The only reason he's permitted to is because of the prevailing moral climate, which is both anti-woman and anti-gay.
I do not believe he should have the right to publicly incite more violence.
The only reason he's permitted to is because of the prevailing moral climate, which is both anti-woman and anti-gay.
Perhaps someone at Colorado's "Supermax" could do me a really sweet favor and remove his fingers?
It would be interesting to see how well he exercises his "freedom of speech" once he's forced to write by holding a pen in his mouth (if you want to do me an extra, super-huge favor, remove his teeth as well).
:2wave:
I can't believe you didn't put in a request for someone to sodomize him too 'cause you know he'd really destest that.
Well, that, and the first amendment.
The first amendment is not a shield against stopping harassment and terrorizing a criminal's prior victims.
The first amendment is not a shield against stopping harassment and terrorizing a criminal's prior victims. I am not for censorship or abridgment of free speech, but I am for respecting the pain and trials of people victimized by radical and violent extremists. Further, I cannot, in good conscience, consider felons who murdered peaceful citizens as having the same access to rights as the rest of society. Prison is a place where personal liberties are not a given, but rather earned through proper behavior, which this is definitely not!!!
The first amendment is not a shield against stopping harassment and terrorizing a criminal's prior victims. I am not for censorship or abridgment of free speech, but I am for respecting the pain and trials of people victimized by radical and violent extremists.
Further, I cannot, in good conscience, consider felons who murdered peaceful citizens as having the same access to rights as the rest of society. Prison is a place where personal liberties are not a given, but rather earned through proper behavior, which this is definitely not!!!
Apparently it is when the "victims" are gays, and the type of socially worthless, uninsured females who rely upon public health clinics for their medical care, and the (probably liberal) medical personnel who provide said care, and the security guards hired to protect these underprivileged women from being assaulted by placard-wielding religious fanatics.
Apparently it is when the "victims" are gays, and the type of socially worthless, uninsured females who rely upon public health clinics for their medical care, and the (probably liberal) medical personnel who provide said care, and the security guards hired to protect these underprivileged women from being assaulted by placard-wielding religious fanatics.
Did you read what he's doing? I hardly consider that to be harassment.
Yes, its a huge dick move, and is obviously distressing to the families...who are going to these sites to read about it. He's not contacting them, he's not inundating them with phone calls, and he's not threatening or in any other way inciting violence. It's shitty, but if you start outlawing all shitty things that people say/do, where do you draw the line?
Well, that's a separate issue. At least for the time being, the law in this instance disagrees.
Of course I read what he is doing. I am not in the habit of posting in response to threads if I haven't made myself familiar with the opening premise. And you may not consider it harassment but I also doubt you have suffered lost at the hands of this extremist sociopath.
How about we draw the line at the prison gates. Is there any justice in his smug satisfaction and "right" to advocate his own crimes? Hell NO. What he did was insufferable and to allow his continued expression of a right he took advantage of says our prison system needs a good hard look with fresh eyes.
I'm sorry...I don't see a separate issue at all. Prisoners lose rights when they are in prison...that is established precedent. I am sure the law could be applied reasonably in this instance to stop any further abuse of his "rights".
Extremist Taunts His Victims From Prison
So where do you draw the line?
I guess you and I just have a different view on how easily rights can be abrogated.
Yes. I see convicts as not having rights.
I find it interesting, though that his buddy Spitz uses the same argument that pro-choice does--namely, "you don't like abortion? Don't have one."
Spitz said he corresponds regularly with Rudolph and posts some of his essays because of their shared desire to end abortion. As for those who might be offended, he said, "They don't have to look at it on the Web site."
He's a hypocrite, but I don't know how PC can argue that logic isn't sound.
"you don't like abortion? Don't have one."
"They don't have to look at it on the Web site."
An excellent point. On the other hand, the reverse applies as well.
If you subscribe to this school of thought:
Then you should accept this one as well:
Otherwise you are a hypocrite in equal measure.
Just execute them and save the tax money then, since they have no rights.
Convicted of grand theft auto? You're a convict: you have no rights -- to the gas chamber!
Damn Jallman, you'de cut crime, ballance the budget and reduce over population in one swoop....you runin for office?
Any crime that involves murder in the first degree, multiple murder in the second degree, terrorist activity, or rape/molestation should be punishable by death upon the first offense.
That's a horrible statement. I heard a story on the news the other day where some college guys faced rape charges for having sex with 15 year olds at a party where all the sex was videotaped. Now I don't think college kids should be having sex with a 15 year old or taping it but the tape shows that the girl was consenting but since she is under age it is rape none the less. Anyway the lawyers thought the guys should be tried individually. The white kid got off and the black kid went to jail. That's a problem in and of itself. But at your suggestion the black kid would have been sentenced to death! :shock: And I know that you don't really think that do you? Our judicial system is too fvcked up right now for sweeping statements such as the one you made. Plus the death penalty is just barbaric anyway.
Depending on the ages of the college students, it may not be considered even statutory rape in some states. However, as in all charges and sentencing, mitigating circumstances may play a factor in having sentences lessened or commuted.
However, I do believe that the death penalty is commensurate with the crimes I listed...barring any "mitigating" circumstances.
Well, that, and the first amendment.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?