Replies

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.

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.

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.

If it is on a public sidewalk on publicly owned property, it is free speech. Reading the Bible in public is NOT a threat. The fact that the babykillers don't want to have their feelings hurt by the truth is absolutely irrelevant.

The First Amendment was not necessary to protect public recitations of Mary Had a Little Lamb. It was necessary to protect the right to annoy the hell out of those with whom we disagree vehemently or otherwise. The local abortion mill here has loudspeakers to annoy pro-lifers by reading specific details of alleged child molestations by priests to annoy Catholic pro-lifers and other messages for Protestant pro-lifers. The pro-lifers have to learn to live with such speech, however outrageous, and so do the babykillers. We have a right to be publicly rude. Our enemies hate to be mocked or laughed at. We call it America.

Remember the immortal words of the late Mayor Richard Daley, the Greater, who, after being verbally attacked by his foes, solemnly intoned before the TV cameras: "I have been vilified. I have been crucified. I HAVE EVEN BEEN CRITICIZED!!!!" Take that as your inspiration to speak truth to power.