If the government deems that information TOP SECRET, will it be OK to leak it then?
Posted on 07/08/2006 11:29:17 AM PDT by wagglebee
CALIFORNIA, July 7, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A bill that would make it illegal to post information about abortion practitioners online may soon become law in California, the St. Helena Star reported yesterday.
AB 2251, brought forward by Democrat representative Noreen Evans, would ban any online posting, sale, trade or solicitation of the personal information of abortionists, abortion clinic staff and volunteers, and patients of abortion clinics. Addresses, telephone numbers and pictures would be considered protected information.
“Web sites are used by militant anti-abortion activists to publicize personal information about reproductive healthcare service providers and patients in order to threaten or incite violence against them,” Evans said in a statement. “This bill gives women and their physicians a powerful tool against these Web sites.”
The bill specifies that the display of information would be prohibited if it intentionally incited a third person to cause “imminent great bodily harm” to the person identified, or if it would constitute a threat to the person, or place them in “objectively reasonable fear” for his or her safety.
Although the legislation is directed against abortion opponents who resort to violence, some are concerned that the bill has the potential to severely limit freedom of speech rights. Pro-life groups have at times identified doctors who commit abortions so as to allow pro-life women the option of avoiding them as ob-gyn’s.
The bill has passed the Senate Judiciary Committee and will be voted on by the Senate.
Abortion-provider Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California and NARAL have supported the bill, as have the California Medical Association, the California Nurses Association and the National Organization for Women of California.
Because doing so exposes them to the danger of assassination at the hands of people like Kopp or Rudolph. By doing so, you're threatening them with violence.
What men like Kopp and Rudolph have done is deplorable, but do you really think that this law would have stopped such violence? The addresses of abortion clinics are not a secret, militant psychopaths will still find abortionists.
No we aren't. There are already laws against initiating violence against anyone.
but you can't incite violence against people
Nothing on these web sites is 'inciting' violence. They are merely lists of names and addresses. Your tossing red herrings faster than a starving penguin old boy.
L
First, thank you for agreeing with me that what those animals did was wrong. I worry about some people on the board.
I don't think that the law would have stopped someone like Kopp, but having access to information much like that certainly made it easier for Kopp to kill Dr. Slepian.
Also, it's very intimidating to have people who might very well wish you bodily harm publishing your name and workplace. On my way to work I've had protestors write down my license plate number, and in spite of the fact that I don't have anything to do with the abortion clinic, it's scary.
The addresses of abortion clinics are not a secret, militant psychopaths will still find abortionists.
True, but I think that the intent of the law is less to deter psychos than it is to take away a tool that some abortion protestors have been using as an intimidation tactic.
If the government deems that information TOP SECRET, will it be OK to leak it then?
The 9th circuit handed down a ruling similar to this law back in 2002, a few years after James Kopp shot Dr. Slepian. They shut down the 'Neuremberg Files' website because it posted names, home/work addresses and license plate numbers of abortion doctors. Essentially, the judges ruled that the website had created a hit list. The proposed law is broader in scope, but on more Constitutionally stable ground that the 9th circuit ruling.
Your tossing red herrings faster than a starving penguin old boy.
Says the man who whipped out the Nazis on his first post. ;-)
Pardon me while I laugh myself silly.
And you're the one who said all laws, even the ones we disagree with, should be obeyed.
Tell that to the folks who ran the Underground Railway and defied the Fugitive Slave Act.
All laws should be obeyed....pshaw.
L
"Then not posting the names of rape victims must infringe on you free speech also?"
I have come around to thinking that restrictions on that kind of publication shouldn't be allowed anyway. If other adult crime victims aren't protected, why should rape victims be different? False accusations of rape are far more damaging to the 'criminal' than other charges. Why should a suspect become less able to defend himself in the media, where these cases are so often tried, because NAG, er, NOW thinks that the burden should be on the accused in these cases?
I agree that the true victim and minors shouldn't be released. But part of the reason trials are supposed to be public in the U.S. is that so the accused doesn't get a kangaroo court. Rape cases are now biased against the accused to begin with. If we really believe in the idea that suspects should be presumed innocent until proven guilty, the accused shouldn't have to have their hands tied in the media as their reputations are being destroyed by overzealous prosecutors and they are smeared as guilty.
What's wrong with just asking? Why does it have to be published for the use of wackos?
For starters, it costs $50 to $75 just to get to ask.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. ...
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
This kind of inflammatory rhetoric ought to be illegal. It's dangerous. (sarc)
Secondly I think most abortionists only do abortions. Their reasoning for needing to post this information on the internet is disingenuous. They want to post this information to harass abortion providers.
You believe these great heroes should be able to kill for cash under cover of anonymity?
True, but I think that the intent of the law is less to deter psychos than it is to take away a tool that some abortion protestors have been using as an intimidation tactic.
Exactly, the pro-death camp wants to use free speach free zones, RICO laws and abusive armed guards to intimidate pro lifers but they don't want to feel any heat.
False accusations of rape are far more damaging to the 'criminal' than other charges. Why should a suspect become less able to defend himself in the media,
Doesn't the shielding of an accuser increase the likelyhood of a false accusation?
"Doesn't the shielding of an accuser increase the likelihood of a false accusation?"
BING BING BING BING! We have a winner!
I had D&C's twice for my (spontaneous) miscarriages. Real doctors don't kill babies.
No, actually most Ob-Gyns don't to abortions, and neither is abortion available at most hospitals outside of major metropolitan areas.
Since you evidently didn't see the information I posted, I'll repeat it for you:
The number of abortion providers is falling, and is certainly under the number of abortionists (2,042) reported 10 years ago, with the greatest decline among hospitals and physicians' offices rather than clinics. Eighty-six percent of counties have no known abortion provider.
Over 34% of the women in the United States live in counties had no abortion provider. In 2000, 86 of the country's 276 metropolitan areas and almost all nonmetropolitan areas had no abortion provider.
Google "Stanley K. Henshaw," the Alan Guttmacher Institute's main abortion availability researcher, or cut-and-paste:
www.ipas.org/english/press_room/ 2005/releases/03172005.asp
Yes it's an invasion of privacy, threatening and whose sole purpose is to intimidate and harass.
They're being a little too nice. If it were me and I found out anyone was doing this to me, I would file a lawsuit against them or get a restraining order. There are stalking laws that may apply as well. If that didn't work I could go to Plan B and do to them exactly what they were doing to me. Get their information, photos, daily schedules of all their family members, photos of their vehicles and license plate, addresses, pics of their home, phone numbers, pics of their family, school addresses and start posting it all over the internet on sites very unfriendly to pro-life sensibilities. I would outline what these people have been doing to me and get much sympathy and they would join my counter harassment campaign.
Dear BunnySlippers,
Actually, few physicians are willing to lower themselves to commit abortions. Even those who believe a woman should have access to procuring the death of her unborn baby avoid the commission of the crime.
That's how you wind up with abortionists who commit thousands of abortions per year. And that's why it's so lucrative - because most physicians don't want to do the deed.
sitetest
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.