[Boot Hill]

per loin:   "I'll hunt up a fuller one, which leaves a very different impression."

OK, so you posted "a fuller one", but where is the "very different impression"? It too, leaves one with the same impression that the ADL was right, but lost to the Quigley's only on a technicality regarding the admissibility of evidence.

Here is what the back-up story you posted in #6 says:

The RMN reports:   "Based on the recordings, they sued the Quigleys in federal court, Jefferson County prosecutors charged the Quigleys with hate crimes..."

And according to both articles, the only thing that saved the Quigley's was this:

The RMN reports:   "Later, everyone found out that the recordings became illegal just five days after they began..."

So according to both articles you posted, the Quigley's actually made the anti-Semitic comments that were alleged they made, but skated on a technicality regarding the admissibility of the evidence.

I'm no fan of the ADL, but unless there is something more to the story that we're not hearing about from these articles, it looks like the ADL was the good guys in this matter.

--Boot Hill

[per loin]

OK, so you posted "a fuller one", but where is the "very different impression"?

From the second one:

The hate charges were dropped, and Jefferson County paid the Quigleys $75,000 after prosecutors concluded Dee Quigley's remarks to a friend were only in jest.

[VaGunGuy]

Hmmmm....There's a crack house across the street from me. My wife and I often talk about it. Sometimes, in jest, we joke about burning it down. We're not serious, we're joking. It's in bad taste, sure, but so is operating a crack house nearby when you and your neighbors have kids.

Let's say that the crack neighbors bugged our house or tapped our phones in violation of the law. Then let's say that the crack dealer's union got into it, called a press conference, told our neighbors that we were anti-crack arsonists, and we lost our jobs over it.

Does the fact that we joked about the crackhouse mean that they have a right to destroy our lives and livelihood by defaming us in public using the fruits of a criminal act to do it?

[saradippity]

One thing I noticed was that the offensive communication occurred and was reported before the tapes were used. We really don't know what was actually on tape. Somehow I would think that if what was taped was equally offensive it would have been cited.

[longtermmemmory]

after THEY began...

they who? The prosecutors began their case and five days after the case began they discovered the tapes were illegal? Did these people acutually follow through on this bizzare campaign?

There are two issues here: one is the alleged threat campaign that was dropped based on whatever seperate merits there.

THE SEcoND case is whether somebody can stand in public and accuse anyone with impunity of being a Nazi. This is a good case for being against the leftist tactic of making all opponents "nazi" or "anti-semetic" or anyother scaremongering.

[Adder]

Maybe...except "anti semitic" comments aren't a crime, nor should they be.
The ADL thought they could say anything they wanted about this couple who may not have liked their situation but never actually did anything against the Aronsons.
Sorta like venting here.

[mdmathis6]

You know if they got around to reading every man's thoughts and banning incorrect thinking, all of us would be in jail. Shades of "Minority Report", that's just what you would have. I'm sure many Freepers would have been Arkansied during the Clinton candidacy for their private views.The Secret service would be arresting most conservatives, even if their only thoughts of revenge was in feeding their cat, Socks to a pit bull,

That is really what this case is about. You don't want to encourage wire-tapping and decrypting your neighbor's conversations and data. You have to ensure privacy of discourse and the reasonable space needed for blowing off steam to one another. (There is a reason why men don't have mental telepathy, and it more a mercy from God as well as a benefit.) That Democratic Operative couple that recorded Gingrich down in Florida got themselves in trouble, I believe that's one of the reasons both Dems and Pubs passed that law and Clinton signed it(ala Linda Tripp). The Dems would not be above recording their foes but they also knew the same could be done to them.(with Clinton, it is instructive to study what is going on with the Dems when they agree wit the Pubs with anything).

It sounds like the neighbors didn't like each other, and if we could have tapped into the Aronson's calls and private thoughts, I'll bet we would have found out some interesting things too regarding their thoughts regarding their neighbors. Plus you just don't always inadvertantly just tap into a wireless phone, "accidentally" using a scanner. The Aronsons were hunting for it, though of course no one could actually "prove it", I got the strongest sense that that was the one of the main issues when the case was ultimately decided. If they had stopped recording when the law went into effect, that is one thing, but they continued after the law went into effect. I think the courts were right on this one.

Was there any evidence that the Quigley's actually did or planned to do any of the stuff they talked about? If they found plans or materiel related to their talks, well that would be a whole other kettle of fish.

Most of us from time to time while working out how best to react to neighbors and mean bosses and the like, have said things in private that could get us in trouble with those same people. Let's all be honest about that! These are surface emotions...the truth really rises out of our deeper hearts...what is our actual behavior, what is our follow-thru regarding our thoughts? Do we act on Christian principles and "Love our neighbors", an active love that respects and upholds them, even if the emotions don't always follow thru....this is not hypocrisy, this is the carrying of our crosses, of actively not giving in to the evil revenge thoughts that might arise from our hearts!

Thus is the privacy needed to work out our frustrations with those we love. If that privacy is lost, either by tapping phones or Tapping thoughts(like that brain wave machine that can tell when some-one is lying, talk about the enormous potential for abuse if that thing really works like they say it does, or doesn't work because some-body's brain chemistry works differently), there would be a war like you wouldn't believe. I believe if God truly were to punish us, he could make us all mental telepaths, man we'd all be nuclear crisped with in a fortnight, we just couldn't stand each other and our-selves!

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

...the Quigley's actually made the anti-Semitic comments that were alleged they made...

So? Even being as bad as it is, isn't that kind of speech protected by the 1st Amendment? Even if the recordings were legal, how can one be prosecuted and convicted for verbalizing one's fantasies? How many times have we heard from law enforment officers, "Until an actual crime is committed..."

[TheDon]

That's if you believe there is such a thing as a "hate crime" and this constituted one.