Stephen wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Apr 2001, Rick Adams wrote:
>
> > In response to Jim's post about religious speech in other
> > nations, both Stephen Black and Paul Smith posted news clips
> > about the issue of an anti-abortion site that posted names
> > and addresses of physicians willing to perform abortions,
> > with the intent of encouraging others to harass,
> > intimidate, and/or publicly identify these men and women.
>
> I think a bit of correction is called for here. This site doesn't
> have the "intent" of public identification; it _does_ publicly
> identify them.
I never said they _did_ have an "intent" of identification--I stated that
they DO post the names and addresses, with the intent of encouraging
harassment, etc., a very different matter.
> And the purpose isn't merely to harass or
> intimidate; it's to have them killed.
Not always. Many of the sites that print the addresses encourage people
to picket their homes, their children's schools, etc., in an effort to
intimidate or harass them into giving up performing abortions (which has
worked in MANY cases).
> The people named on that
> site are afraid for their lives, and with good reason.
I agree. But there is more than one site that acts in this manner, and
nearly all simply encourage harassment and intimidation (which,
themselves, are unjustified, naturally).
> The US court is well aware of this. Note their explanation that
> "Political speech may not be punished just because it makes it
> more likely that someone will be harmed".
>
> Chilling, isn't it?
It would be MORE chilling if they decided otherwise on that basis!
As long as it IS "political speech" there is absolutely no grounds to
punish it. What is the difference between, for example, publishing an
address that may increase the likelihood that someone will be harmed and
publishing a strong argument encouraging the private possession of
handguns for self-protection which is even MORE likely to result in harm
to an innocent victim?
What such sites should be attacked on is the issue of privacy. It is
totally reasonable for a site to say whatever it wants in a generic sense,
but by publishing names and addresses it violates the privacy of the
doctors so identified. THAT, not the increased risk of harm, should be the
legal basis for challenge.
Of course, banning Internet sites will hardly solve the problem--if
you'll note, physicians are not being murdered in their homes (which is
what the addresses point to) but at the clinics where they work. This
being the case, it will hardly make any difference if the names and
addresses appear or not.
Rick
--
Rick Adams
Department of Social Sciences
Jackson Community College
Jackson, MI
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"... and the only measure of your worth and your deeds will be the love
you leave behind when you're gone. --Fred Small, Everything Possible "
