I haven't looked at the site because I'm afraid it would upset me more than necessary, but if I may express an opinion anyway ...
I am not a big fan of Hate Speech laws -- meaning those laws that increase the punishment for a crime if it was done in hate. To me, the additional penalty isn't going to deter a hater, and any crime that could be covered by our current penal code is going to be sufficiently punished. Hate Crime laws are just meant to make us feel better, not deter crime, and to the extent that they are more costly or make prosecution of criminals more difficult, they do more harm than good. I tend to hold the same view of capital punishment. However, to pre-emptively try to deal with hate-inspired violence before it happens, that is a different story. I believe we have a moral obligation to try and prevent crime, no matter what the motivation. Once somebody's political opinion reaches such an extreme that it advocates murder, it passes beyond a free speech issue. As much as we all might like the Rousseauian notion that each man can set his own path, we are not relieved of our larger societal obligations. There are points at which we say that protecting society is more important than individual freedom. Why else have speeding laws or why else ban graffiti or why else say it is a crime to drink and drive. In a pure Rousseauian world, none of these things would be illegal or even considered offensive, but they are, and they are because we have not yet abandoned the notion that not everything you might like to do is acceptable for you to do. I have no problem with any person making a forceful denunciation of abortion, or holding the opposite opinion -- but I do draw the line when you start inciting violence in support of your cause. That should be a crime or at least censored. H. > -----Original Message----- > From: Jerry Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, May 17, 2002 11:19 AM > To: CF-Community > Subject: Re: Abortion web site ruled "true threat > > > 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_r > e_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 > > > ______________________________________________________________________ Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
