Liberal-hater shoots up Unitarian church, kills two

The BBQ Pit
181

[QUOTE=Algher]
I am not stretching - posters in this thread want to:

  1. Make gun shops liable for how their guns are used after sale.
  2. Make auto retailers liable for how their cars are driven.
  3. Make bartenders liable for how much alcohol is consumed (or how drunk the person is, or what they do after drinking - actually, the posters have been all over the place on this one so far).
    Those are all massive stretches in product and retailer liability.

If you want absurb, just read some of **GomiBoy’**s posts and who he thinks is liable. He is so concerned about how products might be used in the commission of crimes that he wants everyone in the supply chain to be held to some level of liability. If he does not believe that, then he can restate his posts. If you do not support that, then you can state it. Don’t blame me for reading your posts and applying them to the real world.
[/quote]

Step one - learn to spell (the word you’re searching for is absurd, not absurb). Step 2, stop making things up. Then maybe I will take you seriously.

I never said any of those things, you did. I happen to agree with the law in some cases in that a bartender serving someone obviously drunk, or a gun shop owner selling guns to someone without proper background checks, is liable for acts committed after they do so. In either case they’re already breaking the law.

You’re the one here with the idiotic belief that simply not pulling the trigger means total innocence for all. You’re the one saying caveat emptor. You’re the one out on the limb of the crazy tree here.

And how is this different from a bartender selling enough alcohol for someone to drive drunk 10 minutes later? The bartender didn’t do the actual drinking, any more than those doing the hazing.

Why is a bartender blameless in his behavior simply because he’s doing his job? Because you were one?

And how exactly is this different from someone giving a hate speech?

(Again, the spell checker is your friend. Folks tend to take you a lot more seriously around here if you can actually spell. Argument, not arguement.)

Message boards, EBay, and newspapers control content; ISPs do not. Hosters do not control content either. So yes, your little diatribe seems a bit far-fetched.

182

[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]
Take a deep breath, and look at the bolded sentence.

How clear? Are they “clearly drunk” if they walk into three or more people or items of furniture on the way to the bar? One or more? If they slur their words? Sway? Smell funny? Hit on ugly women?

You can’t define things- particularly in cases where contributory negligence is concerned- and expect to end up with a workable tort system. Every bartender whose patron suffered an injury within six hours (or caused one) would be in court for months.
[/QUOTE]

Not much of a stretch to define this one. How about this - if the bartender and witness all say they didn’t recognize that the guy was drunk, and he didn’t down a large amount of alcohol in a short time in the bar, and he goes out and kills someone in a drunk driving accident, then I would say the bartender bears no liability.

There is room for common sense in the law.

183

[QUOTE=Algher]

Now - your frat house example:
If a fraternity hazes a pledge with alcohol until the pledge dies - go after them. Hazing is already against the law, and providing alcohol to someone underage is also against the law.

[/quote]

This doesn’t always happen during hazing. In any case the penalty for being involved in someone’s death is going to be a lot bigger than just for hazing.

Once again, the issue is signs of inebriation. I’m involved in putting on events during which alcohol is served. When we moved to a place where a lot of attendees will drive, we were concerned about people having too much. In fact, the venues require that one of their bartenders serve all drinks, no doubt to monitor the condition of the attendees. Though this kept us from doing something we would have liked to, I see their point. It has nothing to do with having to buy their overpriced wine, which is a given.

Exactly. So why not trust juries in the other cases?

ISPs are specifically exempt, in the US, of responsibility for what they carry, including even child porn. I believe that sites might have responsibility if a possibly illegal post was brought to their attention, but there is not necessarily a requirement to monitor everything. One issue is that if they monitor something then they must monitor everything, so I’m not sure if the SDMB could get away with illegal activity. I don’t know what the laws are in Europe.

184

[QUOTE=GomiBoy]
Where I will draw the line is very clear - those advocating extra-legal acts of murder and mayhem, whether or not they themselves commit those acts, are responsible to a degree based on their relative authority for those acts commited by their fans / followers / friends / family.
[/QUOTE]

So you would impose liability on someone who calls for a tyrant to be killed. You have no concept of core political speech whatsoever.

[QUOTE=GomiBoy]
I’ve never suggested Der Trihs or anyone else be banned or muffled or gagged in any way - I’ve been very specific on that. But your claim that free speech is a value that trumps all others is simply silly. Speech has limits and always has, and what I am suggesting is neither radical nor all that different from current laws which apparently you have no issue with.
[/QUOTE]

I don’t think free speech trumps everything else. But what you are suggesting, to whit, liability for Anne Coulter for comments like “Kill all liberals” if later someone attacks a liberal Church, is a MASSIVE step away from the current laws. Huge. What you fail to comprehend is that some restrictions on free speech do not justify all restrictions on free speech. You are also apparently unaware on how difficult it is to find liability for speech at the moment.

What you are suggesting is radical, and it is that different from current laws. It’s also pissing all over the protection of core political speech. Furthermore, you can’t set an adequate limit. Why death, but not savage beatings?

[QUOTE=GomiBoy]
Finally, if you’re going to call me a jerk, just do it. This is the pit. Couching an insult in mealy-mouthed phrases like you’ve done is weak, and rather than make you look wise and moderate, which I am sure was your aim, it just makes you look like a wimp.
[/QUOTE]

Wow you really missed the point. Utterly. I have no interest in calling you a jerk. The point was that “being a jerk” is totally subjective. Supporting one side in a war, and wishing death on the soldiers of the other side, may be being a jerk to you. Supporting the evisceration of protection for core political speech is being a jerk in other people’s minds. Once the government goes down the path of censorship, it isn’t long before things YOU want protected end up as censored. And placing civil liability on speech is a form of censorship, have no illusions otherwise.

Does that mean there should be no liability for speech? Not at all. But the sort of massive expansion of liability you support lends the lie to your claim that you are nervous about impinging on speech.

185

In fairness to Gomi, I think the problem is that he’s not recognizing how slippery the slope is.

186

[QUOTE=villa]
So you would impose liability on someone who calls for a tyrant to be killed. You have no concept of core political speech whatsoever.
[/quote]

For the fifteenth time, NO! Calling for a tyrant to be killed is part of a revolution to one degree or another. A revolution would infer new laws, in which killing the tyrant would not be a crime. Thus, no foul.

And I totally disagree. This isn’t a massive step away from prosecuting someone for speech supporting terrorism, or for speech supporting white supremacy, or any number of other cases which are legal today.

And I fail to understand nothing - this is called disagreeing. I want the law to go after people like Coulter because not only is her rhetoric acid on the body politic, it is downright dangerous when scum like our church shooter use it as justification to kill.

The limits I set were a sliding scale, as I’ve already explained dozens of times. Tell your followers to kill, and someone does, then you’re more liable than if you tell your followers just to maim. More damaging, and more focused, the advocacy and the more the speaker is liable.

Thanks for the lecture on the evils of big government. Now let me tell you one - lots of dictators got their start because no-one could shut them up. Weimar had great free speech laws; the Nazis used them to run rings around their enemies and solidify their grasp on power with some cracking good propaganda. Then, once their grasp on power was completely solid, they eliminated the same free speech laws they used to gain power and started prosecuting anyone who spoke up.

So forgive me for not wanting to give our current crop of radical right-wing fantasists and Neo-Con wannabe dictators the same ability. I want them accountable for their language. And I’m not afraid of the same metric applied to me - I can manage to discredit someone politically without ever calling for their death, so why the hell can’t they?

Then what on earth is your problem? I don’t support a massive extension of liability - Bricker’s post earlier already shows that this is already part of the law. All I want is the law applied.

[QUOTE=Oy!]

In fairness to Gomi, I think the problem is that he’s not recognizing how slippery the slope is.
[/QUOTE]

Bollocks! I simply disagree that it’s as slippery a slope as you make out. It’s not a failure on my part, it’s the fact that I disagree with an alarmist attitude caused by me daring to suggest that a solution is to actually hold people accountable for their speech.

187

It’s a very thin line, and I think the courts are already walking it as best they can.

188

[QUOTE=GomiBoy]
For the fifteenth time, NO! Calling for a tyrant to be killed is part of a revolution to one degree or another. A revolution would infer new laws, in which killing the tyrant would not be a crime. Thus, no foul.
[/QUOTE]

Except that doesn’t work. Calling for Mugabwe to be killed, then someone does it - you say no liability. How about Mayor McCheese? How far down the political chain am I allowed to call for death?

[QUOTE=GomiBoy]
And I totally disagree. This isn’t a massive step away from prosecuting someone for speech supporting terrorism, or for speech supporting white supremacy, or any number of other cases which are legal today.
[/QUOTE]

I am not sure speech supporting terrorism can lead to a prosecution in the US. Nor speech supporting white supremacy.

[QUOTE=GomiBoy]
And I fail to understand nothing - this is called disagreeing. I want the law to go after people like Coulter because not only is her rhetoric acid on the body politic, it is downright dangerous when scum like our church shooter use it as justification to kill.
[/QUOTE]

You absolutely do fail to understand the law if you think liability for Coulter would not be a MASSIVE expansion of restrictions on speech.

[QUOTE=GomiBoy]
The limits I set were a sliding scale, as I’ve already explained dozens of times. Tell your followers to kill, and someone does, then you’re more liable than if you tell your followers just to maim. More damaging, and more focused, the advocacy and the more the speaker is liable.
[/QUOTE]

And the comments of people like Coulter are about as unfocused as you can possibly get. Hence the fact that it would be absolutely impossible under current American law to bring a successful action against her based on this.

[QUOTE=GomiBoy]
Thanks for the lecture on the evils of big government. Now let me tell you one - lots of dictators got their start because no-one could shut them up. Weimar had great free speech laws; the Nazis used them to run rings around their enemies and solidify their grasp on power with some cracking good propaganda. Then, once their grasp on power was completely solid, they eliminated the same free speech laws they used to gain power and started prosecuting anyone who spoke up.
[/QUOTE]

I gave you the lecture because you needed it. And if you think the rise of Hitler was the result of free speech laws, well, you need a history lesson too. It is also disturbing that your solution to the Nazis coming to power and eliminating free speech laws is to eliminate free speech laws.

[QUOTE=GomiBoy]
So forgive me for not wanting to give our current crop of radical right-wing fantasists and Neo-Con wannabe dictators the same ability. I want them accountable for their language. And I’m not afraid of the same metric applied to me - I can manage to discredit someone politically without ever calling for their death, so why the hell can’t they?
[/QUOTE]

Well just as long as you are certain that you are censoring the right people. I’ll sleep better with that knowledge.

[QUOTE=GomiBoy]
Then what on earth is your problem? I don’t support a massive extension of liability - Bricker’s post earlier already shows that this is already part of the law. All I want is the law applied.
[/QUOTE]

You don’t understand the law at all if you think applying the current law would allow for liability for Ann Coulter for saying kill all liberals, if then someone later kills liberals. To do so would require a fundamental shift in First Amendment jurisprudence. Hell - it would require a shift of major proportions in our concept of liability generally.

189

[QUOTE=clairobscur]

You can’t publicly state “Kill those bastards over there” in a major media and then act all innocent when someone listens to the message and actually kill the bastards over there.
[/QUOTE]

“Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?” I guess there’s nothing new under the sun.

190

[QUOTE=Algher]
Bartenders would have to run alcohol screenings on every patron as they come in the door (just in case they are already drunk).
Bartenders would need to inquire about the last time someone ate (food adjusts how alcohol is absored into the system).
Bartenders would need to run a weigh-in (alcohol / weight ratios are important to know as well).
Bartenders would need to ensure that nobody swapped drinks when he was not looking.
[/QUOTE]
I’ve lost you.

Bartenders have legal liability right now. Dram Shop Act: “A legislative enactment imposing strict liability upon the seller of intoxicating beverages when the sale results in harm to a third party’s person, property, or means of support.”

And yet bars don’t have weigh-in facilities.

191

[QUOTE=GomiBoy]
The ACLU is wrong. Someone spewing hatred and advocating the murder of others isn’t going to be swung to the side of right by words, and I think it should be taken one step further. We prosecute people for supporting terrorism through words (Abu Hamza anyone?); why should we not advocate for the prosecution of those who support politically-based murder through words? How is this different than the radical Jihadis who say anyone who disagrees should die?
[/QUOTE]
I understand that much of Europe has hate speech restrictions in place, so it’s probably possible to figure out how this would work in practice.

In the US, my tastes run more towards 1st amendment absolutism, in this regard.

Be careful what you wish for. In practice popular speech won’t be restricted, only unpopular speech. Bill O’Reilly would be untouchable and Ann Coulter would probably not be first on the list. (And frankly, she’s wily enough either to skirt around the law or to make a calculated decision to play the martyr if it would sell copies of her book).

No, they would start with the small fry, thereby giving fringe ideas greater airplay. But doesn’t that defeat the purpose?

For one example of the effect that I’m referring to, look to Canada. During the 1980s, pornography was classified as hate literature and a violation of human rights, which made certain feminists quite satisfied. But when a distributor of Playboy and Penthouse was litigated, the case was promptly tossed by the court. Small gay publishing houses didn’t fare as well: they lacked both deep pockets and the haze of familiarity that protects some speech but not others.

192

[QUOTE=villa]
Except that doesn’t work. Calling for Mugabwe to be killed, then someone does it - you say no liability. How about Mayor McCheese? How far down the political chain am I allowed to call for death?
[/quote]

Calling for someone to die outside the US at all would be impossible to enforce, so who cares? And it’s not like US law is the standard for international relations anyways.

Hate speech is against the law. And it has been for some time.

You’re assuming liability across the board for all speech which is not at all what I am saying. Coulter et al can still call me scum, diseased, brain damaged, whatever - she just can’t call for me to be killed.

Then the less focused, the less liable. But when she and others call for Liberals to be killed, then to allow them to dust their hands, claim no responsibility, and just go on saying it is so insane I can’t even measure it.

Again, your claim bears no relevance to what I have said. I never said eliminating free speech, that is your reaction. And since protected speech would involve telling people how horrible the next group of hatemongers are, then what’s the issue?

Me, too.

Not true. See Bricker’s post. This is already law, I just want it enforced.

[QUOTE=Measure for Measure]
I understand that much of Europe has hate speech restrictions in place, so it’s probably possible to figure out how this would work in practice.
[/quote]

Yes. And they seem to work. Advocate someone’s death, and you can be held responsible. Right now, in the UK, it is most commonly used to defeat religious intolerance, but it has been successfully used to fight racism and the BNP.

Not if the people themselves target Coulter, et al, with class-action lawsuits. They’d be the bigger targets because they have money, which is the whole point of tort law in the first place - damages. Little people don’t have money to pay damages and thus are rarely targets of class-action litigation.

That’s a fair example and a cautionary tale, to be sure, but it’s why I am calling for such a narrow definition and a sliding scale of liability based on the specificity and volume of the advocacy.

193

[QUOTE=GomiBoy]
Calling for someone to die outside the US at all would be impossible to enforce, so who cares? And it’s not like US law is the standard for international relations anyways.
[/QUOTE]

I used Mugabwe as an example - what if the person one felt was a tyrant was a US politician? Or a US based businessman?

[QUOTE=GomiBoy]
Hate speech is against the law. And it has been for some time.
[/QUOTE]

I am going to have to ask you for some cites to US laws on that.

[QUOTE=GomiBoy]
You’re assuming liability across the board for all speech which is not at all what I am saying. Coulter et al can still call me scum, diseased, brain damaged, whatever - she just can’t call for me to be killed.
[/QUOTE]

No I am not assuming liability across the board. I find your distinction to be somewhat silly, but even accepting it, I think you are wrong in youru advocacy of censorship, and flat out incorrect in your assessment of US law.

[QUOTE=GomiBoy]
Then the less focused, the less liable. But when she and others call for Liberals to be killed, then to allow them to dust their hands, claim no responsibility, and just go on saying it is so insane I can’t even measure it.
[/QUOTE]

I’ll try this again. There is no court in this country that would find liability for someone who said “liberals should be killed” if someone at a later date kills a liberal. None. It would be a MASSIVE expansion of current definitions of uunprotected speech to allow such liability.

[QUOTE=GomiBoy]
Again, your claim bears no relevance to what I have said. I never said eliminating free speech, that is your reaction. And since protected speech would involve telling people how horrible the next group of hatemongers are, then what’s the issue?
[/QUOTE]

I used to think you were just wrong. This comment shows how unbelievably scary your viewpoint is. As long as those who are censored are the people YOU define as hatemongers, then there is no problem with censorship. Damn.

[QUOTE=GomiBoy]
Not true. See Bricker’s post. This is already law, I just want it enforced.
[/QUOTE]

OK - first, I am a member of the same bar as Bricker. I know First Amendment law too. He isn’t saying what you think he is saying. For speech as unfocused as Coulter’s, there is NO POSSIBILITY of liability under current US jurisprudence. You want to extend that liability, and completely refuse to see that it IS a huge expansion.

[QUOTE=GomiBoy]
Not if the people themselves target Coulter, et al, with class-action lawsuits. They’d be the bigger targets because they have money, which is the whole point of tort law in the first place - damages. Little people don’t have money to pay damages and thus are rarely targets of class-action litigation.
[/QUOTE]

Do you know the requirements to form a class? I think you might have a lot of trouble with a class action on this one.

194

By way of background
Note to US Doper’s: when I lived in England many years ago, Gomi’s POV was unexceptional. I suspect that Gomi can back me up on this. There is no British constitution or bill of rights, though there are European human rights treaties and courts which apply. There is also tradition.

Infringing the 1st amendment makes many Americans’ skin crawl though, and this US ultra-liberal (centrist by European standards) really doesn’t want to open up that particular can of worms in the US.

I don’t know how hate speech regulation works in Europe, and I think I have shown that such attempts run a serious risk of unintended consequences. But I will opine that British Libel law is a bit of an international joke, though admittedly that’s really a separate issue.

More points:

  1. Hate speech is relevant in sentencing in the US if it is connected to a hate crime. This involves criminal law.

  2. Gomi’s proposal seems to be limited to civil law: I’m not sure whether he would be concerned about criminal sanction for hate-mongers.

  3. Small publishing houses can be censored by the prospect of paying high legal fees. In Britain, look to the example of obscenity charges leveled against a particular comic book company in the 1980s. [Can’t remember the name: dang]

195

Measure - trust me, I know the difference. Before moving to the US (and qualifying as an attorney) I spent the first 25 years of my life in the UK. Nothing gets me arguing with my left wing UK friends more than hate speech legislation - them in favor of it, me opposing it.

196

[QUOTE=villa]
Measure - trust me, I know the difference. Before moving to the US (and qualifying as an attorney) I spent the first 25 years of my life in the UK. Nothing gets me arguing with my left wing UK friends more than hate speech legislation - them in favor of it, me opposing it.
[/QUOTE]
Well, it sure was an eye-opener for me. The US and Britain share a common law tradition, but I find it a little odd that the Brits never got around to slapping together a constitution.

Anyway, fans of free speech can’t complain about a debate such as this. (Actually, I kind of enjoy it.) Empirically, I find it interesting that the slippery slope never quite activated itself in Britain or Western Europe after WWII.

197

[QUOTE=Measure for Measure]
3. Small publishing houses can be censored by the prospect of paying high legal fees. In Britain, look to the example of obscenity charges leveled against a particular comic book company in the 1980s. [Can’t remember the name: dang]
[/QUOTE]
Ok, I was thinking of Knockabout Comics, UK publisher of The Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers.

I seem to recall that there were benefits run for KnockAbout’s legal defense fund.

198

[QUOTE=Measure for Measure]
Well, it sure was an eye-opener for me. The US and Britain share a common law tradition, but I find it a little odd that the Brits never got around to slapping together a constitution.
[/QUOTE]

The UK has a constitution. It just doesn’t have a single written document with “Constitution” written across the top.

[QUOTE=Measure for Measure]
Anyway, fans of free speech can’t complain about a debate such as this. (Actually, I kind of enjoy it.) Empirically, I find it interesting that the slippery slope never quite activated itself in Britain or Western Europe after WWII.
[/QUOTE]

Well, some might argue the slippery slope has been slid down quite a way. For example, if you want to sue for libel, do it in the UK not the US. Clause 28 and the (utterly lidicrous) ban on broadcasting Sinn Fein were not proud moments in the history of a freedom loving country.

199

[QUOTE=villa]
The UK has a constitution. It just doesn’t have a single written document with “Constitution” written across the top.
[/QUOTE]
I was baffled by this claim, but now I see that wikipedia discusses this.

This sounds like they are saying, “British law and traditions are our constitution,” which strikes me as an odd argument, though I trust it has at least a little substance to it.

::Nods at slippery slope qualification.::

200

[QUOTE=autz]
Tell me about it.

She also said that this incident confirmed what she has always known about herself, that she is no hero. She says she never considered tackling and subduing the man as others did and seems a little embaressed about it.

I think that she did JUST FINE.
[/QUOTE]

I sure you know this, but friends and family need to keep an eye on her. PTSD often doesn’t happen until well after the traumatic event, and the signs can be subtle.
Excuse me if I’m butting in.
Peace,
mangeorge