In article <3EFF8A08.AA9F12FC@no-spam>,
Mischa Gelman <mgelman@no-spam> wrote:
> Me wrote:
>
> > No weakness at all. The case was thrown out of court.
>
> So if the parties from Plessy v. Ferguson had returned in 1916 and said "you,
> know, this separate but equal thing is stupid. We need integration" you would
> think this inconsequential because it was too far down the line after the
> initial case?
I am not the judge. I simply explained that the McCorvey case was thrown
out of court and the reason the judge did so. Your question is one the
judge can answer, not me. Do not blame the messenger for the message.
> > McCorvey is simply allowing herself to be a pawn by the anti-abortion
> > movement.
>
> You mean just as she allowed herself to be a pawn of the pro-abortion movement
> earlier? Or are all the gullible people, pawns and manipulators on one side
> and all the good people on the other?
Fair enough, however, in the original Roe v. Wade case, the argument had
little to do with McCorvey. Hell, she had already given birth by the time
her case was heard by the SCOTUS. Read the Woe v. Wade decision; it is
clear that the justices on the SCOTUS saw this as a privacy rights issue
more so than abortion.
> Again, this is curious logic. If a person is directly responsible for a law
> they feel to be wrong, isn't it appropriate for that person to state their
> objections?
Yes, but not she needs to demonstrate some examples of how the original
decision has agreeved her. How has Woe v. Wade's outcome harmed
McCorvey? The legalization of abortion certainly has not forced her to
have an abortion, or not to have one. So where has McCorvey been
agreeved as a result of Woe v. Wade's outcome?
Mischa Gelman wrote:
> It's one more straw. Eventually, one of them will break the camel's back.
That's where you're wrong with all due respect and why case such as the
recently ruled upon Texas Sodomy law are so problematic.
Once the Supreme Courts rules in the manner it has, effectively
legislating from the bench, there is no amount of straws that will undo
the mess they created...
The Supreme Court, no matter what its make up, is ever going to "unfind"
a right they created.
The only way for Roe to be undone now is for Congress to act. And
that's not going to happen so long as the abortion party has any power
in in that body.
> So Dennis Hastert and Shrub are members of the pro-abortion party? Huh? The president is nominally anti-abortion. Most of the
> House and most of the Senate is pro-life.
No Mischa, most of the House and Senate claim to be pro-life, that's so
people will continue to to vote for them. If they were what they
claimed the matter would have been resolved already.
> As much as I hate Bush, I hope he will nominate a pro-life Justice to the Supreme Court
> so that there is some chance that abortion-on-whim gets overturned. Politicians, though, respond to the public input...and if the
> lies of the abortion lobby continue to be revealed to the public, it will turn against that group. The most successful group in
> the last presidential race was the pro-life group. Emily's List lost 17 of 21 races and NARAL lost 10 of 11 in the 2002
> congressional elections. It had nothing to do with party either - pro-life Democrats like Tim Holden and Mike Michaud won, whereas
> pro-abortion Republicans like Connie Morella lost.
Then why hasn't Congress acted?
Because those members of the Democrat Party who claim to be pro-life
during elections will do what they're told to do by party leadership...
Just as they're doing now as they block Estrada and Owen's appointments
to the bench.
>>Keep voting for those "pro-life Democrats"
>
>
> Thanks, I will.
Then you should also continue to expect the current situation to stay as
it is for as long as you and I live, probably get worse when a national
health care system is eventually put in place and our tax dollars are
spent to pay for abortions on demand.
> Please explain logically (instead of in some rant about judicial appointee delays) how pro-life Democrats continue abortion.
> Thanks.
I just did Mischa, because no matter what they say they are during their
campaigns, at the end of each day they are still members of the party
whose leadership are extremist pro-abortion advocates, is completely
beholden to the pro-abortion lobby and they do what they are told to do
when it is time to act.
If I'm wrong then you explain it. How is it in your mind that public
opinion polls show strong support for restrictions on abortions, a
growing sentiment to undo Roe and the majority of Congress claims to be
pro-life...
Yet here we are, still debating this, nothing changing.
--
Paul Galvanek - Ver. 4.0
--
It's long been claimed that fascism is descending on American, odd that
it keeps landing on Europe.
-Unknown
The [Democrat] party never have but two objects - grand and petit larcency.
-RG Ingersoll September 21 1876
I never said all Democrats were saloon keepers. What I said was that
all saloon keepers were Democrats.
-Horace Greeley c. 1860
In nature there are neither rewards nor punishments - there are
consequences.
-RG Ingersoll
Do not lounge in the cities! There is room and health in the country,
away from the crowds of idlers and imbeciles. Go west, before you are
fitted for no life but that of the factory.
-Horace Greeley 1841
Mischa Gelman wrote:
> I made the mistake of trusting Roddey, as I had no reason to believe he would lie as much as a
> Clinton, Gore, Reagan or Bush. Since he has shown himself to be a lying scumbag, I will never vote
> for him again, as I have repeated on this forum in the past. I guess I should have been more
> cynical of a Republican who actually claimed he would help working people.
What you should have been wary of Mischa was a man who spent his entire
adult public life as Democrat, fighting for Democrat causes and toeing
the Democrat Party line who suddenly switched parties for convenience.
That should have given you all the insight you needed.
There are no real elected Republicans in SWPA, Mischa, none.
--
Paul Galvanek - Ver. 4.0
--
It's long been claimed that fascism is descending on American, odd that
it keeps landing on Europe.
-Unknown
The [Democrat] party never have but two objects - grand and petit larcency.
-RG Ingersoll September 21 1876
I never said all Democrats were saloon keepers. What I said was that
all saloon keepers were Democrats.
-Horace Greeley c. 1860
In nature there are neither rewards nor punishments - there are
consequences.
-RG Ingersoll
Do not lounge in the cities! There is room and health in the country,
away from the crowds of idlers and imbeciles. Go west, before you are
fitted for no life but that of the factory.
-Horace Greeley 1841
Mischa Gelman wrote:
> Eh? How is the abortion movement part of the left? The left is about
> respecting individual rights and protecting the weak and defenseless, about
> resisting selfish desires and the power of the strong over the underdog.
You've got to be kidding me... please tell me you are.
Repeating individual rights? Which would those be, the Second Amendment
and the right to self defense? The right to own property? The right to
keep the product of ones own labor?
Do you actually listen to the specific policies the people you listed
advocate?
I'll grant you Mischa that some of those people have valid criticisms of
the our current situation but their "solutions" are right out of 1984 or
THX 1138.
Yeah Joseph Stalin and Mao were big on protecting individuals too, or so
they claimed.
--
Paul Galvanek - Ver. 4.0
--
It's long been claimed that fascism is descending on American, odd that
it keeps landing on Europe.
-Unknown
The [Democrat] party never have but two objects - grand and petit larcency.
-RG Ingersoll September 21 1876
I never said all Democrats were saloon keepers. What I said was that
all saloon keepers were Democrats.
-Horace Greeley c. 1860
In nature there are neither rewards nor punishments - there are
consequences.
-RG Ingersoll
Do not lounge in the cities! There is room and health in the country,
away from the crowds of idlers and imbeciles. Go west, before you are
fitted for no life but that of the factory.
-Horace Greeley 1841
Paul <galvanek@no-spam> wrote in message news:<3EFD1022.2050202@no-spam>...
> You see Mischa, this is an example of exactly
> what I'm talking about - the folly of siding
> with the the left...
>
> When they're done with you, finished exploiting
> you and have extracted what they needed, they'll
> turn on you and crush you with the same vitriol
> they use when they're fighting with you.
Galvanek conveniently ignores the fact that McCorvey's embrace of the
compulsory-pregnancy movement coincided with her newfound sympathy for
the neo-Nazi Christian Identity cult. The folly of siding with
reactionaries, I guess.
Any reasonably competent three-year-old is able to see that there's a
world of difference between embracing the idea that (1) neither Norma
McCorvey nor any other woman should be converted into an incubator for
the state and (2) endorsing wholecloth whatever wackjob ideology may
incidentally be embraced by someone whose rights you defend, whether
in their youth or (in McCorvey's case, it seems) in their dotage.
Galvanek, of course, is too stupid to understand the distinction.
John Lacny
Mischa Gelman <mgelman@no-spam> wrote in message news:<3EFF8EF3.593208D0@no-spam>...
> Thanks for informing me of that. I find the
> CI folks to be a scary bunch (white people -
> can't trust 'em) but wasn't aware of her
> involvement with them. I guess this shows the
> kind of screwballs that the abortion movement
> was led by.
The movement to recognize the principle that women are people and not
incubators for the state was never "led" by Norma McCorvey. McCorvey
was an anonymous individual whose rights were violated, and her
heroism consisted solely in her consenting to become a test case --
nothing more. She organized no marches, delivered no speeches, wrote
no legal briefs. Yet just a few days ago Mischa Gelman was trying to
claim that because she had become a fetus-fetishist, it calls into
question the entire idea that women are human beings rather than
vessels for the coming-to-fruition of sacred male semen.
Or at least, he WAS making that argument, until I pointed out that
McCorvey has become a Christian Identity sympathizer. Then Gelman
decides to argue that this reflects badly on the *pro-choice* side of
the barricades -- conveniently ignoring the fact that McCorvey's
embrace of the compulsory-pregnancy movement coincided with her
conversion to neo-Nazi wackjob.
You people sure make a lot of sense!
John Lacny
In article <3F003B2A.8030604@no-spam>, just4us@no-spam says...
>Mischa Gelman wrote:
>> It's one more straw. Eventually, one of them will break the camel's back.
>That's where you're wrong with all due respect and why case
>such as the recently ruled upon Texas Sodomy law are so
>problematic.
>Once the Supreme Courts rules in the manner it has, effectively
>legislating from the bench,
Don't you mean UNlegislating? They struck down a law that was
without basis in the USC. They didn't create any new law.
>there is no amount of straws that will undo
>the mess they created...
Oh, my goodness, now people will actually do things in their
bedrooms that their neighvors find distasteful. Isn't that
terrible?
>The Supreme Court, no matter what its make up, is ever going
>to "unfind" a right they created.
I don't recall any finding of a new "right" in this case. IIRC/
the Supremes said that Texas had no power to legislate in the
area of private consensual practices between adults. That
isn't creating a right. It's telling the state they overstepped
their bounds. Remember that the USC is not a document that lists
rights. It delegates powers to the government and then (redundantly)
reminds that certain topics are off limits.
>The only way for Roe to be undone now is for Congress to act. And
>that's not going to happen so long as the abortion party has any power
>in in that body.
Please cite the Article and Section that delegates such power to
the Congress.
--
In Liberty,
Rich
Guns save lives - maybe yours.
--------------------
Rich Loether Snail Mail: University of Pittsburgh
EMail: rjl@no-spam Network Services
Voice: (412) 624-6429 600 Epsilon Drive
FAX: (412) 624-6436 Pittsburgh, PA 15238
Without Prejudice, UCC 1-207
finger for PGP 2.6.2 public key
Key Fingerprint 53 76 0B 73 DF 5C D9 14 D0 C3 68 20 DE 4F 60 C0
Rich Loether wrote:
> Don't you mean UNlegislating? They struck down a law that was
> without basis in the USC. They didn't create any new law.
Yes they did create new law... Though they may not have intended it
when they ruled, just as the Court didn't intended for it's ruling in
Roe to create a right to abortion... that's exactly how it played out
and now we have a defacto Constitutional right to sodomy.
> Oh, my goodness, now people will actually do things in their
> bedrooms that their neighvors find distasteful. Isn't that
> terrible?
When you, as a Libertarian, find yourself bearing the cost for all the
unforeseen consequences of this ruling 20 years from now - I'll bet you
dollars to donuts that's exactly what you'll be saying.
Just as we've progress from the argument in the seventies that abortion
is a "private matter" to federal tax dollars being spent on the
facilities that provided them, training the personnel who perform them
and in a very short time health care resources being squandered on them...
You, me and everyone else is going to bear the cost of stuff you haven't
even considered yet because of this ruling.
I guarantee it!
> I don't recall any finding of a new "right" in this case.
Again, I would challenge you to go read Roe -v Wade see where they
declared there was no right to abortion, ruled in much the same manner
there as they did in the sodomy case then tell me or anyone else today
that Roe didn't create an abortion right.
Same arguments were made in Roe -V Wade, the ruling was based on
precisely the same "logic" and the ruling will have exactly the same
consequences.
> Please cite the Article and Section that delegates such power to
> the Congress.
The power to begin the steps to amend the Constitution, which is
precisely what has begun with the start of an effort to ban gay marriage.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,90731,00.html
I'm telling you, people haven't even begun to realize where this is
going to lead and two decades from now you're going to be cursing the
day that SC ruling was handed down.
--
--
Paul Galvanek - Ver. 4.0
--
It's long been claimed that fascism is descending on American, odd that
it keeps landing on Europe.
-Unknown
The [Democrat] party never have but two objects - grand and petit larcency.
-RG Ingersoll September 21 1876
I never said all Democrats were saloon keepers. What I said was that
all saloon keepers were Democrats.
-Horace Greeley c. 1860
In nature there are neither rewards nor punishments - there are
consequences.
-RG Ingersoll
Do not lounge in the cities! There is room and health in the country,
away from the crowds of idlers and imbeciles. Go west, before you are
fitted for no life but that of the factory.
-Horace Greeley 1841
On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 17:19:22 -0400, Paul <just4us@no-spam>
wrote:
>and now we have a defacto Constitutional right to sodomy.
Good.
Now I won't feel so guilty when I get a blow job or lick some clit.
'Cause I like getting blown 'n I like lickin' clit.
Shit! If I'm horny and drunk enough I'll suck some dick too now that
it's legal!
Yeah, baby!
Jeremiah McAuliffe alimhaq@no-spam
http://speed.city-net.com/~alimhaq/mcauliffe/
Heavy Music
http://www.ampcast.com/jeremiah
On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 20:30:25 -0400, "Not a chance spanky" "Not a
chance spanky"@no-spam wrote:
>Great Jeremiah, I'm glad you feel so liberated now,
Thanks.
> but tell me...
No, you tell me... what YOU do-- for real-- in life.
Are you admitting to us you've NEVER got your dick sucked?
That IS what sodomy is y'know.... or are you going to admit you and
your "partner" (were you even married??) broke the law?
Talk about a total fag.......
>Within several hours of the ruling I saw spokespersons for Queer Nation
>and other groups
Oh no! Not THEM!
AND "other groups" on top of it all?
I'm just a shakin' all over the moral decline of Mighty America.
Who would have thought such a thing could happen? Dick-smokers 'n
fudge-packers being legal! And only 30 years after killin' nigras was
banned? What IS this country coming to? Let's bomb someone and forget
about it!
> proclaiming in interviews that the new ruling will
>allow them to follow in the steps in abortion right's advocates who
>successfully lobbied to gain access to tens of millions of school aged
>kids and promote sodomy in health and sex education curriculum
So... they are pushin' blow jobs over hetero intercourse? Better tell
your unwed girlfriend next Friday night. Or is that your wife doin'
that?
Damn. I never got ANY of this when I was a "school aged kid". Shit! I
had to get it all on my own.. .never taught in schoo... oh wait... I
DID go to Catholic schools.... "I'm Fr. Burrill, and that rhymes with
squirrel, and I'm after your nuts." ............Charming high-school
rhyme.
> as an
>normal, healthy alternative alternative to heterosexuality while
>garnering a share of public education resources to promote their agendas
>is schools.
Oh yes... those "agendas" I've heard so much about.
>If I'm right
I'm sure you are... though not about what you think.
> and it all shakes out precisely as Roe - V Wade are you
>going to be as happy when your tax dollars are being used to teach
>children the wonders of homosexual sex acts and how there's no moral
>distinction what so ever between them and heterosexual acts
I'm as happy about that as I am that they teach that there is no moral
distinction between someone making millions of dollars a year and
someone making 10K a year. Because there IS a moral distinction
there-- an important one-- that is ignored.
Or the moral distinction between someone with no medical care for a
frickin' cut on the hand, and someone able to get into M.D. Anderson
for their death-sentence cancer. Because there IS a moral distinction
there-- an important one-- that is ignored.
How 'bout you? Oh.. .you've told us you are perfectly happy with those
types of things-- -- just not with people who get blow jobs when you
don't..... <laughing>
>Won't it be
>great there's a gay right's counselor right next to the nurses office in
>every school?
Who the fuck cares? What are you? A closet case?
>
>I know, I know it'll neeeeeever happen just like we'd never see the day
>schools would directing minor girls in school to abortionists without
>their parent's knowledge.
Y'mean those parents too busy fillin' up their SUVs with gas to be at
home with the kids?
Y'mean the corporate suck-dicks-- male and female-- hey! sodomy is
legal now--- even that kind! Its now ok to suck corporate dick-- or
get fucked by it up the ass! Just like you do five days a week, eight
hours a day.... frickin' compromised sell-outs......
>All you have to do is make a small effort to look and see what
>activities those championing the ruling have plans to use the ruling as
>a springboard for, but why bother?
Oh. Y'mean "activities" like those blow jobs you fantisized over
during high school? (and probably still do <snicker>)
Put a blindfold on--- you wouldn't have cared who did it to you if you
didn't know.
You wouldn't care now is my guess....
>You have no idea the can of worms that's been opened with this ruling,
>but you will. We all will.
>
>Paul Galvanek - Ver. 4.0
I thought your line was that the can was opened long ago?
So... so what? Its already over.
I thought you were into freedom? Guess not.....
Time for version 5.0.
Jeremiah McAuliffe alimhaq@no-spam
http://speed.city-net.com/~alimhaq/mcauliffe/
Heavy Music
http://www.ampcast.com/jeremiah
Paul wrote:
> Rich Loether wrote:
>
> > I don't recall any finding of a new "right" in this case.
>
> Again, I would challenge you to go read Roe -v Wade see where they
> declared there was no right to abortion, ruled in much the same manner
> there as they did in the sodomy case then tell me or anyone else today
> that Roe didn't create an abortion right.
Apparently the abortionists think it is a constitutional right..........
Prison Inmate Denied Right to an Abortion in Louisiana
Center for Reproductive Rights Charges Prison Policy is Unconstitutional
April 9, 2002
HOUMA, Louisiana – The Center for Reproductive Rights will present arguments in
federal court tomorrow on behalf of a Louisiana woman who was forced to carry a
pregnancy to term as a result of a prison policy that prevents incarcerated
women from exercising their constitutional right to abortion.
Don't forget the Pedophile Lobby is probably equally encouraged in their
fight to rescind age of consent laws. It is amazing how we are marching
forward so blithly to the destruction of scociety.
""Not a chance spanky\" \"Not a chance spanky""@no-spam wrote:
> Jeremiah McAuliffe wrote:
> > On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 17:19:22 -0400, Paul <just4us@no-spam>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>and now we have a defacto Constitutional right to sodomy.
> >
> >
> > Good.
> >
> > Now I won't feel so guilty when I get a blow job or lick some clit.
> >
> > 'Cause I like getting blown 'n I like lickin' clit.
> >
> > Shit! If I'm horny and drunk enough I'll suck some dick too now that
> > it's legal!
> >
> >
> > Yeah, baby!
>
> Great Jeremiah, I'm glad you feel so liberated now, but tell me...
>
> Within several hours of the ruling I saw spokespersons for Queer Nation
> and other groups proclaiming in interviews that the new ruling will
> allow them to follow in the steps in abortion right's advocates who
> successfully lobbied to gain access to tens of millions of school aged
> kids and promote sodomy in health and sex education curriculum as an
> normal, healthy alternative alternative to heterosexuality while
> garnering a share of public education resources to promote their agendas
> is schools.
>
> If I'm right and it all shakes out precisely as Roe - V Wade are you
> going to be as happy when your tax dollars are being used to teach
> children the wonders of homosexual sex acts and how there's no moral
> distinction what so ever between them and heterosexual acts Won't it be
> great there's a gay right's counselor right next to the nurses office in
> every school?
>
> I know, I know it'll neeeeeever happen just like we'd never see the day
> schools would directing minor girls in school to abortionists without
> their parent's knowledge.
>
> All you have to do is make a small effort to look and see what
> activities those championing the ruling have plans to use the ruling as
> a springboard for, but why bother?
>
> It's just about what happens in a bedroom, in private, between two
> adults right? Just like 30+ years ago Roe -V Wade was only about what
> happens between an adult woman and her doctor in "private."
>
> You have no idea the can of worms that's been opened with this ruling,
> but you will. We all will.
>
> Paul Galvanek - Ver. 4.0
On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 04:43:01 GMT, vze2mctz@no-spam wrote:
>Don't forget the Pedophile Lobby is probably equally encouraged in their
>fight to rescind age of consent laws.
Mmmmm. Yes. I'm sure.
> It is amazing how we are marching
>forward so blithly to the destruction of scociety.
Yeah.... but not because sodomy is now legal in all states.
Jeremiah McAuliffe alimhaq@no-spam
http://speed.city-net.com/~alimhaq/mcauliffe/
Heavy Music
http://www.ampcast.com/jeremiah
"Not a chance spanky" "Not a chance spanky"@no-spam wrote in message news:<3F00D621.9020301@no-spam>...
> Within several hours of the ruling I saw
> spokespersons for Queer Nation and other
> groups proclaiming in interviews that the
> new ruling will allow them to follow in
> the steps in abortion right's advocates
> who successfully lobbied to gain access
> to tens of millions of school aged kids
> and promote sodomy in health and sex
> education curriculum as a normal, healthy
> alternative alternative to heterosexuality
That's because it is.
On the other hand, moronic Christian Right jagoffs promote so-called
"abstinence-only" sex "education," which encourages the spread of HIV
by making ridiculous claims -- e.g., pointing out the fact that "the
HIV virus is smaller than the porous holes in a condom!" even though
the virus always attaches itself to much larger bodies, so that
condoms are in fact far better than nothing in protecting against
infection. But no, might as well have a few "Up With People" types
who speak in tongues and handle snakes on the weekends to stage a
corny student assembly to teach kids that you might as well go without
condoms. What a responsible way to run a society.
> It's just about what happens in a bedroom,
> in private, between two adults right?
> Just like 30+ years ago Roe -V Wade was
> only about what happens between an adult
> woman and her doctor in "private."
That's because it is.
Additionally, the insinuation that gays and lesbians are also
pedophiles is highly offensive, though typical of a stupid, ignorant
lout like Galvanek.
John Lacny
John Lacny wrote:
> On the other hand, moronic Christian Right jagoffs promote so-called
> "abstinence-only" sex "education," which encourages the spread of HIV
> by making ridiculous claims -- e.g., pointing out the fact that "the
> HIV virus is smaller than the porous holes in a condom!" even though
> the virus always attaches itself to much larger bodies, so that
> condoms are in fact far better than nothing
Well abstinece except for your wife/husband in a monogamous marrige is nearly 100% hiv risk free whereas a
condom, which is better than completely unprotected sex, has a 15% failure rate. Only slightly better than
Russiasn roulette.
John Lacny wrote:
> On the other hand, moronic Christian Right jagoffs promote so-called
> "abstinence-only" sex "education," which encourages the spread of HIV
> by making ridiculous claims -- e.g., pointing out the fact that "the
> HIV virus is smaller than the porous holes in a condom!" even though
> the virus always attaches itself to much larger bodies, so that
> condoms are in fact far better than nothing
Well abstinece except for your wife/husband in a monogamous marrige is nearly 100% hiv risk free whereas a
condom, which is better than completely unprotected sex, has a 15% failure rate. Only slightly better than
Russiasn roulette.
John Lacny wrote:
> On the other hand, moronic Christian Right jagoffs promote so-called
> "abstinence-only" sex "education," which encourages the spread of HIV
> by making ridiculous claims -- e.g., pointing out the fact that "the
> HIV virus is smaller than the porous holes in a condom!" even though
> the virus always attaches itself to much larger bodies, so that
> condoms are in fact far better than nothing
Well abstinece except for your wife/husband in a monogamous marrige is nearly 100% hiv risk free
whereas a condom, which is better than completely unprotected sex, has a 15% failure rate. Only
slightly better than Russiasn roulette.
In article <3F011158.E86EE5D@no-spam>,
vze2mctz@no-spam wrote:
> Don't forget the Pedophile Lobby is probably equally encouraged in their
> fight to rescind age of consent laws. It is amazing how we are marching
> forward so blithly to the destruction of scociety.
Geez! People have been predicting the end of society and the world
as we know it for thousands of years. You're like that homeless lady
who used to hang out at the City Hall subway concourse calling everyone
a sinner and to repent. It never ends, with you doomsayers.
Those who equate pedophilia with consentual adult sex are ignorant.
Adults have the legal ability to consent; most children do not, probably
because they are not aware of the dangers of that kind of thing.
In article <bds18f$dan$1@no-spam>,
Rich Loether <rjl@no-spam> wrote:
Rich, you are right on target. Many people have this misconception that
the United States Constitution grants people rights. That is not so and
it goes against the underlying philosophy upon which the USC was
written. John Locke's philosophy played a heavy role in the formation of
our government and he believed that rights were not something that
government could grant or take away.
Government was seen by our forefathers as needing limitations on its
authority. The Constitution sets the framework for those limitations and
some of the indiviudal freedoms that the government should not infringe
upon, such as free speech and religion. The Constitution does not offer
a list of rights that people have, only restrictions on how the
government should operate. For example, we take it for granted that we
have the right to travel to any state, yet I do not recall ever seeing
such a right enumerated in the Constitution.
Roe v. Wade follows that same philosophy, probably because that's what
the justices on the Supreme Court are supposed to do. The law which was
overturned by the outcome of Roe v. Wade was not intended to restrict
abortion rights on the basis of moral grounds, it was intended to
prevent women from becoming victims of medical malpractice.
By the time Roe v. Wade was heard, the capability of doctors to do
abortions safely had become well established. This eliminated any
interest the government had in banning that practice. McCorvey wasn't
pregnant when her case was heard by the SCOTUS so the Roe v. Wade case
did not involve her particular circumstances and I cannot fathom what
the constitutional basis McCorvey sees for asking the court to overturn
that decision.
Anyone who actually read the Roe v. Wade decision can see that no law
was established by the court as the outcome of this decision. On the
contrary, an unjust and unnecessary law was struck down, which is well
within the court's perview and mission to do. The purpose of the SCOTUS
is simply to reign in the other branches of government when they pass
legislation or do things which are unconstitutional. This is exactly
what the SCOTUS did when it decided Roe v. Wade and it is exactly what
happened when the court through out that Texas anti-sodomy law. The
disgarded bad laws, it did not create any laws.
For those who don't know, the only way to make an anti-abortion law that
would have the weight of the constitution behind it is to have an
amendment that would ban abortion. Passing constitutional amendments is
extremely difficult, by design.
The likelihood of a constitutional amendment to ban abortion ever being
passed by enough states, much less getting congressional approval is
slim. Even some anti-abortion supporters in congress would not vote for
such an ammendment because it would put their political carreers at
risk. Still, those of us who embrace personal liberty must be vigilent
by defending our rights from those who would take them away, such as the
pro-liar anti-abortionists like Paul.
Those who do not understand how our government works, esp. SCOTUS should
visit the new Constitutional Center and learn something.
"John Lacny" <johnlacny@no-spam> wrote in message
news:425baec1.0306301037.6d0b04e6@no-spam
> Mischa Gelman <mgelman@no-spam> wrote in message
news:<3EFF8EF3.593208D0@no-spam>...
>
> > Thanks for informing me of that. I find the
> > CI folks to be a scary bunch (white people -
> > can't trust 'em) but wasn't aware of her
> > involvement with them. I guess this shows the
> > kind of screwballs that the abortion movement
> > was led by.
>
> The movement to recognize the principle that women are people and not
> incubators for the state was never "led" by Norma McCorvey. McCorvey
> was an anonymous individual whose rights were violated, and her
> heroism consisted solely in her consenting to become a test case --
> nothing more. She organized no marches, delivered no speeches, wrote
> no legal briefs. Yet just a few days ago Mischa Gelman was trying to
> claim that because she had become a fetus-fetishist, it calls into
> question the entire idea that women are human beings rather than
> vessels for the coming-to-fruition of sacred male semen.
>
> Or at least, he WAS making that argument, until I pointed out that
> McCorvey has become a Christian Identity sympathizer. Then Gelman
> decides to argue that this reflects badly on the *pro-choice* side of
> the barricades -- conveniently ignoring the fact that McCorvey's
> embrace of the compulsory-pregnancy movement coincided with her
> conversion to neo-Nazi wackjob.
Abortion clinic/gay bar/Olympics terrorist Eric Rudolf has ties to the
Christian Identity movement, I suspect not coincidentally.
Me wrote:
> In article <3F011158.E86EE5D@no-spam>,
> Those who equate pedophilia with consentual adult sex are ignorant.
> Adults have the legal ability to consent; most children do not, probably
> because they are not aware of the dangers of that kind of thing.
Well Rich and the ACLU think they have a perfect right to advocate these
things and it will only be a matter of time, given the way we are headed,
untill it too becomes legal.
Me wrote:
>
>
> Rich, you are right on target. Many people have this misconception
> ...............
>
> Roe v. Wade follows that same philosophy, probably because that's what
> the justices on the Supreme Court are supposed to do. The law which was
> overturned by the outcome of Roe v. Wade was not intended to restrict
> abortion rights on the basis of moral grounds, it was intended to
> prevent women from becoming victims of medical malpractice.
You are also under a misconception. RvW had nothing to do with medical
malpractice.
Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2003 14:44:22 -0400
Paul wrote:
> That's where you're wrong with all due respect and why case such as the recently ruled upon Texas Sodomy law are so problematic.
Yes, as long as libertarian judges make the law, any kind of defense of the unborn is difficult.
> The Supreme Court, no matter what its make up, is ever going to "unfind" a right they created.
It struck down the right for "separate but equal" that it created, for one. You just need to replace the justices who create injustice
with ones who support morals.
> The only way for Roe to be undone now is for Congress to act. And that's not going to happen so long as the abortion party has any
> power in in that body.
Yes, let's not pay any attention to how those Congressmen actually vote on abortion laws - if they're in the same party as Hillary
Clinton, then they're evil by definition. Similarly, let's ignore all those murderous Republicans who support the "right" to abortion in
all circumstances.
> No Mischa, most of the House and Senate claim to be pro-life, that's so people will continue to to vote for them. If they were what
> they claimed the matter would have been resolved already.
Well, your "pro-abortion party" is a minority in both the House and Senate so if the Republicans actually cared about stopping abortion
(yeah, right) then we'd see some action. They'd rather pass pro-fascist laws though than stop abortion.
> Then why hasn't Congress acted?
Ask the Republicans who control it.
> Because those members of the Democrat Party who claim to be pro-life during elections will do what they're told to do by party
> leadership...
Then why do they always vote for anti-abortion bills that the Party opposes? Paul, do you ever bother to look at facts instead of going
off on knee-jerk partisan rants?
> Just as they're doing now as they block Estrada and Owen's appointments to the bench.
I asked for some evidence that such opposition was due to their views on abortion. I'm still waiting for it. But that would mean
supplying fact, something you very much dislike.
--
[Social programs are] the least inflationary, most productive kind of government spending...Government funds spent on poor people go
directly into purchasing the necessities of life: food, clothing, shelter - thus subsidizing production and employment in those basic
industries. - Danny Collum
Phil DeGrave wrote:
> Abortion clinic/gay bar/Olympics terrorist Eric Rudolf has ties to the
> Christian Identity movement, I suspect not coincidentally.
Senator Robert Byrd D-WV has ties to the KKK I suspect not coincidentally.
Paul Galvanek - Ver. 4.0
In article <3F05C06F.2905726@no-spam>,
vze2mctz@no-spam wrote:
> Me wrote:
>
> > In article <3F011158.E86EE5D@no-spam>,
> > Those who equate pedophilia with consentual adult sex are ignorant.
> > Adults have the legal ability to consent; most children do not, probably
> > because they are not aware of the dangers of that kind of thing.
>
> Well Rich and the ACLU think they have a perfect right to advocate these
> things and it will only be a matter of time, given the way we are headed,
> untill it too becomes legal.
Where's your proof? I am an ACLU member for the past two or three years
and I do not recall seeing anything the ACLU has done that could be
construed as supporting pedophilia.
In article <3F05C12D.6D60313D@no-spam>,
vze2mctz@no-spam wrote:
> Me wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Rich, you are right on target. Many people have this misconception
> > ...............
> >
> > Roe v. Wade follows that same philosophy, probably because that's what
> > the justices on the Supreme Court are supposed to do. The law which was
> > overturned by the outcome of Roe v. Wade was not intended to restrict
> > abortion rights on the basis of moral grounds, it was intended to
> > prevent women from becoming victims of medical malpractice.
>
> You are also under a misconception. RvW had nothing to do with medical
> malpractice.
Right, I know that. I didn't express myself clearly though. It was a
privacy rights issue, for the most part.
In article <3F05C06F.2905726@no-spam>, vze2mctz@no-spam says...
>Me wrote:
>> In article <3F011158.E86EE5D@no-spam>,
>> Those who equate pedophilia with consentual adult sex are ignorant.
>> Adults have the legal ability to consent; most children do not, probably
>> because they are not aware of the dangers of that kind of thing.
>Well Rich and the ACLU think they have a perfect right to advocate
Are you suggesting limits to the right to advocate?
>these things and it will only be a matter of time, given the way
>we are headed, until it too becomes legal.
If this is truly your fear, you should be pushing for a
standard of consent among participants.
--
In Liberty,
Rich
Guns save lives - maybe yours.
--------------------
Rich Loether Snail Mail: University of Pittsburgh
EMail: rjl@no-spam Network Services
Voice: (412) 624-6429 600 Epsilon Drive
FAX: (412) 624-6436 Pittsburgh, PA 15238
Without Prejudice, UCC 1-207
finger for PGP 2.6.2 public key
Key Fingerprint 53 76 0B 73 DF 5C D9 14 D0 C3 68 20 DE 4F 60 C0
In article <3F05CB05.5D92BEED@no-spam>, mgelman@no-spam says...
>Paul wrote:
>> That's where you're wrong with all due respect and why case such
>> as the recently ruled upon Texas Sodomy law are so problematic.
>Yes, as long as libertarian judges make the law, any kind of
>defense of the unborn is difficult.
Mischa, where on Earth have you seen a libertarian judge?
--
In Liberty,
Rich
Guns save lives - maybe yours.
--------------------
Rich Loether Snail Mail: University of Pittsburgh
EMail: rjl@no-spam Network Services
Voice: (412) 624-6429 600 Epsilon Drive
FAX: (412) 624-6436 Pittsburgh, PA 15238
Without Prejudice, UCC 1-207
finger for PGP 2.6.2 public key
Key Fingerprint 53 76 0B 73 DF 5C D9 14 D0 C3 68 20 DE 4F 60 C0
In article <3F05C7DD.CEFFC7E1@no-spam>, mgelman@no-spam says...
>Paul wrote:
>> The right to own property?
>I missed where such a right exists.
Mischa, I can't tell if you're being unbelievably sloppy in your
choice of phrasing or really don't recognize the right to own
property. Based on the rest of your paragraph below...
>It would be a nice change over the servile state, but no such right
>is in the US.
It appears you approve of this right but still don't think it
exists.
Or perhaps you think that if the government doesn't respect a
right that it ceases to exist.
Please explain.
--
In Liberty,
Rich
Guns save lives - maybe yours.
--------------------
Rich Loether Snail Mail: University of Pittsburgh
EMail: rjl@no-spam Network Services
Voice: (412) 624-6429 600 Epsilon Drive
FAX: (412) 624-6436 Pittsburgh, PA 15238
Without Prejudice, UCC 1-207
finger for PGP 2.6.2 public key
Key Fingerprint 53 76 0B 73 DF 5C D9 14 D0 C3 68 20 DE 4F 60 C0
Me wrote:
> In article <3F05C06F.2905726@no-spam>,
> vze2mctz@no-spam wrote:
>
> > Me wrote:
> >
> > > In article <3F011158.E86EE5D@no-spam>,
> > > Those who equate pedophilia with consentual adult sex are ignorant.
> > > Adults have the legal ability to consent; most children do not, probably
> > > because they are not aware of the dangers of that kind of thing.
> >
> > Well Rich and the ACLU think they have a perfect right to advocate these
> > things and it will only be a matter of time, given the way we are headed,
> > untill it too becomes legal.
>
> Where's your proof? I am an ACLU member for the past two or three years
> and I do not recall seeing anything the ACLU has done that could be
> construed as supporting pedophilia.
The ACLU defends the right of NAMBLA to advocate pedophilia in a law suit
brought in Boston. Perhaps you may want to reconsider your membership in that
org..
Rich Loether wrote:
> In article <3F05C06F.2905726@no-spam>, vze2mctz@no-spam says...
>
> >Me wrote:
>
> >> In article <3F011158.E86EE5D@no-spam>,
> >> Those who equate pedophilia with consentual adult sex are ignorant.
> >> Adults have the legal ability to consent; most children do not, probably
> >> because they are not aware of the dangers of that kind of thing.
>
> >Well Rich and the ACLU think they have a perfect right to advocate
>
> Are you suggesting limits to the right to advocate?
>
I am suggesting that free speech has it's limitations. Advocating criminal violence
against people is one of them.
>
> >these things and it will only be a matter of time, given the way
> >we are headed, until it too becomes legal.
>
> If this is truly your fear, you should be pushing for a
> standard of consent among participants.
>
We already have one. You of all people should not be pushing for new laws.
>
> --
> In Liberty,
>
> Rich
> Guns save lives - maybe yours.
> --------------------
> Rich Loether Snail Mail: University of Pittsburgh
> EMail: rjl@no-spam Network Services
> Voice: (412) 624-6429 600 Epsilon Drive
> FAX: (412) 624-6436 Pittsburgh, PA 15238
> Without Prejudice, UCC 1-207
> finger for PGP 2.6.2 public key
> Key Fingerprint 53 76 0B 73 DF 5C D9 14 D0 C3 68 20 DE 4F 60 C0
In article <3F09DDE8.9ADE83BD@no-spam>, vze2mctz@no-spam says...
>Rich Loether wrote:
>> In article <3F05C06F.2905726@no-spam>, vze2mctz@no-spam says...
>> >Me wrote:
>> >> In article <3F011158.E86EE5D@no-spam>,
>> >> Those who equate pedophilia with consentual adult sex are ignorant.
>> >> Adults have the legal ability to consent; most children do not, probably
>> >> because they are not aware of the dangers of that kind of thing.
>> >Well Rich and the ACLU think they have a perfect right to advocate
>> Are you suggesting limits to the right to advocate?
>I am suggesting that free speech has it's limitations. Advocating
>criminal violence against people is one of them.
What may be "criminal violence against people" to you may be
just deserts to others. You, yourself have advocated criminal
violence against people in the Santorum thread. Will you now
be turning yourself in to the authorities?
>> >these things and it will only be a matter of time, given the way
>> >we are headed, until it too becomes legal.
>> If this is truly your fear, you should be pushing for a
>> standard of consent among participants.
>We already have one. You of all people should not be pushing
>for new laws.
No, we have a standard of consent as decided by a third
party. And I'm not advocating any new laws. I'm pushing
for the removal of bad laws.
--
In Liberty,
Rich
Guns save lives - maybe yours.
--------------------
Rich Loether Snail Mail: University of Pittsburgh
EMail: rjl@no-spam Network Services
Voice: (412) 624-6429 600 Epsilon Drive
FAX: (412) 624-6436 Pittsburgh, PA 15238
Without Prejudice, UCC 1-207
finger for PGP 2.6.2 public key
Key Fingerprint 53 76 0B 73 DF 5C D9 14 D0 C3 68 20 DE 4F 60 C0
vze2mctz@no-spam wrote:
> The ACLU defends the right of NAMBLA to advocate pedophilia in a law suit
> brought in Boston. Perhaps you may want to reconsider your membership in that
> org..
The ACLU has also testified before Congress against laws that ban the
sale or distribution of child pornography.
From their own document titled "ACLU Answers. Issue: Pornography" and
dated September 23, 1991.
"we believe government may not restrict the distribution of child
pornography once it has been published."
Paul Galvanek - Ver. 4.0
In article <3F0ACE82.FF1174CB@no-spam>, vze2mctz@no-spam says...
>Rich Loether wrote:
>> In article <3F09DDE8.9ADE83BD@no-spam>, vze2mctz@no-spam says...
>> >Rich Loether wrote:
>> >> In article <3F05C06F.2905726@no-spam>, vze2mctz@no-spam says...
>> >> >Me wrote:
>> >> >> In article <3F011158.E86EE5D@no-spam>,
>> >> >> Those who equate pedophilia with consentual adult sex are ignorant.
>> >> >> Adults have the legal ability to consent; most children do not, probably
>> >> >> because they are not aware of the dangers of that kind of thing.
>> >> >Well Rich and the ACLU think they have a perfect right to advocate
>> >> Are you suggesting limits to the right to advocate?
>> >I am suggesting that free speech has it's limitations. Advocating
>> >criminal violence against people is one of them.
>> What may be "criminal violence against people" to you may be
>> just deserts to others. You, yourself have advocated criminal
>> violence against people in the Santorum thread. Will you now
>> be turning yourself in to the authorities?
>Just deserts? Criminal rape of children is "just deserts"?
Would you please try to keep things straight. You were saying
that advocating CRIMINAL VIOLENCE should not be protected speech.
Nobody here is advocting violent anything, except you. Making
nice with uncle John in bed may be without consent, and may be
wrong for that reason (not wishing to examine that facet of it
right now), but it's not violent.
OTOH/ having the police break into the bedroom of consenting
adults and haul them off to jail for doing things with body
parts that YOU find inappropriate IS violence.
>> >> >these things and it will only be a matter of time, given the way
>> >> >we are headed, until it too becomes legal.
>> >> If this is truly your fear, you should be pushing for a
>> >> standard of consent among participants.
>> >We already have one. You of all people should not be pushing
>> >for new laws.
>> No, we have a standard of consent as decided by a third
>> party. And I'm not advocating any new laws. I'm pushing
>> for the removal of bad laws.
>> So I guess you did learn somthing from the NAMBLA site. You are
>> both in favor of eliminatining statutory rape laws so children '
>> can be sodomized.-
How 'bout that! You got two things wrong in the same sentence.
First, I'm not in favor of eliminating laws against forcing people
into sexual situations, and not at all in favor of anyone getting
off because they'd tricked a youngster or bribed them into agreeing
with something that's beyond their ability to understand. Sorry
if that doesn't fit your preconcieved notions.
Second, I'd never do something like that "so children can be
sodomized." Sorry if that doesn't fit your preconcieved notionw
either. You'll just have to read the words I use instead of
assuming you see the ones you expect, or continue to be wrong.
I do believe that statutory rape laws as we know them today are
very much out of touch with reality and need to allow for the
individual variations in maturity that naturally happen with
humans. I suggested a call for a standard of consent among
participants and you thought we had that. In reality consent
is assumed based on a date on a calendar and there is no room
in current law for real consent to even be considered.
IOW/ there is no magic switch that makes a person able to
consent to sex on their 18th birthday but not the day before.
If it's hard to make that call then tough. Judges get paid
quite well and if they aren't up to it they should look into
some other line of work.
You may note that nowhere in the above is there a call for
criminal violence against anybody. (Or it may excape you.)
--
In Liberty,
Rich
Guns save lives - maybe yours.
--------------------
Rich Loether Snail Mail: University of Pittsburgh
EMail: rjl@no-spam Network Services
Voice: (412) 624-6429 600 Epsilon Drive
FAX: (412) 624-6436 Pittsburgh, PA 15238
Without Prejudice, UCC 1-207
finger for PGP 2.6.2 public key
Key Fingerprint 53 76 0B 73 DF 5C D9 14 D0 C3 68 20 DE 4F 60 C0
Rich Loether wrote:
> "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom...
> of the press..." If they were true to their word they'd realize that
> that is exactly what those restrictions do.
>
Is the press free to advocate lynching of Negroes?
Rich Loether wrote:
>
> I do believe that statutory rape laws as we know them today are
> very much out of touch with reality and need to allow for the
> individual variations in maturity that naturally happen with
> humans.
Which is exactly the position of the North American Man Boy Love Ass. So I was correct in
saying that you promote child rape.
Rich Loether wrote:
> In article <3F0AD55E.6A407E66@no-spam>, vze2mctz@no-spam says...
>
> >Paul wrote:
>
> >> vze2mctz@no-spam wrote:
>
> >> > The ACLU defends the right of NAMBLA to advocate pedophilia in a law suit
> >> > brought in Boston. Perhaps you may want to reconsider your membership in that
> >> > org..
>
> >> The ACLU has also testified before Congress against laws that ban the
> >> sale or distribution of child pornography.
>
> >> From their own document titled "ACLU Answers. Issue: Pornography" and
> >> dated September 23, 1991.
>
> >> "we believe government may not restrict the distribution of child
> >> pornography once it has been published."
>
> >> Paul Galvanek - Ver. 4.0
>
> >On Law and Order McCoy would call this "fruit of the poisned tree".
>
> There are lots of legalisms that serve to muddy the waters.
Sort of like recieving stolen property, acessory after the fact and all those other
laws that "muddy the waters" of co-operation with criminal acts.
In article <3F0AE0BC.4913BEC9@no-spam>, vze2mctz@no-spam says...
>Rich Loether wrote:
>> I do believe that statutory rape laws as we know them today are
>> very much out of touch with reality and need to allow for the
>> individual variations in maturity that naturally happen with
>> humans.
>Which is exactly the position of the North American Man Boy
>Love Ass. So I was correct in saying that you promote child rape.
ROTLMAO.
I assume then that you believe there is a switch
somewhere in the human psyche that enables rational
decision making, and that it gets thrown exactly on
everyone's 18th birthday.
--
In Liberty,
Rich
Guns save lives - maybe yours.
--------------------
Rich Loether Snail Mail: University of Pittsburgh
EMail: rjl@no-spam Network Services
Voice: (412) 624-6429 600 Epsilon Drive
FAX: (412) 624-6436 Pittsburgh, PA 15238
Without Prejudice, UCC 1-207
finger for PGP 2.6.2 public key
Key Fingerprint 53 76 0B 73 DF 5C D9 14 D0 C3 68 20 DE 4F 60 C0
In article <3F0ADFFD.E659EB6E@no-spam>, vze2mctz@no-spam says...
>Rich Loether wrote:
>> "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom...
>> of the press..." If they were true to their word they'd realize that
>> that is exactly what those restrictions do.
>Is the press free to advocate lynching of Negroes?
I'm constantly amazed that people can't fathom the concept
of "no law".
Yes. In fact, people are even free to advocate the forcible
arrest and jailing of people who make love with disapproved
of body parts.
--
In Liberty,
Rich
Guns save lives - maybe yours.
--------------------
Rich Loether Snail Mail: University of Pittsburgh
EMail: rjl@no-spam Network Services
Voice: (412) 624-6429 600 Epsilon Drive
FAX: (412) 624-6436 Pittsburgh, PA 15238
Without Prejudice, UCC 1-207
finger for PGP 2.6.2 public key
Key Fingerprint 53 76 0B 73 DF 5C D9 14 D0 C3 68 20 DE 4F 60 C0
In article <3F0AE19E.3E18C122@no-spam>, vze2mctz@no-spam says...
>Rich Loether wrote:
>> In article <3F0AD55E.6A407E66@no-spam>, vze2mctz@no-spam says...
>> >Paul wrote:
>> >> vze2mctz@no-spam wrote:
>> >> > The ACLU defends the right of NAMBLA to advocate pedophilia in a law suit
>> >> > brought in Boston. Perhaps you may want to reconsider your membership in that
>> >> > org..
>> >> The ACLU has also testified before Congress against laws that ban the
>> >> sale or distribution of child pornography.
>> >> From their own document titled "ACLU Answers. Issue: Pornography" and
>> >> dated September 23, 1991.
>> >> "we believe government may not restrict the distribution of child
>> >> pornography once it has been published."
>> >On Law and Order McCoy would call this "fruit of the poisned tree".
>> There are lots of legalisms that serve to muddy the waters.
>Sort of like recieving stolen property, acessory after the fact
>and all those other laws that "muddy the waters" of co-operation
>with criminal acts.
Is it "cooperating with criminal acts" to publish an account of
a crime? To publish pictures of a crime scene?
--
In Liberty,
Rich
Guns save lives - maybe yours.
--------------------
Rich Loether Snail Mail: University of Pittsburgh
EMail: rjl@no-spam Network Services
Voice: (412) 624-6429 600 Epsilon Drive
FAX: (412) 624-6436 Pittsburgh, PA 15238
Without Prejudice, UCC 1-207
finger for PGP 2.6.2 public key
Key Fingerprint 53 76 0B 73 DF 5C D9 14 D0 C3 68 20 DE 4F 60 C0
Rich Loether wrote:
> Correct me if I'm mistaken but I believe it's common for members
> of Congress to take an oath to support a document that says among
> other things, "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom...
> of the press..." If they were true to their word they'd realize that
> that is exactly what those restrictions do.
The Supreme Court has already ruled, and repeatedly so, that pornography
(child or otherwise) is not protected by the first amendment.
And even if pornography were to be protected at some point the printable
materials that we call child pornography all contain images of people
who were victims of criminal activity, lacked the ability to give
consent for those activities to take place or for that material to be
produced. Even a child modeling clothing for legitimate business must
have an adult guardian grant permission and sign releases in order for
those images to be produced and distributed.
Not to mention that any profit or product of illegal activity is always
subject to seizure.
Paul Galvanek - Ver. 4.0
Rich Loether wrote:
> So? Are you claiming that pictures of crime scenes should be
> outlawed? How about scenes from wars? Disasters?
When used for legitimate news or historical purposes they can be used
within limits... as could child porn.
For entertainment purposes, which is what we're talking about, no you
can not use images of people without their consent...
The family of Martin Luther King Jr recently sued to stop the use of his
I have a dream speech video and audio without their permission and the
courts ruled in their favor.
> So make a connection between the person holding the print and the
> crime. If the holder paid the perp then you have a case. If the
> only connection is that he got the picture from a store or network
> site you have no case.
You can try and argue that in court if you want, and you'll lose overtime.
Paul Galvanek - Ver. 4.0
In article <bef7tp$ls2$1@no-spam>, send_it_to@no-spam says...
>Rich Loether wrote:
>> So? Are you claiming that pictures of crime scenes should be
>> outlawed? How about scenes from wars? Disasters?
>When used for legitimate news or historical purposes they can be used
>within limits... as could child porn.
>For entertainment purposes, which is what we're talking about, no you
>can not use images of people without their consent...
If the people are identifiable you're probably right. But that
isn't the topic here, is it?
>The family of Martin Luther King Jr recently sued to stop the use of his
>I have a dream speech video and audio without their permission and the
>courts ruled in their favor.
Going to court has been a crap shoot for some time now.
>> So make a connection between the person holding the print and the
>> crime. If the holder paid the perp then you have a case. If the
>> only connection is that he got the picture from a store or network
>> site you have no case.
>You can try and argue that in court if you want, and you'll lose overtime.
I'd probably never even get a chance to raise the issue. We've
come (or gone) a long way, and in the wrong direction.
>Paul Galvanek - Ver. 4.0
--
In Liberty,
Rich
Guns save lives - maybe yours.
--------------------
Rich Loether Snail Mail: University of Pittsburgh
EMail: rjl@no-spam Network Services
Voice: (412) 624-6429 600 Epsilon Drive
FAX: (412) 624-6436 Pittsburgh, PA 15238
Without Prejudice, UCC 1-207
finger for PGP 2.6.2 public key
Key Fingerprint 53 76 0B 73 DF 5C D9 14 D0 C3 68 20 DE 4F 60 C0
Rich Loether wrote:
> In article <3F0ADFFD.E659EB6E@no-spam>, vze2mctz@no-spam says...
>
> >Rich Loether wrote:
>
> >> "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom...
> >> of the press..." If they were true to their word they'd realize that
> >> that is exactly what those restrictions do.
>
> >Is the press free to advocate lynching of Negroes?
>
> I'm constantly amazed that people can't fathom the concept
> of "no law".
Is the press free to advocate the lynching of Negroes?
Rich Loether wrote:
> . We've
> come (or gone) a long way, and in the wrong direction.
On this we share agreement.
In article <3F0B345E.31200022@no-spam>, vze2mctz@no-spam says...
>Rich Loether wrote:
>> In article <3F0ADFFD.E659EB6E@no-spam>, vze2mctz@no-spam says...
>> >Rich Loether wrote:
>> >> "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom...
>> >> of the press..." If they were true to their word they'd realize that
>> >> that is exactly what those restrictions do.
>> >Is the press free to advocate lynching of Negroes?
>> I'm constantly amazed that people can't fathom the concept
>> of "no law".
>Is the press free to advocate the lynching of Negroes?
According to the plain language the press is free to advocate
anything they choose. Recent courts have been ignoring
inconvenient parts of the USC and ruling any way they seem
to want. For instance the idea of a compelling state interest
is entirely bogus, but the basis of most of the output of
the SC since the '30s.
Let's not forget that advocating the lynching of someone is
not the same as doing it, and that the mainstream press
would be signing their own economic death warrant if they
were to print such a thing. I assume there are small
newsletters still in existence which advocate such things
even today, and meet with the approval of the readers who
expect to see it.
--
In Liberty,
Rich
Guns save lives - maybe yours.
--------------------
Rich Loether Snail Mail: University of Pittsburgh
EMail: rjl@no-spam Network Services
Voice: (412) 624-6429 600 Epsilon Drive
FAX: (412) 624-6436 Pittsburgh, PA 15238
Without Prejudice, UCC 1-207
finger for PGP 2.6.2 public key
Key Fingerprint 53 76 0B 73 DF 5C D9 14 D0 C3 68 20 DE 4F 60 C0
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 21:44:04 -0400
Rich Loether wrote:
> Mischa, where on Earth have you seen a libertarian judge?
Good point - that's definitely an oxymoron. I guess I should have written
libertine - we have quiet a few judges who think people should be allowed to
kill unborn babies at will and commit all kinds of immoral acts. Sorry for
imprecise language usage.
--
Freddie Patek, asked how it feels to be the smallest player in major league
baseball: "A heck of a lot better than being the smallest player in the
minors"
In article <3F120AE4.BE36C757@no-spam>, mgelman@no-spam says...
>Rich Loether wrote:
>> Mischa, where on Earth have you seen a libertarian judge?
>Good point - that's definitely an oxymoron. I guess I should have written
>libertine - we have quiet a few judges who think people should be allowed to
>kill unborn babies at will and commit all kinds of immoral acts. Sorry for
>imprecise language usage.
You're still being imprecise. For example, are YOU allowed to
kill any babies at will, born or unborn?
I understand that you'd prefer for the government to step in
and jail people for doing things that YOU consider immoral.
--
In Liberty,
Rich
Guns save lives - maybe yours.
--------------------
Rich Loether Snail Mail: University of Pittsburgh
EMail: rjl@no-spam Network Services
Voice: (412) 624-6429 600 Epsilon Drive
FAX: (412) 624-6436 Pittsburgh, PA 15238
Without Prejudice, UCC 1-207
finger for PGP 2.6.2 public key
Key Fingerprint 53 76 0B 73 DF 5C D9 14 D0 C3 68 20 DE 4F 60 C0
In article <3F120CF6.BC527828@no-spam>, mgelman@no-spam says...
>Rich Loether wrote:
>> >It would be a nice change over the servile state, but no
>> >such right is in the US.
>> It appears you approve of this right but still don't think it
>> exists.
>That is correct.
Where did it go?
>> Or perhaps you think that if the government doesn't respect a
>> right that it ceases to exist.
>> Please explain.
>Mr. Loether, I really don't feel a need to go over this topic (the origin of
>rights) again as we have discussed it a fair amount in the past and it is
>obvious that our thoughts on the matter differ. If you would like, I can look
>for the specific threads involved on Google.
As you wish. It's enough that we remind new readers of your
belief that rights come from government. Many would call that
idolatry.
--
In Liberty,
Rich
Guns save lives - maybe yours.
--------------------
Rich Loether Snail Mail: University of Pittsburgh
EMail: rjl@no-spam Network Services
Voice: (412) 624-6429 600 Epsilon Drive
FAX: (412) 624-6436 Pittsburgh, PA 15238
Without Prejudice, UCC 1-207
finger for PGP 2.6.2 public key
Key Fingerprint 53 76 0B 73 DF 5C D9 14 D0 C3 68 20 DE 4F 60 C0