|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The American Civil Liberties Union | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Monk Member (Idle past 3924 days) Posts: 782 From: Kansas, USA Joined: |
Do you fantasize about having sex with young boys?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3941 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1344 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1344 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
"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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1344 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminJar Inactive Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1344 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
jar: my post is really at the heart of the issue.
can we prosecute people for THINKING differently?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5820 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5820 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1344 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: "80's day"? Every day was "80's day" when I was in high school.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
deleted by author
This message has been edited by schrafinator, 05-15-2005 08:55 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Monk Member (Idle past 3924 days) Posts: 782 From: Kansas, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1344 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024