yes...your completely right....
im not a book burner.....but free speech doesnt advocate murdering
others....
rick
Rich Kulawiec wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 03, 1999 at 11:52:29AM -0800, Gill, Kathy wrote:
> > CREATORS OF ANTI-ABORTION WEB SITE TOLD TO PAY MILLIONS
> > Issue: Free Speech
> > A federal jury has ruled that Planned Parenthood and a group of doctors
> > should receive more than $107 million from 14 militant anti-abortion
> > activists.
>
> This is great news -- and before someone jumps down my throat, please
> note *carefully* that I am not expressing an opinion about the topic
> of abortion here.
>
> I am, however, going to express an opinion about the subject of this
> ruling, which has nothing to with abortion, and everything to do with
> the distinction between speech and conduct, and with constitutionally-valid
> imposed limits on speech (e.g. the old "fire-in-a-crowded-theater" argument).
>
> I think both factors are at work here. It's very clear from the content
> of these sites [I'm aware of two; don't know if either or both are covered
> in this ligitation] that the intent is to pose overt and implied threats to
> physicians and their families, and to encourage and support aggressive
> conduct (including criminal conduct) against them. This intent is made
> unambiguously and undeniably clear by the materials on the sites themselves,
> by the public statements of their creators, and by their endorsement of
> acts (including violent acts) directed against the subjects of these materials.
>
> This is unacceptable.
>
> Moreoever, it's unnecessary: it's unnecessary to exceed the (wide) bounds
> of the First Amendment in order to effectively lobby and organize in
> support of political/social/religious/etc. causes.
>
> And beyond that, it's counter-productive: threatening members of one's
> audience or acquaintances/relatives/supporters/etc. of one's audience
> is not an effective communication technique. It's far more likely to
> polarize the audience (at least that segment of it which is equipped
> with spines) *against* the speaker's message.
>
> Bluntly, I'm surprised the defendants were this stupid; but given
> just how stupid they were, I think $107M is appropriate. Given that
> figure, my guess is that this will be appealled and that we can eventually
> expect a Supreme Court ruling on it.
>
> (I'm pretty much in favor of the Stupidity Penalty on a global basis...
> otherwise known as "Hey! You! Out of the gene pool!")
>
> It will be interesting to see -- once that ruling is made, *if* it's made --
> what effect that has on similar web sites run by other groups or individuals
> which contain similar content.
>
> ---Rsk
> Rich Kulawiec
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ____________________________________________________________________
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> Join The NEW Web Consultants Association FORUMS and CHAT:
> Register Today at: http://just4u.com/forums/
> Web Consultants Web Site : http://just4u.com/webconsultants
> Give the Gift of Life This Year...
> Just4U Stop Smoking Support forum - helping smokers for
> over three years-tell a friend: http://just4u.com/forums/
> To get 500 Banner Ads for FREE
> go to http://www.linkbuddies.com/start.go?id=111261
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________________________
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Join The NEW Web Consultants Association FORUMS and CHAT:
Register Today at: http://just4u.com/forums/
Web Consultants Web Site : http://just4u.com/webconsultants
Give the Gift of Life This Year...
Just4U Stop Smoking Support forum - helping smokers for
over three years-tell a friend: http://just4u.com/forums/
To get 500 Banner Ads for FREE
go to http://www.linkbuddies.com/start.go?id=111261
---------------------------------------------------------------------
