Supreme Court Asks for Whitehouse Opinion on Civil Case

[Guest]

 

[Ishmael]

I can't say how common it is, but the Justice Dept. usually represents the opinions of the government, and as such the executive branch, before the court.

Ishmael

 

[p_p_man]

Three of the physicians depicted on the website have subsequently been murdered.

Your country can be real scarey sometimes...

ppman

 

[Guest]

 

[Guest]

 

[Ishmael]

The government as been asked to file briefs in many civil cases. And as this case has first ammendment implications I don't see where it is all that out of order.

What I find extraordinarily bothersome about this case is the plaintiffs insinuation that this web site is a causitive agent in the deaths of the physicians.

The "some one else made me do it" defense has been debunked time and time again. The Ozzy Osborne case, the Beatles played backwards, movies and television shows being used as a defense for the individuals actions. Courts and juries both have basically held that the individual commiting the crime(s) are soley responsible for their actions.

These physicians were murdered by someone. That individual(s) made a concious decision to commit the murders. They and they alone carried out the murders. No newspaper, book, TV show, song, or web site forced them to take the actions that they did.

And that is what I find so bothersome. That the people that find this web site offensive, and it is to many, would try to hold the web site responsible for the actions of individuals that may have never seen the web site.

Ishmael

 

[Freya]

Re: Re: Supreme Court Asks for Whitehouse Opinion on Civil Case

Your country can be real scarey sometimes...

ppman

No kidding.

Ish, I'm sure the website didn't make them do it, however it made the killer's job easier by printing pictures of their faces, and I'd assume, their names.

 

[lavender]

PPMan, don't act so smug. Freya, don't agree so quickly. It's not as if the United States is the only country that has websites about various groups that are disliked.

I'm not going to go out and do searches, but I'm sure there are some subversive groups in the UK and Canada who do the same, or similar things.

 

[Guest]

 

[Freya]

PPMan, don't act so smug. Freya, don't agree so quickly. It's not as if the United States is the only country that has websites about various groups that are disliked.

I'm not going to go out and do searches, but I'm sure there are some subversive groups in the UK and Canada who do the same, or similar things.

It's not just that Lav, it's everything about your country. I'm sure we have anti abortionists too, but they certainly don't do shit like that. And they don't knock them off like they're rabbits in a field either.

 

[Guest]

 

[patient1]

Racketeering?

I believe the statutes were applied because there was a conspiracy to turn away customers from a legitimate business by means of intimidation.

 

[Guest]

 

[Ishmael]

Racketeering?

I believe the statutes were applied because there was a conspiracy to turn away customers from a legitimate business by means of intimidation.

I believe that that was a subset of the suit P1. Their were individuals associated with the site that were video-cam'ing/photographing both employees and cusotmers. This is what set up the racketeering charges as I recall.

The whole thing is very up in the air. If the videoing/photographing of people and publishing them on not for profit web sites is illegal, then the papprazzi have a real problem, and by extension so do the news outlets.

The issue is, were the employee's or customers interfered with. And just what constitutes intimidation? Why should these people be able to claim intimidation, when others can't? And does that set up a 'special class' of people?

I don't even pretend to have the answers, but there are many questions regarding this case. From the implications regarding other law suits and charges the decision made in this case could potentially extend far beyond the issues regarding abortion clinics and have an affect on many innocuous activities as well.

Ishmael

 

[Guest]

 

[A Desert Rose]

http://www.literotica.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=136307&highlight=a+desert+rose

Heres the thread on this topic that I posted a few hours ago. It contains the web site I believe you are looking for, Lioness.

 

[lavender]

The Justice Department, as Ish said, provides amicus briefs for a lot of Supreme Court cases.

 

[Ishmael]

http://www.literotica.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=136307&highlight=a+desert+rose

Heres the thread on this topic that I posted a few hours ago. It contains the web site I believe you are looking for, Lioness.

I believe that that is the web site in question. And they are still in operation obviously.

What LIW is adressing is the suit before the Supreme Court concerning the web site.

Ishmael

 

[Ishmael]

I need a newspaper.

Where did you read about it, Ishmael? I hate television news with its 1.5 minute reports that don't give you much info.

Is this the same case, then, as the one I originated the thread with?

Thank you,
L.

The case first came to my attention when the award was made in the lower courts. I believe that the suit was originally filed in Ohio. It's been some time since the original findings.

Ishmael

 

[Guest]

 

[teddybear4play]

The "some one else made me do it" defense has been debunked time and time again. The Ozzy Osborne case, the Beatles played backwards, movies and television shows being used as a defense for the individuals actions. Courts and juries both have basically held that the individual commiting the crime(s) are soley responsible for their actions.

These physicians were murdered by someone. That individual(s) made a concious decision to commit the murders. They and they alone carried out the murders. No newspaper, book, TV show, song, or web site forced them to take the actions that they did.

And that is what I find so bothersome. That the people that find this web site offensive, and it is to many, would try to hold the web site responsible for the actions of individuals that may have never seen the web site.

There's a difference between the Ozzy Osbourne case and this. Namely, is the website free speech or inciting action? If it's the first, it's legal; if it's the latter, it's illegal.

TB4p

 

[Guest]

 

[Ishmael]

Byron wrote a really interesting post over in lavender's Canada thread about free speech. Here's a quote from it (the rest is on page 2 or 3, halfway down, a very good read):

Thomas Jefferson wrote, in Notes on Virginia, "The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket or breaks my leg. ... Reason and free inquiry are the only effectual agents against error. ... It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself"


It isn't necessarily illegal, I don't believe, but then, I'm not a lawyer. I think it comes down to individual responsibility for committing the act. Byron says it much more lucidly than I.

However, I'm not entirely certain I'm comfortable with abortion protesters going after the names and habits of family members in order to create a threatening situation for the protesters' own ends (see Desert Rose's link above). Don't victims of serious threats have a right to enjoy their own pursuits? Why would one person's right to free speech supercede the rights of another to enjoy liberty as they see fit?

L.

I also have a new post in that thread that you may find of interest.

However, the fact remains that because your neighbor espouses that there are 20 Gods, and you find that uncomfortable is not a reason to use the heavy hand of government against your neighbor. In fact, it's logical extension is the very end of freedoms itself. What if there is some idea that you hold dear that is next found to be out of favor? And then the next idea. Until all idea's but one are illegal? One can very easily begin to feel as Copernicus must have.

At anytime one group can claim that the idea's of another are anathema to social order and just out and out dangerous. But the inactment of the 'accepted' idea's into statute produces a static society, and static societies die.

It is unfortunate that so many people feel uncomfortable with freedom and the benefits, as well as the discomforts, that being free and individually responsible bring. That by engaging in 'groupism' they are somehow relieved of their individual responsibilities.

Ishmael

 

[Guest]

 

[Ishmael]

Good morning Ish.

I'm in a real sleep-deprived fog this morning, but I'll give it a go.

Johnny buys a bar on the corner of 5th and Main. He gets to know the owners of 10 small businesses on his block. He hears stories of how this owner and that owner were beaten up because they refused to pay protection money to the local mob boss.

Johnny starts to get visits from 2 mobsters every day for a week. These mobsters threaten Johnny that they'll break his legs if he doesn't cough up his 20% every week.

Does Johnny actually have to have his leg broken before he has legal recourse?

And do you find it FAIR that Johnny has to live with a real threat each and every day he goes to work?

That is called extortion and is already against the law.

Many anti-abortion activists have already been arrested on that law, and several others.

Find a better example.

Actually, you'll be hard pressed to do so. Most of the tactics used in the past are already against the law. Denial of access and such.

The video taping can be construed by the customer to be intimidation, if you are of a mind to be intimidated. However that very same tactic is used by Unions during a strike. So do you make camera's illegal, or shall we outlaw unions as well, or afford special protection for any business that may be subject to a strike? Singling out a particular business for special protections won't pass muster either.

Like I said, this decision has far reaching implications.

Ishmael