I would like someone to explain to me why the website is relevant at all, since the proprietor of the website is not a defendant in the case. The pro-aborts are drifting from merely evil to blatantly insane; they're now prosecuting pro-lifers for "crimes" allegedly committed by other pro-lifers.
I did spend some time looking over the site. No, I don't believe there was expressed support for violence against abortion doctors.
Is violence against providers an appropriate tactic, you ask? Considering who might be reading this thread, if I did believe violence was (is) an appropriate tactic I certainly wouldn't say so here. Talk about asking for a knock on your door . . .!
A long time ago, law dealt with facts and acts. Now, we are in a world where thoughts, feelings and attitudes are legislated.
1984 has finally arrived. ThoughtCrime is now considered in the judical proceedings of our highest courts.
As to question 2: Violence is the American Way, n'est pas? But, somehow, the prolife side is now forced to uniquely carry this albatross, along with drug thugs. I saw it on TV. It must be real.
Do an analysis of all the incidents of real violence committed by misguided prolifers against 47,000,000 dead babies.
Yes to the first question and no to the second.
Trolling for kooks? Violence-advocacy posts have been banned at FR since its early days.
As for me, what I'm wondering is if WTO protesters and striking workers are held to the same standard, of if this is another politically-motivated decision. And of course, there's daily violence inside the "clinic," but since it's against fetal non-persons, it doesn't "count."
It looked pretty clear to me: "Here are these people, here are the one's already killed, only this many left to go..."
I heard comments in a forum normally completely outside this subject. Interesting ones like:
If someone put up a site for judges while people were picking them off in their homes, I think there might be less dissent.Interesting way to put it into perspective. There was also the fact that this site fit the definition of terrorism as soon as the site was ruled unlawful:
"NOUN: The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons. "Still this is a very scary precipice for me, all ideology aside. I hope people don't have to start wording their web sites very carefully to avoid prosecution.
It was published several days later, along with a "rebuttal" by some babe from one of the baby eating organizations.
Interesting practice by the editor, eh?!
However, before it was published, a carload of obese lesbian thugs pulled up in front of my house and parked there for several hours. When I left the house in my car, they followed me. When I came back home, they followed me home.
Eventually they left.
That means the pro-abortionists and their running dog evil minions do, in fact, believe in intimidation, and would undoubtedly use violence if they thought they could get away with it.
The Nuremburg Files site is nonviolent, and I found absolutely no advocacy for violence in it.
Self defense is protected by the Second Amendment.