News High court: Does father's pain trump free speech?

[JaredJames]

For the same reason apples aren't oranges. Can you elaborate on this point?

Give me a reason to ban gay marriage aside from "because it's wrong".

It doesn't hurt anyone, it certainly doesn't make any difference to anyone. So why ban it? Because people don't like it.

 

[Gokul43201]

Give me a reason to ban gay marriage aside from "because it's wrong".

It doesn't hurt anyone, it certainly doesn't make any difference to anyone. So why ban it? Because people don't like it.

Does this mean you have no objection to gay marriage bans?

 

[JaredJames]

Does this mean you have no objection to gay marriage bans?

I do have an objection, I don't see what's wrong with gay marriage.

I can't speak for gay people, but by banning it, to me you are discriminating against them and telling them they aren't, on legal grounds, the same as straight people. Now that passes your 'is it consitutional' tests with a big yes, but banning what these people do does not and as such, remains protected.

 

[Gokul43201]

I do have an objection, I don't see what's wrong with gay marriage.

But you don't think it could cause anger and/or emotional distress for some people?

Now that passes your 'is it consitutional' tests with a big yes, but banning what these people do does not and as such, remains protected.

A "big yes". Ummm ... please cite the caselaw supporting that assertion. I'm not aware of it. Far as I know, it has at best a mixed reaction from the courts.

PS: Also, if this is to be pursued at any length, a new thread would be wise. In fact, in lieu of recent developments with California's Prop 8, the definition clause of marriage ("between one man and one woman") in DOMA and Don't Ask Don't Tell, all being found unconstitutional, a thread on any/all these issues would be worth having.

 

[Hurkyl]

Imagine your child is killed in combat, you're at their funeral, you see / hear that someone is protesting nearby calling your son a "fag" and saying they deserve to die.
...
The argument of "they didn't see the protest" doesn't hold. It was on the news. This argument is the equivelant of saying "you only watched the twin towers fall on tv, you couldn't have a reaction to it".

If it were true that counter-argument didn't hold water, then you shouldn't need to resort to significantly changing the scenario to support your own argument.

 

[Gokul43201]

If it were true that counter-argument didn't hold water, then you shouldn't need to resort to significantly changing the scenario to support your own argument.

Shouldn't have to, with the right audience. But testing the strength of someone's argument by exploring its logical ends is a technique that, IMO, works well in many situations.

 

[JaredJames]

How dig i significantly change the scenario.
They protested exactly as i described, the snyders heard about it from the news. They were affected by it.

 

[Hurkyl]

Shouldn't have to, with the right audience. But testing the strength of someone's argument by exploring its logical ends is a technique that, IMO, works well in many situations.

Maybe I've missed context, but it feels to be in the wrong direction. Exaggerating the harm done would be interesting to explore just how far one can push an argument that some harm must be permitted -- but it's not very useful for one trying to argue that the actual amount of harm done is too much.

 

[Hurkyl]

They protested exactly as i described, the snyders heard about it from the news.

These two statements contradict each other, given that you described someone who overheard a protest as it was happening during the funeral.

 

[JaredJames]

Ah, I see the problem, when I wrote 'heard' I didnt mean directly overheard. I meant it 'found out somehow', perhaps people only say that in the Uk.

Example:
"Did you know Bob was arrested?"
"Yeah, I heard about it down the pub the other night."

As you can see, not directly, 'heard at the scene'. This is the way I was referring to it, not as in directly overheard.

 

[mheslep]

Bigotry is a crime?

In the Netherlands, one need not go as far as bigotry. Just a 'group insult' can supposedly land you in jail for two years, even (especially?) if you are a contender for prime minister.
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2010/10/acquittal-for-geert-wilders-on-one.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7842344.stm
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/10/wilders_acquitted_of_group_ins.html

 

[Proton Soup]

What I find more troubling than the protest itself is the seeming determination of the USSC to abandon all objectivity and try their darndest to find in favor of one particular side (as summarized in the quote below, from the link in the OP):
You don't search for a way to rationalize a predetermined judgment; you make a judgment based on an unbiased search.

it is troubling, especially when you consider the soldiers are not just private citizens, they ARE the government. what i really hate most of all about this is the sanctification of military as somehow sacred and above criticism. these guys weren't even drafted, they volunteered.

 

[airborne18]

The problem with the Westboro group is that they are running a pretty good scam.

Calling them a church is a stretch. It is a family of lawyers that came up with a perfect money scam, and it actually did work for a little.

They just don't show up to these things, they actually file for a permit to protest. And they actually want to be turned down, so they can sue.

And they did and won a few good settlements. Until eventually the Patriot riders got involved and started to cause riots.

But as a legal strategy they nailed it. They use church status and the gay angle so it falls under religion and not simply as free speech. On Free Speech they would not have a legal leg, but as a religious speech it becomes a little tougher and is protected a little better.

But it is a scam that got way out of hand.

 

[BobG]

Shouldn't have to, with the right audience. But testing the strength of someone's argument by exploring its logical ends is a technique that, IMO, works well in many situations.

In a purely logical world, it shouldn't have to. In a world that's a combination of the rational and the irrational (with both being important to the quality of life), exploring how a line of logic works in various situations is a valid technique.

Except I see a different focal point in this situation. In a sense, the Westboro case is similar to Ground Zero Mosque. The emotion of the case tends to focus on the pain of a "victim" - a pain that wasn't caused by the "villain" in the scenario, but the "villain's" insensitivity amplified the "victim's" pain.

Similar, but not identical. It's easier to understand a family's pain at their son's funeral than it is to understand the pain of a city 9 years later.

I think the issue comes down to one question: Can pain suffered by a person or group of persons justify quashing others rights out of respect for the persons' suffering, how many and what type restrictions can you put on others' rights, and how long is it appropriate to do so?

Personally, I think the restrictions on where the Westboro Church can protest are adequate. They were not able to disrupt the funeral itself in any way. The only way the Snyder family had of even knowing the protest took place was the news media and the internet.

 

[Norman]

I read through this whole thread, because I did not want to make the same argument as someone else, but I don't think I saw it. So here goes.

Some background to ground my response - personally I think the church's tactics and execution are horrible, cruel and despicable. I good thrashing would do them some good.

A favorite quote of mine is "If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all" (~Chomsky I believe). So, I hope that the court sides with freedom of speech in this instance.

But my main point, is the irony- namely, that this young man died "defending the constitution"** and his family is attempting to abridge these rights. They seem to be playing the new American defacto stance of victim. The protest was not even during the funeral proper. As has been pointed out above, the family did not even know about the protest until after the fact. This whole situation is interesting from a law point of view. One the consequences of freedom is all the idiocy that the idiots get to do with that freedom.

**I put this in quotes, because I do not believe it, but many people try to frame any war in this regard.

 

[Evo]

The father's lawsuit

This is a suit for defamation, invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of
emotional distress.

http://blogs.kansascity.com/files/findlaw.pdf

I think the suit should be read to understand what the reasons were before they became distorted. The *church* personally attacked the parents on their hate website. Based on the suit, the damages were for emotional distress caused by the Westboro Church and where they were standing and when they were there aren't the issue. Just read it. IMO, these (Westboro) people are using the First Amendment as a smoke screen, it's digusting.

These people take the cake.

17. Defendant Westboro Baptist Church, Inc. operates, maintains, and owns several
websites:

(1) www.thesignsofthetimes.net;[/URL]
(2) [PLAIN]www.smellthebrimstone.com;[/URL]
(3) [PLAIN]www.godhatesamerica.com;[/URL]
(4) [PLAIN]www.priestsrapeboys.com;[/URL]
(5) [PLAIN]www.godhatessweden.com;[/URL]
(6) [PLAIN]www.godhatescanada.com;[/URL] and lastly,
(7) [url]www.godhatesfags.com[/url].

 

[JaredJames]

The father's lawsuit

http://blogs.kansascity.com/files/findlaw.pdf

I think the suit should be read to understand what the reasons were before they became distorted. Based on the suit, the damages were for emotional distress caused by the Westboro Church and where they were standing and when they were there aren't the issue. Just read it. IMO, these (Westboro) people are using the First Amendment as a smoke screen, it's digusting, IMO.

These people take the cake.

17. Defendant Westboro Baptist Church, Inc. operates, maintains, and owns several
websites:

I completely agree with you there. The websites say it all (I've looked through them all).

 

[Norman]

The father's lawsuit

http://blogs.kansascity.com/files/findlaw.pdf

I think the suit should be read to understand what the reasons were before they became distorted. The *church* personally attacked the parents on their hate website. Based on the suit, the damages were for emotional distress caused by the Westboro Church and where they were standing and when they were there aren't the issue. Just read it. IMO, these (Westboro) people are using the First Amendment as a smoke screen, it's digusting.

These people take the cake.

17. Defendant Westboro Baptist Church, Inc. operates, maintains, and owns several
websites:

(1) www.thesignsofthetimes.net
(2) www.smellthebrimstone.com[/URL]
(3) [PLAIN]www.godhatesamerica.com[/URL]
(4) [PLAIN]www.priestsrapeboys.com[/URL]
(5) [PLAIN]www.godhatessweden.com[/URL]
(6) [PLAIN]www.godhatescanada.com[/URL] and lastly,
(7) [url]www.godhatesfags.com[/url][/QUOTE]

Thanks Evo. I was under the false assumption that it was only the protest under consideration for the suit. I think defamation and intentional infliction of emotional
distress are appropriate here. It also seems reasonable to consider whether their tax status as a church should remain intact given their hate mongering. There must be some provisions concerning any groups tax-exempt status and illegal activity.

On a side note, I really liked reading over how the court was pushing the logical boundaries of the arguments and how they were trying to look at the question from all sides. Very interesting.

Also, Evo, you might want to take the semicolons out of the URL tags.

 

[Evo]

On a side note, I really liked reading over how the court was pushing the logical boundaries of the arguments and how they were trying to look at the question from all sides. Very interesting.

Unfortunately, since the WBC has twisted everything to sound like a Free Speech issue, it's clouded the original intent of the parent's lawsuit.

Also, Evo, you might want to take the semicolons out of the URL tags.

I just copied and pasted from the lawsuit, this would be the current list.

http://www.godhatesamerica.com/

Sister Sites

GodHatesFags.com
The main website of the most controversial church in the world – Westboro Baptist Church!

SignMovies.com
Brief, fascinating videos that offer Bible-based expositions of the message of WBC.

JewsKilledJesus.com
What the Bible teaches about the final fate of the nation of Israel for murdering the Messiah.

BeastObama.com
A scriptural look at the rising beast and how he is going to usher in the destruction of the world.

PriestsRapeBoys.com
The Catholic Church: the largest, most well-funded and organized pedophile machine in history.

blogs.SpareNot.com
Chronicles the worldwide street preaching ministry of Westboro Baptist Church!

AmericaIsDoomed.com
Builds the airtight case that america is not only cursed of God, but that this curse is irreversible.

 

[Proton Soup]

will the court have to also decide on the issues of whether there is a Creator, Devil, good, and evil? if internet postings are the real issue here, then it all seems relevant based on the text in the pdf above.

 

[Evo]

will the court have to also decide on the issues of whether there is a Creator, Devil, good, and evil? if internet postings are the real issue here, then it all seems relevant based on the text in the pdf above.

The decision should be based on the personal attacks on the Snyders.

But now the WBC is crying First Ammendment protection of their personal attack on the family.

 

[CRGreathouse]

will the court have to also decide on the issues of whether there is a Creator, Devil, good, and evil? if internet postings are the real issue here, then it all seems relevant based on the text in the pdf above.

As decided in Mayo v. Satan and His Staff, lawsuits involving Satan must include directions for the US Marshals on how to serve process...

 

[Proton Soup]

The decision should be based on the personal attacks on the Snyders.

But now the WBC is crying First Ammendment protection of their personal attack on the family.

thing is, i think it would be easy to construct criticisms along similar lines that are purely secular and sound much less "outrageous" and inflammatory. and i would call them criticisms, not "attacks". and so the question for me is, is it out of bounds to criticize individuals?

as troubling as WBC is, I'm finding the thought of silencing them a lot more troubling.

 

[Proton Soup]

As decided in Mayo v. Satan and His Staff, lawsuits involving Satan must include directions for the US Marshals on how to serve process...

Satan is a tricky bugger, ain't he? why can't we try him in absentia?

 

[mheslep]

[...]
as troubling as WBC is, I'm finding the thought of silencing them a lot more troubling.

I've lost track of the thread, but far as I know the call is only to prevent them from hurling their vile garbage at certain venues like funerals, not to silence them.

 

[Evo]

thing is, i think it would be easy to construct criticisms along similar lines that are purely secular and sound much less "outrageous" and inflammatory. and i would call them criticisms, not "attacks". and so the question for me is, is it out of bounds to criticize individuals?

as troubling as WBC is, I'm finding the thought of silencing them a lot more troubling.

The original suit did not ask them to stop their hate mongering, it was a suit for personal injury. The WBC has twisted it to make it sound like the suit was to make them stop their protesting in general. Not true, as you can see.

 

[BobG]

I think the suit should be read to understand what the reasons were before they became distorted. The *church* personally attacked the parents on their hate website. Based on the suit, the damages were for emotional distress caused by the Westboro Church and where they were standing and when they were there aren't the issue. Just read it. IMO, these (Westboro) people are using the First Amendment as a smoke screen, it's digusting.

Actually, the pertinent issue (as far as the appeal and the verdict being overturned) is whether or not the church personally attacked the parents. And the point of punitive damages (on top of compensatory damages) is stop the behavior from recurring in the future - i.e. stop the WBC from future protests at funerals. The location and timing of the protests is also a general issue, but the WBC adhered to all regulations; so that issue never was presented to the court.

Snyder vs Phelps - Fourth Court of Appeals

The analysis of the First Amendment Issue starts at the bottom of page 15 (although the background info is worth reading for those lacking familiarity with the case).

I like this quote:

Second, rhetorical statements employing "loose, figurative, or hyperbolic language" are entitled to First Amendment protection to ensure that "public debate will not suffer for lack of ‘imaginative expression’ or the ‘rhetorical hyperbole’ which has traditionally added much to the discourse of our Nation." (Milkovich, 497 U.S. at 20-21.)

tied to:

In focusing solely on the status of the Snyders and the funeral, and not on the legal issue concerning the nature of the speech at issue, the court failed to assess whether the pertinent statements could reasonably be interpreted as asserting "actual facts" about an individual, or whether they instead merely contained rhetorical hyperbole. (See Milkovich, 497 U.S. at 20; CACI, 536 F.3d at 293.) Whether a statement can reasonably be interpreted as stating actual facts about an individual is a question of law for the court, (see CACI, 546 F.3d at 293-94), and the district court failed to consider that issue in its Post-Trial Opinion. Consequently, we must assess the content of the Defendants’ protest signs as well as the Epic, and determine whether such speech is entitled to constitutional protection.

The 4th's opinion on the internet "epic":

Thus, even when the Snyders are mentioned in the Epic, a reasonable reader would understand its contents to be primarily focused on the more general message to which their protests are directed. The Defendants assert in the Epic, for example, that the Snyders had incurred God’s wrath by raising Matthew as a Catholic and allowing him to serve in the military — assertions a reasonable reader would take as focused on the Defendants’ concerns with the policies and activities of the Roman Catholic Church and the military. Furthermore, a reasonable reader would take as rhetorically hyperbolic a text describing the "United States of Sodom" as a "filthy" country, labelling the Catholic Church as a "pedophile machine," and equating the Maryland Legislature with the Taliban. In that context, the reasonable reader would understand the other assertions of the Epic — that the Snyders raised their son "for the devil," and taught him to "defy his Creator, to divorce, and to commit adultery" — as simply "loose, figurative, or hyperbolic language" not connoting actual facts about Matthew or his parents. (Milkovich, 497 U.S. at 21). Thus, a reasonable reader would not understand the Epic to assert actual facts about either Snyder or his son.

The court hearing the initial case tossed out two of the counts (defamation of character and publication of private facts) specifically for the reason above, so they at least considered the issue. The 4th felt they didn't take that analysis far enough.

The other major issue was in the jury instructions - a technical issue that would have resulted in a new trial if the 4th had not decided the case should not have been presented to the jury in the first place.

 

[Evo]

Actually, the pertinent issue (as far as the appeal and the verdict being overturned) is whether or not the church personally attacked the parents.

Yes, this is where the WBC started twisting things to make it look like they were being attacked for their "freedom of religion and "freedom of speech. BS, IMO.

The court
awarded summary judgment on the defamation claim because
the Defendants’ speech was "essentially . . . religious opinion"

When they specifically targeted the Snyders, they went too far. That's why I am hoping that the Supreme court will rule that personal attacks of the nature and extent perpetrated by the WBC is not covered, and overturns the Fourth court of Appeals. The WBC are attempting to make a mockery of First Ammendment rights.

The lawsuit should be set back to the original, and get back to reality.

 

[Gokul43201]

On a side note, I really liked reading over how the court was pushing the logical boundaries of the arguments and how they were trying to look at the question from all sides.

Do you have a link? I would be happy to know this is the case. Unfortunately, the previous article I read suggested quite the opposite - that nearly all members of the SC were looking for arguments that might make the protest something outside of protected speech.

 

[BobG]

Yes, this is where the WBC started twisting things to make it look like they were being attacked for their "freedom of religion and "freedom of speech. BS, IMO.

The court
awarded summary judgment on the defamation claim because
the Defendants’ speech was "essentially . . . religious opinion"

When they specifically targeted the Snyders, they went too far. That's why I am hoping that the Supreme court will rule that personal attacks of the nature and extent perpetrated by the WBC is not covered, and overturns the Fourth court of Appeals. The WBC are attempting to make a mockery of First Ammendment rights.

The lawsuit should be set back to the original, and get back to reality.

The initial court tossed out the defamation claim (plus another). The 4th tossed out the other three counts. The Supreme Court would have to overturn both courts to reinstate the defamation claim. I guess it's possible, but probably very unlikely.

The only counts I see as having any chance of being upheld is the intentional infliction of emotional distress and I guess having any of the first four upheld would pretty much mean the fifth count would stand.

I do think this is the issue that strikes at the heart of most people. It's speech aimed at creating emotional distress and the Snyders are in a position to feel that emotional distress more than the average person.

I don't think that's enough for it to hold up, though.

 

[CAC1001]

Don't have time to read the thread, but from what I've heard some say, while what this church is doing is despicable, if the Court ruled it wasn't allowed, it would open the door for all sorts of formerly free speech being banned.

 

[Evo]

The initial court tossed out the defamation claim (plus another). The 4th tossed out the other three counts. The Supreme Court would have to overturn both courts to reinstate the defamation claim. I guess it's possible, but probably very unlikely.

The only counts I see as having any chance of being upheld is the intentional infliction of emotional distress and I guess having any of the first four upheld would pretty much mean the fifth count would stand.

I do think this is the issue that strikes at the heart of most people. It's speech aimed at creating emotional distress and the Snyders are in a position to feel that emotional distress more than the average person.

I don't think that's enough for it to hold up, though.

I think you're absolutely correct in your assessment.

I believe that the UK protects free speech, while protecting the rights of individuals from this kind of attack and harm. I don't know if that was brought up earlier in the thread or I read it as a related article. If they manage it, why can't we? I'm going to have to find that now.

 

[CAC1001]

Is free speech a fundamental right in the UK? Or a privilege granted by the government?

 

[BobG]

Don't have time to read the thread, but from what I've heard some say, while what this church is doing is despicable, if the Court ruled it wasn't allowed, it would open the door for all sorts of formerly free speech being banned.

Not quite. It would open the door for all sorts of speech previously banned to be banned once again.

For example, Eugene Debs may not be a particularly sympathetic character to many, seeing as how he was a Socialist, but he was sentenced to 10 years of prison just for praising individuals that had been convicted for attempting to evade the draft. What he said was considered to be a surreptitious method of encouraging others to evade the draft.

He was convicted under the Espionage Act of 1917 (WW I era), and his conviction was upheld by the US Supreme Court which agreed his praise of convicted draft evaders was sufficient to be considered inciting illegal activity.

After the war, the Espionage Act was repealed and he received a Presidential pardon.

 

[Evo]

Here is Canadian law.

Under section 318 of the Criminal Code of Canada, it is illegal to promote genocide. Under section 319, it is illegal to publicly incite hatred against people based on their colour, race, religion, ethnic origin, and sexual orientation, except where the statements made are true or are made in good faith. The prohibition against inciting hatred based on sexual orientation was added to the section in 2004 with the passage of Bill C-250.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country#Canada

I would like to see the same kind of thing here in the US.

 

[Office_Shredder]

This of course begs the question of what does it mean for a statement made in good faith to publicly incite hatred?

 

[Evo]

This of course begs the question of what does it mean for a statement made in good faith to publicly incite hatred?

They're Canadian, what did you expect? <runs and hides>

 

[drankin]

Here is Canadian law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country#Canada

I would like to see the same kind of thing here in the US.

What does it mean to incite hatred anyway? Isn't that a bit subjective?

 

[BobG]

This of course begs the question of what does it mean for a statement made in good faith to publicly incite hatred?

It means the statement was made during a discussion about hockey.

I think it's valid to have restrictions about inciting illegal behavior. If an unofficial leader tells his followers to burn down the state house and they do it, shouldn't he be held accountable, as well? I think whether it's punished or not still depends on the outcome and how the 'command' was worded. If a tea party candidate uses the term figuratively to inspire followers to replace incumbents with tea party candidates, and one lunatic takes him literally, then I don't think he should be held accountable.

I don't like the Candian law in general.

 

[Gokul43201]

This of course begs the question of what does it mean for a statement made in good faith to publicly incite hatred?

Looks pretty clear to me. Incitement of hatred if permitted if it is done in good faith.

 

[Hurkyl]

This of course begs the question of what does it mean for a statement made in good faith to publicly incite hatred?

Maybe you just need a definition of good faith?

A google search reveals several variations on the same theme. This one from http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/good+faith:

Good faith is an abstract and comprehensive term that encompasses a sincere belief or motive without any malice or the desire to defraud others. It derives from the translation of the Latin term bona fide, and courts use the two terms interchangeably.​

 

[Dale]

"Good faith" is a pretty common term in contract law, but I don't know enough law to figure out how it would apply to free speech.

 

[Evo]

Amnesty International fully supports Canada's bill c250

http://www.amnesty.ca/resource_centre/Bill_C250.pdf

Clarification of "good faith" verbiage.

The bill also expanded one of the defences available to persons charged with the incitement of hatred, allowing for the expression of good-faith opinions based on religious texts, in addition to the preexisting defence allowing the good-faith expression of opinions on religious subjects.

3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)

(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;
(b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;
(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or
(d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_C-250_(37th_Canadian_Parliament,_2nd_Session)#Criminal_Code_text

 

[JaredJames]

This is a good article concerning the UK:

http://www.civilrightsmovement.co.uk/right-freedom-speech.html

Note the following section:

Responsibility and Freedom of Speech
Freedom of speech and expression are not absolute rights; this means that there are exceptions to these fundamental rights. For example publishing material or making comments that are specifically designed to incite racial hatred can be deemed to be a hate crime. Anyone who is found committing this offence can be charged in a criminal court. Many people argue that publishing a person’s opinion, even if it is offensive to others, is a right. However, if the material is intended to bring harm against others then that is an abuse of the victim’s other civil and human rights.

 

[Gokul43201]

Forget about publishing material that can incite racial hatred. You can go to jail (in the UK) for publishing material that is obscene or likely to "corrupt" the average person. Don't have time to source that right now, but I think the relevant law comes from the Obscene Materials Act (approximate name), or somesuch.

Also, if I recall correctly, the UK is bound by freedom of expression protections that come from its signing on to the European Human Rights Convention (also possibly an approximate title), but I'm not sure how exactly that fits in with its own laws.

 

[mugaliens]

Forget about publishing material that can incite racial hatred. You can go to jail (in the UK) for publishing material that is obscene or likely to "corrupt" the average person.

Oh my gosh! Is the UK still recognizing racial anything?

Folks, Frank Sinatra, Tony Curtis, Natalie Wood, and Leora Dana first (I think) visited this on the silver screen more than 52 years ago! I watched it tonight! Great flick.

I think it's time to uplug from the very old mentality and realign with what began more than half a century ago (two centuries ago, if you include written literature).

If you can't, fine, but we'll leave you in the dust.

In you can, please stop referencing race issues entirely. It's long been proven most race issues are 99% skin and hair color, as well as hair type and facial features, and less than 0.03% genes, and as a mutt, I'm banking on the genes.

Yes, I'm a mutt! A teency amount of American Indian, tons of Scottish, Irish, English, and Dutch (that's "Holland" as per countless of my namesake still living in that land and no other).

Come one, people - I can put on airs with the best of them, but when it comes right down to it, I'm much like the rest of our world - a mix.

To be perfectly honest, since about 30,000 years ago, we're all a mix, just different shades of whatever. If that's what we're fighting over, then those of us fighting need to find a very dark, tight, and smelly place to vent their rage, as I, for one, am sick of i.

We seem to be able to work things out here, so why not on the international front? I understand idealisms rule galore, but isn't that why we spend billions on state department folks to work through this stuff (and no, I'm not "asininely inane with respect to "how the system works.")

Italy reminded me of little. Southern Switzerland reminded me of all that I remembered of Italy, including the rotating bells used as a ringer. Well-built houses, good people, airplanes flying around Lake Como, beautiful lakes... I suspect some of the folks I recall from my earliest days simply moved North.

Seriously want to know what's more hardy, genetically speaking? Turns out the age-old practice of trading the chieftan's daughter to the winning warrior of the neighboring tribe is what combined both the best of the best in terms of winning warriors, along with diversivication of the gene pool.

Thoroughbreds? Hey! Great for dogs! But does anyone have ANY idea of the great lengths dog shows go through to make sure that the undesirable genetically inbread characteristics of thoroughbreds aren't passed down to the next generation? They're inspected at each dog show, and if there's the slightest hint of the common abnormalities, they're not allowed to breed. Yes, finally, vets and geneticists are working hand in hand to both preserve the breeds (none of which have been around longer than 500 years) while eliminating the genetic abmormalities of genetic inbreeding.

So, back to the OP.

 

[mugaliens]

I'm sorry, Evo, but this sounds like a wonderful opportunity towards wiping out a third of our nation's (ok, the US) lawfully-established and Constitutional basis for existence.

It "sounds" terrific! So does snake oil. So have 88% of the not very good revolutions to the powers that be which have allowed those revolutions to happen to the detriment and death of their citizens.

I see full-well the religious exemption in the text, Evo. I've you'd please take at the forum's history, however, you'd see I posed a much more scathing review of racision, and I'd extend that to religion on the same basis.

I in no way, manner, shape, or intent desire to throw any baby out with the bathwater. We're in this for the long haul, folks. Far too many deep-seated systems of belief based on religion, politics, science, ideology, etc.

Even in the CA law which Evo posted, I see serious grounds for contention and violation of human rights, regardless of how carefully it might have been couched in the original.

In the words of Richard Dawson (sound of a buzzer).

What I find flabbershasting is that today's college students routinely come up with FAR better proposals for how to conduct our nation's affairs. Perhaps armed with all of our crap, they're far better suited for figuring a way around it? Perhaps we simply ought to let them?

Ah, trust! There's an idea!

Sheesh...

 

[Proton Soup]

Amnesty International fully supports Canada's bill c250

http://www.amnesty.ca/resource_centre/Bill_C250.pdf

Clarification of "good faith" verbiage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_C-250_(37th_Canadian_Parliament,_2nd_Session)#Criminal_Code_text

what about RAHOWA and the Creativity Movement?