I don't think it is not as much about the speech, as what the speech convinced people to do.
If there had not been the shootings and the bombings, I don't think the court would have ruled this way. But since this speech can be DIRECTLY tied to acts of violence, the court made (IMHO) the correct ruling. Jerry Johnson >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 05/17/02 01:48PM >>> Nothing like an abortion discussion on a Friday afternoon... The 9th US Circuit Appeals Court ruled that a web site http://www.christiangallery.com/atrocity/ was a clear threat to the people portrayed on the site. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20020516/ap_on_re_us/abort ion_appeal_4 I'm split on this. I look at the site, and it really disgusts me. The language used is far more extreme than any KKK type hate site I have seen, and I could see how it would incite some impressionable people to violence. However, on the other hand I'm a card carrying freedom of speech ACLU kinda guy. I have always felt that no matter how much something disgusts me or something is against my morals, the goverment shouldn't legislate anything to make me feel better. On the other hand, the Nuremburg Files really toes the line of hate speech, I don't believe I have ever felt more disgusted looking at a web site...and I've seen some extreme stuff out there. In the end, I guess I hope the Supreme Court overturns the appeals court ruling and free speech wins. I do think the entire web site does a huge disservice to the pro-life camp though. jon ______________________________________________________________________ Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
