View Full Version : Threats are now "freedom of speech"
ON the heels of the surpreme court discussion this article pops up:
It Is Now "Free Speech" To Send Threats and Intimidate Abortion Providers
“They will know your habits and routines. They know where you shop, who your friends are, what you drive, where you live,” the letter said. “You will be checking under your car everyday — because maybe today is the day someone places an explosive under it.”
“The First Amendment is the absolute bedrock of this country’s freedom and I think the ability to express an opinion on a topic that is important to one — even if it is controversial — has to be protected so long as the line is not crossed and becomes a true threat. I don’t think this letter constitutes a true threat,” Marten said in his ruling from the bench.
http://www.care2.com/causes/civil-rights/blog/it-is-now-free-speech-to-send-threats-and-intimidate-abortion-providers/
I freely admit I do not understand this. 'someone will place a bomb' is not a threath??
I understand how important freedom of speech is, but this makes a mockery of the whole idea, IMO.
lexora
04-22-2011, 08:51 PM
Its funny that those people use freedom of this and that to do what they want but they do not seem to think that those clinics have the same freedoms to be there it is someone choice to do that and really they should not force there beliefs on others but hey this is a free country but seems they only want freedom when it helps them
But as for the bomb, i think they just used it as a message like if its freedom of speech to threaten people what makes it illegal to place a bomb and use that as a way of speech to get your word across. As a way of freedom of speech.
But as for the bomb, i think they just used it as a message like if its freedom of speech to threaten people what makes it illegal to place a bomb and use that as a way of speech to get your word across. As a way of freedom of speech.
It sounds to me as if they are either directly threathening to place one, or suggesting to others that they do so. And that cannot be legal.
Or can it??
Snark
04-23-2011, 05:40 AM
As long no one follows through, they aren't responsible. But communicating a threat is illegal in most states. Judicial mileage will vary. There are extremists on both sides of the issue. By definition extremists are not examples of the rest. Those who prefer to stifle any dissent will always group all together with the extremists so as to dismiss legitimate debate.
denuseri
04-23-2011, 09:07 AM
A anti-abortion "activist" who was facing charges for attempting to threaten and intimidate a Kansas doctor who performs abortions will likely not be sued for violating the FACE (Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act) act. A judge dismissed an injunction today against Angel Dillard, stating that her letter to Dr. Mila Means was an attempt at intimidation but not a "true threat," as it couldn't be proven that Dillard intended to commit violence against the doctor personally. The letter, according to U.S. District Judge J. Thomas Marten, was a means of intimidation, yes, but still covered under freedom of speech. Judge Marten also alluded that the the entire lawsuit against Dillard was likely to be dismissed, too.
“The First Amendment is the absolute bedrock of this country’s freedom and I think the ability to express an opinion on a topic that is important to one — even if it is controversial — has to be protected so long as the line is not crossed and becomes a true threat. I don’t think this letter constitutes a true threat,” Marten said in his ruling from the bench.
Dillard, of Valley Center, wrote in her rambling letter in January that thousands of people from across the United States were looking into Means’ background.
“They will know your habits and routines. They know where you shop, who your friends are, what you drive, where you live,” the letter said. “You will be checking under your car everyday — because maybe today is the day someone places an explosive under it.”
Dillard is a known friend of Scott Roeder, who is currently serving a life sentence for the premeditated murder of abortion provider Dr. George Tiller, shooting him while he attended a Sunday service at his church. According to Ms. Magazine (http://www.msmagazine.com/news/uswirestory.asp?ID=12972), "Dillard told AP "With one move, (Roeder) was able...to accomplish what we had not been able to do...So he followed his convictions and I admire that."
Judge Marten's ruling will now open up a new level of intimidation by anti-choice groups like Operation Rescue, who already put out fliers, protest the homes of, and otherwise stalk and harass doctors who perform abortions. By declaring the right to "intimidate as long as you don't actually intend to cause physical harm personally" he has set in place a legal precedent that opens doctors up to every form of harassment possible as long as no actual purposeful physical harm is caused.
It would be nice to know about both the people involved here and the Judge, to see what other mitigating circumstances are possibly involved, instead of getting a onesided report from a pro abortion site.
It would be nice to know about both the people involved here and the Judge, to see what other mitigating circumstances are possibly involved, instead of getting a onesided report from a pro abortion site.
What do you mean by 'other mitigating circumstances'? I mean, which are the first?
As for one-sidedness, it seems to me that this topic is so hot for people in US that there is not such thing. Am I wrong?
As long no one follows through, they aren't responsible. But communicating a threat is illegal in most states. Judicial mileage will vary. There are extremists on both sides of the issue. By definition extremists are not examples of the rest. Those who prefer to stifle any dissent will always group all together with the extremists so as to dismiss legitimate debate.
I understand what you mean here, but then again it is the extremists that catch the attention and start the debate, isn't it?
“They will know your habits and routines. They know where you shop, who your friends are, what you drive, where you live,” the letter said. “You will be checking under your car everyday — because maybe today is the day someone places an explosive under it.”
To me this is not debate. There is no arguments or discussion or voicing an opinion.
There is only harassment.
Snark
04-24-2011, 10:03 AM
Agreed. And unfortunately the only thing the courts seem able to do is issue a piece of paper. Whether is is a member of an extremist group, a psycho boyfriend or husband or a religious nutcase, the piece of paper is of little use when confronted by a raging lunatic. Fortunately, I reside in a state that permits concealed carry. I wouldn't trust a piece of paper. I do however, trust my cal. 45 ACP alloy Colt Commander that usually rides in the small of my back. "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."
denuseri
04-24-2011, 10:58 AM
<<< also excersises her right to carry a consealed weapon I have a .38 Smith and Wesson Revolver that lives in my purse.
What I mean by other mitigating circumstances is that the report again is a oneseided one, and doesnt present both sides of the story in any detail.
If the judge is in "error" I am sure it will be overturned on apeal at some point, if further litigation is pursued.
<<< also excersises her right to carry a consealed weapon I have a .38 Smith and Wesson Revolver that lives in my purse.I am an anarchist by instinct and frequently protest at the restrictions of our state and society.
But it's useful to be reminded now and then that both extremes are unliveable. I'm very glad I don't live in a society where I have to routinely carry a gun to feel safe. The only places in this country with such "freedom" are the most lawless slums of our big cities, and they are welcome to it.
What I mean by other mitigating circumstances is that the report again is a oneseided one, and doesnt present both sides of the story in any detail.
If the judge is in "error" I am sure it will be overturned on apeal at some point, if further litigation is pursued.
Probably, and one can see this as a process of refining the law by repeated testing - I'm sure political theorists would say so. But they don't have to be the lab rats in this experiment.
denuseri
04-26-2011, 09:19 AM
I am an anarchist by instinct and frequently protest at the restrictions of our state and society.
Good for you.
But it's useful to be reminded now and then that both extremes are unliveable. I'm very glad I don't live in a society where I have to routinely carry a gun to feel safe. I am glad I dont live in one of those eaither.The only places in this country with such "freedom" are the most lawless slums of our big cities, and they are welcome to it. Here in America you can carry your gun almost anywhere if you wish, its great, Im glad I dont live in a country that represses my freedom to "choose" to defend myself "if" the need should arise.
Probably, and one can see this as a process of refining the law by repeated testing - I'm sure political theorists would say so. But they don't have to be the lab rats in this experiment.
Yep, we got that way of doing things from you all and kept it for some reason, course you got it from others who came before you.
IAN 2411
04-27-2011, 02:44 PM
In the UK threats are not freedom of speech. I told my neighbour that if he knocked my fence down once more I promised to kick his ass. I ended up in court and was told by the Magistrate that I was charged under threatening behaviour, how did I plead?
I informed him and the other two dick heads that knew damn all about the law. It was not a threat it was definitely a promise. He then told me that my promise had just cost a £60 fine and £20 costs. Proving that in the UK a promise is not freedom of speech either.
Be well IAN 2411
In the UK threats are not freedom of speech. I told my neighbour that if he knocked my fence down once more I promised to kick his ass. I ended up in court and was told by the Magistrate that I was charged under threatening behaviour, how did I plead?
I informed him and the other two dick heads that knew damn all about the law. It was not a threat it was definitely a promise. He then told me that my promise had just cost a £60 fine and £20 costs. Proving that in the UK a promise is not freedom of speech either.
Be well IAN 2411
As a point of interest: Can't you report your neighbours behaviour to the police?
"A judge dismissed an injunction today against Angel Dillard, stating that her letter to Dr. Mila Means was an attempt at intimidation but not a "true threat," as it couldn't be proven that Dillard intended to commit violence against the doctor personally. The letter, according to U.S. District Judge J. Thomas Marten, was a means of intimidation, yes, but still covered under freedom of speech.
“They will know your habits and routines. They know where you shop, who your friends are, what you drive, where you live,” the letter said. “You will be checking under your car everyday — because maybe today is the day someone places an explosive under it.”
is a known friend of Scott Roeder, who is currently serving a life sentence for the premeditated murder of abortion provider Dr. George Tiller, shooting him while he attended a Sunday service at his church. "Dillard told AP "With one move, (Roeder) was able...to accomplish what we had not been able to do...So he followed his convictions and I admire that."
Please let me point out that I am looking at this NOT as a discussion about abortion, but as question of free speech versus the right to feel safe from persecution.
I note that intimidating, according to this judge, is covered by freedom of speech.
I note that because the intent to stalk the doc does not mention any names, it is ok to not only threaten to stalk, but to state an intent to do so.
I also note that just because she doesn't say that she herself will place a bomb under the car, it is not a threat, despite her being friends with a murderer, and publicly acclaiming his deed.
I wonder if this was a different area, like a minority fighting for civil rights, whether it would be looked on differently. In other words, if the limits of freedom of speech are born out of the present political climate.
As I see this, there is a clash between freedom of speech and the right not to be persecuted, and if freedom of speech wins, then where are we?
In the aftermath of Osama's death, many wil have uttered unpersonalized threaths. I can't help wonder if they are seen as freedom of speech as well?