tweaked" such that they are capable of developing into a human.
I wonder what the anti-abortion camp will do on the day it becomes possible for virtually any cell in the human body to become another human. Truthfully I don't think they'll be able to handle it. Steam will start pouring out of their ears, and then they'll explode.
Arguement by slippery slope technique.
So you first off exclude haploid stage as a determination of human status - good most people will agree. But why does that exclusion lead to you to the the "diploid or else" conclusion?
I think there are a lot more reasonable thresholds for making a legal determination for "human" status - like brain activity, viability, sensation of pain, etc.
A doctor may be able to tell if there is a good chance your baby is going to be retarded. You then have the option to abort.
One thing that no one has pointed out is the legal-community's perception of the 9th Circuit. Of the 12 Primary Federal Circuits (not including Federal Circuit Court of Appeals), the 9th is often considered the "renegade" court.
I live in the 9th's jurisdiction, and they drive attorney's and legislators nuts, because noone ever seems to know which way this court is goind to jump.
--Stupidity is Self Curing!
Suppose, purely for the sake of argument, that you are a frequent customer of an adult book store. You also live in a small town in Utah. Someone gives me a photograph of you entering the book store. I make 100 copies of the photograph and distribute them to your neighbors. Your neighbors are horrified, stop talking to you and give you evil looks. Have I committed a crime?
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
How did you care for a baby and go to school?
I am pregnant and want to go to school. What schools allow me to bring a baby with me or who can tend to the baby while I am studying or working to get money for studies as my husband I am sure won't as it would interfere with his career and going to the gym. I really want to get your solution for this.
in other news the united nations web site was hit by a massive denial of service attack. the fbi pinpointed the source to a dangerous underground site, slashdot.org. while there they also noted that free speech was being practiced and shut it down.
Looks like another mis-interpretation.
The decision makes it so that those who POST wanted ads on sites such as that are held responsible if something does happen to the doctors posted in those wanted ads.
They have not declared the site illegal.
"Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
Here is my solution to the debate
All people who want an abortion have to go on a 3 day waiting list. The people on this list are matched up with willing would-be parents who cannot concieve or otherwise wish to carry these babies to term. If no one matches in that time, then the baby is removed and if it can live on it's own, so be it, otherwise it dies.
This is modeled after the humane society's protocol for adoption of animals. If a baby dies in this model, the responsibility for that is really spread across society. It's because there was no woman who really wanted to step up and care for it.
just my opinion
-no broken link
Well,..in that case you fucking moron, all murderers should go free, since people die in car accidents, and floods, and such. Must be God's fault, and since God is a murderer, then murdering is ok. When your mother or wife or brother or child is killed by some psycho, we'll let him go.
Have a nice day you fucking moron. Now grow up and get a clue. Freak.
Atheists believe that there is no God. Agnostics hold the position that we can never know whether or not there is a God.
I might not be completely right on the atheist bit, but I know what an agnostic is because I am one.
That the website's content constituted speach?
I'm frustrated by my own inability to decide whether espousing illegal actions should be illegal, or whether the law should be limited to punishing (or "correcting") those who actually commit the acts. I can define how those are two different acts, but I can't decide if the (obviously lesser) act should be illegal in a country whose first founding stipulation is freedom of speech. This is not the most significant assault on most literal interpretation of the First Amendment, but the fact that it is yet another bit of sand washed off the river bank, makes me wonder if I'll see the inevitable deep canyon in my time.
From a strictly biological standpoint it is a mother/child relationship, not parasitical.
When I read stories like yours I'm filled with nothing but frank admiration. Raising kids, going to school and holding a job was something my Dad did while I was growing up. He had Mom's help, but he also worked three jobs. I have no idea when he slept.
I believe you've made the classic programmer's mistake however.
If you download and run a hundred programs off of freshmeat, you'll find that half of them require a good level of programming understanding to make them work. One might conclude that the people who wrote them are inconsiderate pricks for not going to the extra 5% effort to save the user all the hassles that you encountered. If reading some of the README.txt files that come with them you wouldn't have look hard to find an attitude that supports this opinion, and perhaps you'd be right from your perspective. But the people involved in gifting this software to the world are rarely as inconsiderate or prickish as the average user of their software might conclude.
The fact is that to these people, everything about their programs is obvious. They have been living, working, and breathing computers for so long that they take for granted the erosion of their old perspectives and the creation of their new, more useful ones. So when they bust their butts putting out some terribly cool, new piece of software, and days later they have three compliments and a hundred e-mail's asking about the most trivial bugglettes they conclude that people are whiners. They chat with the people who gave good constructive criticism or compliments, and go on with their lives, forming a community of people around them that "get it."
This community only reinforces their high-standards for computer savvy. And they look down their nose at the rest of the world as being "pathetic."
As anyone who is new to the Linux community will attest, this attitude does not well serve their longterm goals, of ubiquitous availability of their feature packed, stable, Free desktop.
"I did it twice. And I am not alone, nor am I exceptional in that regard."
Yes, you are.
And as a consequence, you recognize and are attracted to people that are. The corollary is especially true. People that whine to you about their lesser problems may get a sympathetic ear, but they will divine more about your opinions by your actions than your words. Your mouth may say, "poor dear" but your actions say "suck it up and and push through."
And in many cases this may be just the message they need.
I've met a number of people who weren't up to the task, and the results aren't pretty. Like the user that spends hours trying to run the "simple" software but just can't make it work, these women took on the task, were overwhelmed and fell apart, or more commonly became bad workers, bad students, and bad mothers. They whine enough that the good men (that they have concluded no longer exist) all recognize the lack of good companionship, and go about their business. They overeat such that the shallow but decent men avoid them as well. They scream at their kids till the kindhearted men seek like soulmates elsewhere. This leaves them in relationships with saints and the losers, and the ratio of the two isn't very good. Additionally they have the opportunity to pass on to the next generation, all the damage they have accumulated in this one.
Personally, I do not comb through 100 A.D. texts to find justifications for my actions. The places where I've shown character or talent do not isolate me from the damaged women raising especially damaged children. And from my perspective whether or not ancient texts can be translated and interpreted to define a fetus as life or not is interesting, but irrelevant. I will concede that the fetus can be defined as human, and alive, but that doesn't really affect the issue either. If we are to be social engineers, as laws pro and anti abortion force us to be, the question is are we better off letting the woman kill it or not (regardless of how it's labeled). It's a lose/lose proposition. The women that don't have what it takes to tough it out are not as rare as you might like to think, and the damage they do to their children, and that their children pass on their children is very costly. It's a murder in self-defense of a society that doesn't condone murder. Which makes about as much sense as a society that enforces pro-life laws at gunpoint against women who aren't up to the task of properly creating members of that society.
I do not pretend to have an answer to this problem. But I do know a tough person when I read their works, and like many of the excellent programmers I've written to on freshmeat, I must say, "you're not alone, but your not the norm." People who aren't up to your standards, are still people and their needs still count for something. When the time comes that you've lost sight of that, you're either an elitist 5up3r hax0r, or a bible-thumping religious zealot. The world has enough of these.
Be careful of the thin line.
Women who want an abortion generally choose abortion because they do not want to be pregnant. There is a difference.
In some cases, the women need an abortion because they have a medical condition which makes carrying a child to term potentially life threatening. In fact, pregnancy itself is a serious risk for any woman.
From http://www.plannedparenthood.org/articles/maternmo rt.html:
See also http://www.unfpa.org/mothers/facts.htm
I do not deploy Linux. Ever.
And so did Jesus.
Both were immortalized after their deaths.
Only the legend of Saint Klass is commonly
viewed as a myth.
While the legend of Jesus is currently believe as truth by millions.
Yes, those exceptions should be scrapped! What did the baby do in those cases to deserve death?
What did the woman do to deserve forced pregnancy? The whole point of pro-choice is not "baby murder should be legal" but rather "a woman should control her body." Carrying and delivering a baby is a huge -- and dangerous -- ordeal. No one should do it without great consideration, and certainly no one should be forced into it against their will.
The same chauvinism is apparent in our attitudes toward sex. Men who have many sexual partners are seen as cool. Women who do the same are reviled. If I take a woman out to dinner, drinks, and a movie, and we later have sex, that's okay. If instead I simply pay her money for the sex, we can be arrested and jailed. In some U.S. states it is still illegal for two consenting adults to engage in oral sex (sodomy).
In the latter two cases we have one group of people limiting the actions of another group of people when those actions do not affect anyone else. The same is true with the war on drugs. If you smoke pot, as long as you don't drive or operate heavy machinery you are not a threat to anyone. What right does anyone else have to confiscate your property and throw you in jail?
And here it is more bluntly. With starvation rampent world-wide (even in the U.S.), vastly surpassing abortions, why isn't more effort put into feeding people? If the anti-abortion rally cry is "We cannot lose even one precious life," they could save far more lives with less effort by addressing hunger. And it wouldn't trample women's rights at the same time.
Freedom to fear. Freedom from thought. Freedom to kill.
I guess the War on Terror really is about freedom!
... To see that this ruling is total crap. Definition of an unprotected threat: "on its face and in the circumstances in which it made is so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate and specific as to the person threatened, as to convey a gravity of purpose imminent prospect of execution." The purpose of the website as stated on the front page: "A coalition of concerned citizens throughout the USA is cooperating in collecting dossiers on abortionists in anticipation that one day we may be able to hold them on trial for crimes against humanity." It's neither specific nor immediate nor unequivocal. More importantly (how incompetent/politicized are these judges?), there's absolutely no "immediate prospect of execution." These boneheads just run a website. They're not threatening to do anything but continue to run it.
It's a very slippery slope to say that that's obfuscation and they really have another purpose. It wouldn't be long before any harsh criticism could be interpreted as a death threat. The law is supposed to be treating the speech, NOT the purpose(/thoughts).
People, wake up. The first amendment is not just for those whom you agree with.
The last sentence is supposed to say "equal or lesser value" not "=value"
You can only take this logic so far. Even a born baby is not an independant life form, by your definition. It's not parasitic in the physical sense, but it still is.
Like another poster said, not many will *personally* adopt them, but I guarantee you that most pro-lifers would give more effort towards finding parents for adopted children than doctors give towards providing abortions. Probably because pro-lifers are more passionate about the issue than the doctors are. Why should they have to adopt it personally? If I had an abortion, I wouldn't except to bare the burden of others who had an abortion.
For those who think that only right-wing Christian anti-abortionists engage in such hate-mongering, you should read the following blogs by Andrew Sullivan, from the week of November 25, 2001, about an extreme gay group that had a web site similar to "The Nuremberg Files":
... Powell agreed to contact [Pastor] Lewis from the church office in the adjacent main building. As they were walking toward the office, Powell recounted that Ross revealed a jagged bottom of a glass bottle. 'I will hurt you if I have to,' Powell quoted Ross as saying. Powell said Ross also threatened to cut the artery in his neck and take his own life." According to the Baptist Press, Ross then took Powell hostage until he called the media, wanting to broadcast an anti-Baptist message. Ross was eventually overpowered by police. This article from the Catholic World News identifies this criminal with the same Allan Ross of the usQueers.com site. And on the site itself is this statement: "B. Allan Ross, was arrested for three felony violations he allegedly committed at the First Southern Baptist Church of San Diego, including the two most likely to be pursued in court - kidnapping and holding the church's janitor hostage."
MORE HATE FROM THE GAY LEFT: The far gay left is one of the most virulent hate-groups in the country. Tolerated by much of the gay media and beyond, their hate-filled and near-violent tactics are often ignored or tolerated by other gay men and women and liberal straights who should know better. Here's a small taste of what some gay hate-groups are now up to. It's a list of leading individuals the authors of the website "usqueers.com" want to see dead. The headline: "Wanted: To Experience A Horrible Death By Any Means Soon. Well-Known Het-Supremacists Deserve It As Their Reward." Notice the phrase 'By Any Means." Are these people condoning murder? There then follows this statement:
"If a person on this list dies (preferably a horrible death), a line will be drawn through their name (and they will probably be added to our Good Riddance! list.) If a person on this list is merely wounded or debilitated in some way, we will change the color of their name to brown. NOTE: We're just getting started on this list, but the type of information we will be listing here as it comes in includes anything such as Home Address, Home Phone, Office Address, Office Phone, Studio Address, Church Address, Girlfriend's Address, Boyfriend's Address, Favorite Hangouts (restaurants, etc.), Family Members, details about automobiles, just about anything which could be useful in spotting these dangerous het supremacists when they are wandering around loose. Organization information is also helpful, but mainly when it can be linked to specific het supremacists."
They add a disingenuous disclaimer disavowing violence - but these are the very people who seize on even the slightest homophobic remark to argue that it leads to gay-bashing. Notice also their complete contempt for anyone's privacy or personal dignity - a good indicator of a totalitarian mindset. Don't get me wrong. I'm all for their free speech. And I'm no fan of many of the individuals they oppose. But this kind of extremist, personal rhetoric is simply disgusting. It's equivalent to the hate-filled pro-lifers who discredit their cause by advocating the murder of abortionists. I don't know where these people get their hatred from, but it is as real and as dangerous as any of the right-wing hate groups who also deserve censure. These people do as much damage to the cause of gay equality and civility as anyone on the far right. It's time we stopped ignoring their evil.
- 7:05:12 PM Monday, November 26, 2001
MONKEY-FISHING?: James Taranto of OpinionJournal.com thinks I've been snookered by a site, usQueers.com, that's supposed to be a parody. And USQueers.com does have its fair share of campy excess. But James is wrong. The site I'm worried about is serious, extensive, and the owner of it is real. He's one Allan Ross, who told CNSNews.com that he was indeed unironic: "In a phone interview, Ross said he stands behind the content of his web site. But he added: 'It's certainly open to legal change if somebody points out that you're crossing the line here and legally you're saying, go out and do this, because we don't want anybody to go out and do this. The whole idea here was to say that they deserve to die for what they've done. I'm not standing behind calling for the death or murder or anything like that of anybody on this list at all. Or anybody listed on our web site. We do not call to murder anybody or hurt them or even touch them,' Ross said." So why then, one wonders, is the early and horrible death of named individuals called for on the site "by any means"? Then see what you make of this. Earlier this year, the following incident occurred at First Southern Baptist Church in San Diego. One Allan Ross had to be subdued by San Diego police for attacking a Baptist minister, David Powell. According to the Baptist News, "Powell said Ross initially asked to speak with the pastor
LAVENDAR FASCISM: So am I over-reacting? Sure, Ross represents a minuscule portion of gay culture. Sure, his site is fringe and obscure. And sure, Ross may well be a bit unhinged. But none of this makes his specific threats against named individuals any less real. In fact, it makes them more real. I guess it's having been subjected to death-threats from far left gay activists myself that makes me realize these people are for real. (Last summer, a legit gay website, Datalounge.com, having fomented a vicious witch-hunt against me last spring, broadcast a specific threat to have my own "skull cracked open" in Provincetown. It took a week to get the owners to take the threat off the site, and they refused to apologize. They still won't disown the death-threat.) The truth is these extremists are not parodists. And they're not monkey-fishers. They're dangerous cranks, who get a pass from the liberal gay establishment, so long as they keep terrorizing straights or non-p.c. gays. Again, I support their right to free speech. I don't believe their site should be censored or shut down. But they are the gay equivalent of the anti-abortion murderers and the Klan. It's time we said so - don't you think, Mr Taranto? Or do we have to wait for the unthinkable to happen before we speak up?
- 11:40:44 PM, Tuesday November 27, 2001
MORE GAY EXTREMISM: James Taranto conceded yesterday he'd been too hasty in dismissing my worry about usQueers.com. In fact, the problem of some gay extremists violating basic norms of propriety in civil discourse is finally getting some attention. Two such activists were arrested today in San Francisco for "allegedly stalking and threatening newspaper reporters and Public Health Department workers." I feel bad because one of them, Michael Petrelis, has done good work in the past, but appears to have gone completely off the edge in the past couple of months. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, "Newspaper employees said the men made dozens of obscene and threatening phone calls earlier this month to their homes and at work. A bomb threat also was made to the San Francisco Chronicle's offices." This isn't new. Until you've been targeted by these extremists, you don't know how vicious they can be: phone calls at all hours of the day and night, threats of violence, intimidating relatives and ex-boyfriends. They have no sense of decency. ACT-UP did many good things, but it also tolerated and fomented a fascistic approach to civil politics that has metastasized since. I'm glad this has come to a head. And I hope the mainstream gay groups like the Human Rights Campaign will finally denounce the tactics of violating privacy, threatening violence and general puerility that sadly infects much gay extreme left activism. So far, such mainstream groups have simply been silent or craven, terrified that they might be next on the list. It's time for them to speak up in defense of privacy, decency and civility in the gay rights movement, and condemn thuggery in all its forms.
- 12:57:11 AM Thursay November 29, 2001
THREE CHEERS FOR HRC: The Human Rights Campaign, the country's biggest gay rights group, condemned the usQueers.com site today. Congrats to them. Here's the quote: "'Calling for the death of people is reprehensible and in no way, shape or form should be condoned by anybody,' David Smith, an HRC spokesman, said after viewing the contents of usQueers.com. 'These types of sites, on either side of any debate, should be condemned in the strongest possible way,' Smith said." Amen, David. And thanks.
- 12:04:25 PM Thursday November 29, 2001
GAY FASCISM WATCH: "'We're watching you,' said one [activist] voicemail message saved by Jeff Sheehy, a press officer for the AIDS Research Institute at UC San Francisco. 'Your name is on the list of enemies of the homosexual community. We're out here on the streets and we're going to make sure that you don't open your mouth again to demonize us.' 'I don't know what to do,' Sheehy said. 'I'm afraid to go to work.'" - from the Los Angeles Times today.
- 6:47:31 PM Thursday November 29, 2001
Interesting....
In any case, I didn't see the mention of "agnostic" anyplace in this discussion, which is why I brought this up in the first place.
I think some people tend to use atheist interchangeably with agnostic, hence all the confusion.
This must be why I got the terms backwards. I've known people who said they were "atheist", yet when cornered - admitted that they didn't feel there was anything in the universe proving god didn't exist. They merely didn't choose to worship one, because they felt no compelling reason to "pick a god" and do so.
I guess these folks should really be calling themselves agnostics then.
What would the founding fathers think if you couldn't EVEN publish a list of your enemies?
Why should people not have the right to advocate murder of individuals, when the state has the right to advocate and execute murders.
Precidents like this *might* protect some abortion docters, but what it really does is create a refuge for the corrupt.
"Communism is like having one [local] phone company " - Lenny Bruce
The dissent wasn't whether a Web site could meet the criteria, it was whether this Web site did. Don't get them confused; this is a far less grand case then you're trying to make it out to be.
First off, excellent comment; thanks for writing it.
At any rate, God also gave us some simple, natural ways to end pregnancy, too--in fact, until it became extinct due to over-use in the Roman era, there was a plant, described in detail in many ancient medical texts, which induced spontaneous abortions quickly and painlessly.
This is very interesting, the first I hear of such a thing. Google doesn't seem to turn up anything---do you have any links on this? Was/is there a name for this plant?
iSKUNK!
Putting up a hit list ain't protected speech, however you slice it. Putting up a list of people you thing should be dead is nutball in the first place, but might be protected if they were public figures. However, slapping up picts of them, where they live and work, their numbers, and crossing them out ala America's Most Wanted ain't free speech. It's an implied threat at best.
I've seen the evidence, the Easter Bunny is dead.
The plant was Ferula historica, also called silphium or sylphion, and sometimes known as "giant fennel." It was taken in very low doses as a contraceptive, and in larger doses following pregnancy to induce abortions. By all accounts it worked with 100% effectiveness at inducing abortions, and it probably worked about as effectively as our modern "pill" does at preventing pregnancies.
B ir th%20Control%20in%20Antiquity.htm
h tm l
m l
h iu m2.htm
c at ions/naturesplace/np_sylphion.shtml
It was so sought after, yet so hard to cultivate, that it was extinct by about the third century. This is a great loss, since Silphium's effectiveness rivaled that of modern equivalents, and its widespread use indicated that it *probably* didn't have too many unwanted side effects. I can only imagine how popular an herbal contraceptive as effective as the pill would be.
Here are a few links:
http://www.uic.edu/classes/osci/osci590/13_2%20
http://www.pinn.net/~sunshine/book-sum/contra1.
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/1993/04.04.08.ht
http://ancient-coins.com/articles/silphium/silp
http://www.populationaction.org/resources/publi
Chasing Amy
(We all chase Amy...)
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws"-Tacitus
Talk about nature putting one over on modern pharmacology---would that RU486 worked as well!
iSKUNK!
\Ra`tion*al"i*ty\, n.; pl. -ties. [F. rationalit['e], or L. rationalitas.]
The quality or state of being rational; agreement with reason; possession of reason; due exercise of reason; reasonableness.
Your argument would be much stronger and more rational if you separated it from the logical fallacies which permeate public discussions on abortion.
Here's a decent listing of logical fallacies. When you can construct and defend your position without resorting to these, please e-mail it to me.
Logical Fallacies:
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm
When is the only way to stop a rapist to murder the rapist? When is the only way to stop abortion doctors to murder them? You have contrived an impossible scenario. If the only deterrant you can think of is murder, you need to expand your horizons a bit.
Did you know that the Hippocratic Oath specifically prohibits performing abortion?
It's been some time since I read it, but I don't recall the word abortion mentioned specifically. I do recall the main tenant is "first, do no harm."
Great. Aborting the fetus harms the fetus. But forcing the woman to carry the child against her will harms the woman, physically and psychologically. This is a very common dilema in medicine, where a choice between two harms must be made. To remove a dying appendix requires harming the body through surgery. To abort a fetus requires harming the fetus and the woman.
As with most things in life, there is no absolute correct answer but a choice. Who better to choose, the woman carrying the child or someone completely unrelated to the parties involved?
Freedom to fear. Freedom from thought. Freedom to kill.
I guess the War on Terror really is about freedom!
What would the founding fathers think if you couldn't EVEN publish a list of your enemies?
This goes way beyond publishing a list of thier ememies; it approaches the conspiracy to commit murder range, which I think the founding fathers wouldn't have approved of.
I'm not sure that all of the founding fathers were that big on the freedom of speech either, considering the Sedition Acts were passed during Madison's term.
Why should people not have the right to advocate murder of individuals, when the state has the right to advocate and execute murders.
Under the social contract theory, we give any right we have to threaten and kill to the state, so that the state can produce a civilized society.
It is wrong for a court to rule against someone for distributing decss source code because some people will use it for legal purposes (watching DVDs on linux), in spite of the fact that some people will use it to rip DVDs to divx or VCD and distribute it on kazaa.
It is right for a court to rule against the Nuremberg Files because some people will use the information for legal purposes (boycotting OB/GYNs who perform abortions), in spite of the fact that some people will use it to track down and murder those same OB/GYNs.
In the past decade, how many people have killed abortion doctors? How many people are ripping and distributing illegal copies of DVDs?
How about a little consistency. I support both groups. If you don't like that fact that some people will want to kill you for doing it, your choices are to grin and bear it or stop doing it. If DVDs are being pirated too much for your liking, don't overcharge people for them.
Who is to say when God makes a mistake?
By definition God is omnipotent and omnipresent. If that is the case we can only conclude that all of his actions are intentional. If those actions are intentional, by definition they can't be mistakes.
I just can't believe so many people are supporting this decision!
The courts decided that a list of any group of people that someone MIGHT POSSIBLY want to kill, can be censored.
Did the page suggest killing those doctors? Did it point out their home address, work address, and daily schedules? Did it suggest the best time to kill them?
You know what that list reminds me of? The list of sex offenders! You can easilly look up your local rapist, his address, and kill him. Of course, using that same information you could send him mail saying "Please don't rape anyone", but we'll just ignore that annoying little fact.
The fact is, had this been done in a brick-and-mortar shop, such as a church, out of someone's home, van, etc., there would be no action taken at all. It's the common paranoid fear that something is evil about the internet. It makes it easier to find publicly available information, so it must be stopped at all costs.
Hmm, I'm getting an idea. Does anyone know of a site with a list of Microsoft employees?
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Christian fundamentalism revolves around elitism.
That's why they can support the death penalty and oppose abortion.
It's why they feel justified in murdering doctors and bombing clinics.
Ignorant? I would disagree. More like mentally diseased.
From my prosective the question is...
Is a call to action protected speach?
Is this a call to action?
The danger of protecting a call to action is that protects insightment to riot.. terrorist threats and calls to murder.
I'd say no... call to action is not protected when the act is illegal.
But then comes the next question...
Is this a call to action? This must be weighted carefully.
Rember how often Linux, GPL, Open source and free software get pinned as tools of theft by the entertainment industry..
Now they seem to be pinning Intel Pentium 4 ads as an endorcement of theft.
It's easy to distort something...
Calls for legalisation of narcotics are often clamed to be calls to break the law.. not change it...
Video games, rock music and movies are often accused of premoting violence.
Often people TRY to pin "insightment to act" lables.
The medium matters not..
A psudo christian group got together in my home town and preached how some friends of mine (who started a pagan club in collage) were satanic and evil.
As long as they stayed with expressing opinions it didn't matter.
In fact some members thought it was funny...
Funny until a local politicion (local in that he was running for office in my home town.. won office.. and was kicked out for breaking the ellection law requering he actually LIVE here a year before running for office..)
He called for action...
It was fairly vage and being psudo christain the pagan club felt comfortable in the unstated action would be political...
Then one of the group was attacked.
His leg was broken..
Then tried to attack other members...
Side note there was also a christan club... with REAL christians..
Was much harder to attack pagan club members with christan club members acting as body guards.
The moral of the story is... There is a fine line between stating an option and calling for action.
Making the wrong call could have some very sereous reprocutions. There is no safe call.
Usually protecting speech is the safest call.
Not this time...
I don't actually exist.
"You are demanding that others apply your rules to their interactions with you."
No I'm not. I'm giving them the right to choose what's best for them. They can freely choose whether to have an abortion or not. But they have NO right to go around and try to force others to think and act like they do! I think everyone has the right to make up their own mind, no matter that are they pro-life or pro-choice. What no-one can do, however, is to try to force others to think and act like they do (this applies to both pro-choice and pro-life camps, but I haven't seen pro-choice people go around killing people who happen to disagree with them).
In short: They can make decisions for themselves. they can decide to have an abortion or not. But they can NOT make decisions for other people. That's basically what pro-life/pro-choice debate is about. Pro-choice is about letting everyone decide for themselves whether to have an abortion or not. Pro-life is about trying to force everyone to think like some right-wing christian-fundamentalists do.
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
I'm kind of curious as to whether or not the majority of the people fighting for abortions are merely those who enjoy sex and don't want to lose their "get out of pregnancy free" card.
Magius_AR