The American Civil Liberties Union

I think we need a statement about the precise context that the Bible was confiscated (copy such from previous topic, if it was stated there). I think that in some situations it could well be proper, while in others it would not be proper. Either way, the Bible should have been later been returned to Rosie.If Rosie was reading the Bible at a time and place (such as in a classroom during class), when she should have been reading or doing something else, she is wrong. In that context the Bible might be subject to confiscation just as any other non-relevant book might be.Moose

From berberry link: In that context, it sure seems that Rosie has a legitimate complaint to bring to the ACLU. Unless the "free reading time" was clearly defined to be restricted to materials directly relevant to her classes. If that is the case, then Rosie should have been requested to put the Bible away. If she refused, then confiscation is proper. Regardless, there shouldn't have been a fight over getting it back, say at the end of the day.Moose

I believe that there have been anti-abortionist murder advocates. They apparently believe the rights of the unborn outweigh the rights of the abortion clinic staff members.Would the ALCU defend this variety of "murder advocate"?MooseAdded by edit: Disclaimer - No I haven't been researching this. But in regards to the above stated, I believe the "murder advocates" went so far as to target specific individuals.Quite late edit#2: Changed "outway" to "outweigh". This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 05-13-2005 01:43 PMThis message has been edited by minnemooseus, 05-14-2005 05:00 AM

This seems to be a parallel to the previous "Abortion Clinic Murders"situation, about which you responded to me in message 50. The question, as I see it, is at what point does the writer of the literature cross the line, over into becoming part of a conspiracy to commit a crime?I just have questions. I don't have the answers.MooseAdded by edit: OK, I now see that you've (sort of) already answered my question, in what I just quoted. But I would argue that being specific to an individual has WAY crossed the line. I would argue that even only being specific to "any abortion clinic doctor" has crossed the line.This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 05-14-2005 04:20 PM

While I am focusing in on the anti-abortion issue, this could well have parallels elsewhere.Hypothetical (and not so hypothetical) possibilities, of statements from anti-abortionists: In the literal reading, this could be advocating capitol punishment for murders. It should be protected free speech.The context, however, or even the literal statement, could turn this into: This might be interpretable as meaning "Supplying abortions should be a capitol offense". But the obvious meaning, to me, would be to be advocating murder. It probably should still be protected free speech.BUT, if the statement actually provokes someone to go out an murder a doctor, then the maker of the statement could and should be prosecutable as being an accessory to murder. This situation may well blend into a "gray area", which could go as far as the following. Remember - This is being said in an anti-abortion context. I think this could and should be prosecutable, even if no doctor is harmed as a result. It would still be an action that would be endangering the life of someone.The bottom line: It may be your right to say most anything. But if you do, and it can be legally connected up to being part of the commission of a crime, you better be ready to pay the price.Moose