🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <BUtw2.828$PV4....@server1.news.adelphia.net>, 
tabmok99....@damnspaz.com says...
> 
> Note: The anti-abortion site does plan to come back, see
> http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,32028,00.html for
> full story.  Told ya :P

But it will probably drop the infringing page(s). The site in itself is
not at issue. It was some of the content.

Besides, if they go ahead with the web cam then expect further
prosecution.

> > But if their "opinion" *is* threatening, then action has to be taken. 
> 
> So you still think it's a matter of whether the "victim" felt
> threatened.

Yes. In this case is was also perceived as a threat by objective people
(I.e. people not connected with the threat or either group) so I think
the threat is well proven just by general opinion as well as the jury
verdict.

Besides, although the perceived threat began the case, the prosecution
was based around inciting violence as I suggested many messages ago.
There is a specific US law prohibiting inciting violence against abortion
doctors and patients. (1994 Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act
(FACE) - makes it illegal to ***incite violence*** against abortion
doctors and their patients )

Since there similar efforts in the past with "wanted" posters and the
like had the effect of inciting violence, this would have been an obvious
outcome from a WWW version of such posters.

> > > Lack of intent
> > > can get someone off the hook in others.  (eg, I didn't mean to lie,
> > > it's just that my memory was foggy at the time.)
> > 
> > But normally the process of proving the lack of intent is harrowing 
> > enough for the person to not make the same "mistake" again. 
> 
> The burden of proof belongs to the prosecutors here.  The defendant
> does not need to prove his innocence (or lack of intent).

Regardless of the "rose tinted spectacle" view of justice, the burden of
proof on the prosecution does not remove the burden of defence for the
defendant. Without defence, the prosecution would have a much easier time
"proving" their case.

Besides, I was talking about the harrowing nature of the experience not
questioning "innocent until proven guilty".

> > > is whether
> > > it was terrorist activity or not.
> > 
> > Terrorism is that art of inducing terror in an individual or group. I was 
> > not talking Middle Eastern terrorism, mere terrorism in the fuller sense 
> > of the word. 
> 
> *Intentionally*!  Just like murdering, lying, stealing, etc. are only
> prosecuted *as such* when the intent was there.

But lack of intent does not mean that there will be *no* prosecution. As 
I said it is merely a factor not essential.

> > But a group capable of the original crime are unlikely to give up after a 
> > "warning". 
> 
> It has not been said that they were capable of the crime.  They weren't
> prosecuted for bombing the labs, and they shouldn't be punished as such.

A number of the group have already committed terrorist activities such as 
clinic bombings so they seem capable enough to me. 

> > > > It is impossible to compare a book that has had no updates in 2000 years 
> > > > to laws which have been updated in the last few months/years.
> > > 
> > > The laws in the Bible must reflect on pretty much *any* society, which
> > > works in this case since God isn't concerned with modern things in our
> > > society (like copyright + trademark law, etc.)  The laws in the Bible
> > > are guidlines that when followed will keep you out of Hell.  The laws
> > > in our society are guidlines for keeping out jail (or paying loads of
> > > money).  Now you can see why/how the laws in the Bible do not require
> > > updating and thus cannot be considered outdated.
> > 
> > The bible does not account for the changing role of women in society. It 
> > denounces murder in one breath and advocates the removal of members of 
> > society deemed abhorrent to God - e.g. Homosexuals. Society has moved 
> > beyond the prejudices of 2000 years ago. The bible has not.
> 
> You may very well call it a prejudice.  Bestiality is still a crime
> here, isn't that the same prejudice?  How far do you think we really
> have come?

Further than the bible.

> > BTW, isn't masturbation banned under Catholic religion. Another area 
> > where the bible governs and act once deemed abhorrent and now accepted by 
> > society and even encouraged. 
> 
> Actually, that's one of the things that Jesus announced was okay.
> Before that, the Jews did have it banned.

You must refer me to the chapter on that one ;)

> I still maintain that the Bible is not outdated as it does not
> require updating.

You are entitled to your opinion. Maybe we should still stone people to 
death or burn them alive as is dictated by your bible that requires no 
updates.

> > Difference is, I back my "perceptions" of fact with reasons not just 
> > expect them to be taken at face value.
> 
> So did I.  You say the Bible outdated, I say it isn't - we are both backing
> our perceptions with actual facts, and yet mine requires an IMHO for some 
> reason?

I have yet to see any backing to your comments. Backing normally follows 
a week or so of discussion requesting fact or backup and receiving 
argument back until you eventually relent by either cutting the point or 
mentioning something useful.

> > > > > B) agree to stop doing whatever's pissing them off + getting to live
> > > > > 
> > > > > I would choose B.  Maybe some people prefer death, but that's their
> > > > > decision.
> > > > 
> > > > Survive != live.
> > > 
> > > So going through the rest of your life worrying about someone coming back
> > > at you for revenge is really living?
> > 
> > You are constantly assuming an unsuccessful result from fighting the 
> > threat. 
> 
> Actually this implied a successful one - that's why the "terrorists"
> would come back for revenge.

This is a possibility. In the mean time, the victims can continue with 
their lives the way they choose to and deal with any subsequent threat as 
and when. This is called "life".

The immediate problem has been removed. They will be somewhat more 
confident with one successful prosecution under their belts that 
subsequent threats can be similarly removed.

> > Besides, even giving in will not change the fact that you will remain 
> > under threat unless you keep to your path chosen by the "bully". The 
> > threat will always be there unless you fight it. 
> 
> Other people on the list would've fought the "threat" - so I would
> simply not be threatened by them until the point where they get sued
> and lost, then not have anything to worry about for the rest of my

But if they are as you say going to come back anyway, what is the 
advantage in hiding "under the sheets". 

> life.  They wouldn't be mad at me, since I was not the one that sued

If they were mad at you in the first place, they still are.

> them.  And if they didn't come back (you seem to think they wouldn't)
> then what have I to worry about now?  That I didn't get a few million
> dollars?  I'm a doctor in this scenario, so I wouldn't really need the 
> financial support.

So you prefer someone else to fight for you. Better than just giving in I 
suppose but still very low in my opinion.

> Yes, I would choose 3.  Even before I was done reading the available
> choices, I already made up my mind.  (In fact, I probably would tell
> her before all this came up.)  Yeah, this is fighting the threat,
> but my life is not in question here.  I will not *die* if something
> goes wrong.

You might. ;)

> > > > > Is emailing the sites nicely as I have said before risky???
> > > > 
> > > > Actually it would probably help prove the threat should the site refuse 
> > > > to remove the information. Besides, one should not be forced to email 
> > > > polite messages to terrorists.
> > > 
> > > Terrorists?  No.  These people?  Maybe.  Force is not really an issue
> > > either as I said before it's what I would *choose* to do.
> > 
> > A choice made under duress is hardly a choice you have freely made. 
> 
> Choices are made all the time under distress - a sinking ship, a
> company about to go bankrupt, etc.

Duress!=Distress.

Now read it again and then respond.

> > So you have spent ages standing up for yourself and wrongly so. It is 
> > saddening that you would not have similar vigour in a real situation.
> 
> I don't know what I would *really* do as I am not inc the situation.
> I don't know what you would do either.  Have you ever been in a
> life-or-death situation such as this one?

Not per se. But I do know that in a similar situation, I would not lie 
back and take it. I would not want the threat hanging over me for the 
rest of my life. As I have tried to show you, giving in does not remove 
the threat. It remains in place forever to ensure that you comply with 
it's terms. I would also regret not taking action and the fact that I 
would have made myself an easy target for other threats to follow from 
the same or a different group. 

> > > I can offer multiple cases of racism that were let off the hook
> > > because they were just expressing their opinions, but I don't know if
> > > that would be acceptable to you.
> > 
> > OK, offer away.
> 
> Just the fact that racist sites like www.kkk.com are even up
> should be proof enough for you.

Why should it? I cannot see one personal piece of information about any 
individual on the site. I cannot see any targets printed for all to see. 
How does this even begin to compare?

Besides it seems anti everyone but "pure bred [white] Americans". 
Interesting concept since Americans are part British-Spanish-French-
[Red] Indian and anyone else who sailed a boat that way. It seems to be 
nationalism to an extreme as much as racism and it affiliates itself with 
Christianity. 

Besides, this is not an example of racism let off the hook. If it is, 
your church is an example of homophobia let off the hook along with many 
other things. 

I thought you were actually going to quote some cases there. Should have 
known better.

-- 
Mark