From: psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: "OR, on the rocks, with a twist"
Date: 2 Jan 93 20:16:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41


Edward J. Branley earlier wrote:

eb> Well, you can always build a kill file.  I stand by my statement.
eb> Randall Terry and Operation Rescue are pursuing a criminal path to stop
eb> what they fe to be a crime.  This is a case where two wrongs do not
eb> make a right.

To which I responded:

rw> Due process according to Ed Branley:
rw>
rw> You say that Terry is a criminal.
rw> You say that RICO should be used against him.
rw> You say that Terry is a racketeer.
rw> You say that Terry is no better than the boss of an organized crime
rw> family.
rw>
rw> All of this is unproven slander and libel. The fact that you stand by
rw> it is moot. The fact that you provide more slander for the rumor mill
rw> is evident. I will take what you further have to say with more than
rw> a grain...

and Edward replied...

eb> Unproven?  Hardly.  The man has been arrested for criminal acts in more
eb> than one state.  He is the founder and leader of a group that promotes
eb> those criminal acts on an interstate basis.  One of that group's stated
eb> purposes is to close down  *by whatever means* businesses that are, for
eb> the moment, legitimate and legal.

     Terry was the founder, but he is not the current leader. That man is
     Keith Tucci. OR has never said that they would close down abortion
     clinics "*by whatever means*." It was birthed in peaceful non-violence,
     and that has been the behaviour that OR requires of participants.

     However, I do admit that Terry can be called a criminal.  Not only has
     he been arrested, but he has been tried and convicted on different 
     counts. But he has not been tried as a racketeer. In fact, the Fifth 
     Circuit Court of Appeals decided that RICO was not an applicable statue 
     against the actions of OR.

eb> Those statements are neither libelous nor slanderous.  I'm quite sure
eb> that you and Mr. Terry don't agree with my interpretation of the facts,
eb> but that *does not alter the facts*.

     If this were just a simple matter of interpretation of facts, there 
     would be less disagreement. However, we have moved from the realm of
     interpretation to fabrication. And this is where the disagreement has
     been amplified.

     You haven't presented facts for a few of your charges. For example, you 
     say that Terry is a racketeer. The federal government disagrees with
     that. You also said that "His tactics are no better than the boss of an
     organized crime family."  This isn't a fact, this is an opinion.  It's
     an attempt to denigrate Terry by comparing him to one who is known for
     nefarious deeds. There is no just comparison in that defaming
     statement.

eb> If you want to disagree with me, that's fine.  Calling me a slanderer
eb> is not disagreement, but a wanton, unjustified ad hominem attack.  You
eb> sir, do yourself and the pro-life cause no good by posting articles as
eb> patently absurd as these here.  Now, if you want to discuss the merits
eb> of Operation Rescue and its tactics, I'm willing.  If you don't, that's
eb> fine too.

     Actually, I didn't call you a slanderer. That would have been an ad
     hominem. I characterized a few of your statements as slander and libel.
     The one where you said that Terry was a racketeer, and the one where
     you said that his tactics are no better than the boss of an organized
     crime family, are both libelous. There is neither justification nor
     substance to back them up. They are simply unfavorable impressions of
     yours.

     I first started posting on this thread to point out the twist that you
     were throwing in your articles. I have seen you indict the whole of
     Operation Rescue by referring to the actions of one Assemblies of God
     minister; you have given credit to OR to the Santa-suited ones, when
     there was no specific mention of what group they belonged to. You have
     characterized a whole group of people as violent by referring to one
     man's acts of violence. When I saw this, it didn't sound like the OR
     that I know, but rather the perception that the borts try to use.

     The characterization that I saw here didn't reflect the whole of OR,
     but rather sought to defame OR. I don't know the reason that you have 
     for this, but I still expect an honest and level presentation.
	


=============================
Robert Weiss
psyrobtw@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu