Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
The Internet

Court rules website threats harm 257

johnny the homicidal maniac wrote in with this story that a website which gives the names and addresses of Doctors who perform abortions, their staff and their patients has been found to amount to death-threats. What do you think?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Court rules website threats harm

Comments Filter:
  • bunch of morons! i guess they also say we can t use condom?

  • heh so i guess canadian are at least decent enought to put there name and/or country to identify themself...(unlike u)

  • The Master shepherd wrote:

    It seems that many people here seem to think that the right to free speech ends when the speech can in any way be interpreted as encouraging something illegal.

    Nope, we are saying what the Supreme Court has been saying for two centuries, that your right to freedom of speech stops when it interferes with the rights of others. These sites have been put up for the express purpose of interfering with the rights of law-abiding doctors and clinics. Therefore they can be, should be, and are, illegal.

    While I agree that it is sad that a sight like this exists, i can't support it's closure. The sight made no direct threats. and the creators didn't go out and kill themselves. they simply provided information.

    Let's leave the internet for a moment. Imagine a town, let's call it Fooville. In this town is a John Smith, who has done something legal, but that 20% of the town really really despises him for. Mike Brown, owner of a local radio station, finds out that some people want to kill John Smith, a move he approves of and wants to support, but Mike doesn't want to get his hands dirty by actually being involved. He decides to broadcast the hourly John Smith Report, giving updates to the location and health of John Smith.

    Mike Brown is doing more than "just providing information", he is actively being an accessory to the murder of John Smith. He's just doing it in a way that doesn't get him personally involved with the criminals.

    if someone used that information to kill then they are at fault not the information providers. otherwise we will have to begin to ban phone-books, newspapers search engines etc...

    The intent of the person distributing information is a major factor here. A phone book's intent is to inform, these sites intend to assist in doing harm.

    Would most been so quick to demand the removal of the page if it was a pro medical marijuana page. or a page promoting the exporting of strong encryption, both of which are illegal.

    These examples pit the rights of one person against the law. Time and time again, the right to Free Speech has been upheld in such a context.

    The case we're discussing pits the rights of one person to Free Speech against the rights of other people to life and liberty. The right to Free Speech has always lost out when it interferes with the rights of others. If you yell "Bomb!" in a crowd you are breaking the law, even though you made no direct threat.

    You can't just support free speech when it agrees with your beliefs. if free speech is to mean anything then even unpleasant speech must be allowed.

    Yes, unpleasant speech must be allowed, damaging speech need not be. Let's say a neo-nazi extremist is making a broadcast on his public access program, and look at some things he might say, and whether or not they are protected: [Disclaimer, I agree with none of the below statements, by "fine" I mean "this statement is protected free speech"]
    * "The Aryan Race is supreme", fine
    * "All whites must join my movement", fine
    * "President Smith is a traitor", fine
    * "The Jews own the media", fine (it's not libel since it's doesn't target an individual)
    * "Rabbi Goldsmith is evil", probably fine, but not in some contexts
    * "Rabbi Goldsmith kills children", not fine, almost certainly libel
    * "Rabbi Goldsmith should pay for his crimes", only fine if he has been convicted of crimes, and possibly not even then
    * "We can't tolerate Rabbi Goldsmith, he must go", not fine, since there is a threat implicit in "must go".
    * "Rabbi Goldsmith lives at 123 West Street, apartment 3B", not fine in this context.
    * "We should wipe the Jewish disease from the face of the earth", questionable, I consider it immoral, it is currently illegal, but I don't know if it's been tested
    Plenty of this speech is quite unpleasant, and should be protected no matter how distasteful it is. It loses its protection when rights start to conflict with each other.
  • I used books to remove the emotional element but leave the logic.

    /me thinks that when human lives are involved, the emotional element should be taken into account.

    That's why I think your analogy with books is not too good. This is an ethical issue; while using extensional logical reasoning might be helpful, such type of argument I don't think is very good here. Protecting human life is a much more of a moral imperative than protecting copies of some book. (well, perhaps most books; ever heard, say, the story where you have to choose whether to save and old lady or the Mona Lisa from a fire in the Louvre?)

    In particular, if a person uses this data to murder a doctor, the people who put up the data IMHO share in the responsibility, and even more if said people knew that was a possible consequence of making such data available.


  • Some people don't seem distinguish what something actually says from what they perceive it to say, as you succintly point out in this case.

    However. Anyone who is an activist in the pro-life movement (as the people behind this page clearly are) knows that abortionists have several times been specially targeted for murder, and that it is very likely to happen soon. They are in a position to know that if they recollect and post personal information about abortionists, they are immensely facilitating the murder of abortionists.

    Calling this akin to a death threat is not correct at all, IMHO. But I don't really think it is any more acceptable. While they may not be actively telling anyone to actually murder these people, they _are_ calling on unknown people, over which they have no control, to harass them.


  • I'm just afraid of the ramifications of this decision, and how it might be broadened in the future to, for instance, shut down anti-Microsoft sites, or anything else controversial.

    An anti-MS site, or any simply controversial site, is not necessarily in this category. Just look at that site, for god's sake. The have a list of names of abortionists. You click on a name on the list, and you get in another text box home and office address, phone numbers, name of wife/husband, kids, and so on. It advocates and explicitly asks for harassment against these people--- getting fingerprints, photos/videos of them and their friends. Think about this particular quote: the site asks for "diaries by surveillance workers" .

    As I've said above, the people behind this site know full well the information they provide is private, and that recently on the US abortionists have been murdered several times. They are in the position to know that they are putting these doctor's lives at risk.

    In contrast, try to show me some anti-MS site who puts people's lives at risk.


  • In addition, I've seen similar sites to this in the antispam community, including one rather famous one where there is a list of notorious spammers. Spammers who have otherwise had their accounts removed, network connection cut off, etc. have a picture of a smoking crater next to them. Could this be considered to incite people to detonate nuclear devices at a spammer's premises? With the precedent of this court decision, one could just about argue that it does.

    Hell no. Absolutely no way.

    First of all, how many stories have you seen in the press about spam fighters targeting spammers and murdering them? Putting up lists of spammers doesn't put their lives in the danger that putting ups lists of abortionists does. This is simply because of the political and social state of the US today.

    I don't know much about those lists you mention, but I'll make a couple assumptions here for my second point. If you know any counterexample to them, please point them out, I'd love to know. The seconf point is that spammers give out information about themselves--- an email address, a postal address, a phone number--- for you to conatact them. Making a list of data someone gave to you, without restricting you in any way your right to redistribute it, is OK unless you can give a good reason against it (say, if it could endanger someone's life).

    Even more, if many recipients colaborate to use this information to track down the internet site(s) from where this spammer operates, this is public information. If you get a record from the InterNIC database, and list names and addresses people willingly put there, that's alright too.

    Basically, I'm making the assumption the spam lists you mention just gather publicly available data on spammers, data said spammers willingly released. I don't think one would see many departures from this pattern in these sites. The one I do remember posted names and addresses of, for example, people from "Get rich quick" emails. If you mail you address to 10,000 people, you can't claim it's private.

    When I start seeing anti-spam web pages posting private, undisclosed adresses of spammers, with their wives and kids' names, then that is another thing.

    But, there is nothing actually explictly telling someone to go shoot (or otherwise do harm to) an abortionist. I seem to recall a certain famous person saying that someone should shoot Henry Hyde's wife. There wasn't a great outcry about that (except in the far-right press).

    Public figures are another issue--- although I think saying in public "someome should shoot X" in earnest is unacceptable (in most situations).

    But if a person knows abortionists are being specially targeted for murder, don't you think this person should refrain from posting such data about abortionists? I think not, unless he doesn't mind them dead.

    Yes, you don't like anti-abortion people. But let's realize that, like the anti-aborition protesters, we are also a minority here in /.: we don't tend to see eye to eye with the general public on many issues.

    Pay no mind to immature adolescent/early-twentysomething self-righteous "atheists". Yeah, the kind that will flame any christian, pulling out a lot of immature arguments which show only their ignorance and inexperience. Feel free to say what you think on slashdot; otherwise, we lose something valuable.


  • by Matrix ( 290 )
    This is going too far. These idiots have a right to their opinion, but to basically suggest people they don't like get KILLED, that's just plain wrong. I mean, how would they feel if I put up a site with all religious people's names, and said they should be killed, just because I don't agree with religion? But I wouldn't do that, because I realize (unlike these people) that everyone is entitled to his own opinion. These people just make me sick.
  • Well, if that hit list was a threat against the doctors, could their incitement to nuclear civil war [] be considered a threat against myself? More importantly, can I get lots of money in damages?
  • IMHO, this type of news belongs here. It's not general abortion news or general freedom of speech news, but specifically about freedom of speech on the internet. Slashdot has typically posted all sorts of internet-related stuff, especially regarding government regulation of the internet, and this is no different.
  • Sorry to break it to you, but the Criminal Code is a federal statute. Child pornography is disallowed in the Criminal Code, thus it's disallowed in B.C. Provinces have no jurisdiction over criminal law.

    (Note that you might be talking about a precedent-setting case. If so, it's probably waiting on an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. Once that's decided the rest of Canada abides by that rule. Right now you can still get arrested for Child Pornography in BC, I'll bet)

  • Posted by Charles Bronson:

    Okay, this is definately relevant to Slashdot, since it's web-related, but I'd hate to see flames turn from which desktop manager to use into being about Roe vs. Wade. Anyway, that's where I see this going.
  • Posted by The Mongolian Barbecue:

    maybe you are right
  • Posted by Stephen "The Carp" Carpenter:

    Ok...the point as I see it...

    This website said that these people should be
    "Brought to justice" (as someone pointed out in
    another comment). However, according to the
    current Law, these people are performing LEGAL
    What does it mean to bring them to justice?
    It sounds to me like advocating that they be
    stopped (when there is no legal way to do so)

    It is NOT illegal to advocate illegal acts per se.
    It is not illegal for me to stand up and say
    e"everyone smoke a joint to protest marijuana
    laws" any more than it was illegal to advocate
    sit ins at "Whites only" restraunts in the

    It is however illegal "incite" or advocate
    violent acts or riots. This is basically
    what the site amounts to. It advocates
    violence AND gives people the tools needed
    to do it...namely the names and adresses of

    It is truely amazing how a person can be so
    "Pro Life as long as it isn't born yet, then
    fuck it". I am NOT a christian but I have read
    the Bible, I went to Catholic scvhool....
    Rabi Jesus's message (and no im not jewish either
    but that was his title) was one of Love and
    the idea that judgement is the sole right of
    god. Not the crap that these people spew.
    (unless you look at the fig tree incident where
    he shows that it is ok to kill anything which
    doesn't have anything to offer us)

    What ever happend to "Judge Not lest ye be judged"
    How about the only violent act mentiond in the
    bible commited by jesus was driving the money changers from the temple?

    If he truely believed in judgement and that these
    people should be treated poorly, have their names
    distributed and be harrased, then why is it he
    actively consorted with prostitutes and all
    variety of sinners?

    Ok...I don't believe Jesus was the son of god,
    hell I don't even believe there is a god, but
    these people profess the word of jesus and then
    pass jusgement on doctors who perform aboritons.
    Thi smakes them of the few things
    Jesus seemd to have a particular distaste for.
  • Posted by SmashPHASE:

    1st of all, I'm no activist, but I do disaprove
    abortion. I did heard some stories of people that tried to let abortion sound like the right thing. 2 years ago I heard on the radio, that a teenage girl in Ireland got pregnant after a rape, but than was denied an abortion by court order. I did felt sorry for the girl, but I do think that every woman who ever had an abortion will sooner or later in life regret it. Life's is just to special. It is murder, even in this case. Two wrongs don't make a right.

    But I do disagree with the content of this anti-abortion site. It's agressive tune and it lacks of sympathy towards girls who finally did decide to let it happen.

    Why I tell all this?
    Well I think the Internet should be a free medium
    at all cost. Everyone should be free to say what he/she wants, that even counts for Nazi sympatisers.
    If you don't agree with the content, simply don't visit such sites.

    I certainly don't hope that America won't follow China's footsteps into violation human rights.
    In China people who critise the goverment on the internet can easily be put in jail for 20 yrs.
    I think this could be the next thing in line if the American goverment keeps going like this.

    According to Amnasty International, America is one of the two countries in the world who didn't sign the human rights act and it shows.

    Manuël Beunder
  • Posted by Stephen "The Carp" Carpenter: law prohibits killing any animal
    when it is putting your life in danger.

    I am aware of no law which puts any restrictions
    on the reasons for which an animal can be killed
    (except endangered species which a) humans are
    not, and B) can still be killed under the above
    point "Its comming right for us")

    Now, a "fetus" is dividing
    what stage is pain capable of being felt?

    There are no laws against dumping HCl or any
    acid/salt/ etc on a cockroach (aside from
    enviromental laws which disallow certain

    At what point is something "like a cockroach"
    where we don't care enough about that any means
    of killing it is ok...and like a rabit where
    torcher is not legal?

    At what stage does the fetus cross these lines?

    At the "moment of conception" there isn't even
    a is 1 lone cell. Very unremarkable
    (well is a binuclear haploid...but only
    for a VERY short time) no differnt (except for
    its genetic material) from many slime molds,
    bacteria, and other goodies that can show up in
    your petri dishes.

    When is the a thinking, self aware being? I
    don't promise to have the answer but...
    I think rights are for the born.

    also... partial birth abortions go right back to
    "killing for protection" soometimes we have to
    decide "The mother or the Baby". Sorry the mother
    sometimes has to win out.
  • may break my bones, but HTML will never hurt me.

    This ruling is not good, people. Without regard to the political issue involved, it's not good. The politicians, lawyers, and do-gooders are itching for any opening to control speech on the internet, and this one will, you can be sure, be exploited.

    If these same people who put up the web site had instead taken out a full-page ad in the New York Times saying the same thing, would the result have been the same? No.

    Freedom of speech is freedom of speech, regardless of the medium, and (modulo libel) regardless of content, however repulsive you may find it. (Remember that freedom of speech is only important for unpopular views; even in totalitarian states you're quite free to praise the government as much as you like.)


  • > There is no difference between pulling the trigger of a gun, and supplying the complete details of a target to the gunman looking for them.

    If you really believe this, then a) the Southern Directory Company, which publishes the 'phone book (at least around here) is morally responsible for a very large number of crimes; and b) you are about to hire a pack of wolves to keep the chipmunks out. Because the greatest danger to life and limb comes not from fanatics on some point or other -- not even from fanatics with guns, let alone fanatics with web sites -- but from governments and legal systems which have been allowed to place some value -- any value -- above the basic rights of individuals. In this century alone the toll is nearly two hundred million lives, dwarfing the cost of all of our wars, abortions, murders, and natural disasters combined.

    Even religious fanaticism -- like the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition -- takes no serious toll until it becomes a government program....


  • I should note that I strongly disagree with what these people are doing with their site; their actions are despicable.

    I'm just afraid of the ramifications of this decision, and how it might be broadened in the future to, for instance, shut down anti-Microsoft sites, or anything else controversial.

    I can very easily see this applied to Earth First!, for instance.

    Just trying to see the big picture here...

  • I don't see anything that amounts to death threats, but there should be some way to fight this on privacy grounds.

    Tons of public information that used to be logistically difficult to get in one place can now be assembled easily. Privacy laws need to be overhauled to deal with this.

  • I don't know why people expend so much effort flaming people who disagree with them. When all is said and done, the truth is still the truth, the clueless are still clueless, and all the flamage is just a file on Rob's hard drive.


  • by demon ( 1039 )
    Obviously it doesn't SAY that. But please, enlighten me. WHY else would such a list exist? I can't think of a SINGLE logical reason for compiling this list, if not as a reference for those who would threaten/harm/kill the doctors or the family members named there.
  • Read it yourself. If they have markings specifically for when these people are injured/killed, I think that says a LOT. Also, you say they're not doing anything wrong, but if it's not advocating violence against these doctors, then what other reason would there be to collect such minutiae about all these people? I can't think of a single one.
  • You say that removing the right to an abortion is returning women to a submissive role. Well, what about a fetus which is (legally) allowed to be the recipient of a trust or will (i.e. it can own property)? What about a fetus which, if it killed in the course of another crime, immediately allows the addition of manslaughter to the list of charges (yes, virginia, that means killing the child is manslaughter IF the woman wants it alive)? What about killing a one-minute old baby? 60 seconds changes the charge from nothing to murder 1.

    You really, really don't want to go down that road. It just gets worse for you.

  • Without males around, you are not having any children for a while, now are you?

    Hypothetical here (I'm not married):

    If I sire a child and it is in my wife's womb, then you mean to tell me I have no right to decide if that child should live? I have no remedy for my wife depriving me of a future, and conceived, daughter or son?

    That is, for those of you paying attention, sexual discrimination. If the father has no say, then by law, the mother can't, either.

    Now, to shoot your next arguement:

    What if the father wants the child aborted but the mother doesn't? What if the mother wants the child aborted but the father doesn't? If you give tie-goes-to-the-mom, then you are again discriminating against the father because no matter what, the mother gets "2 votes."

  • I really hate to make reality crash down upon you, but, um, it *IS* a blob of cells. At conception, it is a *SINGLE* cell. It divides into two cells, then four, then eights, and so on.
    Up to a few trillion which make up you. So, since you're just a "blob of cells"....
    Showing me pictures of aborted fetuses doesn't bother me. Am I supposed to be disgusted at the sight of a dead miniature human? Oh, sorry. I'm disgusted at the sight of the countless bible thumping sheep inhabiting our world instead.
    Actually, legalized abortion is, itself, hypocritical.
    Enough of petty insults, though. What kind of favor are we really doing for an unborn baby by preventing its termination? If someone *wants* to abort a baby, how well do you honestly expect that person to take care of the baby after being told "Nope, sorry, you can't abort this baby."
    Thus, adoptions.... It is very easy to find a home for an unwanted BABY. There is difficulty finding homes for unwanted children above something like a year because they've already begun "growing up" (I do forget the exact age).
    Resentment. Jealousy. Anger. Add that to whatever behaviors *caused* the pregnancy in the first place, and you've got one really screwed up mother. Oh yes. We saved that baby from death. But we've committed it to a fate worse than death.
    Hrm, euthenasia sound familiar to you? Or can he not kill his grandma to "put her out of her misery"? Remember, the father has no say in an abortion. An unborn fetus can inherit property. Unintentional killing of it during a crime is manslaughter. Intentional killing of it against the mother's will can result in a murder 1 conviction.
  • Real simple, isn't it.

  • I'm a member of the ACLU (specifically a co-coordinator of a local chapter) and this is a common example of the difficulty in discerning which constitutional right supercedes the other: the right to free speech vs. the right to privacy. Actually, this conflict is not without precedent, and without going into long, boring court decisions, I'll summarize:

    The right to privacy is guaranteed when an individual's activities are deemed not to be of public concern or of newsworthy content. Specifically: if a person engages in activities which would hold him accountable to the public at large or would make him the subject of widespread public interest, he then forfeits specific rights to privacy, so long as those exposing what would ordinarily be protected demonstrate that invading this privacy is of newsworthy content. For example: A candidate running for public office is placing himself in a position where he would be accountable to his constituents. Therefore, information such as the candidate's previous personal legal history (such as a criminal record) would be considered of public interest because it may reflect or illustrate the reasoning behind his position on some issues. However, someone such as an accountant for an Ad Agency would be protected from such invasions because he is not placing himself in a position subject to public scrutiny or of widespread public interest.

    I believe these doctors fall under the category of protected privacy. Though some would argue that these doctors' position is that of widespread public interest, I do not believe this is the case. Furthermore, these doctors are accountable to none other than their patients. I believe the 4th Amendment supercedes in this instance, and apparently the court agreed with me. (And this was the non-boring way of explaining it!) ;)
  • No, we just need to ban idiots.
  • ...has been done within the law.
  • Well... They have less to fear from us than us from them anyway...

  • If I was a doctor who's name, picture and info was on that site, I would certianly feel threatened as if someone was offering a reward for my head. If someone put your name and address up there, would you feel threatened?
  • I don't see any death threats in that page.

    But it's certainly a violation of privacy, and should be taken down if only for that reason. Come to think of it, how did they get those addresses, anyway, especially those of the patients? Those were likely found through illegal means; I don't know of any abortion clinics which give out that sort of info.
  • Personally, I'm pro-choice. However, my opinion is irrelevant, as the choice in the case of abortion is up to the mother-to-be-or-not-to-be. I personally believe in a woman's right to choose, not to say that were I a woman that I would do that.

    Second, I am fscking sick of these hypocritical murdering pro-life psychopaths. (Not to say all Pro-lifers are psychos, murderers or hypocrites!) These sick fsckers need to be rounded up and shot themselves, either that, or let the families of the dead doctors loose on them. These psychos are doing illegal things. The mothers-to-be-or-not-to-be are not. Abortion is legal (almost) everywhere. Murder is illegal everywhere.

    To the psychos: You're fscking sick. This (where I'm from) is the United States of America. We have (what we call) freedom. We have freedom of choice. How DARE you imply that you have ANY right to decide what we do? You got something to say? Say it, by all means. Do it within the law, as the Constitution and local laws allow. Get the fsck out and vote. Step outside the realm of the law and you'll have to deal with the Police, and perhaps with your all-mighty 'God' who has 'told you to kill the murderers.' Your 'God' ain't my God. No God tells his people to kill.
  • This issue touches on dangerous ground, dangerous both to privacy and freedom of speech. That it has been turned into "Privacy vs. Freedom" is the real tradegy here.

    What this site promotes (conspires to) is harrasment, blackmail and invasion of privacy, all of which (I think) are jailable offenses. Maybe these people should be jailed for conspiracy, not fined for exercising their First Amendment rights.

  • It seems that many people here seem to think that the right to free speech
    ends when the speech can in any way be interpreted as encouraging something
    illegal. While I agree that it is sad that a sight like this exists,
    i can't support it's closure. The sight made no direct threats. and
    the creators didn't go out and kill themselves. they simply provided
    information. if someone used that information to kill then they are at
    fault not the information providers. otherwise we will have to begin
    to ban phone-books, newspapers search engines etc... Would most been
    so quick to demand the removal of the page if it was a pro medical
    marijuana page. or a page promoting the exporting of strong encryption,
    both of which are illegal. you can't just support free speech when it
    agrees with your beliefs. if free speech is to mean anything then even
    unpleasant speech must be allowed.
  • Doctors aren't generally "morally corrupt".
    They perform a legal service for women.
    Write your congressman, petition, offer other alternatives for young, poor mothers .. that's a positive, moral choice. Shooting doctors is obviously not.

  • >The babies would not approve of it either; oh >wait, another one was just butchered, he'll never >have a say will he?

    Yeah, but at least he's in heaven, right?

  • how would you like it if you where put on this page with a price on your head?
    they list peoples:

    home addresses
    home phone#'s
    PIC of the people
    hair color.

    Im all for free speach...but this site is WAY over the line.
  • He was just posting the info of someone who owns a site that does the same thing.The only thing is is that the AC left out some other info that the guy he was posting about didnt on his site. Like his SS# and DL#
  • Not hardly, your post was quite reasonable. Though there is no shortage of imbeciles out there giving christianity a bad name, people shouldn't be too hasty in judging the entire faith
    based upon the behavior of a few cretins. As an
    analogy observe that linux itself has its fringe
    elements - you certainly wouldn't want people
    judging the linux movement based upon the impression these people leave would you? I'm
    not the church-going type but I have had the chance to know at least two christians who demonstrate wholly admirable and unimpeachable character - their goal is to show what their religion is all about by example. Both have
    come out with strong statements regarding the
    actions/philosophies of these militant pro-life types - they like all other reasonable people quite correctly realize those people represent hypocracy at its worst.
  • What do I think? Slashdot articles are becoming less and less interesting, and the people who post comments are even more stupid. Go ahead and flame me, cause I won't read it anyway...

    At some point this afternoon (was it the Win95 on the space station or the Apple series?) I vowed to swear off reading Slashdot comments. I can't believe I'm off the wagon already...

    By the way, doesn't it seem like the number of comments on a posting is getting to be inversely proportional to its relevance to "News For Nerds"?

    • Tiny hard drive - 56
    • Solid-state hard drive - 86
    • Microsoft courtroom news from the AP wire - 207
  • First: I'm pro-choice. I do not respect people who try to force their beliefs upon other people.

    Having said that, I'd like to say your argument is shit. The mere fact that the law dictates punishment for action A and not for action B does not mean that A is wrong and B is right.

    Compare the issues of abortion on one hand, and physician-assisted suicide on the other. People like me (and presumably most people of the pro-choice persuasion), who believe in a person's right to terminate their pregnancy and to terminate their own life, would be at odds with themselves if they cited U.S. law as some sort of ultimate reference.

  • When the exits the body of the mother, and the umbilical cord is severed, that baby becomes his/her/it's own entity, and a legal entity of the United States(TM), all rights reserved. If the child is dead before this occurs, through intentional action or fate, it is a private matter of the mother's, and NOT a matter of state.
  • This explains the 'property rights' reference in your other response to my other post.

    Hmph. I don't know what the present legalities of fetal property rights are, but I imagine that the rights hinge upon the successful birth of the child.

    As far as "feet being stuck in" and whatnot, well, I'm afraid that these are just the kinds of questions that pious peeple raise for shock value. I'm aware that extreemly late term abortions have been and will be performed, but they are by far the exception and not the rule. I've seen the horrifying pictures of late term abortions and I don't like them any more than anyone else, but I do not agree with legislating women's medical decision-making in order to prevent these events.

    Picketing, shooting and bombing abortion clinics ensures that more women will wait (through fear) until late term before working up the nerve/desperation to have an abortion.

    So just, like, chill, dude, and, like, everything will be, like, cool, eh?
  • by zempf ( 4454 )
    Although I'm generally all for free speech, this site seemed to cross the line between the use of the right to free speech to discuss their views on abortion and the use of free speech to call for the murder of abortion doctors. Hopefully this won't set any sort of precedent for the shutting down of just any website that is even somewhat threatening, though (otherwise /. might get shut down for all the people wanting to kill Bill Gates :)

    -mike kania
  • That intentions of the page are pretty clear...

    I dunno...pretty hard to argue for a fetus' life when it would ruin the mother's. Still, earlier's way preferable to later when it comes to abortions, I think.
  • Evidently, the court believed that the threats were implied. It found that one does not have to say "I want you to kill someone", only "This person isn't human, he's a murderer of 'helpless babies', the law won't do anything about it, he's guilty of 'crimes against humanity' and should be put on trial, God hates him, and oh by the way, here's his home address, telephone number, license plate number, the names of his nearest and dearest, and we'll cross his name off like something big's been accomplished for the 'public good' if he happens to be wounded or killed", all on a web page who's primary animation is dripping blood.

    Can't say I really disagree with the court on this one.

    (Remove "x"'s from

  • 1) Laws are created and enforced in the US to protect the rights of citizens.

    2) Babies are not considered "citizens" until they are born. To say that life begins at conception is a religious and very subjective opinion.

    3) Since we have a separation of church and state in this country, it is not up to the government to dictate to people when life begins, and thus when it is illegal to murder someone.

    The christian right needs to get off their high horse of trying to forcing their religious beliefs on everyone else.

    Guns don't kill people
    radical pro-lifers kill people

  • This is great news, and shows that this country still has some common sense lurking about. I am so sick and tired of the abortion rights psychos acting like they are the holy ghosts who have given themselves the right to decide how others live their lives. As someone pointed out, if you don't believe in abortion, don't have one. I don't want to get very political, because it's almost pointless, but if these assholes want to rid the world of abortion, I'd like them to show the world who THEY are going to take care of all the unwanted children being born, esp. to 16 year-old kids.

    Anyway, back to the topic at hand. Clearly this site was/is a threat to many people. It was a call to kill and nothing less. Fuck them. The decision (fines) should've been higher. I hope these fuckers rot in hell for their terroristic ways....and their young children all get stuck with illigitimate babies....hehehe....
  • Free speech is all well and good. I have no qualms with it as people only listen to what they want to anyhow. If I don't like what someone says I walk away, hit the back button, turn off the radio, etc. and hope others do the same.

    However, invasion of privacy is an entirely different matter. My name and address are mine to control. I am the *only* person who should be legally able to publish them. Anyone else should be able to do so only if I have consented to it.

    They seem to like passing laws, what about making it illegal to distribute other people's personal information? (With appropriate consideration for phone books and stuff ... or maybe phone books shouldn't have white pages? Who needs to know that except people you would have given your number to anyhow?)

  • So many of those people seem to think that life begins at conception and ends at birth. I've always suspected they really just want to make sure that the woman is punished for having sex (whether she wanted to or not). A lot of religious "fanatics" seem convinced (at least subconciously) that humans have some obligation to suffer and it bothers them if someone doesn't.
  • Saw the guy behind that site on TV news the other evening for a few moments and he was saying something about using the list as a reference for prosecutions when abortion is outlawed.
    Is he ignorant of the ex post facto thing that says you can't make something illegal retroactively or does he also plan to change that part of the constitution?
    If the "no ex post facto laws" clause is removed what other retroactive laws will be passed?
    What high moral principle is served by hiding behind the constitution until you can destroy it?
  • actually, as far as the keeper of the list is concerned, no. people are responsible for their own actions. and the book burners are not neccessarily the list keepers. and that is an important distinction.
  • i think this issue is two-fold:

    free speech -- infer what you will from the site, i think their 1st amendment right to say what they like should not be infringed upon (barring explicitly advocating illegal activities). also, aside from scale and subject, this isn't much different from decrying the poor service of the local barber (ok, damn poor analogy, but you get the point).

    privacy -- it should not be that easy to gather all that information about people. to this end some laws obviously need to be changed, or at least reevaluated
  • ... They already have fake abortion films...

    while certainly edited and presented in a manner consistant with their goals and agenda (like any other documentary, really), and while arguably one-sided, those films depict things that are anything but fake. no special effects, just reality.

    it is also an inappropriately ignorant statement that likens all members of a group to those on its fringes. these are the kind of comments and beliefs that cause us so many problems .
  • ...before you post. I didn't see any threats. Only the names, phone #'s and some photos of doctors that perform abortions. I didn't see a single threat, only a list of doctors that perform legal procedures. My opinion of whether this legal procedure is moral may differ from your opinion though.
  • Would the baby approve of being raised by a single mother (another thing Christians are against), or by a drug addict, or by a rape victim, or simply by a mother who just didn't want a baby?

    Should a baby be punished for a woman's irresponsibilit in choosing to have unprotected sex? Believe me, forcing a woman (either by "legal" means or by programming her to equate abortion with murder) to raise a child she didn't want does *NOT* instantly change all her ethical and moral beliefs, and all her behaviors.

    The real question is what is the real motivation behind pro-life? Saving the life of an innocent creature? Nah. The innocent creature in question has absolutely *NO* idea what's going on anyway.

    Perhaps it's just a clenching way to punish an irresponsible woman for daring to have unprotected sex. "Make her have that baby! That'll learn her!" Great. That's *REAL* fair to the innocent creature, isn't it?
  • Hmmm... interesting analogy.

    So a completely helpless baby = a completely helpless mother. I see just one slight problem with this equation. The baby can be aborted before it becomes a burden, and a person can choose not to have unprotected sex to prevent a baby in the first place.

    Or do you also consider contraception evil as well?

    Now wasn't your completely helpless mother at one time a sentient, competent human being? Can you say the same for a 2-month old zygote?
  • I don't mind the rhetoric or even the ghastly images that the site provides. (While I feel that the site lacks taste, they're welcome to be as tasteless as they like.) The website attempts to be quite pursuasive, and is fairly effective at arousing negative emotions.

    Soliciting and archiving personal information about a group of people is also, in itself, not a problem. Marketing agencies pay big bucks to exchange this sort of information all the time.

    So what makes this different?

    The answer is that the rhetoric also demands "justice" and collecting of "evidence" for "crimes against humanity." This same rhetoric is the rhetoric used to incite lynchings and other violent mob-mentality behavior.

    The result is that the website effectively represents a clear and present danger to the people who are listed on the website. Even one of the site's own maintainers admitted that abortionists listed on the site should be worried.

    I'm 'pro-choice', both wrt. abortion and to expression of opinion. (You're free to choose whatever opinions you wish to express.) That also means I believe each person is entitled to their* own opinion, and I respect their right to hold that opinion, and I'll defend their right to express their opinion.

    I do not condone the blatant linking of hostility, though, with the private data of abortion-performing doctors by linking these opinions and a call for 'judgment' with explicit names, addresses, phone numbers, schedules, and so forth.

    Plans for building a bomb should be legal to possess. Parts for building a bomb should be legal to purchase, at least individually. Placing the two in an easy to purchase kit at the local 7-11 should be illegal.



    *Footnote: Before the grammarians jump on me for everyone ... their, please bear in mind that once upon a time, they and their served either as plural OR singular gender-neutral pronouns, and thus they served to avoid all the try-to-be-gender-neutral he/she--she/he--sie--whatever bullshit that ultra-politically-correct dorkasses seek to impose on us.

  • I always say, "fight fire with the flame's smoke."
  • I think they may have changed their web site recently. Because, when I saw the story on TV some weeks ago it seemed much more ominous.

    They didn't simply have some "Visualize Maryland Abortionists on Trial!" message. They had a table of abortionists nationwide, with a message extoling (can't recall the exact lingo now) people to take action, and that some already had.

    Then, down the table, you'd see that some doctors who perform abortions who had been shot and killed had their names in strike-thru text. Hmm - I wonder what kind of message that is...
  • Down the drain... down the drain... wheee!
    The leetle americans go down the hoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooole!

    Well, I had my cathartic fun. I hope the rest of you are as cleansed.

  • I hope you have one of those new 25-gig hard drives, cause it'll be a looonnnng list...
  • Actually, 2600 maintains a gallery of sites to be hacked. Check out this link []

    sorry about the HTML screw-up. This one seems to have worked

  • Hmm.. I think I'll be brief on this one (sorta)...
    For those of you familiar with George Orwell's 1984, I think the basic theme is recognisable.
    A group of people (in the case of 1984, the government) have a thought police. Thinking in any non-approved way buys you a fast ticket to re-orientation... Or death.
    Here, on this site, you have a small group of people who use tactics of intimidation to attempt to 'police' the thinking of the world at large. And without a doubt, this is what they are doing.
    I'm afraid that I consider that 'enabling' the violence against people, with possible result in their deaths as nothing less than terrorism.
    Again, I hear the words 'Free Speech' being bandied around...
    Probably by the same people who days ago were in arms about the inclusion of a serial number into the PIII chip, as it overrode the 'individual's right to anonymity'.
    This (the right to privacy), as was universally lauded at the time, was a 'Good Idea'...
    It lets people function as people.. I allows choice.. It allows freedom...
    As someone who's seen friends go through abortion (from reasons as varied as pure irresponibility to the aftereffect of rape), I understand what price they pay. And it's not small.. The effects stay with the women for many years (probably a lifetime)... And they suffer.. Yet they make the choice, knowing this, so they wouldn't bring a child into the world, that wouldn't know love and compassion... It's a choice, and a difficult one.. but a choice..
    And here is a group of people who say 'You're not allowed a choice, because we're the only ones that know what's right. We've not been in that position, but we know more about it than you do because we're right. Not only are we right, we know where you live.. And we know where your children are, and your spouse...'
    Currently, I'm on contract to a telecommunications company (one of the big ones). One of their security vids has a section on why the information is protected.
    In this vid, one of the employees leaks an address from the database of customers to someone 'who's looking for an old girlfriend' he wanted to drop a line to... It turns out this was to settle an old score and the guy was a psycho.. The 'old girlfriend' ended up dead.
    It underlines the point that data is a weapon. It should be treated responsibly.
    There is no difference between pulling the trigger of a gun, and supplying the complete details of a target to the gunman looking for them.
    It's a question of responsibility. It's knows that there are people out there who wish to kill certain targets, and that said people are likely to browse this site.
    It's therefore the responsibility of these people to guard the information they may have.. And they fail, thus showing themselves to be highly irresponsible... And would you trust the irresponsible to make life or death decisions??
    I heard the argument earlier that /. is like this group, in that we don't see eye to eye with the world at large, so we should understand them.
    Sorry, at this point, it's so laughable to state that, that the only recourse is vulgarity, and I have to say 'Bollocks to that'...
    Here at /. we have a 'benevolent dictatorship' style. We know the alternatives, we've tried them.. Tested them, and we're pretty much way ahead of the game... So, to spread our viewpoint, we actually _create_... We patiently demonstrate the benefits of our way.. Peaceable... Much like the mindset of Ghandhi... We try to increase the wisdom and wellbeing of the world by peaceful change..
    This little group has more in common with the Nazis.. We will change _you_ because we know what's right. You're wrong so you must know terror. There is no other way than ours. We require no proof because we are always right.
    Comparison ends.
    It's not a question of morals, or religion. It's, again, a question of responsibility.
    Let's leave the politics to the politicans (who'll probably roast in everyone's hells for it), and the religion to the religous (who, each having different Gods, will each roast in each other's hells for heresy), and work out how to actually make the best of being on this planet...
    And if that means growing up, and trying to understand the world, and becoming responsible.. .
    Then so be it..

  • Yup.. Guess I do...
    Well observed that man/woman...

  • For crying out loud...this website advocates nuclear civil war [] to stop abortion. I'll fight for his right to say whatever he wants about abortion, homosexuals, whatever, no matter how vile he gets..but advocating nuclear civil war to get his way just takes the cake for me.
  • As stated above.

    No, I'm not Christian. I just know a lot of Jesuits.

  • Thank you for posting this comment! I get so fustrated when people generalize about pro-life people when they use these horrible examples to describe the pro-life community. I sincerely believe that pro-life people do not need to resort to such radical (not to mention illegal) means, just to get their point out. I am on the pro-life side, but I am really embaressed (sp?) that these "terrorist" label themselves as pro-life since it ruins the credibility of the hundreds and thousands of others who are pro-life, yet condemn these actions.

    Hmmm.. this is kind of like the "true" hackers vs 12yr old hackers thing...
  • "Personally, I'll defer to one of the commandments: "Thou shall not kill". There are no qualifiers."

    Well.. if you really are to follow this, you should instantly become a vegetarian. No more hamburgers for you.

    Do you see the problem? I would say that there *are* qualifiers for anything, if only implicit.

  • First time I feel that might be appropriate.
  • Is it unlawfull now? You are not just an asshole - you are an ignorant asshole. Go and fuck youself in a corner.
  • It also listed names of politicians, judges, law enforcement, and spouses, in the list where

    Legend: Black font (working); Greyed-out Name (wounded); Strikethrough (fatality)

    Above the list is an animated gif of dripping blood.

    This is clearly a direct request for someone to cause harm to these individuals. Threatening to kill someone is NOT a small crime. Threating to kill judges will ensure you lose in court. There is no doubt to me that this was a correct decision.

    As to those who fear for the loss of free speach on the internet, this is not the case that will set that kind of precedent. There is no new precedent here. Death threats are illegal spoken, written, in braille, as semaphore code, fax'd, email'd, or posted on a web page.

    Someone above mentioned prior restraint. This case is not about preventing publication. The publication has already happened here. Anyone can usually put up information on the internet without being stopped first.
  • If they need evidence to convict the living, then why parade names of murdered doctors? Why highlight the names of those who are wounded? You cannot convict the dead of minor crimes. Are they supposed to spy on tombstones?

    Is lying a sin? So you REALLY BELIEVE what you wrote? Do christians need to LIE to people about their motives?

    Why list judges and law enforcement? They are just doing their jobs. If you convicted them a minor crime then others will do the same job. And if I am wrong and they DON"T do their jobs, then the entire system of justice will go down the tubes.
  • Amen, brotha...

    I consider myself a Christian though in the last several years if someone asked me that I usually say something like 'No, but I try to follow the teachings of Christ'. Another AC above pointed out one of my favorite Moby quote, which I feel is applicable.

    Too many people do not know how to read, nor comprehend as you say. The bible was written by poets who reveled in the words as provided by God. Not everything can be taken at face value nor was it ever intended to be. Morons who have only basic enough intelligence to breath and breed should not be interpreting the words of poets, prophets and gods (ok I believe in only 1 God, but yer free to believe wrongly is ya want...thats what free choice is all about :-) Once one knows how to read, then ya learn how to doesn't matter if ya can read the pretty words if ya can't understand the page.

    clifyt (sinner but trying harder...feeling like a alternate universe thumper)
  • Now isn't that a bit of pointless information. Who cares where this moron lives anyway?

    This isn't even remotely close because you're not giving out Neal's home addresses, home and office phone number, photograph, age, height, weight, family details and telling everyone that Neal kills doctors (if it were true). And I don't want to know.

    Most of your information is given publicly on their own webpages anyway. So there.

  • A headline like that would be of scientific and therefore quite legitimiate to slashdot interest.

    The comments just go to show that we'd all rather talk about things we have no clue about.

  • Actually, there is 'choice'. There's lots of choices. Seems a little ignorant to say there isn't, seeing as how abortion is completely legal, as are many other population control methods.
  • Your 'quote' Judge not lest ye be judged is taken completely out of context. Read the rest of that verse, and you'll find that it's just fine to judge others, according to the bible. Those words are probably the most cliche'd ones that people use when trying to argue a point with christians. Do not try to use the Bible to prove a point when you haven't read it yourself.

    Mathew 7:1-2 (KJV)
    Judge not, that ye be not judged.
    For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

    Elsewhere in the bible, it says that it's perfectly ok to judge others, so long as the judgement is righteous. Just a pet peeve of mine...

    All that said, I'm still a raging atheist.
  • The doctors could alwasy get together and
    pay somebody to make a web site in a similar
    fashion with all of the protestors names,
    addresses, family members, pictures and
    license plate numbers. Then they can
    see how the protestors respond to it. All
    we need is somebody to open fire on a couple
    of them and then see how fast they change
    their tune...
  • I don't think it is a mistake. As long as Anti-Choice people allow these viloent homicidal maniacs to associate themselves with their movement, then they are Hypocrites.

    The Pro-Life Movement talks out of one side of it's mouth, saying that they are not murderers - but on the other hand, they do not take personal responsibility for these nutballs attaching themselves to their movement. Silence is acceptance. And the Pro-"Life" movement has shown that it accepts people who will kill, and kill lots.

    If pro-lifers want people to respect their position, then they had better find a way to seperate themselves from clinic bombers - because the silence speaks volumes - it says "I approve"

  • Just to point out that you are skewing the results of the polls. You took the most favoriable results for your argument off of that list. You sy 48% to 45% not much difference - well, I can do the same thing. On that same list there is a margin of 56% to 33% - hmm now that IS a significant majority. To get a fair reading why don't you try taking an average?

    so what is it? 51.3% - 39.3% - now that still is a pretty signficant majority.

    This is a prefect example of how the Anti-Choice movement constantly tries to skew things in thier favor. Take a statistics class - then give me numbers, instead of using information that is misleading in an attempt to manipulate the /.ers
  • But christianity does thigs like that every day. I live in a city close to where Mathew Sheppard was hung on a fence, tortured, burned, and eventually left for dead. A few weeks later the city of Casper Wyoming had a funeral for him - and Guess who showed up - non other then a christian preacher from Kansas who had a bunch of followers with signs like "God Hates Fags" - and you have the nerve to tell us that christianity isn't producing followers who are morally corrupt?

    I have never run across a more hate filled group then the christian right. They hate gays, They hate blacks (and if you don't believe me, why don't you travel on down to the 'focus on the family' compound in Colorado Springs that is run by Dr. Dobbson - you won't be able to find so much as an Italian in that building - they are ALL WASPS), They hate non-submissive Women, They hate Jews, They hate really any member of another religion - heck plenty of protestants hate catholics - and technically they have the same core religion.

    How many buddists do YOU know who would carry a sign to a funeral that says 'GOD HATES FAGS'
  • This divisive issue remains a painful one for people in many countries.

    I am prolife personally, but I believe that this should not be legislated.

    Abortion, while wrong (in my opinion), is almost unique in that it involves the refusal of a woman to prolong a life within her own body.

    I believe that in a perfect world there would be no abortions, but this does not excuse condoning murder of abortion clinic doctors.

    I rather believe that it is our duty to make sure that acceptable alternatives to abortion are available and recognisable in our society.

    "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" was part of Old Testament, First Covenant law that Jesus came to replace... it is mere history and has nothing to do with the existences of modern, Gentile Christians.

    There is no justification for basing our code of conduct on this law. It also has a section detailing what a woman's movements should be during her monthly period, as well as regulating the allowed shape of a man's beard.

    While Jesus is recorded in the New Testament as being fired with anger in his eviction of the moneychangers in the temple, it must be remembered that this is the only documentation of his anger, and that it was directed against blasphemous hypocrisy.

    Nowhere does his anger take the direction of harm against persons.

  • I think the point here in many of the postings is that what are referred to as Pro-Life/Anti-Choice (can we say black & white thinking?) people here is that they don't want to associate with the people who set up websites with a similar message and content to the one shown. Personally, I think it is knee-jerk reactionism, which is a rather shallow way to go about "solving" a problem. The pro-lifers have pulled away from this and now you're attacking them for it. I may not agree that "silence is acceptance" but I do agree that suppressing the acts of what is truly right for you at a given moment (people who really know what this is probably won't need to knee-jerk to justify themselves) although they do have their motivations, I'm sure. For both sides, pushing and kicking, or on the extreme (and this is the controversy word) killing the other side does nothing (I think) to really resolve the issue. If you disagree you may say so and I'm interested to hear. The kind of silence I believe you talked about is not "acceptance" to me, but suppression and oppression, whether it's done to the "self" or someone else. It's an "untrue silence". If you think bringing discussion here is best, then do that! If it's something else, be with that! Just figure that out and follow it. Trust me, the world will be a better place.
  • Abortion is murder, plain and simple! People who believe in pro-choice do not understand what it truly means to have "choice". When an expectant mother goes into an abortion clinic she is making a greedy choice. She does not realize that the baby she is killing is alive and should have more of a right to choose. The same people who say "it's my body and I will do what I want with it" do not realize that the fetus is NOT their body, the fetus develops its first heartbeat after 3-4 weeks. Most people who are pro-choice have never seen an actual ultrasound of the fetus, seen someone or have personally been in labor, held a baby in his or her arms, and looked directly in the infant's eyes and see the joy of being brought into this world to experience life.

    - father of 2 and expecting one more on the way

    I wonder what you would feel if your mother told you that when she was pregnant with you that she had plans of having you aborted. Abortion kills the very essence of human existence. If you are not ready to have a child then you should think more than twice when you get in bed with someone and you should definately use birth control techniques (other than post conception techniques).
  • An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.
  • There are lots of couples out there who will be willing to adopt babies. Oh, and it's also a tax deduction!!!!
  • Doctors take an oath stating that it is their duty to save lives. Abortion doctors have broken that oath and their names should be made public so that people are aware that these doctors take that oath for granted. Would you like to be treated by a doctor who also performs abortion? I personally would like to be treated by a doctor who has a conscience.
  • They get adopted by loving parents and are raised to be loving human beings
  • The outcome of this suit is very similar to another civil suit, one filed by the Southern Poverty Law Center against the KKK regarding the burning of the black Macedonia Baptist Church in 1995. In that case, as in this one, the defendants, although not directly involved in the felonies in question, were found responsible and were fined tens of millions of dollars. The similarity doesn't end there, however. In this abortion case, Christine Ramey stated, "I have no intention of giving money to people who kill children". In the KKK case, after the verdict was handed down, the Klan attempted to prevent the black church from acquiring their liquid assets by giving them to an infamous far-right author sympathetic to their cause. The SPLC followed up with additional litigation and recovered the money. In my opinion it is no coincidence that there are such striking similarities between the behavior of the anti-abortion zealots in this case and the behavior of the Klansmen in the Macedonia church burning case. Both are cut from the same bolt of cloth. I hope that Planned Parenthood and the other organizations and individuals involved follow up with additional legal action if needed and round up every last cent they have coming to them from this judgement. tion/la-index.html [] (see bottom entry).
  • U.S. citizens are guaranteed Freedom of Speech and of the Press. Our Constitution protects its "subjects" from both the tyranny of the minority (e.g. a king) and from the tyranny of the majority (e.g. whatever the "mob" is after - witches, racists, communists, militant christians,...).

    One thing the Constitution does not guarantee is "anonymity." So, if someone wishes to print or speak "dangerous" language, then they become a target for law enforcement agencies without damaging anyone's constitutional rights.
  • Hey, maybe I'll start a Hypocritical Bible Thumper List, with names and addresses...what do you think?
  • Well, this would seem to have some implications.

    What if someone put up a site listing, say, web sites that they didn't like, portraying them as crimes against the art of proper web site design, or for whatever reason. And then some other people started hacking those sites.

    Why doesn't somebody start, we could put this disgusting little site on the top of the list?

  • Although I don't agree with the pro-life 'ers, they do have a right to say their piece. (ref Amendment 1, U.S. Constitution)

    Obviously though the content of this particular web page (if you haven't seen it yet check it's a hell of a page) was intended to do harm. And that cannot be accepted in a civilized society.

    As far as my personal point of view, as long as we live in a FREE society EVERY person should have the RIGHT to CHOOSE what THEY do to their body. That goes for suicide too.
  • I'm wondering whether the webmaster of that site which lists abortionists' home addresses has also published his own home address.

    Intimidation is the only possible motive for publishing their home addresses. It certainly seems as though he's encouraging people to shun and possibly even to harm those abortionists.

  • I just love watching debates like this. Seemingly intelligent people show how truely silly their views really are. Now, I would first like to say that I am Catholic, and fairly strict in my Catholicism. I also consider myself fairly 'open-minded.' I have several gay friends, I don't try and 'convert' then or 'tell them they are going to hell' ect. So, I feel that I am fairly unbiased towards each side. Both sides are often wrong, and much misinformation is spread by both sides.

    I see alot of people on here talking about how hipocritical Christians are. But, by that very statement, are they not being hipocrites themselves? To group a large population of any race, creed, original, philosophy and say that they are all the same is a very dangerous proposition indead. I feel almost as if many of these people who say this are in fact guilty of discriminating because of religion. These same people talk about rights and how racism is bad, but yet they embark on their own 'holy war' (pardon the pun) against religious groups. This is quite disturbing to me. I don't care what your beliefs on religion are, but when you group in the the Christian 'catch all' and tell me that because I am Christian and Pro-Life that I am somehow THE SAME as the idiots who kill abortion doctors. This makes me quite angry.

    Somehow, the media seems to play upon the news about abortion-doctors being murdered. And they sure love to emphisize the fact that the murderers were Pro-Lifers. Yet, do you not think that the people who do this have some deep psychological problems not associated with religion at all? These same people would murder someone or another without religion. Religion did not 'cause' them to murder. They murdered because they are FUBAR. Please, do not group me or Pro-Lifers into this catagory because of what a few extremist did. BTW, many of these "pro-lifers" are hardly even Christian. They say they are, but they aren't. They are wrong, the Christian belief is not.

    Next, onto my beliefs on abortion. I actually try and call myself a Pro-Logic supporter more than Pro-Life simply because of the stigma spread by the media about Pro-Lifers. When I was thinking about this issue logically one day, I asked myself the question "When do we consider something to be a human?" The standard definiation would be at birth (Pre-20th century?). Yet now with modern technology we can save a baby that is months premature. So, we cannot put the cutoff 'human-point' at birth. Now it seems to be at the 'late-term' abortion point. But, is that fetus any less human one day before that? Or one day furthur before that? We keep going back like this until we reach the only real place at which we can draw any conclusive like:conception. Any other means of placing a point upon which a human is defined would be completely archaic and abstract. There is also the fact that, most likely, if you did not abort that fetus, then a human being would develope. Thus, you in a sense killing a thing that, in a short time, would grow into a human being this all the rights and privilages awarded to any other citizen under the constitution. I am sure that if someone invented a 'time machine' and traveled back in time and killed the father of his enemy before he was born, people would be outraged. That fetus will become if human, even if you don't believe that it is one at the time. I see this as the only logical way of looking at the issue. Notice I didn't rattle of biblical references? I don't see the point when the people you are debating don't believe in it anyway (for the most part).

    Yours truly,
    The Noehre
  • It is like Ayn Rand, you eventually outgrow
    it when you become wise and experienced.
  • This decision really bothers me. Not so much because a group that didn't do anything beyond breaking privacy laws now has to pay $107 million, but because of what it means for the rest of the internet.
    I am responsible for a consumer advocacy web site that, at times, takes a negative attitude towards certain people in the computer industry. If we were to put the names and addresses of those people on our web site so they could be contacted, and then one of them was killed somehow, couldn't we face charges as a result of today's ruling?
    This limits my freedom of speech because it makes me scared to say _anything_ about _anyone_ that could later be taken as "promotion of violence."

Life in the state of nature is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. - Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan