Slashdot Mirror
Court rules website threats harm
johnny the homicidal maniac wrote in with this story
that a website
which gives the names and addresses of
Doctors who perform abortions, their staff and their
patients has been found
to amount to death-threats. What do you think?
What I find particularly disturbing, are these so called "PRO-LIFE" anti-abortion activists dealing out death threats. It's complete hypocracy, regardless of the moral issues.
What do I think? Slashdot articles are becoming less and less interesting, and the people who post comments are even more stupid. Go ahead and flame me, cause I won't read it anyway...
And no, i'm not an anonymous coward, my email address is reaper@nl.scene.org
I went to the site and, at least on the list page, it advocates nothing beyond "bringing them to justice". That doesn't sound like a death threat to me.
On the other hand, I think the site could EASILY be sued for libel. Putting "butchers" in the "Nuremburg file" seems a little strong.
Nothing explicity says "KILL THESE GUYS" but it's inferred, and I don't need a lawyer telling me that "legally" it doesn't amount to advocating the "elimination" of abortion doctors.
That site should be banned because it, although not in black and white, is advocating violent action and could be considered invading the privacy of others by posting their addresses, etc.
How do people who are pro-life justify killing other humans? One would think their best means of protest would be simply not to have abortions themselves. Killing abortion doctors does not stop abortions from occuring, nor does it draw sympathy for their cause.
Then again, I'm thinking with a logical mind, something these guys seem to lack.
I think the website has very negative connotations...in other words, I would feel very scared if my name was up there, and I think no one should have to feel that way.
Derek Moeller (moeller@networksplus.net)
Registrant:
Pathway Communications (CHRISTIANGALLERY-DOM)
218 Farmington Trace
Carrollton, GA 30117
USA
Domain Name: CHRISTIANGALLERY.COM
Administrative Contact:
Horsley, Neal (NH141) nhorsley@HOTMAIL.COM
770-214-0126
Technical Contact, Zone Contact:
Mindspring Domreg (MDP-ORG) domains@MINDSPRING.COM
888 932-1997
Fax- - - - 404 815-8805
Billing Contact:
Domain Billing (MDB5-ORG) domain.billing@MINDSPRING.COM
888-932-1997
Fax- - 404-287-0883
Record last updated on 25-Apr-98.
Database last updated on 2-Feb-99 05:06:00 EST.
Domain servers in listed order:
SPEAKEASY.MSPRING.NET 207.69.231.2
HEARSAY.MSPRING.NET 207.69.231.3
RUMOR.MSPRING.NET 165.121.2.31
Indivualistically it's hyprocratic.
But overall with the big picture the point they had their chance and at least they were born. What they are doing is rationalizing and saying we can save many by killing a few.
Think about 1 death to 10 lifes? Otherwise it'd be 1 life to 10 deaths.
Go ahead. As long as you do not encite people
to kill those bible thumpers you are perfectly
within your rights. Once you cross the line
(by crossing out those that have been killed)
free speech does not protect you. You are not
allowed to yell "Fire" in a crowded building
but I do not see lots of people picketing that law.
Thought experiment:
I have a list of books I don't like. Whenever I hear that one of these books has gone out of print, I rejoice and cross the book off my list. Am I censoring (or threatening to censor) anyone or anything?
Now, let's say I publish this ever-changing list on the Internet. Let's further say I publish some (relatively mild) rhetoric about how I don't like these books--say, no worse than a bad book review but I DON'T advocate taking any action. Same question.
Let's go further and say that some people are consulting this list before they write angry letters to publishers demanding they put a book out of print. I don't personally write any of these letters, nor have I even mentioned the possibility. Am I legally responsible for the actions of people who use information that I publish on a website?
I'm not saying that this website is good or even harmless--far from it. Nonetheless, I'd REALLY hate to see the gov't put a stop to something that is essentially (in a legal sense) People Magazine's Worst Dressed List.
The court was right in this case. Telling people
to kill doctors and crossing murdered doctors
names off the "hit list" is not protected speech.
Perhaps they did not write "Kill Dr. Bob on the 17th" but the intent to do harm was there.
Mo DeJong
dejong at cs.umn.edu
Yah and start a bigotted atheist list too.
In the states there are at least 5 christians to every athiest. Now I would suggest being careful how you approach these topics. If your thinking gee they have to be SO STUPID to think like this, the same goes for them. They are thinking, "Man this person is SO STUPID".
Bah, the world is so screwed up today. I personally am pro choice, only because the pro-life people seem to be doing more killing then living
And ruled against the owners of the website. $100 million in damages were awarded to the plaintiffs.
So is that a crippling blow against free speech or an indictment against terrorist tactics? You make the call!
it seens to mean to attack and force prolife dogma on everone that doesnt think like.
hell i bet that most of them are for the death penalty, now could someone explain why christ is the way, when he didnt invent it or found it? and way his selfproclamed belevers seen morally corupt?
Kiddie Porn is legal in British Columbia does that mean it's good? NO. Should it be illegal? YES.
I guess it really matters on your opinions but I'd rather have someone morally corrupt dead then someone who hasn't had a chance to actually become morally corrupt die.
Yeah, I fall under this category as well. You can't compare pro-life/anti-choice people to the individuals who kill abortion providers. It's not a fair comparison. Would you say that all people who are pro-choice/anti-life are capable of performing any abortions themselves? Same idea. It's just the other side of the pro-choice viewpoint.
I think the hit list they posted is close enough.
Yeah, these people are sane, sure. Mental hospitals still exist, don't they?
Put the crazies IN the mental hospitals, problem solved.
Try adding this to the program, it will work MUCH better.
# include
Flame me here: ilewis at earthlink dot net
NOWHERE does the site advocate hurting, let alone killing anyone. The names and addresses are provided so you can research/spy on these people to collect evidence on other minor crimes. The group will then use this evidence to try to convict the doctors on other charges. The incidental effect will be to keep them from performing abortions.
There are some serious privacy issues here, but there is absolutely no intent to physically harm.
No difference whatsoever. I'm still just tracking. I've done nothing immoral, unethical or illegal.
Christians are some of the most clueless hypocritical people ever. My family is christian, and they are so closed minded. A friend of mine is a raging christian too. He's afraid of gay people because he thinks if he associates with a gay person, god will get him.
My uncle is christian too. Once, he said "Abortion doctors should be all killed". If that's not hypocritical, I don't know what is.
Slashdot needs to have a poll on religion. It would be nice to know how many of us raging atheists there really are.
"God prefers innocent life orver guity life."
Catherine Ramey, defendent
I disagree with you. Therefore I shall kill you. Or I'll get a friend who is both homocidal and anonymous, to do it for me. (With God's agreement.)
It is impossible to argue with this. Society as a whole has reached a consensus, and the courts rule appropriately. When the judiciary stop working, watch out.
"God prefers innocent life over guity life."
Catherine Ramey, defendent
I disagree with you. Therefore I shall kill you. Or I'll get a friend who is both homocidal and anonymous, to do it for me. (With God's agreement.)
It is impossible to argue with this. Society as a whole has reached a consensus, and the courts rule appropriately. When the judiciary stop working, watch out.
"God prefers innocent life over guilty life."
Catherine Ramey, defendent
I disagree with you. Therefore I shall kill you. Or I'll get a friend who is both homocidal and anonymous, to do it for me. (With God's agreement.)
It is impossible to argue with this. Society as a whole has reached a consensus, and the courts rule appropriately. When the judiciary stop working, watch out.
Your accusations against the christian religon and it's followers are disgusting and overly simplified, generalised, biased, and wrong.
How would you like it if I made fun your beliefs and blasted them off as morally-corrupt, evil, wrong etc.
Think about how it would feel if what say was said about you, then write something. I am sick and tired of mindless chatterboxes coming in with claptrapp and making slashdot look like Bigotted people R Us.
This site is unreasonably vitriolic, libelous, and hateful. It's also unchristian. According to the scriptures, when St. Peter cut off the high priest's slave's ear when Christ was being taken to be crucified, Christ rebuked him and put the poor slave's ear back on.
/. so far. Most the posts so far have said "yeah, this site is really bad, govt should ban it, I don't like these zealots anyways".
/.: we don't tend to see eye to eye with the general public on many issues. Most people want all-around censorship of the Internet "to keep my kids safe". Very few people realize the problems with the government restricting speech.
/. not become a forum for the discussion of sociopolitcal issues on ones like this topic. This one was appropriate as it has to do with censorship of the Internet, but please, nothing
But I see a bad trend in the discussion on
But, there is nothing actually explictly telling someone to go shoot (or otherwise do harm to) an abortionist. I seem to recall a certain famous person saying that someone should shoot Henry Hyde's wife. There wasn't a great outcry about that (except in the far-right press).
For all I care the crossed-out names are because, well, efforts to bring those people to justice would be a waste of time. For all we know they might cross out a name if an abortionist were in jail (which is presumably what bringing them to justice would mean nowadays).
Yes, you don't like anti-abortion people. But let's realize that, like the anti-aborition protesters, we are also a minority here in
In addition, I've seen similar sites to this in the antispam community, including one rather famous one where there is a list of notorious spammers. Spammers who have otherwise had their accounts removed, network connection cut off, etc. have a picture of a smoking crater next to them. Could this be considered to incite people to detonate nuclear devices at a spammer's premises? With the precedent of this court decision, one could just about argue that it does.
Finally, in closing, there are very few killings of abortion doctors nowadays. They just tend to get a lot of press. Don't let something like this scare you into giving up your fundamental liberty. Today it might just be an abortionist hit lists which is vulgar and evil, but tomorrow it could be something that, while many consider to be vulgar and evil, is something we all hold dear and would not want to lose. (Like this site. It has lots of foul language on it and strong opinion. I'm sure lots of "concerned parents" would like to see it "taken off the Internet".)
In closing, I would like to ask that
less ontopic than that. We all come from diverse religious, social, and ethnic backgrounds, and we don't need things like this to divide us.
Most, if not all pro-life people are just wanting to protect all life. They are not the ones who are dealing out the death threats. Of course anyone who's dealing out the threats is also part of the pro-life movement, just like most people who smoke pot also smoke cigarettes, but not most people who smoke cigarettes smoke pot.
Also, to the people who say that it is the law and they should just leave other people to make there own choice, you should think that to them it is murder, and they feel they can't leave it alone. If it was legal to murder the poor in Mexico, for example, would you just say, "Oh, it's their choice, so we should leave it alone." I hope you wouldn't, but would say that a life is too valuable and that we should protect them poor Mexicans. Same with this -- understand that the pro-lifers aren't doing it because they feel it is wrong, but because they feel that abortion is murder as well.
As much as I think this is a gruesome business, I think the attitude of the website is just insane. Whoever produced the website sounds like a deranged lunatic. I resent the way they openly flaunt the personal information and the things they ask for.
But at the end of the day, its the woman's choice, not some group of maniacs.
Executive Summary:
1 dead fetus: job well done
1 dead doctor: death penalty
Haha, maybe you should be a lawyer?
A list of addresses is fine. A list of phone number is fine. Both of them along with the intent to kill is not. Would you like your name on that list? Do you think you would feel threatened? Of course not. After all, that site doesn't "say" anything does it?
Yeah, tell it to Dr. Slepian, or as they put it, Dr. Slepian.
Then by all means, grab yourself a high-powered rifle, station yourself on top of a clocktower, and gun down anybody who's not up to your high moral caliber! (Pun intended.) You'll end up being nothing more than a blip in the state's electric bill.
It is not the job of the government to legislate morals, and it certainly isn't the job of the Christian right.
(Rob, slash needs a patch for this sort of error in previewing.)
And what gives you the right to decide who is morally corrupt? I consider it morally corrupt to try to force your so called morals on anybody else . You are being arrogant and judgemental. Even the Christan religion tells people they should no judge other people, leave that to God that is his job not yours.
Damn. I remember when I could go to slashdot and look at interesting stuff about computers and other geek stuff.
I had hoped that this wouldn't become some type of political pulpit. Yes, the site is disturbing. But is slashdot really the right forum?
This ain't what I come here to look at! And if someone says 'so just don't look at it' one more time, I'm gonna scream!
Oh well, flame away.
So?
Bill Clinton (alive)
Ronald Reagan (wounded)
Franklin Roosevelt (dead)
omigosh! I'm threatening to kill the President!
There is NO CHOICE, its a child...
So to you,
Legality = Morality
Well, hey. Let's relegalize slavery then.
someone want to nuke the servers?
If anti-abortion people believe in GOD why try to get others to punish abortionist? Shouldn't GOD do it? Most anti-abortionists seem to say they demand that a featus has GODs right to life but are happy to sacrifice other commandments. Even the thou shalt not kill one.
If they want to fight each other then they can do it using societies rules. Obtain evidence to support themselves and use the courts. Or run as a politician and get elected.
How dare someone imply they will use anothers children against them. It seems to me with some anti-abortionists you have rights, until your born.
There are good and bad people in both camps. This is an example of the bad.
Steven.
Now, these people's names, addresses, phone numbers, and other info that is being posted on this web site isn't the problem.
The problem is that the site is saying, "Go and kill these people." Now, to me, that seems like asking someone to kill someone else for you, which basically amounts to attempted murder.
If you put someone's name, address, phone number, description, whatever up somewhere with a note saying, "kill this person, please," Then that's a crime.
It's best to leave abortion out of the discussion, as it clouds people's judgements.
Hey, maybe I'll start a Hypocritical Bible Thumper List, with names and addresses...what do you think? Then you would be just as low as the ones putting up that web site. Sorry folks, but somewhere the viscious cycle of people feeling the need to get revenge has to stop. I am a Christian. I will not, however, place myself in a Pro-Life/Choice catagory. This is simply because I believe that the "unconditional love" choice is to have the baby, however I also know it is not my place to judge these people that do that. They will answer for their actions in due time. I can share my opinions, but I have no right to perform any action against them, ESPECIALLY violent ones. I guess this makes me a "Realistic Pro Lifer?" I wish this cycle would stop with us Christians, but there are bad apples in every bunch, the kind that feel they have to take matters into their own hands... It hurts the group as a whole, but guess what... These people too will answer for their actions in due time.... No Anonymous Coward here, just no login :-) Michael Griego mgriego@utdallas.edu
I didn't say bad things were nice, nor did I equate books with human lives.
I used books to remove the emotional element but leave the logic.
I also said the being on the list in itself would not frighten me.
In any case, posting private data has privacy issues.
It's not a child, it's a blob of cells.
You can choose whether you value a blob of cells more than the right of a woman not to be burdened with an actual child she can't handle.
This is also not a death threat. I could write a page 'People I Think Should Die' and put Hansen and Barney the Purple Dinosaur on it, would that be a threat? NO... these people will die in about 80 years anyway...
I'm glad to see that there are Pro-choice people who understand that these extremists do not in any way represent the vast majority of the Pro-life movement.
It's the kooks among us that get all the media attention, unfortunatly. If the majority of pro-life people believed in killing doctors and blowing up clinics, then there would be no clinics or abortion doctors.
Let's first look at your own contradictions.
#1. "But, there is nothing actually explictly telling someone to go shoot (or otherwise do harm to) an abortionist. "
#2. "Today it might just be an abortionist hit lists which is vulgar and evil, but tomorrow it could be something that, while many consider to be vulgar and evil, is something we all hold dear and would not want to lose."
You DO understand the meaning of the phrase "hit list", don't you? You actually refered to the page as such in your second quote.
What you are doing is engaging in "rationalization". It is a process by which you attempt to justify to yourself that something you know is wrong is actually not so bad after all.
Fortunately, the courts (and most adults) don't have any problem with seeing through this flimsy charade.
The web site lists
1. Active doctors.
2. Wounded doctors.
3. Dead doctors.
Only a moron would miss or missinterpret the meaning behind this list.
Congratulations. You have the same IQ as the other morons in your following.
Hey, better start sending those dollars to your council elders. $100Million is sure alot of tithes to collect.
Cry all you want about the government shutting down hate sites and punishing those who advocate hate crimes. We don't care. We aren't as pathetic as you are and we don't need to spread FUD to try to cover up our crimes.
I just wish people would see the argument my way:
It's not Pro-life vs. Pro-choice. those are not equal terms
it's:
Pro-life vs. Anti-life
Pro-abortion vs. Anti-abortion
Pro-choice vs. Anti-choice
People get on one side or the other.
Most people are both Pro-life and Pro-choice in the semantic sense. But the 'ol argument goes to connotation over denotation. What's my point? To get your way you have to give something up. There's no such thing as a free lunch. WE ALL LOSE when we argue about anything
-angelo
Whow ... have you ever seen what abortion looks like ?? Or were you shielded from that "standard procedure" ? You are simply misinformed ... oh, well, I am tired of telling people that killing is not right and no law can make it right.
I seem to be more aligned with many other on /. as far as my reaction to the site. Not being a US citizen, I don't have the First Ammendment reflex reaction to freedom of speech issues, but I do think that there was an invasion of privacy (whether or not that information was publically available ... it's a grey area).
Is see little relevance in discussing the issue related to pro-life/pro-choice ON SLASH DOT. Is is obviously are mega-serious issue, but just not in this arena.
Electrons, anyone?
Who cares if a book goes out of print.
Now, if you were tracking authors and had a list of working/wounded/dead AND you posted about bringing the 'butchers' to justice, you'd be in quite a different segment.
I can have friends.
I can have guns.
I can take my friends and shoot beer cans.
I cannot drink beer and shoot my friends.
Are all the pro-lifers as stupid as you?
Actually, you make a semi-valid point. The difference is that when you consider acts that are prohibited by our codified laws (and I'm talking most civilized countries here) such as murder, rape, arson, etc. there is a widespread belief that said acts should be illegal. (How many people do you know who think that rape is a moral act?)
A consensus does not exist for abortion. This bothers the pro-life folks, but it's the truth. If they want to change the laws, they can use all of the forums that they've been given to change the minds of the people who don't agree with them. Show the pro-choice majority why we're wrong, and maybe the laws could change.
Killing doctors won't accomplish this.
Yeah, and the mafia never said they were going to kill you, they just gave you a dead fish.
> Finally, in closing, there are very few
> killings of abortion doctors nowadays. They
> just tend to get a lot of press.
Uhh.. define "very few"? 3 murders out of a list of 200-odd, aren't those relatively high odds? Especially in the context of a debate in which murder is the central element.
"Bringing them to justice" implies that they are doing something that needs to be punished. What the hell do you think they're suggesting?
Well,being as disgusting as it is now, it still does not even come close to what is being done on daily basis in so called "abortion clinic" around the country.
The emotional content is the CORE of the site. It isn't about legislating to end abortion. It's about listing abortion doctors and crossing them out when they're dead. It's about communicating a threat to doctors and their families and providing any needed information to any psychotic who might want it.
If this article didn't report on legal aspects for ;P)
the WEB, I'd agree, but since it directly involved
what is legal and isn't legal on web page, I
very much disagree. (Unfortunately, this will
probably, at SOME point in the talkbacks, break
out into an abortion war (there really isn't anyone
that can talk logically and openly about the subject)
and thats where posting this sucks.
Horsley, Neal (NH141) nhorsley@HOTMAIL.COM
770-214-0126
This guy is crazy enough to have his 'place of business' at his house.
HORSLEY,NEAL
218 Farmington Trace
Carrollton, GA 30116
HAR HAR HAR HAR...
Sorry, I can't resist that joke. =)
We live in a democracy. Yes, we have a constitution with a Bill of Rights. Yes, we value freedom of speech, religion, etc... But sometimes we are willing to put a limit on those individual rights when it is best for our society. I think making death threats (implied or overt) does more harm to our society than restricting this web sites freedom of speech. Allowing certain speech to go unchecked is tantamount to Anarchy. After all, you can't yell fire in a crowded movie theater, and there is a good reason for that!
Let's see. The Christians seem to demonize those of us who don't believe as they do. I will go on record as having found more atheists, agnostics, wiccans, satanists, and buddhists who have a greater sense of right from wrong than a great number of the 'Christians' that I've run across.
do doctor's still take the hippocratic oath?
You beat me to that one. ;)
But don't publish hate sites.
Work through legislation.
Not through terrorism.
I, for a change, think that it would be beneficial to kill some of those motherfuckers listed on that web site. But that's only me ... you people go ahead and carry on with your "advanced civilization."
Purely from a scientific standpoint for the moment, I will state that a fetus of any animal (including a human) is NOT part of the mother's body. The fetus and the mother are seperate from the moment of conseption. Although a fetus cannot currently exist with our technology outside of it's mother, it is not part of her. Since the fetus is not a part of the mother, the argument that most of you defending abortion pick, that a woman can do whatever she wants with her body, is fatally flawed. I will agree that a woman can do anything she wants with her body, but the simple fact remains that the fetus is not part of her body. This then brings about the moral issues.
I'm sure most people here would agree that animal rights laws exist for a reason. What is this reason? More specificially, what rights do animals have? Well, they have the right not to be harmed in a malicious way to purposefully cause suffering. May I remind you that some forms of abortion are the most hideous ways to die. Think that you are floating in a pool on one of those blow up rafts sipping your drink and enjoying yourself. Now imagine that someone decides that they don't want or need you anymore, that you are just the unnessicary byproduct of their own personal enjoyment. So they decide to dump a few million gallons of hydrochloric acid into your pool, eating away your raft, and eventually it gets to you. First it dissolves your skin, then it goes deeper inside you until you are nothing more than a memory. This is what happens to a living fetus that can feel, breathe (yes they breathe, you can find recordings of this), and think at even those early stages of development when a mother decides to get an abortion by saline injection.
Partial birth abortions are the most hideous form of abortion ever contrived. Imagine that you were not killed by the acid, and your murderer decided to wait until you were about ready to come out of the pool. As you climb out, that person drives a sharp object just below the base of your skull, and shoving it up into your brain. Then imagine that they stick a vacuum up there and suck your brain out. I find it amusing that people protect animals more than their own children.
I hope you have learned something today, what abortion really is. It is not simply something that happens when someone does not want a child, it is murder and infanticide. I personally do not advocate murder in any form, no matter if it is the death penalty or some guy that wants his crack for free, or a religious fanatic who would do anything for what (s)he believes.
Thanks for putting up with me, and remember, your mother chose life.
For everyone who doesn't understand our legal system (boy are you stupid).
1. The government passes laws.
2. These laws are enforced by various police agencies (people breaking them are arrested).
3. The judicial branch tries the person and the imposes sentencing.
Now, your personal moral code might dictate that certain actions are immoral or moral. That doesn't matter. If you find something to be immoral but it's legal, you don't do it (even though the government says you can). If you think something is moral but the government says it isn't, then you don't do it because you will be arrested, tried and sentenced (to remove you from polite society).
You might think abortion is immoral. So you will not have an abortion.
You might think killing doctors is moral. So you will go to jail and fry.
What is so difficult about this?
These fools thought that they would help their cause with a public hit list and assasination information. That's illegal. They got busted.
That's the difference between moral and legal.
You people are so pethetically predictable. I KNEW
you idiots were going to break an article about
INTERNET PRIVACY LEGALITIES into a fucking abortion
debate. "Your mother choose life!" and other infantile low
blows on BOTH sides only show that YOU PEOPLE CANNOT
TALK RATIONALLY AND LOGICALLY about a topic. You
feel you have to make your opinions known AS IF WE
GIVE A SHIT. Just move on to the next article.
> YOU PEOPLE CANNOT TALK RATIONALLY AND LOGICALLY
Well, you must be including yourself in this comment because you have no evidence to back yourself up. And unfortunately for you, many people give a shit. If nobody gave a shit then why the fuck do you think that there are over 160 comments in less that two hours. Speak for yourself dumbfuck.
...I wouldn't have minded the article in and of
itself, since it DOES have geek relevance. Unfortunately,
it seems that the average Slashdot reader is WAY
too immature to discuss something without the
intelligence to realize that this isn't the place
to debate "abortion", but the privacy aspects. They
figure this out, sadly, and I have a feeling that
the article posters aren't going to learn from this
and think through what they post beforehand.
:(
Manuël, I agree with your statement on free speech. I think America has gone too far on this site.
I also think you should post your address and phone number here. It's okay. Nothing bad will happen.
Do you have any pictures of yourself and your family we could also view?
Are you married? Is your wife cute? What about your girlfriend? What's her name and number?
I feel that we should make a stand against the oppression of speech in America.
I feel you should go first and provide as much information about yourself as that site provided about their targets.
Feel 'free' to comply.
:)
Thank you for proving my point. NOW I have
my evidence, smartass.
Actually... I checked out that site a long time ago. And I remember thinking "Can this be legal ?". If you look closely, it lists the names on the site as "active", "killed", or "wounded". Included among those names are Bob Dole, President Clinton, Janet Reno and others. I don`t care much for Clinton but I do care for the law. That site was very threatening.
This is central to the doctrine of free speech. G-d gave humans the right to choose. If someone wants to go out and perform abortions, so be it. That is their choice. G-d didn't put me on this earth to cast the first stone...
see
this has been one of the sights i like to look at to get a good laugh
like www.godhatesfags.com.
what he was doing was crossing out the Doctors' names when they were killed
highlighting the names when they were only injured
I do believe he was being sarcastic. :)
So, if an environmental group publishes the lists of company executives, I expect they'll be sued under the same act?
If you don't like it then leave... no need to start whining about it.
-john
I am a Christian and pro life, however, I find what these people are doing to be completely wrong.First because I believe it is something that Jesus would not approve of. Second, there is no logic behind this type of behavior. In other words two wrongs do not make a right. One thing I resent is that often people associate Christianity to these type of fantatics. Please don't count me in.
Is a miscarriage a choice? I THINK NOT!!! dumbass
I am severely starting to loose any faith the average /. readers ability to parse information. From the past few days, wheter reading posts reguarding abortion, software liscensing, or the supoerbowl it becomes clearly evident that most /. readers continually make broad assumptions and generalize. However they continue their post with an arrogant, self-proclaimed god like tone.
Reading through posts reguarding this topic, I am really dissapointed to see so many people generalize christians as having a lack of integrity and hypocrities. We should all know by now that extremists have the loudest voices and not to take their actions as normal. Most christians don't condone death for any means. Not all christians follow their faith, however those who don't really aren't christian so their actions do not jusitfy hypocrisy of christianity.
Under the current laws (in America) and the constitution, it does seem that a person should be allowed the choice to decide wheter or not to have an abortion. However calling these people pro-choice is somewhat of a euphinism. Science has known for quite a while that a being is alive from the second of conception. I would be much more at ease if these people just admitted they were killing a newborn life because thats what they are doing. Of course even though our laws permit it, I would not recommend that course of action to anyone as there are an endless number of other choices which can save a life. In addition in this day and age with an unlimmited number of birth control methods, the need for an abortion should not even come up.
That is so dumb, what the hell do you think you are? A blob of cells or not? Dont be a idiot.
...the only problem is that abortion is legal right now.
Until then, an individual has no right to be anyone else's judge, jury and executioner. Only the government has this right. But once abortion becomes illegal again (Yes, I'm sure it will, probably not in the near future, but eventually), the government should prosecute, convict and execute abortion doctors just like any other common murderer.
This is a big ruling about free speech. It has big implications and needs a rational approach so let's not sink to "You're an idiot. A moron. A fool."
With regards to the comment about how people regularly break the speed limit, I think you emphasized the key word: "minor." It quite plainly doesn't make sense to lump speeding and rape (for example) into the same category.
:-)
With regards to your request for references, I guess I have always considered it common knowledge that the vast majority of Americans believe that abortion should not be made illegal. This aside, I did do some Web searching and found some characteristically biased results on both sides of the fence, from both pro-choice sites and conservative religious sites (i.e., CBN and the American Spectator.) In short, most of the "poll numbers" that you'll find on the 'Net are drastically bogus in both directions.
Unbiased numbers can be found, though.
Here's a reputable one: A Gallup page that clearly shows that people who believe that abortion should be illegal in all cases are in a severe minority.
Finally, regarding your slavery comment: The "large majority" of people who didn't find it to be morally wrong were on the losing side of a bloody civil war. Let's not go down that road, okay?
It isn't just a blob of cells, although people would like to think that.
Take a look at some of the pictures here (warning, very gory stuff)
It'd be different if the guy said, "Kill Henry Hyde's wife! Here's her street address, phone number, SS#, drivers license #, here's what she looks like, blah blah blah."
Jesus did NOT preach tolerance!
He Himself used VIOLENCE driving the moneychangers
from the Temple!
He said that people would be DIVIDED because of Him... Father against son, Mother against daugher, etc... due to His name.
He was very vocal about how the wheat would be
separated from the chaff and how the chaff would
be burned... No whimpey, touchie feely stuff
there...
The last abortionist that got shot was supposedly
about to "turn to the pro-life camp". It could
very well be that the pro-aborts wanted to bump
him off to 1) fuel the flames against pro-lifers
2) avoid the embarrassment of yet another defector to the pro-life movement. (The very persons who
were to meet that doctor have speculated on this
possibility.)
One of the pro-aborts just got convicted for
insurance fraud bombing his own clinic and blaming
it on the pro-lifers...
BTW, many ex-abortionists have now become vociferous pro-lifers... Dr. Nathanson is
one example. More and more are defecting to the
pro-life side... It's less about threats and
more about their consciences.
Never mind the countless women who are suffering
from post-abortion stress and guilt... nobody
informed them beforehand...
As I said before I don't care where he lives. I don't want to know. I couldn't give a monkey's if he was my neighbour (pretty unlikely
anyway as I'm a Brit)
You egotistical bastard! I'll post what I please! You make me sick! Go away, you self-centered egomaniacal piece of stuff-shirted guttertrash! You're not even from this friggin country! Keep your brit nose in your brit business! By the way, a monkey's what? Learn to type!
Hanlon's Razor? Didn't Napoleon say that?
"The Christian Right is neither" - Moby
I always liked that quote.
life (lf) n.
pl. lives (lvz)
1. Biology a. The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism.
-- From the momment of conception, the newborn possesses all of the aforementioned abilities. Of course s/he is dependant on another organism for much of his/her survival, however even after birth, the child is still dependant on the parent for quite some time. Scientifically, it would seem clear to me that a being is alive from conception.
Of course as I previously stated, our constitution would indicate that the parent should have freedom of choice. Although I believe these people should concede to what they are actually doing instead of trying to produce a non-existant argument on wheter or not the child is alive.
As for the link you posted, it just reaffirms my belief that slasdhot readers, like most people, generalize a group of people based on extremists.
Do you really think it's free speech to post personal information about people on a website? Do you have any children? Perhaps you'd like me to post your address on a pedophiles website. Hmmm...if I sent you dead animals in the mail would you consider that free speech? There are limits to what free speech can include.
My own belief is that it should be legal for people to post opinions saying that people who perform abortions should be killed but not to post their names and addresses.
I also think that idiots like you who can't spell the word "site" should be slaughtered indiscriminately.
How about a web site that lists names and addresses of children. And it would have pictures of a nail suggestively placed for each one molested. No advocacy or anything, just info about where and when to round up the kiddies. Are you all for free speech now?
And Jesus wouldn't approve of the actions of 90 percent of my friends, but I'm not planning on going out and shooting them.
We don't live in a perfect world. We can't make everything run perfectly.
Shooting people isn't even close to a solution.
The slippery slope argument goes like this. If we start restricting speech like this, we'll head down the slippery slope and end up restricting all sorts of other things. Unless you want to try to defend the stance that there should be *absolutely* no restrictions on free speech (good luck with that), there's going to have to be a line drawn. So let's just concentrate on where that line should be drawn. Hopefully we can agree up to this point.
Personally, I'm in favor of a fair degree of personal privacy - especially in the case of a particular group who has been the target of such attacks. Now there'll be more of you disagreeing with me, as we're getting into pretty subjective territory.
The site doesn't suggest killing any of the people profiled (that I could see), but they sure do sound fanatical. You may say "they just have strong beliefs." Well, so did a lot of people in the inquisition.
Whats this "unborn baby" shit? I always thought it had to be born to be a baby? Hmmmm, I guess not, a baby is anything that is slimy and hooked up to a placenta, but never an individual entity in and of itself. And of course the thing its hooked up to
is always a disposable human being to be discarded at a moments notice, along with the doctor who looked after her until the fatal slug hit his skull. Christians just love murder and violence. They probably like it even better if they burn the clinic down so that the humanitarian doctor dies a more gruesome and horrific death.
Who wants to bet on when they start charging admission to see Doctor Killings, live and in person! They already have fake abortion films, so this gory appeasement to their purient interest is
not long in coming.
Thats wonderfull! You've slowed down the killings of us pro-choice atheists. But we never killed any of you! And you think you have a moral edge on us because you have slowed down the killings? Boy are you ever sick!!!
Why does everyone feel they have to snap at someone?
Even things written in good spirits end up getting
some goofy-ass saying "Well no shit, stupid!".
Shit. Way too many people are actively hostile
at the drop of a hat. Loosen up.
Does it bother any one else that doctors, against there "preserve life" rule that they all are supost to follow, are killing would be people? A doctor is required "NOT" to take life.
I thought I had seen all there is to see
of demented, sick things on the web, but
Slashdot managed to top it.
I surely didn't expect to be grossed out by
following a slashdot link.
No more of this, please.
Why not go to a church and see all the support groups and free daycares set up at these churchs for single parents? It's frowned upon to be single with children yes but the point is you don't know the rest of what's going on. When I walk into a church I usually see a bulletin board of useful positive things, there are even a few just for single parents.
RESEARCH THEN SPEAK.
Why not go down that road. At some point in our country's history the majority of all Americans DID believe that slavery was morally justified. It took 600,000+ lives to end that holocaust (compare that to 1.5 million abortions per year). And it WAS considered a constitutional right to own slaves. And there were many people breaking laws, even murder (remember John Brown?), to work towards the abolition of slavery. So I think the fella made a valid comparison. Our country has a rich history of creating immoral and unjust laws, and eventually repealing them. Hell, women didn't even have the right to vote 80 years ago. Sure women have a right to an abortion. Does that make it right?
And how do we decide what polls are reputable? I don't think we should base a decision as important as what's considered a human life on a friggin' poll. Personally, I'll defer to one of the commandments: "Thou shall not kill". There are no qualifiers. It's pretty straightforward. Don't take a life. Any life. Anytime. Under any circumstance. Hard to go wrong with that!
I (like many of us) have been a "netizen"
for quite some time. There's been a ton
of crazy stuff put up, but this is by far
sicker than anything I'd ever imagined.
I've never been an "eleet haxor" script-kiddie
type; I've never felt the urge to just slam
anybody else's system before, no matter what
they said. But I'm sure as hell feeling it
now.
Public hit lists with the targets name, photo and address are not considered free speech.
Take your allowance and buy yourself a clue.
Are you going to tell me that the egg is dead?
Are you going to tell me that the sperm is dead?
Life has not sprung from non-life in many millions of years.
Once egg and sperm join, then genetic material from both co-mingle and form a cell with DNA that is not identical to either parent.
Is this cell a person? If you take a high dose of birth control pills, you can prevent the pregnancy from progressing to the next level. Is that murder? An IUD can prevent the egg from adhering and the egg will be flushed out later (naturally). Is this murder? Sometimes the woman doesn't even know she's pregnant and her daily activities will cause a spontanious miscarriage. Is that murder?
If it IS murder if the woman knows about it, wouldn't it be negligent homicide or manslaughter is she wasn't aware of it and her actions caused the miscarriage?
It isn't that the fertilized egg doesn't have the potential to grow into a completely separate person. But it is still the woman's right AS THE EXISTING, LEGAL ENTITY to control her body. The fetal material or child or new life or whatever is dependant upon the woman's consent to continue to inhabit her body. If she chooses not to continue the pregnancy, that is her legal choice. In this case, the woman's existing legal rights take precedence over the potential legal rights of the fertilized egg / fetal material / fetus / baby.
This was done because the courts recognized that an existing person's rights to her body cannot be abridged on just the potential of a child being born. That is why there is there are laws against abortions after the second trimester except in extreme cases.
If any of you "Christians" feel that you have the right to dictate how another person should live her life, kindly present yourself as the financial support for the child for the next 18 years. Surely a child's life is worth some of your time.
Speeding is a TRAFFIC INFRACTION. It is not a CRIMINAL OFFENSE. Yes, they are both on the law books and both are laws. But one is a criminal offense and the other is not. One is a CRIME the other is an INFRACTION.
Crimes mean you can do jail time.
Speeding means you pay a fine.
They cannot be lumped together in any rational debate.
I have got to say that you pro-lifers definately AREN'T breeding for intelligence anymore.
Could you please show me WHERE in the constitution that is states anyone has a RIGHT to own slaves?
"And it WAS considered a constitutional right to own slaves."
Maybe by your warped interbreed dog molesting ancestors. But not by anyone who could READ the constitution.
Too bad their mother didn't abort before these anti-freedom morons were born!
Hi
My name Christian Wallentin 25 years and a
BSc.
I'm shooked when I read that people actully agrees
with the pro-life movement!
In this crowded world the choice of having a baby or not is entirely up to the woman carring it.
NO OTHER!
Due to many religious fanatics in the US (even if the have freedom of religion) anything that's "anti-god" is not accepted by them.
And the feel that they must change it. A bit like
the muslims in the arabworld. Or? Is it because I'm a Swede??
Abortion or not - One persons choice - The pregnant woman - NO OTHER
Christian Wallentin
cycler@guff.net
nope. Legality doesn't mean morality. But immorality musn't mean murder.
"...5 christians to every atheist." Hmmm. Are there any other categories of religious persuasion in the U.S. No, of course not. (subtext: christianity != the only religion)
Additionally, I don't recall the author of the original post implying that Christians in general are "SO STUPID." I, on the other hand, may be implying stupidity, although certainly not of all Christians.
- posting anonymously because I forgot who I am
And I'd like to personally congratulate you on standing up on a divisive issue such as this.
Why don't you post your name and address and a photo or two of yourself so I'll know you when I see you walking down the street and I can come over and shake your hand.
I'd also like to congratulate your wife. Why don't you post a picture of her, too?
She must be very special to have a husband like you. Does she stay at home and keep the house while you're away at work?
Where did you live again? You must work long hours. When you do leave in the morning? Do you come home for lunch? What time do you get back in the evening?
Maybe we can chat on the phone. What's your number?
Your wife is very pretty.
Do you have an alarm system in your house? Maybe two phone?
Don't feel uncomfortable about posting all this private data on a public website. Remember freedom of speech. You're the MAN! You stand up for this. You just need to show them that you're not afraid to have your personal information on the web.
You wife is very pretty.
PLEASE.
Remove these pricks... nuke 'em from orbit.
That is the sickest site I've ever seen... and it's on www.christiangallery.com??? Are these people supposed to be Christians?
HACK EM!!! and if they restore, HACK EM AGAIN!
How absolutely awful. If I was one of those doctors I'd sue their pants off.
Prove it.
Provide the information that was requested.
The difference is that you can volunteer to provide it.
Those doctors didn't.
Put up or shut up.
If you don't like it and don't want to do it voluntarily, why would you support someone having done involuntarily?
Another poster touched on this, but I think it deserves more discussion. You mentioned the commandment, "Thou shalt not kill." Well, that only applies to Christians and Jews. What if a bunch of rabbis went around trying to outlaw pork and targetting pork-eaters on a web site? What if some Scientologists said we should outlaw something that L. Ron Hubbard disliked?
In hindsight, the Inquisitions seem pretty horrible; they killed people who believe in Christ a little differently. How long will it take before we see that forcing your religious views on someone is evil?
If you don't want to steal, don't. If you don't want to covet thy neighbor's wife, don't. If you don't want to have an abortion, don't. Just don't make me follow your stupid religion.
And, if you're not actually capable of having a child, i.e. men, you have to right to even think about outlawing abortion.
Now let's talk about these moral Christians:
- Ok, you mean these, that want to punish women for unprotected sex, to protect some fetus, right?
- Oops, but these are the same that forbid any form of protection. (If you do not believe this, then you should go for a pilgrimage to Rome and discuss this one with the Pope.)
- Hmmm, than why is the father not prosecuted?
And now some notes about privacy:What I'm wondering is, if these people didn't hear about freedom? I mean as in "Personal freedoms ends where the freedom of another person starts" (Sorry, English IS a foreign language for me)?
Andreas
>The sight made no direct threats, and >the creators didn't go out and kill themselves. >They simply provided information.
I disagree - the site lists the names as being 'active', 'wounded' or 'fatality'. i.e.
"This dotor is still alive"
"Damn, we only wounded him"
"Good, we got him killed"
He said himself in an interview that he feelt nothing when that doctor was killed, and that it was a 'war'. In wars people are killed, he himself claimed that this was a war, and his list is a list of the opposition... to be killed, and listed in such a way as to make this obvious.
You still think that isn't a direct threat? If I was on that list (no, I'm not a doctor!) I'd be concerned for my life....
Damn I'm glad I don't live in America.
Far too many Christian nuts running around loose.
Yes you're right. I was the one who posted the "hack the site" comment. It was a heat of the moment thing. There's something about babies arms and animated dripping blood that inspires heated emotions...
:/
But hacking the site would prove nothing but there are idiots who hack sites. They needed to be dealt with through the law. And apparently they were, to the tune of around $100 million dollars I believe.
The system works sometimes it seems. I still feel bad for the doctors whose details were made publicly available
The guy who created the website is Neal Horsley, from Carrollton, Georgia. His phone number is (770) 214-0126. Verify this by going to the web site in question, and looking at the article about the New York Times story covering the web site. Then call information for Carrollton, Georgia, and ask for him.
Please don't call him to express your views. That would be mean.
Where in the bible is purgatory mentioned ?
That's a Catholic doctrine.
Are you trying to tell me vegetables are not alive ? (prior to being uprooted of course)
Same principle. Anti-abortion activists consider abortion MURDER. It's not as simple as not having one, obviously.
Then explain why the government outlaws murder, rape, thievery, lying under oath, and other moral violations.
Don't give me that liberatarian crap about only outlawing whatever harms another person. What do you think abortion is? It is the termination of a human life for daring to incovenience another by its presence.
The 10 Commandments (Decalogue) in Exodus Chapter 20 are a precept for what has been interpereted as 613 commandments from God. Most Christians don't realize this. In Chapter 21, homocide is discussed in death. This is the location of the infamous "an eye for an eye" passage. This does NOT mean capital punishment. This simply means if you take out someone's eye, you repay them the cost of the eye to them. In the Talmud, abortion is elaborated upon. A fetus inside of the body is treated as potential human life. If the baby endangers the mother, an abortion should take place. But once the child has emerged, you cannot choose between one life and another. In a case where it plainly endangers the mother, abortion is REQUIRED. Abortion is usually permitted in other cases too.
Yes, shame on them for executing a child for the sins of the father. Just because your father was a rapist doesn't mean you don't have a right to continue living.
I can't because of where I work...
...
For the kiddies:
The site runs front page extensions (the xploit is posted everywhere).
The site runs on DGUX (the xploit is on the BUGTRAQ yesterday).
Combine the two as you wish
In between - very "poor" christians, running DGUX for a shitsite...
YOU PEOPLE CANNOT TALK RATIONALLY AND LOGICALLY about a topic
irony n.
Dissimulation; ignorance feigned for the purpose of confounding or provoking an antagonist.
I disagree with their point of view. I don't believe that a zygote is a human life. I have 0 problem with abortion up to the 2nd trimester. BUT I think these people have a right to free speech. It is important to be able to express ideas no matter how nutty they are. It is important to allow the KKK to speak and Nazi's to speak although both these groups frequently threaten opposing viewpoints. It is equally important to allow the NAACP and the ACLU to speak. There is no evidence (except circumstantial) that this web page specifically lead to the death of the doctor in Buffalo. This will beoverruled, and I bet the ACLU will be the legal authority to do it.
I'm glad this abortion issue came up.
Government officials get elected because of key issues. Every time you vote for Candidate-X because he supports your pro-choice -or- pro-life views, you're signing away some of your rights. Either party you choose infringes upon your rights.
Abortion is the most controversial issue in history. I guarantee you that a majority of voters voted on the side which coincided with their abortion views. Abortion superseded all of their other values.
This is a very dangerous position to be put in. Because logic (and most importantly, history) dictates that voting for the lesser of two evils will always lead to the demise of good.
Wise up people, before it's too late.
-- Don't need no snazzy line. I'm cool just like this.
If you read the original post, he said that 'It's not a child, it's a blob of cells. 'Fetuses aren't exactly blobs of cells that fit on a petri dish.
Glad that you're not disturbed by the sight of dead humans. Good for you.
It's an incredibly fallacious argument to say that since they're not wanted, they're better off dead, and we're actually doing them a favor by killing them. Here's a thought experiment for you: Suppose abortion was outlawed, how many children (who would have been aborted) would tell you when they were older that they would rather be dead?
True belief is not and cannot be spread through terrorist tactics. Fear is an entirely different function from belief. If you want to change minds by killing those who believe differently than you, you've got a lot of killing to do, because you'll have to hunt us all down. Then you can have your perfectly moral and just world where children do not die unnecessarily. But you will also remember the means by which you accomplished this, through hate, through fear, through murder. Are these morals you want to teach your children? Perhaps they may disagree with you someday, and you may become a victim of the next holy war. You got your perfect world before you died though, that's all that matters, right?
Those pro-life boys/girls is crazy, mad terrorists, who found another reson to kill people...
I mean havn't religion killed enought people allready????????
I think they can stuff there bible in a place where the sun dosn't shine.
I have thought for a long time that the abortion question will become a moot point soon. Simply remove the unwanted fetus, freeze it until it is wanted then implant it in the uterus of the woman wanting it. The technolgy exists today.
Combine that with lots of kinds of birth control and the problem goes away.
Of course, religious nuts will find something wrong with this, I am sure.
So, bearing in mind that no contraception is 100% effective...
;-)
1) Some girl gets pregnent, she doesn't want the child (for whatever reason).
2) She is legally bound to have the child (otherwise charged with murder).
So, what happens when its born? Is she legally bound to look after the child - thats going to be some childhood! If not, who is, and is it any sort of life? Basically what it would eventually boil down to is who pays for it! Morality? We care more for money than morality, and thats the real problem.
Hell, rather than pay a doctor to perform an abortion, pay the girl to keep the kid (and put it up for adoption) - may result in a population explotion though
Also, bearing in mind that the fetus has rights, the girl falls badly and 'loses' the baby - I guess that would be manslaughter, accidental, yes, but still manslaughter...
With morality, life, and everything else in this world there is no black and white, just many shades of grey.
Hey, heres another one for you - if the girl takes the pregnancy to term, she is in danger of dying (this does happen) due to complications... who has more right to live, the fetus or the girl?
Somewhere a line must be drawn - and with reason and sanity, maybe we can all find where to draw it. This site, and any terrorist action will not help to draw this line.
So, bearing in mind that no contraception is 100% effective...
;-)
1) Some girl gets pregnent, she doesn't want the child (for whatever reason).
2) She is legally bound to have the child (otherwise charged with murder).
So, what happens when its born? Is she legally bound to look after the child - thats going to be some childhood! If not, who is, and is it any sort of life? Basically what it would eventually boil down to is who pays for it! Morality? We care more for money than morality, and thats the real problem.
Hell, rather than pay a doctor to perform an abortion, pay the girl to keep the kid (and put it up for adoption) - may result in a population explotion though
Also, bearing in mind that the fetus has rights, the girl falls badly and 'loses' the baby - I guess that would be manslaughter, accidental, yes, but still manslaughter...
With morality, life, and everything else in this world there is no black and white, just many shades of grey.
Hey, heres another one for you - if the girl takes the pregnancy to term, and she is in danger of dying (this does happen) due to complications... who has more right to live, the fetus or the girl?
Somewhere a line must be drawn - and with reason and sanity, maybe we can all find where to draw it. This site, and any terrorist action will not help to draw this line.
The constitution is not a concern for anti-government regimes. Every potential new government would certainly produce its own version of what the constitution should be.
Kinda like War Crimes. You can bet if there ever is a takeover, that a lot of people will be prosecuted for prior acts.
ACLU.. You are extremely dangerous organization. Thanks to you, teacher who mentions something about his/her religious background can get sued and trown out of work. As a parent I feel threatened by your constant intrusion into educational system, intrusion that prevents teachers from conveing any worthwhile values to their students. You are disgrace to this country and someday will be recognized as such.
Actually, after one of the less recent killings, the head of Operation Rescue wrote a response editorial to USA Today condoning and supporting that attack. It might be safer to say that no anti-choice advocate can be judged on anything but an individual basis.
In most jurisdictions, Assault (or some varaitation like "assault with a deadly weapon")
Have you neglected to mention that even at 2 months, the fetus is already recognizeable as human? And no, it does not change my graphics. Your lack of knowlege and logic is why people like you shouldn't breed at all.
The big picture is that we cannot carry out vigilante justice nor allow it to be carried out. These people debatably have an ethical stance, however they need to push for legislation, or else they're going to get nothing but disgust from the public.
Abortion is legal. Killing doctors is not. ..
Not that I expect them to understand that, though
"Once the government approves, it is no longer immoral."
Not true. The anti-abortion movement as a whole accepts the label of "baby killer" for anyone involved in providing an abortion. This is not just an association with the violence, it is advance approval.
Think about this for a second. If someone was really killing a baby, nobody would hesitate for a moment to use deadly force to stop the perpetrator before (s)he could complete the act. By using this language, the entire "pro-life" movement not only accepts deadly violence against people who provide abortions, they are supporters and inciters before the fact.
Most of the laws making it a crime to kill a fetus are very recent; with few exceptions, they are sops to the anti-abortion activists. In every other part of the law, a fetus is not treated as a human being. Example: In US law, a fetus cannot inherit. There is no state in the Union which allows a stillborn child's mother to inherit from the father's estate, but a child which dies seconds after a live birth passes its inheritance onto its next of kin.
The hypocrisy of the movement (crying over pre-embryos discarded in in-vitro fertilization while ignoring the 2/3 of naturally fertilized ova which never make it to birth) and its erroneous readings of scripture are problem enough, but fanatics never worry about logic, do they?
Why, yes, the Roman Catholic church and quite a few "right-to-life" organizations also try to keep contraceptives, including condoms, from being available to people. They try to keep laws in other countries which make them illegal or restrict their sale.
Don't feel sorry for her; the Irish court was found to have no jurisdiction over the movements of pregnant girls or their activities outside of Ireland, so she had her abortion in England. Her rapist was prosecuted.
Just the facts as I know 'em.
bunch of morons! i guess they also say we can t use condom?
---
heh so i guess canadian are at least decent enought to put there name and/or country to identify themself...(unlike u)
---
That's why I think your analogy with books is not too good. This is an ethical issue; while using extensional logical reasoning might be helpful, such type of argument I don't think is very good here. Protecting human life is a much more of a moral imperative than protecting copies of some book. (well, perhaps most books; ever heard, say, the story where you have to choose whether to save and old lady or the Mona Lisa from a fire in the Louvre?)
In particular, if a person uses this data to murder a doctor, the people who put up the data IMHO share in the responsibility, and even more if said people knew that was a possible consequence of making such data available.
---
However. Anyone who is an activist in the pro-life movement (as the people behind this page clearly are) knows that abortionists have several times been specially targeted for murder, and that it is very likely to happen soon. They are in a position to know that if they recollect and post personal information about abortionists, they are immensely facilitating the murder of abortionists.
Calling this akin to a death threat is not correct at all, IMHO. But I don't really think it is any more acceptable. While they may not be actively telling anyone to actually murder these people, they _are_ calling on unknown people, over which they have no control, to harass them.
---
I'm just afraid of the ramifications of this decision, and how it might be broadened in the future to, for instance, shut down anti-Microsoft sites, or anything else controversial.
An anti-MS site, or any simply controversial site, is not necessarily in this category. Just look at that site, for god's sake. The have a list of names of abortionists. You click on a name on the list, and you get in another text box home and office address, phone numbers, name of wife/husband, kids, and so on. It advocates and explicitly asks for harassment against these people--- getting fingerprints, photos/videos of them and their friends. Think about this particular quote: the site asks for "diaries by surveillance workers" .
As I've said above, the people behind this site know full well the information they provide is private, and that recently on the US abortionists have been murdered several times. They are in the position to know that they are putting these doctor's lives at risk.
In contrast, try to show me some anti-MS site who puts people's lives at risk.
---
Hell no. Absolutely no way.
First of all, how many stories have you seen in the press about spam fighters targeting spammers and murdering them? Putting up lists of spammers doesn't put their lives in the danger that putting ups lists of abortionists does. This is simply because of the political and social state of the US today.
I don't know much about those lists you mention, but I'll make a couple assumptions here for my second point. If you know any counterexample to them, please point them out, I'd love to know. The seconf point is that spammers give out information about themselves--- an email address, a postal address, a phone number--- for you to conatact them. Making a list of data someone gave to you, without restricting you in any way your right to redistribute it, is OK unless you can give a good reason against it (say, if it could endanger someone's life).
Even more, if many recipients colaborate to use this information to track down the internet site(s) from where this spammer operates, this is public information. If you get a record from the InterNIC database, and list names and addresses people willingly put there, that's alright too.
Basically, I'm making the assumption the spam lists you mention just gather publicly available data on spammers, data said spammers willingly released. I don't think one would see many departures from this pattern in these sites. The one I do remember posted names and addresses of, for example, people from "Get rich quick" emails. If you mail you address to 10,000 people, you can't claim it's private.
When I start seeing anti-spam web pages posting private, undisclosed adresses of spammers, with their wives and kids' names, then that is another thing.
But, there is nothing actually explictly telling someone to go shoot (or otherwise do harm to) an abortionist. I seem to recall a certain famous person saying that someone should shoot Henry Hyde's wife. There wasn't a great outcry about that (except in the far-right press).
Public figures are another issue--- although I think saying in public "someome should shoot X" in earnest is unacceptable (in most situations).
But if a person knows abortionists are being specially targeted for murder, don't you think this person should refrain from posting such data about abortionists? I think not, unless he doesn't mind them dead.
Yes, you don't like anti-abortion people. But let's realize that, like the anti-aborition protesters, we are also a minority here in /.: we don't tend to see eye to eye with the general public on many issues.
Pay no mind to immature adolescent/early-twentysomething self-righteous "atheists". Yeah, the kind that will flame any christian, pulling out a lot of immature arguments which show only their ignorance and inexperience. Feel free to say what you think on slashdot; otherwise, we lose something valuable.
---
This is going too far. These idiots have a right to their opinion, but to basically suggest people they don't like get KILLED, that's just plain wrong. I mean, how would they feel if I put up a site with all religious people's names, and said they should be killed, just because I don't agree with religion? But I wouldn't do that, because I realize (unlike these people) that everyone is entitled to his own opinion. These people just make me sick.
Well, if that hit list was a threat against the doctors, could their incitement to nuclear civil war be considered a threat against myself? More importantly, can I get lots of money in damages?
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
IMHO, this type of news belongs here. It's not general abortion news or general freedom of speech news, but specifically about freedom of speech on the internet. Slashdot has typically posted all sorts of internet-related stuff, especially regarding government regulation of the internet, and this is no different.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
(Note that you might be talking about a precedent-setting case. If so, it's probably waiting on an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. Once that's decided the rest of Canada abides by that rule. Right now you can still get arrested for Child Pornography in BC, I'll bet)
Posted by Charles Bronson:
Okay, this is definately relevant to Slashdot, since it's web-related, but I'd hate to see flames turn from which desktop manager to use into being about Roe vs. Wade. Anyway, that's where I see this going.
Posted by The Mongolian Barbecue:
maybe you are right
Posted by Stephen "The Carp" Carpenter:
Ok...the point as I see it...
This website said that these people should be
"Brought to justice" (as someone pointed out in
another comment). However, according to the
current Law, these people are performing LEGAL
acts.
What does it mean to bring them to justice?
It sounds to me like advocating that they be
stopped (when there is no legal way to do so)
It is NOT illegal to advocate illegal acts per se.
It is not illegal for me to stand up and say
e"everyone smoke a joint to protest marijuana
laws" any more than it was illegal to advocate
sit ins at "Whites only" restraunts in the
60's.
It is however illegal "incite" or advocate
violent acts or riots. This is basically
what the site amounts to. It advocates
violence AND gives people the tools needed
to do it...namely the names and adresses of
victems.
It is truely amazing how a person can be so
"Pro Life as long as it isn't born yet, then
fuck it". I am NOT a christian but I have read
the Bible, I went to Catholic scvhool....
Rabi Jesus's message (and no im not jewish either
but that was his title) was one of Love and
the idea that judgement is the sole right of
god. Not the crap that these people spew.
(unless you look at the fig tree incident where
he shows that it is ok to kill anything which
doesn't have anything to offer us)
What ever happend to "Judge Not lest ye be judged"
How about the only violent act mentiond in the
bible commited by jesus was driving the money changers from the temple?
If he truely believed in judgement and that these
people should be treated poorly, have their names
distributed and be harrased, then why is it he
actively consorted with prostitutes and all
variety of sinners?
Ok...I don't believe Jesus was the son of god,
hell I don't even believe there is a god, but
these people profess the word of jesus and then
pass jusgement on doctors who perform aboritons.
Thi smakes them hypocrites...one of the few things
Jesus seemd to have a particular distaste for.
Posted by SmashPHASE:
1st of all, I'm no activist, but I do disaprove
abortion. I did heard some stories of people that tried to let abortion sound like the right thing. 2 years ago I heard on the radio, that a teenage girl in Ireland got pregnant after a rape, but than was denied an abortion by court order. I did felt sorry for the girl, but I do think that every woman who ever had an abortion will sooner or later in life regret it. Life's is just to special. It is murder, even in this case. Two wrongs don't make a right.
But I do disagree with the content of this anti-abortion site. It's agressive tune and it lacks of sympathy towards girls who finally did decide to let it happen.
Why I tell all this?
Well I think the Internet should be a free medium
at all cost. Everyone should be free to say what he/she wants, that even counts for Nazi sympatisers.
If you don't agree with the content, simply don't visit such sites.
I certainly don't hope that America won't follow China's footsteps into violation human rights.
In China people who critise the goverment on the internet can easily be put in jail for 20 yrs.
I think this could be the next thing in line if the American goverment keeps going like this.
According to Amnasty International, America is one of the two countries in the world who didn't sign the human rights act and it shows.
Manuël Beunder
Posted by Stephen "The Carp" Carpenter:
However....no law prohibits killing any animal
when it is putting your life in danger.
I am aware of no law which puts any restrictions
on the reasons for which an animal can be killed
(except endangered species which a) humans are
not, and B) can still be killed under the above
point "Its comming right for us")
Now, a "fetus" is dividing cells...at
what stage is pain capable of being felt?
There are no laws against dumping HCl or any
acid/salt/ etc on a cockroach (aside from
enviromental laws which disallow certain
pesticides)
At what point is something "like a cockroach"
where we don't care enough about that any means
of killing it is ok...and like a rabit where
torcher is not legal?
At what stage does the fetus cross these lines?
At the "moment of conception" there isn't even
a fetus...it is 1 lone cell. Very unremarkable
(well ok...it is a binuclear haploid...but only
for a VERY short time) no differnt (except for
its genetic material) from many slime molds,
bacteria, and other goodies that can show up in
your petri dishes.
When is the a thinking, self aware being? I
don't promise to have the answer but...
I think rights are for the born.
also... partial birth abortions go right back to
"killing for protection" soometimes we have to
decide "The mother or the Baby". Sorry the mother
sometimes has to win out.
This ruling is not good, people. Without regard to the political issue involved, it's not good. The politicians, lawyers, and do-gooders are itching for any opening to control speech on the internet, and this one will, you can be sure, be exploited.
If these same people who put up the web site had instead taken out a full-page ad in the New York Times saying the same thing, would the result have been the same? No.
Freedom of speech is freedom of speech, regardless of the medium, and (modulo libel) regardless of content, however repulsive you may find it. (Remember that freedom of speech is only important for unpopular views; even in totalitarian states you're quite free to praise the government as much as you like.)
Craig
http://airnet.net/craig/g4c
If you really believe this, then a) the Southern Directory Company, which publishes the 'phone book (at least around here) is morally responsible for a very large number of crimes; and b) you are about to hire a pack of wolves to keep the chipmunks out. Because the greatest danger to life and limb comes not from fanatics on some point or other -- not even from fanatics with guns, let alone fanatics with web sites -- but from governments and legal systems which have been allowed to place some value -- any value -- above the basic rights of individuals. In this century alone the toll is nearly two hundred million lives, dwarfing the cost of all of our wars, abortions, murders, and natural disasters combined.
Even religious fanaticism -- like the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition -- takes no serious toll until it becomes a government program....
Craig
I'm just afraid of the ramifications of this decision, and how it might be broadened in the future to, for instance, shut down anti-Microsoft sites, or anything else controversial.
I can very easily see this applied to Earth First!, for instance.
Just trying to see the big picture here...
I don't see anything that amounts to death threats, but there should be some way to fight this on privacy grounds.
Tons of public information that used to be logistically difficult to get in one place can now be assembled easily. Privacy laws need to be overhauled to deal with this.
It is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail. - Abraham Maslow
TedC
Obviously it doesn't SAY that. But please, enlighten me. WHY else would such a list exist? I can't think of a SINGLE logical reason for compiling this list, if not as a reference for those who would threaten/harm/kill the doctors or the family members named there.
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
Read it yourself. If they have markings specifically for when these people are injured/killed, I think that says a LOT. Also, you say they're not doing anything wrong, but if it's not advocating violence against these doctors, then what other reason would there be to collect such minutiae about all these people? I can't think of a single one.
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
You say that removing the right to an abortion is returning women to a submissive role. Well, what about a fetus which is (legally) allowed to be the recipient of a trust or will (i.e. it can own property)? What about a fetus which, if it killed in the course of another crime, immediately allows the addition of manslaughter to the list of charges (yes, virginia, that means killing the child is manslaughter IF the woman wants it alive)? What about killing a one-minute old baby? 60 seconds changes the charge from nothing to murder 1.
You really, really don't want to go down that road. It just gets worse for you.
--
Ben Kosse
Remember Ed Curry!
Without males around, you are not having any children for a while, now are you?
Hypothetical here (I'm not married):
If I sire a child and it is in my wife's womb, then you mean to tell me I have no right to decide if that child should live? I have no remedy for my wife depriving me of a future, and conceived, daughter or son?
That is, for those of you paying attention, sexual discrimination. If the father has no say, then by law, the mother can't, either.
Now, to shoot your next arguement:
What if the father wants the child aborted but the mother doesn't? What if the mother wants the child aborted but the father doesn't? If you give tie-goes-to-the-mom, then you are again discriminating against the father because no matter what, the mother gets "2 votes."
--
Ben Kosse
Remember Ed Curry!
--
Ben Kosse
Remember Ed Curry!
Real simple, isn't it.
--
Ben Kosse
Remember Ed Curry!
I'm a member of the ACLU (specifically a co-coordinator of a local chapter) and this is a common example of the difficulty in discerning which constitutional right supercedes the other: the right to free speech vs. the right to privacy. Actually, this conflict is not without precedent, and without going into long, boring court decisions, I'll summarize:
;)
The right to privacy is guaranteed when an individual's activities are deemed not to be of public concern or of newsworthy content. Specifically: if a person engages in activities which would hold him accountable to the public at large or would make him the subject of widespread public interest, he then forfeits specific rights to privacy, so long as those exposing what would ordinarily be protected demonstrate that invading this privacy is of newsworthy content. For example: A candidate running for public office is placing himself in a position where he would be accountable to his constituents. Therefore, information such as the candidate's previous personal legal history (such as a criminal record) would be considered of public interest because it may reflect or illustrate the reasoning behind his position on some issues. However, someone such as an accountant for an Ad Agency would be protected from such invasions because he is not placing himself in a position subject to public scrutiny or of widespread public interest.
I believe these doctors fall under the category of protected privacy. Though some would argue that these doctors' position is that of widespread public interest, I do not believe this is the case. Furthermore, these doctors are accountable to none other than their patients. I believe the 4th Amendment supercedes in this instance, and apparently the court agreed with me. (And this was the non-boring way of explaining it!)
No, we just need to ban idiots.
"L'IT c'est moi!"
...has been done within the law.
* And remember, it's spelled N-e-t-s-c-a-p-e, but it's pronounced "Mozilla."
Well... They have less to fear from us than us from them anyway...
"Be nice, veer left, and never stop thinking" Iain Banks - Walking On Glass
If I was a doctor who's name, picture and info was on that site, I would certianly feel threatened as if someone was offering a reward for my head. If someone put your name and address up there, would you feel threatened?
--
-- Knowledge shared is power lost. -- Aleister Crowley
I don't see any death threats in that page.
But it's certainly a violation of privacy, and should be taken down if only for that reason. Come to think of it, how did they get those addresses, anyway, especially those of the patients? Those were likely found through illegal means; I don't know of any abortion clinics which give out that sort of info.
Personally, I'm pro-choice. However, my opinion is irrelevant, as the choice in the case of abortion is up to the mother-to-be-or-not-to-be. I personally believe in a woman's right to choose, not to say that were I a woman that I would do that.
Second, I am fscking sick of these hypocritical murdering pro-life psychopaths. (Not to say all Pro-lifers are psychos, murderers or hypocrites!) These sick fsckers need to be rounded up and shot themselves, either that, or let the families of the dead doctors loose on them. These psychos are doing illegal things. The mothers-to-be-or-not-to-be are not. Abortion is legal (almost) everywhere. Murder is illegal everywhere.
To the psychos: You're fscking sick. This (where I'm from) is the United States of America. We have (what we call) freedom. We have freedom of choice. How DARE you imply that you have ANY right to decide what we do? You got something to say? Say it, by all means. Do it within the law, as the Constitution and local laws allow. Get the fsck out and vote. Step outside the realm of the law and you'll have to deal with the Police, and perhaps with your all-mighty 'God' who has 'told you to kill the murderers.' Your 'God' ain't my God. No God tells his people to kill.
This issue touches on dangerous ground, dangerous both to privacy and freedom of speech. That it has been turned into "Privacy vs. Freedom" is the real tradegy here.
What this site promotes (conspires to) is harrasment, blackmail and invasion of privacy, all of which (I think) are jailable offenses. Maybe these people should be jailed for conspiracy, not fined for exercising their First Amendment rights.
/* MAGIC THEATRE
ENTRANCE NOT FOR EVERYBODY
MADMEN ONLY */
It seems that many people here seem to think that the right to free speech
ends when the speech can in any way be interpreted as encouraging something
illegal. While I agree that it is sad that a sight like this exists,
i can't support it's closure. The sight made no direct threats. and
the creators didn't go out and kill themselves. they simply provided
information. if someone used that information to kill then they are at
fault not the information providers. otherwise we will have to begin
to ban phone-books, newspapers search engines etc... Would most been
so quick to demand the removal of the page if it was a pro medical
marijuana page. or a page promoting the exporting of strong encryption,
both of which are illegal. you can't just support free speech when it
agrees with your beliefs. if free speech is to mean anything then even
unpleasant speech must be allowed.
Doctors aren't generally "morally corrupt". .. that's a positive, moral choice. Shooting doctors is obviously not.
They perform a legal service for women.
Write your congressman, petition, offer other alternatives for young, poor mothers
upisdedowncak
---
"Colors blind the eye
Desires wither the heart."
-- Lao Tsu, "Tao Te Ching"
>The babies would not approve of it either; oh >wait, another one was just butchered, he'll never >have a say will he?
Yeah, but at least he's in heaven, right?
Whee.
upisdedowncak
---
"Colors blind the eye
Desires wither the heart."
-- Lao Tsu, "Tao Te Ching"
how would you like it if you where put on this page with a price on your head?
they list peoples:
home addresses
home phone#'s
SS#'s
DiverL#'s
PIC of the people
hight
hair color.
etc...
Im all for free speach...but this site is WAY over the line.
I have to return some videotapes...
He was just posting the info of someone who owns a site that does the same thing.The only thing is is that the AC left out some other info that the guy he was posting about didnt on his site. Like his SS# and DL#
I have to return some videotapes...
Not hardly, your post was quite reasonable. Though there is no shortage of imbeciles out there giving christianity a bad name, people shouldn't be too hasty in judging the entire faith
based upon the behavior of a few cretins. As an
analogy observe that linux itself has its fringe
elements - you certainly wouldn't want people
judging the linux movement based upon the impression these people leave would you? I'm
not the church-going type but I have had the chance to know at least two christians who demonstrate wholly admirable and unimpeachable character - their goal is to show what their religion is all about by example. Both have
come out with strong statements regarding the
actions/philosophies of these militant pro-life types - they like all other reasonable people quite correctly realize those people represent hypocracy at its worst.
there are two kinds of people in this world - those who divide people into two groups and those who don't
At some point this afternoon (was it the Win95 on the space station or the Apple series?) I vowed to swear off reading Slashdot comments. I can't believe I'm off the wagon already...
By the way, doesn't it seem like the number of comments on a posting is getting to be inversely proportional to its relevance to "News For Nerds"?
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
First: I'm pro-choice. I do not respect people who try to force their beliefs upon other people.
Having said that, I'd like to say your argument is shit. The mere fact that the law dictates punishment for action A and not for action B does not mean that A is wrong and B is right.
Compare the issues of abortion on one hand, and physician-assisted suicide on the other. People like me (and presumably most people of the pro-choice persuasion), who believe in a person's right to terminate their pregnancy and to terminate their own life, would be at odds with themselves if they cited U.S. law as some sort of ultimate reference.
--
Fuck the system? Nah, you might catch something.
When the exits the body of the mother, and the umbilical cord is severed, that baby becomes his/her/it's own entity, and a legal entity of the United States(TM), all rights reserved. If the child is dead before this occurs, through intentional action or fate, it is a private matter of the mother's, and NOT a matter of state.
**>>BELCH
This explains the 'property rights' reference in your other response to my other post.
Hmph. I don't know what the present legalities of fetal property rights are, but I imagine that the rights hinge upon the successful birth of the child.
As far as "feet being stuck in" and whatnot, well, I'm afraid that these are just the kinds of questions that pious peeple raise for shock value. I'm aware that extreemly late term abortions have been and will be performed, but they are by far the exception and not the rule. I've seen the horrifying pictures of late term abortions and I don't like them any more than anyone else, but I do not agree with legislating women's medical decision-making in order to prevent these events.
Picketing, shooting and bombing abortion clinics ensures that more women will wait (through fear) until late term before working up the nerve/desperation to have an abortion.
So just, like, chill, dude, and, like, everything will be, like, cool, eh?
**>>BELCH
Although I'm generally all for free speech, this site seemed to cross the line between the use of the right to free speech to discuss their views on abortion and the use of free speech to call for the murder of abortion doctors. Hopefully this won't set any sort of precedent for the shutting down of just any website that is even somewhat threatening, though (otherwise /. might get shut down for all the people wanting to kill Bill Gates :)
-mike kania
That intentions of the page are pretty clear...
I dunno...pretty hard to argue for a fetus' life when it would ruin the mother's. Still, earlier's way preferable to later when it comes to abortions, I think.
Can't say I really disagree with the court on this one.
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
Kythe
1) Laws are created and enforced in the US to protect the rights of citizens.
2) Babies are not considered "citizens" until they are born. To say that life begins at conception is a religious and very subjective opinion.
3) Since we have a separation of church and state in this country, it is not up to the government to dictate to people when life begins, and thus when it is illegal to murder someone.
The christian right needs to get off their high horse of trying to forcing their religious beliefs on everyone else.
Guns don't kill people
radical pro-lifers kill people
This is great news, and shows that this country still has some common sense lurking about. I am so sick and tired of the abortion rights psychos acting like they are the holy ghosts who have given themselves the right to decide how others live their lives. As someone pointed out, if you don't believe in abortion, don't have one. I don't want to get very political, because it's almost pointless, but if these assholes want to rid the world of abortion, I'd like them to show the world who THEY are going to take care of all the unwanted children being born, esp. to 16 year-old kids.
Anyway, back to the topic at hand. Clearly this site was/is a threat to many people. It was a call to kill and nothing less. Fuck them. The decision (fines) should've been higher. I hope these fuckers rot in hell for their terroristic ways....and their young children all get stuck with illigitimate babies....hehehe....
Free speech is all well and good. I have no qualms with it as people only listen to what they want to anyhow. If I don't like what someone says I walk away, hit the back button, turn off the radio, etc. and hope others do the same.
... or maybe phone books shouldn't have white pages? Who needs to know that except people you would have given your number to anyhow?)
However, invasion of privacy is an entirely different matter. My name and address are mine to control. I am the *only* person who should be legally able to publish them. Anyone else should be able to do so only if I have consented to it.
They seem to like passing laws, what about making it illegal to distribute other people's personal information? (With appropriate consideration for phone books and stuff
So many of those people seem to think that life begins at conception and ends at birth. I've always suspected they really just want to make sure that the woman is punished for having sex (whether she wanted to or not). A lot of religious "fanatics" seem convinced (at least subconciously) that humans have some obligation to suffer and it bothers them if someone doesn't.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
Saw the guy behind that site on TV news the other evening for a few moments and he was saying something about using the list as a reference for prosecutions when abortion is outlawed.
Is he ignorant of the ex post facto thing that says you can't make something illegal retroactively or does he also plan to change that part of the constitution?
If the "no ex post facto laws" clause is removed what other retroactive laws will be passed?
What high moral principle is served by hiding behind the constitution until you can destroy it?
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
actually, as far as the keeper of the list is concerned, no. people are responsible for their own actions. and the book burners are not neccessarily the list keepers. and that is an important distinction.
"onward!" cried the copper man, little knowing brass corrupts...
i think this issue is two-fold:
free speech -- infer what you will from the site, i think their 1st amendment right to say what they like should not be infringed upon (barring explicitly advocating illegal activities). also, aside from scale and subject, this isn't much different from decrying the poor service of the local barber (ok, damn poor analogy, but you get the point).
privacy -- it should not be that easy to gather all that information about people. to this end some laws obviously need to be changed, or at least reevaluated
"onward!" cried the copper man, little knowing brass corrupts...
... They already have fake abortion films...
while certainly edited and presented in a manner consistant with their goals and agenda (like any other documentary, really), and while arguably one-sided, those films depict things that are anything but fake. no special effects, just reality.
it is also an inappropriately ignorant statement that likens all members of a group to those on its fringes. these are the kind of comments and beliefs that cause us so many problems .
"onward!" cried the copper man, little knowing brass corrupts...
...before you post. I didn't see any threats. Only the names, phone #'s and some photos of doctors that perform abortions. I didn't see a single threat, only a list of doctors that perform legal procedures. My opinion of whether this legal procedure is moral may differ from your opinion though.
Kindness is the language which the deaf can hear and the blind can see. - Mark Twain
Would the baby approve of being raised by a single mother (another thing Christians are against), or by a drug addict, or by a rape victim, or simply by a mother who just didn't want a baby?
Should a baby be punished for a woman's irresponsibilit in choosing to have unprotected sex? Believe me, forcing a woman (either by "legal" means or by programming her to equate abortion with murder) to raise a child she didn't want does *NOT* instantly change all her ethical and moral beliefs, and all her behaviors.
The real question is what is the real motivation behind pro-life? Saving the life of an innocent creature? Nah. The innocent creature in question has absolutely *NO* idea what's going on anyway.
Perhaps it's just a clenching way to punish an irresponsible woman for daring to have unprotected sex. "Make her have that baby! That'll learn her!" Great. That's *REAL* fair to the innocent creature, isn't it?
Read my stuff.
Hmmm... interesting analogy.
So a completely helpless baby = a completely helpless mother. I see just one slight problem with this equation. The baby can be aborted before it becomes a burden, and a person can choose not to have unprotected sex to prevent a baby in the first place.
Or do you also consider contraception evil as well?
Now wasn't your completely helpless mother at one time a sentient, competent human being? Can you say the same for a 2-month old zygote?
Read my stuff.
I don't mind the rhetoric or even the ghastly images that the site provides. (While I feel that the site lacks taste, they're welcome to be as tasteless as they like.) The website attempts to be quite pursuasive, and is fairly effective at arousing negative emotions.
Soliciting and archiving personal information about a group of people is also, in itself, not a problem. Marketing agencies pay big bucks to exchange this sort of information all the time.
So what makes this different?
The answer is that the rhetoric also demands "justice" and collecting of "evidence" for "crimes against humanity." This same rhetoric is the rhetoric used to incite lynchings and other violent mob-mentality behavior.
The result is that the website effectively represents a clear and present danger to the people who are listed on the website. Even one of the site's own maintainers admitted that abortionists listed on the site should be worried.
I'm 'pro-choice', both wrt. abortion and to expression of opinion. (You're free to choose whatever opinions you wish to express.) That also means I believe each person is entitled to their* own opinion, and I respect their right to hold that opinion, and I'll defend their right to express their opinion.
I do not condone the blatant linking of hostility, though, with the private data of abortion-performing doctors by linking these opinions and a call for 'judgment' with explicit names, addresses, phone numbers, schedules, and so forth.
Plans for building a bomb should be legal to possess. Parts for building a bomb should be legal to purchase, at least individually. Placing the two in an easy to purchase kit at the local 7-11 should be illegal.
sigh
--Joe*Footnote: Before the grammarians jump on me for everyone ... their, please bear in mind that once upon a time, they and their served either as plural OR singular gender-neutral pronouns, and thus they served to avoid all the try-to-be-gender-neutral he/she--she/he--sie--whatever bullshit that ultra-politically-correct dorkasses seek to impose on us.
Program Intellivision!
I always say, "fight fire with the flame's smoke."
USA-Democracy is 270 million YESes and NOes a day, not one every four years.
I think they may have changed their web site recently. Because, when I saw the story on TV some weeks ago it seemed much more ominous.
They didn't simply have some "Visualize Maryland Abortionists on Trial!" message. They had a table of abortionists nationwide, with a message extoling (can't recall the exact lingo now) people to take action, and that some already had.
Then, down the table, you'd see that some doctors who perform abortions who had been shot and killed had their names in strike-thru text. Hmm - I wonder what kind of message that is...
I hope you have one of those new 25-gig hard drives, cause it'll be a looonnnng list...
0 1 - just my two bits
sorry about the HTML screw-up. This one seems to have worked
0 1 - just my two bits
Hmm.. I think I'll be brief on this one (sorta)... /. is like this group, in that we don't see eye to eye with the world at large, so we should understand them. /. we have a 'benevolent dictatorship' style. We know the alternatives, we've tried them.. Tested them, and we're pretty much way ahead of the game... So, to spread our viewpoint, we actually _create_... We patiently demonstrate the benefits of our way.. Peaceable... Much like the mindset of Ghandhi... We try to increase the wisdom and wellbeing of the world by peaceful change..
For those of you familiar with George Orwell's 1984, I think the basic theme is recognisable.
A group of people (in the case of 1984, the government) have a thought police. Thinking in any non-approved way buys you a fast ticket to re-orientation... Or death.
Here, on this site, you have a small group of people who use tactics of intimidation to attempt to 'police' the thinking of the world at large. And without a doubt, this is what they are doing.
I'm afraid that I consider that 'enabling' the violence against people, with possible result in their deaths as nothing less than terrorism.
Again, I hear the words 'Free Speech' being bandied around...
Probably by the same people who days ago were in arms about the inclusion of a serial number into the PIII chip, as it overrode the 'individual's right to anonymity'.
This (the right to privacy), as was universally lauded at the time, was a 'Good Idea'...
It lets people function as people.. I allows choice.. It allows freedom...
As someone who's seen friends go through abortion (from reasons as varied as pure irresponibility to the aftereffect of rape), I understand what price they pay. And it's not small.. The effects stay with the women for many years (probably a lifetime)... And they suffer.. Yet they make the choice, knowing this, so they wouldn't bring a child into the world, that wouldn't know love and compassion... It's a choice, and a difficult one.. but a choice..
And here is a group of people who say 'You're not allowed a choice, because we're the only ones that know what's right. We've not been in that position, but we know more about it than you do because we're right. Not only are we right, we know where you live.. And we know where your children are, and your spouse...'
Currently, I'm on contract to a telecommunications company (one of the big ones). One of their security vids has a section on why the information is protected.
In this vid, one of the employees leaks an address from the database of customers to someone 'who's looking for an old girlfriend' he wanted to drop a line to... It turns out this was to settle an old score and the guy was a psycho.. The 'old girlfriend' ended up dead.
It underlines the point that data is a weapon. It should be treated responsibly.
There is no difference between pulling the trigger of a gun, and supplying the complete details of a target to the gunman looking for them.
It's a question of responsibility. It's knows that there are people out there who wish to kill certain targets, and that said people are likely to browse this site.
It's therefore the responsibility of these people to guard the information they may have.. And they fail, thus showing themselves to be highly irresponsible... And would you trust the irresponsible to make life or death decisions??
I heard the argument earlier that
Sorry, at this point, it's so laughable to state that, that the only recourse is vulgarity, and I have to say 'Bollocks to that'...
Here at
This little group has more in common with the Nazis.. We will change _you_ because we know what's right. You're wrong so you must know terror. There is no other way than ours. We require no proof because we are always right.
Comparison ends.
It's not a question of morals, or religion. It's, again, a question of responsibility.
Let's leave the politics to the politicans (who'll probably roast in everyone's hells for it), and the religion to the religous (who, each having different Gods, will each roast in each other's hells for heresy), and work out how to actually make the best of being on this planet...
And if that means growing up, and trying to understand the world, and becoming responsible.. .
Then so be it..
Malk.
Yup.. Guess I do...
Well observed that man/woman...
Malk.
For crying out loud...this website advocates nuclear civil war to stop abortion. I'll fight for his right to say whatever he wants about abortion, homosexuals, whatever, no matter how vile he gets..but advocating nuclear civil war to get his way just takes the cake for me.
Finding God in a Dog
As stated above.
No, I'm not Christian. I just know a lot of Jesuits.
Finding God in a Dog
Thank you for posting this comment! I get so fustrated when people generalize about pro-life people when they use these horrible examples to describe the pro-life community. I sincerely believe that pro-life people do not need to resort to such radical (not to mention illegal) means, just to get their point out. I am on the pro-life side, but I am really embaressed (sp?) that these "terrorist" label themselves as pro-life since it ruins the credibility of the hundreds and thousands of others who are pro-life, yet condemn these actions.
Hmmm.. this is kind of like the "true" hackers vs 12yr old hackers thing...
"Personally, I'll defer to one of the commandments: "Thou shall not kill". There are no qualifiers."
Well.. if you really are to follow this, you should instantly become a vegetarian. No more hamburgers for you.
Do you see the problem? I would say that there *are* qualifiers for anything, if only implicit.
//jornj
Fast, Soon, Correct. Pick 2.
First time I feel that might be appropriate.
<^>_<(ô ô)>_<^>
Is it unlawfull now? You are not just an asshole - you are an ignorant asshole. Go and fuck youself in a corner.
<^>_<(ô ô)>_<^>
It also listed names of politicians, judges, law enforcement, and spouses, in the list where
Legend: Black font (working); Greyed-out Name (wounded); Strikethrough (fatality)
Above the list is an animated gif of dripping blood.
This is clearly a direct request for someone to cause harm to these individuals. Threatening to kill someone is NOT a small crime. Threating to kill judges will ensure you lose in court. There is no doubt to me that this was a correct decision.
As to those who fear for the loss of free speach on the internet, this is not the case that will set that kind of precedent. There is no new precedent here. Death threats are illegal spoken, written, in braille, as semaphore code, fax'd, email'd, or posted on a web page.
Someone above mentioned prior restraint. This case is not about preventing publication. The publication has already happened here. Anyone can usually put up information on the internet without being stopped first.
If they need evidence to convict the living, then why parade names of murdered doctors? Why highlight the names of those who are wounded? You cannot convict the dead of minor crimes. Are they supposed to spy on tombstones?
Is lying a sin? So you REALLY BELIEVE what you wrote? Do christians need to LIE to people about their motives?
Why list judges and law enforcement? They are just doing their jobs. If you convicted them a minor crime then others will do the same job. And if I am wrong and they DON"T do their jobs, then the entire system of justice will go down the tubes.
Amen, brotha...
:-) Once one knows how to read, then ya learn how to interprete....it doesn't matter if ya can read the pretty words if ya can't understand the page.
I consider myself a Christian though in the last several years if someone asked me that I usually say something like 'No, but I try to follow the teachings of Christ'. Another AC above pointed out one of my favorite Moby quote, which I feel is applicable.
Too many people do not know how to read, nor comprehend as you say. The bible was written by poets who reveled in the words as provided by God. Not everything can be taken at face value nor was it ever intended to be. Morons who have only basic enough intelligence to breath and breed should not be interpreting the words of poets, prophets and gods (ok I believe in only 1 God, but yer free to believe wrongly is ya want...thats what free choice is all about
clifyt (sinner but trying harder...feeling like a alternate universe thumper)
This isn't even remotely close because you're not giving out Neal's home addresses, home and office phone number, photograph, age, height, weight, family details and telling everyone that Neal kills doctors (if it were true). And I don't want to know.
Most of your information is given publicly on their own webpages anyway. So there.
The comments just go to show that we'd all rather talk about things we have no clue about.
Actually, there is 'choice'. There's lots of choices. Seems a little ignorant to say there isn't, seeing as how abortion is completely legal, as are many other population control methods.
-lx
Your 'quote' Judge not lest ye be judged is taken completely out of context. Read the rest of that verse, and you'll find that it's just fine to judge others, according to the bible. Those words are probably the most cliche'd ones that people use when trying to argue a point with christians. Do not try to use the Bible to prove a point when you haven't read it yourself.
Mathew 7:1-2 (KJV)
Judge not, that ye be not judged.
For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
Elsewhere in the bible, it says that it's perfectly ok to judge others, so long as the judgement is righteous. Just a pet peeve of mine...
All that said, I'm still a raging atheist.
The doctors could alwasy get together and
pay somebody to make a web site in a similar
fashion with all of the protestors names,
addresses, family members, pictures and
license plate numbers. Then they can
see how the protestors respond to it. All
we need is somebody to open fire on a couple
of them and then see how fast they change
their tune...
I don't think it is a mistake. As long as Anti-Choice people allow these viloent homicidal maniacs to associate themselves with their movement, then they are Hypocrites.
The Pro-Life Movement talks out of one side of it's mouth, saying that they are not murderers - but on the other hand, they do not take personal responsibility for these nutballs attaching themselves to their movement. Silence is acceptance. And the Pro-"Life" movement has shown that it accepts people who will kill, and kill lots.
If pro-lifers want people to respect their position, then they had better find a way to seperate themselves from clinic bombers - because the silence speaks volumes - it says "I approve"
- The unexamined life is not worth leading -
Just to point out that you are skewing the results of the polls. You took the most favoriable results for your argument off of that list. You sy 48% to 45% not much difference - well, I can do the same thing. On that same list there is a margin of 56% to 33% - hmm now that IS a significant majority. To get a fair reading why don't you try taking an average?
/.ers
so what is it? 51.3% - 39.3% - now that still is a pretty signficant majority.
This is a prefect example of how the Anti-Choice movement constantly tries to skew things in thier favor. Take a statistics class - then give me numbers, instead of using information that is misleading in an attempt to manipulate the
- The unexamined life is not worth leading -
But christianity does thigs like that every day. I live in a city close to where Mathew Sheppard was hung on a fence, tortured, burned, and eventually left for dead. A few weeks later the city of Casper Wyoming had a funeral for him - and Guess who showed up - non other then a christian preacher from Kansas who had a bunch of followers with signs like "God Hates Fags" - and you have the nerve to tell us that christianity isn't producing followers who are morally corrupt?
I have never run across a more hate filled group then the christian right. They hate gays, They hate blacks (and if you don't believe me, why don't you travel on down to the 'focus on the family' compound in Colorado Springs that is run by Dr. Dobbson - you won't be able to find so much as an Italian in that building - they are ALL WASPS), They hate non-submissive Women, They hate Jews, They hate really any member of another religion - heck plenty of protestants hate catholics - and technically they have the same core religion.
How many buddists do YOU know who would carry a sign to a funeral that says 'GOD HATES FAGS'
- The unexamined life is not worth leading -
This divisive issue remains a painful one for people in many countries.
I am prolife personally, but I believe that this should not be legislated.
Abortion, while wrong (in my opinion), is almost unique in that it involves the refusal of a woman to prolong a life within her own body.
I believe that in a perfect world there would be no abortions, but this does not excuse condoning murder of abortion clinic doctors.
I rather believe that it is our duty to make sure that acceptable alternatives to abortion are available and recognisable in our society.
"An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" was part of Old Testament, First Covenant law that Jesus came to replace... it is mere history and has nothing to do with the existences of modern, Gentile Christians.
There is no justification for basing our code of conduct on this law. It also has a section detailing what a woman's movements should be during her monthly period, as well as regulating the allowed shape of a man's beard.
While Jesus is recorded in the New Testament as being fired with anger in his eviction of the moneychangers in the temple, it must be remembered that this is the only documentation of his anger, and that it was directed against blasphemous hypocrisy.
Nowhere does his anger take the direction of harm against persons.
I think the point here in many of the postings is that what are referred to as Pro-Life/Anti-Choice (can we say black & white thinking?) people here is that they don't want to associate with the people who set up websites with a similar message and content to the one shown. Personally, I think it is knee-jerk reactionism, which is a rather shallow way to go about "solving" a problem. The pro-lifers have pulled away from this and now you're attacking them for it. I may not agree that "silence is acceptance" but I do agree that suppressing the acts of what is truly right for you at a given moment (people who really know what this is probably won't need to knee-jerk to justify themselves) although they do have their motivations, I'm sure. For both sides, pushing and kicking, or on the extreme (and this is the controversy word) killing the other side does nothing (I think) to really resolve the issue. If you disagree you may say so and I'm interested to hear. The kind of silence I believe you talked about is not "acceptance" to me, but suppression and oppression, whether it's done to the "self" or someone else. It's an "untrue silence". If you think bringing discussion here is best, then do that! If it's something else, be with that! Just figure that out and follow it. Trust me, the world will be a better place.
Look somewhere else for a sig.
Abortion is murder, plain and simple! People who believe in pro-choice do not understand what it truly means to have "choice". When an expectant mother goes into an abortion clinic she is making a greedy choice. She does not realize that the baby she is killing is alive and should have more of a right to choose. The same people who say "it's my body and I will do what I want with it" do not realize that the fetus is NOT their body, the fetus develops its first heartbeat after 3-4 weeks. Most people who are pro-choice have never seen an actual ultrasound of the fetus, seen someone or have personally been in labor, held a baby in his or her arms, and looked directly in the infant's eyes and see the joy of being brought into this world to experience life.
- father of 2 and expecting one more on the way
I wonder what you would feel if your mother told you that when she was pregnant with you that she had plans of having you aborted. Abortion kills the very essence of human existence. If you are not ready to have a child then you should think more than twice when you get in bed with someone and you should definately use birth control techniques (other than post conception techniques).
An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.
There are lots of couples out there who will be willing to adopt babies. Oh, and it's also a tax deduction!!!!
Doctors take an oath stating that it is their duty to save lives. Abortion doctors have broken that oath and their names should be made public so that people are aware that these doctors take that oath for granted. Would you like to be treated by a doctor who also performs abortion? I personally would like to be treated by a doctor who has a conscience.
They get adopted by loving parents and are raised to be loving human beings
The outcome of this suit is very similar to another civil suit, one filed by the Southern Poverty Law Center against the KKK regarding the burning of the black Macedonia Baptist Church in 1995. In that case, as in this one, the defendants, although not directly involved in the felonies in question, were found responsible and were fined tens of millions of dollars. The similarity doesn't end there, however. In this abortion case, Christine Ramey stated, "I have no intention of giving money to people who kill children". In the KKK case, after the verdict was handed down, the Klan attempted to prevent the black church from acquiring their liquid assets by giving them to an infamous far-right author sympathetic to their cause. The SPLC followed up with additional litigation and recovered the money. In my opinion it is no coincidence that there are such striking similarities between the behavior of the anti-abortion zealots in this case and the behavior of the Klansmen in the Macedonia church burning case. Both are cut from the same bolt of cloth. I hope that Planned Parenthood and the other organizations and individuals involved follow up with additional legal action if needed and round up every last cent they have coming to them from this judgement.
http://www.splcenter.org/legalac tion/la-index.html (see bottom entry).
U.S. citizens are guaranteed Freedom of Speech and of the Press. Our Constitution protects its "subjects" from both the tyranny of the minority (e.g. a king) and from the tyranny of the majority (e.g. whatever the "mob" is after - witches, racists, communists, militant christians,...).
One thing the Constitution does not guarantee is "anonymity." So, if someone wishes to print or speak "dangerous" language, then they become a target for law enforcement agencies without damaging anyone's constitutional rights.
In all seriousness:
Hey, maybe I'll start a Hypocritical Bible Thumper List, with names and addresses...what do you think?
Well, this would seem to have some implications.
What if someone put up a site listing, say, web sites that they didn't like, portraying them as crimes against the art of proper web site design, or for whatever reason. And then some other people started hacking those sites.
Why doesn't somebody start www.hack-these-sites.org, we could put this disgusting little site on the top of the list?
Although I don't agree with the pro-life 'ers, they do have a right to say their piece. (ref Amendment 1, U.S. Constitution)
Obviously though the content of this particular web page (if you haven't seen it yet check it out...it's a hell of a page) was intended to do harm. And that cannot be accepted in a civilized society.
As far as my personal point of view, as long as we live in a FREE society EVERY person should have the RIGHT to CHOOSE what THEY do to their body. That goes for suicide too.
"War doesn't determine who's right, just who's left"
Steven Wright
Intimidation is the only possible motive for publishing their home addresses. It certainly seems as though he's encouraging people to shun and possibly even to harm those abortionists.
I just love watching debates like this. Seemingly intelligent people show how truely silly their views really are. Now, I would first like to say that I am Catholic, and fairly strict in my Catholicism. I also consider myself fairly 'open-minded.' I have several gay friends, I don't try and 'convert' then or 'tell them they are going to hell' ect. So, I feel that I am fairly unbiased towards each side. Both sides are often wrong, and much misinformation is spread by both sides.
I see alot of people on here talking about how hipocritical Christians are. But, by that very statement, are they not being hipocrites themselves? To group a large population of any race, creed, original, philosophy and say that they are all the same is a very dangerous proposition indead. I feel almost as if many of these people who say this are in fact guilty of discriminating because of religion. These same people talk about rights and how racism is bad, but yet they embark on their own 'holy war' (pardon the pun) against religious groups. This is quite disturbing to me. I don't care what your beliefs on religion are, but when you group in the the Christian 'catch all' and tell me that because I am Christian and Pro-Life that I am somehow THE SAME as the idiots who kill abortion doctors. This makes me quite angry.
Somehow, the media seems to play upon the news about abortion-doctors being murdered. And they sure love to emphisize the fact that the murderers were Pro-Lifers. Yet, do you not think that the people who do this have some deep psychological problems not associated with religion at all? These same people would murder someone or another without religion. Religion did not 'cause' them to murder. They murdered because they are FUBAR. Please, do not group me or Pro-Lifers into this catagory because of what a few extremist did. BTW, many of these "pro-lifers" are hardly even Christian. They say they are, but they aren't. They are wrong, the Christian belief is not.
Next, onto my beliefs on abortion. I actually try and call myself a Pro-Logic supporter more than Pro-Life simply because of the stigma spread by the media about Pro-Lifers. When I was thinking about this issue logically one day, I asked myself the question "When do we consider something to be a human?" The standard definiation would be at birth (Pre-20th century?). Yet now with modern technology we can save a baby that is months premature. So, we cannot put the cutoff 'human-point' at birth. Now it seems to be at the 'late-term' abortion point. But, is that fetus any less human one day before that? Or one day furthur before that? We keep going back like this until we reach the only real place at which we can draw any conclusive like:conception. Any other means of placing a point upon which a human is defined would be completely archaic and abstract. There is also the fact that, most likely, if you did not abort that fetus, then a human being would develope. Thus, you in a sense killing a thing that, in a short time, would grow into a human being this all the rights and privilages awarded to any other citizen under the constitution. I am sure that if someone invented a 'time machine' and traveled back in time and killed the father of his enemy before he was born, people would be outraged. That fetus will become if human, even if you don't believe that it is one at the time. I see this as the only logical way of looking at the issue. Notice I didn't rattle of biblical references? I don't see the point when the people you are debating don't believe in it anyway (for the most part).
Yours truly,
The Noehre
It is like Ayn Rand, you eventually outgrow
it when you become wise and experienced.
This decision really bothers me. Not so much because a group that didn't do anything beyond breaking privacy laws now has to pay $107 million, but because of what it means for the rest of the internet.
I am responsible for a consumer advocacy web site that, at times, takes a negative attitude towards certain people in the computer industry. If we were to put the names and addresses of those people on our web site so they could be contacted, and then one of them was killed somehow, couldn't we face charges as a result of today's ruling?
This limits my freedom of speech because it makes me scared to say _anything_ about _anyone_ that could later be taken as "promotion of violence."
== Paul Rickard, Editor of The Microsoft Boycott Campaign ====
I think that any Liberal or Libertarian who looks at this site from the Freedom of Speech perspective need also look at it from a Right to Privacy perspective as well.
I believe that nobody should have the right to publish the home address of any person without that person's consent. This information is not relevant to any legitimate reportage or opinion regarding the individual(s) in question.
Also, as a general response to the people who said the Nuremburg Files site does not make threats, the proper statement is that it does not make direct threats. However, the Christian Gallery site in general does advocate deadly action in the fight against those they see as unrighetous. In fact, the site openly advocates the seccession of a Christian state from the USA through the use of nuclear weapons. I didn't have the stamina to wade through the rest of the delusional crap on the site, but I wouldn't put it past the proprietor to openly advocate individual murder (provided it is a righeteous murder in his eyes) as well.
It will be a difficult task to protect our liberties and at the same time protect our lives from terrorists, assasins, and other fanatics...
Frankly, curbing Freedom of Speech is at least as dangerous as terrorism, but I do not believe that prohibiting the publication of people's address and family information without their permission is enough of an infringement upon Freedom of Speech to outweigh the benefits in terms of Right to Privacy and the safety of people who hold views which are in disagreement with violent fanatics.
I wish people would get equally riled up about kids with guns
killing others who were born some time ago. Is
sanctity of human life restricted to the time
before birth? (I don't think so, nor do I think
most anti-abortionists think so, either.)
Legacy hardware/software addict. Midnight hacker, 1960. Codepage 819 in DOS: Total Latin-1 compatibility (no boxes/lines
That site was a sight.
Legacy hardware/software addict. Midnight hacker, 1960. Codepage 819 in DOS: Total Latin-1 compatibility (no boxes/lines
These are the same people who don't care what happens to unwanted babies that are born.
The "working/wounded/dead" classifications certainly make it look like a scorecard. And their definition of justice includes whatever they think god wants.
Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition.
Like Linux? Like Anime?
Like Linux? Like Anime?