Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The American Civil Liberties Union
Monk
Member (Idle past 3924 days)
Posts: 782
From: Kansas, USA
Joined: 02-25-2005


Message 91 of 141 (208125)
05-14-2005 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Silent H
05-14-2005 5:01 PM


Do you fantasize about having sex with young boys?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Silent H, posted 05-14-2005 5:01 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by arachnophilia, posted 05-14-2005 6:17 PM Monk has not replied
 Message 98 by Silent H, posted 05-15-2005 4:06 AM Monk has replied
 Message 103 by nator, posted 05-15-2005 8:52 AM Monk has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 92 of 141 (208132)
05-14-2005 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Silent H
05-14-2005 4:22 PM


Re: Literature as being part of a conspiracy - Anti-abortion variety
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:
We need to kill the people who are killing children.
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:
We need to kill the doctors who supply abortions.
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.
Here is a list of names and home addresses of doctors who provide abortions (said list follows).
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Silent H, posted 05-14-2005 4:22 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by arachnophilia, posted 05-14-2005 6:14 PM Minnemooseus has not replied
 Message 99 by Silent H, posted 05-15-2005 4:14 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 93 of 141 (208149)
05-14-2005 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Monk
05-14-2005 4:46 PM


Yes, they are subjective opinions. I’ve given you mine, do you agree with them and claim it as beautiful?
no.
and that's the beauty of this country. i don't have to. so long as i keep my nose out of your business, and your right to hold and express your opinions.
welcome to america, where even the wrong get their rights.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Monk, posted 05-14-2005 4:46 PM Monk has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 94 of 141 (208152)
05-14-2005 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Minnemooseus
05-14-2005 5:45 PM


Re: Literature as being part of a conspiracy - Anti-abortion variety
"Here is a list of names and home addresses of doctors who provide abortions (said list follows)."
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.
yes. such would be a directed specific threat, and clearly and presently endangering the lives of those doctor. and as such, NOT protected under the first amendment.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Minnemooseus, posted 05-14-2005 5:45 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 95 of 141 (208154)
05-14-2005 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Monk
05-14-2005 5:04 PM


Off-topic - Dubious reply to dubious message - Adminnemooseus
Do you fantasize about having sex with young boys?
do you fantasize about having sex with young girls?
is fantasy and imagination legislatable?
Seemingly, a fair and reasonable reply, other than that the previous message probably should never have been posted. Let's end this sub-thread right here. - Adminnemooseus
This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 05-14-2005 06:34 PM

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Monk, posted 05-14-2005 5:04 PM Monk has not replied

  
AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 96 of 141 (208163)
05-14-2005 6:26 PM


Monk, Arach ENOUGH!!!!!!
This is getting out of hand. Stop it right now, both of you.
Time to move on.

New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by arachnophilia, posted 05-15-2005 12:40 AM AdminJar has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 97 of 141 (208274)
05-15-2005 12:40 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by AdminJar
05-14-2005 6:26 PM


Re: Monk, Arach ENOUGH!!!!!!
jar: my post is really at the heart of the issue.
can we prosecute people for THINKING differently?

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by AdminJar, posted 05-14-2005 6:26 PM AdminJar has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 98 of 141 (208294)
05-15-2005 4:06 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by Monk
05-14-2005 5:04 PM


Do you fantasize about having sex with young boys?
Well this little turn has been righfully skewered by the admins.
But I'll tell you what I do fantasize about, I fantasize that one day I will come on here and people like you will answer questions and admit when they don't know something or that they are wrong.
Can you help me fulfill this fantasy by going back and addressing the issues I put to you? Right now you are looking like a crank who lost an argument and so decided to go the cheapest route possible. That leaves me limp as a noodle.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Monk, posted 05-14-2005 5:04 PM Monk has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Monk, posted 05-15-2005 10:33 AM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 99 of 141 (208295)
05-15-2005 4:14 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by Minnemooseus
05-14-2005 5:45 PM


Re: Literature as being part of a conspiracy - Anti-abortion variety
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.
To me provocation requires a form of immediacy or specificity such that it sets about a specific action that was unlikely to have occured without the speech.
Thus standing outside an abortion clinic among a corwd of keyed up people shouting that those inside should be killed, would be immediate. Or giving a list of specific people that one thinks should be killed, if proven to have been read by the killer and that was the genesis of their action, would be specificity.
Without either, it really does not seem to me that such speech is "dangerous". Besides I am more interested in removing the person who acts, more than the people who may have helped influence the person's decision to act. Outside of mobs, it is rare that a person would have no space to reconsider their action, and thus they are the sole persom responsible.
But I'm still mulling through this. Murder is different than encouragement to other illegal acts as the result is a complete end to another person. It is the ultimate in depriving another of their civil rights, and so perhaps meriting a certain additional degree of precaution.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Minnemooseus, posted 05-14-2005 5:45 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by arachnophilia, posted 05-15-2005 7:49 AM Silent H has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 100 of 141 (208315)
05-15-2005 7:49 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by Silent H
05-15-2005 4:14 AM


Re: Literature as being part of a conspiracy - Anti-abortion variety
To me provocation requires a form of immediacy or specificity such that it sets about a specific action that was unlikely to have occured without the speech.
no just to you, holmes. to the law as well.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Silent H, posted 05-15-2005 4:14 AM Silent H has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 101 of 141 (208323)
05-15-2005 8:25 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Monk
05-13-2005 11:07 AM


Does the term "civil disobedience" sound familiar to you at all?
Do you think it was wrong for Rosa Parks to sit in the front of that bus and refuse to move to the back?
Should she have "lobbied her elected officials" to change the law that required her to sit in the back of the bus because she was black?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Monk, posted 05-13-2005 11:07 AM Monk has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 102 of 141 (208324)
05-15-2005 8:36 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by arachnophilia
05-14-2005 6:16 AM


Re: dear aclu. defend this.
quote:
we had class colors day, weird hat day, weird hair day, 80's day, pajama day, and school is full of weird-dressing events. we had class colors day, weird hat day, weird hair day, 80's day, pajama day, and the not-so-successful toga day
"80's day"?
Every day was "80's day" when I was in high school.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by arachnophilia, posted 05-14-2005 6:16 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by arachnophilia, posted 05-15-2005 2:22 PM nator has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 103 of 141 (208325)
05-15-2005 8:52 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by Monk
05-14-2005 5:04 PM


deleted by author
This message has been edited by schrafinator, 05-15-2005 08:55 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Monk, posted 05-14-2005 5:04 PM Monk has not replied

  
Monk
Member (Idle past 3924 days)
Posts: 782
From: Kansas, USA
Joined: 02-25-2005


Message 104 of 141 (208341)
05-15-2005 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by Silent H
05-15-2005 4:06 AM


ACLU not perfect
Holmes writes:
But I'll tell you what I do fantasize about, I fantasize that one day I will come on here and people like you will answer questions and admit when they don't know something or that they are wrong.
I have answered your questions, you just don’t like my answers. This whole sub thread began when I posted to crashfrog that I agree with most of the actions taken by the ACLU and that they are often maligned by conservatives.
It is true that some of the ACLU’s actions in right wing causes go unreported in the media. That does not mean that I agree with every single thing the ACLU does. Do you? Are all of their causes automatically correct? Do you blindly follow their opinions and consider all of their actions automatically beyond question? Are they always the perfect bellwether for liberal opinion in this country?
I was asked to provide a basis for my disagreement with their support of NAMBLA and I gave numerous examples of that organization going beyond their free speech rights.
NAMBLA has been prosecuted for distribution of child pornography, they have been found complicit in child rape cases, they have published material that has been found to incite child rape among its members. They are far from just being an advocacy group on age consent laws.
I have cited US and State law regarding child pornography to show why I believe operation of a child porn website is against US law. You have posted that some portions of the child protection act as been found unconstitutional. So be it. But the law itself stands, as does most of the child pornography laws adopted by individual States.
As I’ve said before, the ACLU can choose to do whatever it wants to. If they want to defend an organization such as NAMBLA whose stated purpose is contrary to US law, it's their choice.
My point is that the ACLU's focus on NAMBLA could be diverting resources and attention away from other freedoms in other cases that are left undefended. It’s a choice I don’t happen to agree with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Silent H, posted 05-15-2005 4:06 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Silent H, posted 05-15-2005 5:23 PM Monk has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 105 of 141 (208379)
05-15-2005 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by nator
05-15-2005 8:36 AM


Re: dear aclu. defend this.
Every day was "80's day" when I was in high school.
everyday was 80's days when i was in kindergarten.
OK - Blatantly off-topic. Let's end the sub-thread right here. - Adminnemooseus
This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 05-15-2005 03:17 PM

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by nator, posted 05-15-2005 8:36 AM nator has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024