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
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
<IANAL>
The 9th Circuit Court is based in San Francisco and has a reputation for making "surprising" decisions. Attorneys along the west coast routinely scratch their heads at 9th Circuit decisions.
That's not to say their decisions are overturned by the Supreme Court at a rate higher than those of other Circuit courts (I honestly don't know), nor is it to imply that this decision would surprise lawyers everywhere. I haven't even read the decision yet, so I haven't the foggiest notion. I'm just pointing out that if they're off base, this wouldn't be the first time the 9th Circuit Court pulled an inexplicable decision out from under their robes.
</IANAL>
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
A website cannot immediately threaten someone? That would be a dangerous precedent to set.
I imagine that could be (ab)used by organized crime to put out hits on people. "Your honor, it's been shown that a website cannot immediately threaten someone. I didn't order that person killed, I just posted it on my website".
Besides, that's not the precedent anyways. "Immediately threaten" hah, someone made that crap up.
All that's necessary is for the victim to feel that their life is now in danger. I don't know about the rest of you, but if someone put up my picture on a kill-list, I'd feel like I was in real and immediate danger.
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.
Even though I am greatly against those who would take away our abortion rights, I agree with you. Everytime someone is told they cant say somthing, then there is a possibily that they may try to silence me. Its not often i find myself cheering for the christians, but cases like this are good to remind people that there are no good guys or bad guys. Ahh the joys of a civilization.
Mess Stuff Up
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
Well, I think that this is one of the lesser attacks on the first amendment. I am not sure I agree that it should be illegal, but I certainly can understand people thinking it is a "clear and present threat" or whatever the wording is.
But I think the real issue is to not treat online publication any different than other forms. If someone took out an add in a national newspaper and published personally identifying information of abortion clinic doctors, along with claims that they deserved to be killed for crimes against humanity, I think it would be considered an immediate and clear threat to those doctors. On the other hand, if the newspaper ad would not be considered illegal, then neither should the website.
The whole thing makes me uneasy. I don't want to silence anyones opinion, but I think that they can freely express their opinions without directly threatening people. At the same time, most of the information found there could be looked up in a phone directory by anyone really wanting the information anyway, which makes banning publishing it on the internet seem a little silly. That aspect is kind of like the "they think terrorists can't type" thing with cryptography. I really believe that anyone who is "dedicated" (or insane) enough to their cause to go shooting people in the name of being pro-life is probably going to be able to find out the address of the doctors at their local abortion clinic.
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.
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.
:) because he doesn't exist.
Religion is a forced(look at history and most places in world today) form of mass control. Laws, Morals don't need to be contrived from somthing like that.(USSR being one very bad example, still forced, but not religious(glorification of their leaders aside)).
So you think withour Religion we would have Anarchy? I think without religion we would have had a lot less wars in the past 5000 years..
Obviously I am not going to convince you that God exists,
your right
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.
He could be an accomplice if at his shop he also has and sells plans of banks and handbooks on robbing them. It is not difficult to indict someone; the law code is so huge and complicated that anyone alive is bound to violate it from time to time. It's up to DA to prosecute or not.
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"...
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.
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
Christans BELIEVE (using absolutely no facts in judgment). Atheists DISBELIEVE (using absolutely no facts in judgement). It is an interesting religion, in that it denies all underlying faiths in all religions.
This is a fallacy in your reasoning. To say one "disbelieves" is to attribute a positive action to some person. The very term "atheist" denotes a lack of positive action. In other words, an atheist fails to believe. Simply failing to believe in something is logically different than actively disbelieving it. The very definition of the term is a lack of religion.
Sometimes it is convenient for theists to attempt to place an atheist in the same philosophical realm as themselves. In doing so, a theist is usually attempting to force the atheist to justify his "belief," and thereby relieving the theist of the impossible task of justifying their own. Unfortunately for the theist, this is not sound reasoning at all. It is just a refined method of saying, "prove God doesn't exist."
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.
Get a clue, people. The crime is committed by the person who does the killing, not the people spreading info.
Now, if these people were offering incentives to kill the doctors, it'd be a different story. But theyr'e not, and if some twisted psycho kills one of these doctors, it's not the fault of the website operators.
Once again, you're placing blame for other people's actions on a third party, and punishing the third party. Kinda like abortion. Parents screwed up, so let's kill the kid. Everyone's happy, right?
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.
!!seineew era sresu pohsotohp efil-orP
This was clearly done with the gimp.
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
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.
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.
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
Exactly. Choose your liberty; the liberty to be safe, or the liberty to say whatever you'd like. Oh, and if you're quoting Ben Franklin, line up at the paddock, it's time to be shorn.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
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!"
Funny, you could say the same about Government, and maybe you do. In fact, you seem to have much more of a bone to pick with authority in general more than "Religion".
There is not always a clear dividing line between "religion" and "politics" with both religious organisations wielding political power and political organisations using either religion or some other kind of faith to support their position.
Bullshit.
Go to Google right now and search for pro-life websites. Go ahead. You know what will show up. There will be about a gajillion different results turned, and 99.9% of those are completely unaffected by this case, nor will they be so affected in the future. It is one thing to promote a certain viewpoint, it is quite another to specifically advocate and celebrate the murder of those who oppose that viewpoint. Such violent advocacy is -- and should be -- against the law.
And by the way, I would be saying the exact same thing were the roles reversed, and it was a pro-choice site advocating the murder of pro-life advocates. (Funny how that never happens, though.)
Aside: GodDAMN I am sick of the term "PC" being thrown around every time a judicial ruling comes down that the neoconservative crowd doesn't like. That is a tired, tired term and doesn't say anything substantial.
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!
That isn't to say that advocating illegal activity is automatically non-protected speech, but just that there is a point where expression becomes too "dangerous" to be protected. This may offend those with an especially idealistic view of the First Amendment, but is really a necessity in the real world.
It is not that it becomes "too dangerous", it is that beyond a certain point the speaker becomes an accessory to the crime (or a co-conspirator). Also, I believe that inciting someone else to commit a crime is a crime itself.
---dragoness
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.
The difference is in the details.
A similar site that merely complained about abortion and suggested that people do everything in their power to stop it would be perfectly legal. The problem is that they're listing names, addresses, and phone numbers. This means that the site becomes a tangible threat to specific individuals.
That's where they crossed the line from merely espousing their beliefs.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
Conversely: maybe the way to shut down Nuremberg files is with a law like the one that shut down JusticeFiles.org, which makes it illegal to post cops' home addresses and phone numbers and so on. (some legal analysis here [rcfp.org].)
What appears to have been missed is that there is a serious problem with laws granting special protection for doctors and special protection for police officers. Or indeed any law to grant special protection to an arbitary group of people...
Well, take it to the extreme. If 'liberty' is all important, than what is MOST important? My liberty to kill you at my whim, or your liberty to walk the streets being reasonably secure that you won't be randomly slain by passing people?
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
A more appropriate analogy would be listing the leaders of all the countries in world along with some accusation of war crimes and/or an explanation of why they're evil and need to be vanquished.
Would it not make rather a difference if "vanquished" ment brought before an international tribuneral, with execution being seriously considered or just killed?
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
I'm all for freely chosen ideologies, but how many people chose their religion freely? Most people believe because of their childhood indoctrination. Virtually everybody who attempts to neutrally compare the world's religions and pick the best one ends up a non-believer.
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
Sure, I think the creators of this type of web site could be held legally liable as accomplices to the crime - but only if you could prove that there was a direct connection.
The problem I see is that a fanatic crazy enough to murder a doctor based on a web site suggesting it is going to deny ever seeing that web site. (He'll probably want to protect them to ensure they stay online to continue carrying out their mission.)
It'd be tough to prove in court that the web site motivated the person to kill.
I'm with you on this one, more or less. But still, I think there are perfectly logical reasons why a person might feel that "displacing millions of other life-forms for their own comfort" is not equivalent to protecting unborn children. (Of course, lots of people will simply quote the bible and claim that the animals were put here for our benefit - making it all ok.)
The reason this debate has raged on for so long with no sign of ever letting up is because there are good, logical arguments made on both sides.
If it was as simple as saying "Pro-Lifers are all a bunch of illogical religious fanatics, doing what they do only because they think god told them to do it!" - things would be much more clear-cut.
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.
It sounds to me like some of you are confusing athiesm with being an agnostic.
Agnostics firmly believe that there is no god.
Athiests simply say they have no reason to believe there is or there isn't a god.
The Nuremberg files and sites like it are nothing more than the whiney rants of immature people who want to force the world to do things their way. In the USA, we call this "fascism." Intimidation through threats of violence is in NO WAY protected by the Constitution. Strictly speaking, our own government is only permitted to threaten force in the protection of everyone's rights (in which they too fall to the same human weaknesses of us all).
Lost in the noise of these temper tantrums are the real contributions made by those people who adopt babies that nobody else wants, or help to convince the parents of a young girl that she is not evil for becoming pregnant, and that she should not be thrown out on the streets. But then again, those people probably read the "Judge not, lest ye be judged" bits of the Bible a little more carefully than the foot soldiers in the "Army of God."
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
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
Quoth phunhippy:
You must have missed the recent article in American Scientist on conflict. Statisticians seem to think that conflicts occur randomly, that "the data offer no reason to believe that wars are anything other than randomly distributed accidents." Here, "wars" include any deadly conflict down to the individual level (e.g. murder). With or without religion, we are a murderous race. If it isn't religion we're fighting about, it's about trade, or it's about skin color, or it's about the country from which your great-grandparents emigrated, or it's about how much of a certain resource you have, et cetera ad nauseum. Heck, some days, it's just becuase somebody is being an asshole and is getting in someone else's way.
I think, regardless what the philosophers or scientists say, that we are a bunch of primitive animals that are barely civilized enough to bathe on a semi-frequent basis (and that only recently). In that context, killing each other or our own spawn is merely "human nature," regardless of our justifications (like "oh, but he was going to kill me" or "fight to preserve our freedom" or "it's my body").
I'm proud of my Northern Tibetian Heritage
Please give me a definition of justice as opposed to vengeance that includes "Killing people outside the views and laws of common society."
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.
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!
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
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.
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
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!
Nothing odd on your end, AC -- it's not even a very good Photoshop job. I could do better than that, and I suck at graphics pretty much. <G>
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
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.
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.
the majority of people find no reason to disbelieve their parents doctrines. I think that says a lot about the viability of morals and religion.
It says a lot about the critical thinking skills of a vast majority of people, since most religions are mutually exclusive, and therefore most people, if they accept their parents' doctrines, are by necessity wrong.
I agree with you.
Rant...
I've noticed you're PC if you're not a fascist, christian fundamentalist, far right wing, or any other stupid things one can be.
"Maybe blacks and whites should be treated equally"
Oooh, how PC of you!
"It might be a good idea not to ruin the environment completely"
You are so PC, shut up!
To believe that blacks and whites should be treated equally is not "PC". It's simply the right thing. Likewise, it is not "PC" to think that the environment is important. It's simply common sense.
"PC" has always been, is and will always be a stupid term. It is without substance, it is without meaning.
Will work for bandwidth
"Statisticians seem to think that conflicts occur randomly"
That middle east situation is sure one wacky accident.
It can't have anything to do with the fact that three different groups of people all believe that an invisible man that lives in the sky promised their ancestors exclusive rights to the same ten square blocks of land.
-B
I went back to your post, and to me it contained three points (no parental indoctrination since teenagers rebel and can veto; religion must be good since people tend not to veto; "neutral comparison" needs to be defined). I answered the first two, here's my answer to the third: "Neutral comparison" of the world's religions is a comparison which disregards all one sided information given to you by your parents, school, church etc., since that would give your religion an unfair advantage. The religions have to be compared from an imaginary neutral external viewpoint, "God's viewpoint" if you want. Since I believe in the overwhelming force of early childhood indoctrination, such a neutral comparison is exceedingly difficult.
You've obviously never had one.
But I've been one. And all the rebellion in the world had not enough power to stop me from making my bed in the morning, the most irrational thing anybody ever invented. I do it just because it makes me feel better, based on early conditioning.
I do chores becuase I want a clean house, and trying to clean a house that's been untended for a month is a real bother.
That's a rationalization after the fact. Admit it: you don't like the sight of socks lying on the floor. A completely irrational dislike, and completely comparable to your like of God.
The mutually exclusiveness is a plot point, and probably not much of a concern for practicle people.
Does it matter to you what happens after death? Whether you will be reborn as a snake, reborn as a human, living forever in paradise (will God be there?), living forever in hell, be dead like a rock? Does it matter to you whether good actions are rewarded and bad actions are punished in the afterlife?
What matters to people is that the religion brings a healthier happier lifestyle, improves the world around them, and genuinely brings them closer to God.
It's obvious that religion makes people feel better, or else it wouldn't have survived for so long (just like picking up socks). The point is: if people were critical thinkers, they would have realized long ago that it is all a huge house of fairy tales *designed* to make you feel and behave better (succeeding in the former, spectacularly failing in the latter).
I want to count those people of course. What I'm saying is: take all people who made a sincere effort to neutrally compare all religions (including their parents'), temporarily disregarding their own beliefs and upbringing, hard as it may be. Among those, I claim, the large majority ends up nonbelievers, a small percentage picks some religion other than their parents', and a small percentage picks the same religion as their parents.
But I see the problem with my definition: those who have been conditioned well are such strong believers that they could never muster the energy for such a comparison, nor could they see the need.
"Anyone who thinks like me is smart"
More properly: "Anyone who doesn't think like me is stupid."