Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

PRO-LIFE WOMAN FACES INDICTMENT FOR READING BIBLE [to abortionist]
LifeSiteNews.com ^ | 12.18.02

Posted on 12/19/2002 7:36:51 AM PST by victim soul

The U.S. Attorney's office will convene a grand jury in order to seek an indictment against a local pro-life activist, Terri Palmquist. Mrs. Palmquist's alleged offense is threatening abortionist Kenneth Wright by reading passages of the Bible to him.

On July 9, 2002, Mrs. Palmquist, who regularly leaflets and counsels at the Family Planning Alternatives abortuary, saw Wright entering the clinic and read to him passages from Ezekiel 33 concerning admonishing the evildoer to turn from his sins lest he die. Although Wright has seen Mrs. Palmquist at the clinic for years and did not appear concerned at the time, he reported the incident to police and the FBI as a death threat despite Mrs. Palmquist's explanation to him that she meant no threat.

Wright also sought a restraining order against Mrs. Palmquist, trying to prevent her from coming within 150 yards of him or the clinic. After a three-hour hearing at which Wright testified about Mrs. Palmquist's alleged threatening activities, Judge Wallace of the Kern County Superior Court ruled that there was insufficient evidence to warrant issuing any order against Mrs. Palmquist and dismissed Wright's case.

In spite of this vindication of Mrs. Palmquist, the FBI has continued to hound her and anyone associated with her, seeking evidence that she is violent and a threat to Wright. On Dec. 19 Assistant U.S. Attorney Karen Escobar, acting under U.S. Attorney John Vincent, will present this "evidence" to a grand jury in hopes of having Mrs. Palmquist indicted on felony charges. At this time the specific charges are a matter of speculation. "They will either seek an indictment for violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act or some alleged terrorist threat," stated Brian Chavez-Ochoa, who has taken Mrs. Palmquist's case on behalf of Life Legal Defense Foundation.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; US: California
KEYWORDS: abortion; freedomofspeech; usjusticedept
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-111 next last

1 posted on 12/19/2002 7:36:51 AM PST by victim soul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: victim soul
America the beautiful.
2 posted on 12/19/2002 7:45:04 AM PST by michaelje
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: victim soul
Freedom of speech only to those whose views agree with the government...
3 posted on 12/19/2002 7:59:35 AM PST by 2banana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: victim soul
And these are the people who want to take our guns away - a Stephen King story couldn't match the horror of real life in a Dem/Socialistic/Commie fantasy...
4 posted on 12/19/2002 7:59:41 AM PST by trebb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: victim soul
According to Ezekiel 19, the righteous have a duty to preach to the wicked to mend their ways, warning them that if they persist in their wickedness they will die.

On the other hand, if they are converted to righteousness, they will live: "But if the wicked turn from his wickedness, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall live thereby" (19:19).

Any lawyer could surely use this as evidence that Mrs. Palmquist's intention was to save the abortionist, not to threaten him. In fact, of course, the abortion-rights people bring these lawsuits simply to harrass picketers and protestors and frighten them away. Planned parenthood has millions of taxpayer dollars to work with, whereas most pro-lifers are ordinary folks without much spare money.

If they lose, NARAL loses very little, whereas if they win they can use RICO to rake in huge fines and confiscate homes and salaries.
5 posted on 12/19/2002 8:05:43 AM PST by Cicero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
I Karen Escobar a Clinton apointee? Bush needs to do a lot more house cleaning. Clinton fired all the US Attorneys and replaced them with rabid commies, didn't he.
6 posted on 12/19/2002 8:10:15 AM PST by Jack Black
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: victim soul
Abortion and homosexuality have become the new religion of the left. Christianity will probably be illegal by the end of this century.
7 posted on 12/19/2002 8:13:26 AM PST by Paul Atreides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: victim soul
bump
8 posted on 12/19/2002 8:32:39 AM PST by LiteKeeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2banana
As they have hounded, they will be hounded. It is getting sooo ridiculous. Call the police because someone read the TRUTH to them, while the police will protect the one who murders innocent babies. Hope for an awakening soon.
9 posted on 12/19/2002 8:46:01 AM PST by Hila
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Paul Atreides
Paul,
I did a search on 'names of women in the bible' last night and came up with about 90% articles and bulletin boards that seek to debunk the bible, poo-pooh Christianity, and villify Christians--and Christ. I was totally blown-away by the volume of anti-Christianity on the net. Angry, sarcastic vitroil; picking away at the very foundation of civilization....and it's growing exponentially with the help of the internet. I had no idea how big the movement was. Gonna come 'down to it' soon--facing physical persecution and declaring faith at 'gunpoint', with all the consequences......in my lifetime, I think.
10 posted on 12/19/2002 9:12:08 AM PST by dasboot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
According to Ezekiel 19, the righteous have a duty to preach to the wicked to mend their ways, warning them that if they persist in their wickedness they will die.

If you lived in a theocracy, a kind of Christian version of Iran, that would be fine, but in this free country, a threat is a threat, however you care to phrase it.

Even lowlife gangbangers understand that "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime". Are pro-lifers too dense to get it, or do they just self rightiously think they deserve to be treated better than any one else?

11 posted on 12/19/2002 9:34:45 AM PST by Servant of the Nine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: victim soul
no surprise, we have a bush in the white house, so people who work for him do stuff like this. Nothing new. Bush' have been stepping on americans and america for a long time.
12 posted on 12/19/2002 9:38:18 AM PST by Red Jones
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: victim soul
I know Terri from years ago. She is about as theatening as a teddy bear.
13 posted on 12/19/2002 10:08:29 AM PST by 1stFreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the Nine
So, for example, if you were to say to someone "If you continue to smoke, you will die," you'd construe that as a threat? If not, then why in the world would you consider this lady reading a bible passage a threat?
14 posted on 12/19/2002 10:16:28 AM PST by MEGoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: dasboot
Also, notice the media's big free public relations campaign on the behalf of Islam. Now, I don't think for a minute that the leftists want ANY sort of religion to play a part in people's lives, but I think the appeal of Islam is the ABC Factor (Anything But Christianity).
15 posted on 12/19/2002 10:17:41 AM PST by Paul Atreides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Paul Atreides
Abortion and homosexuality have become the new religion of the left. Christianity will probably be illegal by the end of this century.

I totally (and sadly) agree.

16 posted on 12/19/2002 10:19:45 AM PST by SkyPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: 2banana
Freedom of speech only to those whose views agree with the government.

Freedom speech means being free to say whatever you want, whenever you want. It does not mean someone else has to provide you a platform for saying it or that they must allow their property rights to be violated so you can say it.

The issue here is not free speech, but property rights.

This obfuscation of principles is wrong and harmful to any cause that supports it.

Hank

17 posted on 12/19/2002 10:22:09 AM PST by Hank Kerchief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: dasboot
Paul, I did a search on 'names of women in the bible' last night and came up with about 90% articles and bulletin boards that seek to debunk the bible, poo-pooh Christianity, and villify Christians--and Christ.

I did a search on Google using your phrase 'names of women in the bible' and did not get ONE "poo poo" response - I then did the same on Dogpile, and guess what - Nothing!

Either you are using some odd search engine, or you are exagerating and being alarmist?

Granted, I am a strong believer in Jesus, and believe that their is occasional open hostility towards Christianity, but your statement is untenable, unless there is additional info you can provide?

18 posted on 12/19/2002 10:23:13 AM PST by jimmyray
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Paul Atreides
The sleeper shall awaken.
19 posted on 12/19/2002 10:29:02 AM PST by Search4Truth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the Nine
If you tell a bank robber, "If you continue to rob banks, you are likely to get shot by the police," is that a threat? If you tell an abortionist, "If you continue to murder innocent babies, you will probably end up in hell," is that a threat? It's only a threat if you say, "Stop doing that, or I'll kill you." And that is not the message of Ezekiel 19. The message of Ezekiel 19 can be summed up in other biblical passages. "The wages of sin is death," and "Choose life."
20 posted on 12/19/2002 10:47:01 AM PST by Cicero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: victim soul
"...the FBI has continued to hound her..."

Why is the FBI even involved?

21 posted on 12/19/2002 10:48:49 AM PST by jjm2111
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jack Black
I don't know who appointed Karen Escobar, but I would guess that it was clinton. As you say, he fired all of the US attorneys and replaced them with his own flunkies. That was completely unprecedented, because the office of US Attorney is not normally considered a political appointment. Bush has done the customary thing and let them remain. So presumably 90% of them are still clintonoids, and will be for some time.

Ashcroft, however, or someone in Washington, should be keeping an eye on what they are doing, and step in if they are behaving in unacceptably political ways, which seems to be the case here.
22 posted on 12/19/2002 10:49:58 AM PST by Cicero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: victim soul
I know this is a stupid question, but call me stupid: Why oh why do the leftists hate Christians so much?
23 posted on 12/19/2002 10:51:54 AM PST by jjm2111
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jjm2111
Why is the FBI even involved?

Here again I would guess that clinton is responsible. He tasked Reno and Freeh with the job of proving that pro-lifers were dangerous murderers involved in a terrorist conspiracy, so the RICO laws could be used against them more effectively. Under these directives the FBI set a number of cases in motion, and regretably Ashcroft has proved unwilling to call off the hounds, once they are on the trail. He seems to be terrified that the media will accuse him of being a pro-lifer.

24 posted on 12/19/2002 10:52:34 AM PST by Cicero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Paul Atreides
There have been attempts to make Christianity go away, many times in history.

Each time, there has been such an outpouring of remarkable events ("miracles", spiritual gifts) that a whole new lease on life for the religion of Jesus Christ has resulted.

The death of this religion has been predicted many times, but it is the names of those doing the predicting that have been forgotten, while the name of Jesus still means something.

25 posted on 12/19/2002 10:53:44 AM PST by crystalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
If you tell a bank robber, "If you continue to rob banks, you are likely to get shot by the police," is that a threat?

No, it is not, because bank robbery is against the law. As long as abortion is not against the law, threats are a crime.

This is a nation of laws, not necessarily morality.

So9

26 posted on 12/19/2002 10:53:55 AM PST by Servant of the Nine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Hank Kerchief
The issue here is not free speech, but property rights.

As pro-life as I am, I always take this stand as well. I think overall, abortion clinics have been very tolerant of protests. Yeh, we hear all sorts of "horror stories" like the suposed one posted, but as always, both sideas are not presented.

There was another article posted within the last month or so about a man who actually recovered "damages" because he claimed he was assaulted while passing out pamphlets inside the lobby of a clinic. Sure, the case is a clear tresspass, but that didn't mean anything to those who championed it as a "victory for our side". I asked the person who posted the story to link me to additional information that detailed what the injuries were, but no information was provided. The man wouldn't lave when asked and was tackled by some employees. No injuries other than a bump or a bruise was reported in the story.

27 posted on 12/19/2002 11:02:50 AM PST by FreeTally
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the Nine
Are pro-lifers too dense to get it, or do they just self rightiously think they deserve to be treated better than any one else?

only 2 choices, huh? both negative.....a slip is showin', that's fo' sho'

28 posted on 12/19/2002 11:08:08 AM PST by 1john2 3and4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the Nine
If you lived in a theocracy, a kind of Christian version of Iran, that would be fine, but in this free country, a threat is a threat, however you care to phrase it.

Even lowlife gangbangers understand that "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime". Are pro-lifers too dense to get it, or do they just self rightiously think they deserve to be treated better than any one else?

So if a preacher used these passages to expound upon the theme of "the wages of sin is death" in his Sunday morning sermon, should the government send in its goons and haul him away in shackles? I'm trying to see where and upon what basis we draw the line, here. Chances are, anyone could find anything said anywhere anytime as threatening, if they look hard and stretch and twist meanings and intentions enough.

29 posted on 12/19/2002 11:20:09 AM PST by chimera
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: victim soul
I guess Mrs Palmquist would not be allowed to organize a "sit-in," though tactics like that were successful in helping to end segregation.
30 posted on 12/19/2002 11:36:58 AM PST by syriacus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chimera
If the preacher intruded on my property and read Ezekiel 33 to me, as opposed to preaching to people in his church...yeah, I might interpret that as a threat. Of course, I'd merely honor the threat and call the police afterwards.
31 posted on 12/19/2002 11:41:29 AM PST by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: victim soul
EVEN SO, COME LORD JESUS!
32 posted on 12/19/2002 11:46:46 AM PST by Marysecretary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
According to Ezekiel 19, the righteous have a duty to preach to the wicked to mend their ways, warning them that if they persist in their wickedness they will die.

Anymore I am inclined to let them have their death-wish for eternal damnation.

33 posted on 12/19/2002 11:47:18 AM PST by chit*chat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: dasboot
I agree. I think Christians are in for big time persecution. But God is still on the side of the righteous. We need to press into Him more and more. We're in for a rough ride, my friend.
34 posted on 12/19/2002 11:49:24 AM PST by Marysecretary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot
I wouldn't worry about that. I think the Lord's return will come before the end of this century, perhaps the end of this decade. We're definitely in end times.
35 posted on 12/19/2002 11:51:06 AM PST by Marysecretary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: jjm2111
My opinion is that it is because Christianity suggests that people are actually going to be held accountable for their actions one day.
36 posted on 12/19/2002 11:52:01 AM PST by agrace
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: jjm2111
Because Christians speak out against the things the left holds dear, abortion, homosexuality and all the other little things they enjoy so much. The light is blinding them, as is the truth about these sins. They don't like to be confronted with truth. (That's MHO)
37 posted on 12/19/2002 11:53:43 AM PST by Marysecretary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: jjm2111
Why oh why do the leftists hate Christians so much?

Because they hated Him first, and the student isn't above the teacher.

38 posted on 12/19/2002 11:53:49 AM PST by The Grammarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
If the preacher intruded on my property and read Ezekiel 33 to me, as opposed to preaching to people in his church...yeah, I might interpret that as a threat. Of course, I'd merely honor the threat and call the police afterwards.

Appealing to location? That's weak. S of 9 said a threat is a threat no matter how you phrased it. A similar argument could be made as to physical location. Just as an example, if someone says "I'm going to kill you" spoken to you either on your property or in a public place, how is the meaning different?

39 posted on 12/19/2002 12:05:29 PM PST by chimera
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: chimera
So if a preacher used these passages to expound upon the theme of "the wages of sin is death" in his Sunday morning sermon, should the government send in its goons and haul him away in shackles? I'm trying to see where and upon what basis we draw the line, here.

The difference is major. People attend a church voluntarily, and for the purpose to hear what the pastor or priest has to say. If a person does not like the message, they can choose another church, denomination or religion. When you go to a Christian church, one would expect to have the Bible read to them.

Contrast that with an uninvited "sermon" from somebody on the street, or trespassing on your private property. While walking down the street, or to my legal business, I would not expect to have someone walk up and tell me "I am going to die for what I am doing" or whatnot.

In the context of a church, one would expect, and has given an open invitation, to hear the Bible. The same can not be said for any other situation. Thus, I think its reasonable that an uninvited sermon could be deemed a threat depending on the way it is presented. And given that these "sidewalk evangelists protester" types generally harass more than they infrom or enlighten, I think these types of actions can be correctly deemed a threat.

Personally, I think the restraining order should have been allowed and only if it was violated would I then lean toward pressing charges for intimidation or a threat.

40 posted on 12/19/2002 12:23:06 PM PST by FreeTally
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Jack Black
"Bush needs to do a lot more house cleaning.

He never started so the house is still a mess...

41 posted on 12/19/2002 12:24:11 PM PST by alphadog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: victim soul
Proverbs 28:1

The wicked flee when no one pursues,
But the righteous are bold as a lion.

42 posted on 12/19/2002 12:32:12 PM PST by fone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreeTally
Its not all that different. You said it yourself, a threat is a threat. Location shouldn't matter, nor phrasing. If you're serious that you consider what this woman did was a legitimate threat, then everything else is window dressing.

My point is this. Unless this was a credible and specific threat made by one individual against another, my fear is that it is yet another example of the Thought Police out there running amok, and once again specifically targeting anti-abortion protestors. We've had cases were protestors were arrested for kneeling in prayer. Other cases where individuals and groups have been dragged into court on bogus RICO charges. In the end, what should be protected political dissent is quashed in the name of political correctness. We should all be concerned when someone makes a crime out of another's speech because they "feel" threatened, or "feel" offended, or "feel" uncomfortable. Because under those terms just about anything anyone says or does could be found to be a criminal act. When legal actions are taken on the basis of feelings, stretched and twisted however one wants, we're all walking liable and/or criminal cases.

43 posted on 12/19/2002 12:43:51 PM PST by chimera
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: chimera
Its not all that different. You said it yourself, a threat is a threat.

I said no such thing. I said hearing the Bible in a church is nowhere close to an unsolicited sermon on the street.

If you're serious that you consider what this woman did was a legitimate threat, then everything else is window dressing.

I dont know the entire story and all of the specifics, but I would bet dollars to doughnuts that the woman had harassed people around the clinic for quite some time. Whether she meant it as a threat or not, I couldn't say. But intelligent people realize that when you talk about your religion's view of "death as a punishment for certain acts", you better understand that a person who does not believe in your religion may see that as a threat. Its not that different than we seeing tenants of Islam being a threat to all non-believers(not that I am claiming the Bible supports violence for non-belief, but many have used it that way over the past 2000 years).

my fear is that it is yet another example of the Thought Police out there running amok, and once again specifically targeting anti-abortion protestors.

Any continual harasser or trespasser should expect the same treatment. Didn't you see what the cops did to the enviro-whackos protesting in the streets at the WTO meetings?

We've had cases were protestors were arrested for kneeling in prayer. Other cases where individuals and groups have been dragged into court on bogus RICO charges.

I agree that RICO charges are bogus in these circumstances.

In the end, what should be protected political dissent is quashed in the name of political correctness. We should all be concerned when someone makes a crime out of another's speech because they "feel" threatened, or "feel" offended, or "feel" uncomfortable. Because under those terms just about anything anyone says or does could be found to be a criminal act. When legal actions are taken on the basis of feelings, stretched and twisted however one wants, we're all walking liable and/or criminal cases.

I can't say I disgaree, but Its not like this woman walked up to the guy one time and said, "Excuse me sir, I'd like to share something with you that I feel is very important and may help you in the long run".

By this time, everyone knows that there is a large portion of Americans out there who believe abortion is wrong based upon their religion. It does no good to sit there on sidewalks outside abortion clinics praying, yelling or harassing doctors and patients. I think these activities need to be seen as harassment. This isn't "free speech". We(the taxpayers) do not have to provide protesters a forumn.

44 posted on 12/19/2002 12:57:44 PM PST by FreeTally
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the Nine
If I tell the paid murderer of unborn infants (whose murders are deemed "legal" by a SCOTUS which bears little or no resemblance to a court which understands much less applies the Constitution) that. unless he repents, he will go to hell, I am not threatening him. I cannot send him to hell (as opposed to sending him to heaven). He sends himself to hell. Or God sends him in recognition of his murders (legalized or otherwise) and God is beyond the jurisdiction of any earthly court.

If, as a Yankee fan (in baseball and not the War of Yankee Aggression), I shout at Red Sox fans: You will never win a World Series in your lifetime or God's lifetime, it is of course not a threat because: 1) it is a reality as an immutable result of the curse of the Bambino; and 2) I am not personally capable of making them lose since I am neither the Bambino nor am I god nor am I even Alfonso Soriano.

As witness the persecution of a woman for having the effrontery to read the actual Bible in the Godless presence of a heathen child-killer, in light of Roe vs. Wade and its, ummm, progeny, and the life work of SCOTUS since 1936, and the remarkable usurpation that occurred in Marbury vs. Madison and several historical controversies near and dear to your heart and mine, we are most certainly NOT a nation of laws.

45 posted on 12/19/2002 1:05:46 PM PST by BlackElk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the Nine
If you don't want someone to read aloud in public, you don't get to put them in prison.

You get to tell them to shut up, and then you get to walk away if they refuse.

No one here is advocating a theocracy - you're just trying to find a way to use your favorite buzzword.

Your page self-describes you as a libertarian. It's an odd kind of libertarian who believes in freedom for everyone except Christians. It's also a odd kind of libertarian who advocates taking the life of the weakest and most defenceless people.

I'm not sure who the "Nine" you serve are - but they must hate freedom.

46 posted on 12/19/2002 1:11:16 PM PST by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the Nine
Oh please...she said he persists in his wickedness he will die, not that she would kill him. Good grief...get a grip.
47 posted on 12/19/2002 1:13:50 PM PST by ravingnutter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: FreeTally
Contrast that with an uninvited "sermon" from somebody on the street, or trespassing on your private property. While walking down the street, or to my legal business, I would not expect to have someone walk up and tell me "I am going to die for what I am doing" or whatnot.

Thanks, that's all about you I need to know. Obviously you are against free speech if it involves any religion.

48 posted on 12/19/2002 1:14:40 PM PST by TXBubba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: FreeTally
I said no such thing. I said hearing the Bible in a church is nowhere close to an unsolicited sermon on the street.

I'm getting the posters in the thread mixed up.

But intelligent people realize that when you talk about your religion's view of "death as a punishment for certain acts", you better understand that a person who does not believe in your religion may see that as a threat.

This is where the argument breaks down. You're statement implies that the criminality is vested in another's interpretation of an individual's actions. The law has traditionally (although we've seen some erosion of this with the advent of "hate crimes" legislation) distinguished between thoughts and actions. My concern is that if you criminalize something based on another's interpretation or feeling about one's verbally-expressed thoughts, unless those expressions contain specific, credible threats to the other's well-being, you've opened the floodgates to all sorts of thought crimes. And not just reasonable disagreements on political or social issues, but anything.

By this time, everyone knows that there is a large portion of Americans out there who believe abortion is wrong based upon their religion. It does no good to sit there on sidewalks outside abortion clinics praying, yelling or harassing doctors and patients. I think these activities need to be seen as harassment. This isn't "free speech". We(the taxpayers) do not have to provide protesters a forumn.

You are free to disagree about tactics, but, from what was presented in the article, this woman's actions appear to be, while perhaps annoying to those who disagree with her, somewhat shaky grounds for criminal prosecution. Again, were there specific and credible threats made to the physical well-being of the offended party, threats made personally by the accused against the accuser? My sense is that this is a case that revolves around one person being offended by the 1) moral position, and 2) tactics (although non-harmful and thus not morally equivalent to the case you raised about the WTO protestors) of another. Criminalizing persons who may offend others because of their political beliefs and non-violent means of expressing them is another step down the long road to tyranny.

49 posted on 12/19/2002 1:16:21 PM PST by chimera
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the Nine
What is your problem? Any threat or promise read from the Bible, is a threat or promise from God-not from his messinger, merely delivering the truth. THe messenger can be silenced, but the message is just as true and the promise will still be kept and/or punishment administered.
50 posted on 12/19/2002 1:19:45 PM PST by F.J. Mitchell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-111 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson