🚀 go-pugleaf

This is in reference to <MPG.112ebd3ae...@news.demon.co.uk>, in which a
one ma...@mhetherington.demon.co.uk (Mark) wrote:
> 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.

Yes but you only need to present your alibi, not have to prove it.

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

It might get some people "all shook up", but others can do it quite
calmly (whether they're telling the truth or not).

> > > > 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.

In some cases, there will be no punishment at all.  Other times, there
can be (but never in the millions range).

> > > 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. 

If that's the case, then that's what the suit should have been about.

> > > > > 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.

It's really a step backwards for man to accept them, but tossing our
opinions back and forth isn't really going to accomplish anything so
I digress.

> > > 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 ;)

Actually, it's interesting because I found some articles that say
masturbation was never even mentioned at all =\

Still, there were some things that Jesus said was okay from then on
(eating pork for example) that the Jewish religion looked down upon
before.

> > 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.

That's another of the things that Jesus said to stop doing.  He preached
love towards even your enemies, (turning the extra cheek) so it's
reasonable to assume that includes not burning/torching your enemies.

> > > 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.

Fact - the Bible has rules which apply to the various societies throughout
time in our world that serve as guidelines for staying out of Hell.
Whether you believe in what the Bible teaches or not, you cannot say that
that isn't one of its purposes.

> > > > > > 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".

Or the victims can choose not to, what is your point?
If I really believed thought they were terrorists, I would keep
worrying about their next move for practically rest of my days -
this is not 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.

Yes, but it's not just "threats" they have to worry about now.

> > > 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". 

Because when they come back, it won't be at me - it will be at the ones
who have hurt them *personally*.

> > 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.

Not as mad as they are at the other doctors, (who would be their target)
and they might not even be as mad at me as they were before.

> > 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.

Possibly, but if I have other things in my life I need to worry about,
then I should tend to those instead.

> > 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. ;)

ROFL.

> > > > > > 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. 

Either way, you're under duress and you're making a choice.

> > > 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. 

And you still don't see why the threat wouldn't be hanging over me
in my decision?

> 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. 

Yes, or the anti-abortion site would itself become a target (it pretty
much was a target for the media) and the two groups would fight each
other rather than "me".

> > > > 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?

Before when you were listing a bunch of opinions (not yours) that you
saw as "threats", personal direction didn't seem to matter.

> 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 

Yes, there really is no "White" race which just makes it a slam against
"other" races.

> and it affiliates itself with Christianity. 

Yes, this is what cults often do.

> Besides, this is not an example of racism let off the hook. 

Then why are the KKK allowed to publish *their* threatening opinions
and the anti-abortion site isn't?

> If it is, your church is an example of homophobia let off the hook
> along with many other things.

Not really, since homophobia doesn't actually exist, and as I said
before the governments of the world are "guilty" of the same thing.

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

Hey, I'm looking through the search engines here and can't find a damn
thing :(  All I find is crap about how the KKK wanted to clean up the
highways or speak out against drugs or something, the government denied
letting them do it, then the KKK sued and won.  Not really what I'm
looking for.  I know I heard something that I could use a long time ago
but I can't seem to find it at the moment.

_|    _|  _|_|_|  Visit the Kombat Pavilion today.
_|  _|    _|  _|  http://come.to/the.kombat.pavilion
_|_|      _|_|_|
_|  _|    _|      Change "Geoshitties" to "Geocities"
_|    _|  _|      To reply via e-mail.