From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: Operation Rescue
Date: 27 Dec 92 22:58:48 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Dec27.191014.8021@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu 
(Doug "get yer fat black ass down here" Holtsinger) writes:
#In article <1175@blue.cis.pitt.edu> 
#sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
##dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug "get yer fat black ass down here" 
##Holtsinger) writes:
###In article <1992Dec25.191755.12514@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> 
###clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (The_Doge) writes:
#
#### The *really* interesting thing is that [Mr. Holtsinger] apparently regards
#### firebombs, death threath, vandalism, and couragous acts such as pouring
#### gasoline into the ceiling of a clinic and dropping in a match as acts of
#### "civil disobedience".  
###
###Gee, I guess some 'civil libertarians' are too dumb to 
###recognize a defense of 'free speech'.  The article that
###I posted mentioned nothing about firebombs or death
###threats, but it did mention several instances where
###Operation Rescue had its free speech rights curtailed.
###One wonders whether the 'civil libertarians' on this
###newsgroup are that in name only. 
##
##If you could read, Reverend Holtsinger, you'd know that
##the comments were not a reply to the newspaper article that 
##you posted, but to your comments describing O.R.'s actions
##as civil disobedience.  
#
#As you've told other posters, I'm not obligated to stick
#to the subject.  

Of course not, Reverend, you're free to change the subject 
at random, but you should be aware that your inability to
stay on *any* subject these days lends credence to the theory
that you're insane.  

##Do you consider firebombing and
##death threats to be part of guaranteed free speech?  

I'll assume your lack of response means that you're yet again
ashamed of your beliefs.

## Do you have any documentation for O.R.'s claims that their
## rights have been abridged?  
#
#Certainly, here are just a few examples of prior restraint of
#free speech against Operation Rescue:
#
# "The Los Angeles Times did include a sentence in an editorial
#  last year saying that charging [Randall] Terry with conspiracy
#  in a non-RICO, Los Angeles case was an ``excessive restriction
#  on free speech.''"

Do you have any details, Reverend?  This is meaningless as it
stands - what speech is being restricted?  Have you read anything
on this subject besides this one article, Reverend Holtsinger?

#  While supporting conviction of the protesters for trespass and
#  disorderly conduct, these papers editorialized that using the
#  RICO act against [Operation Rescue] was an inappropriate restriction 
#  of legitimate political protest--``unfair,'' ``unreasonable,'' 
#  ``outrageous,'' ``an abomination.''

Relevance to free speech?  

# "Most major editorial pages were equally silent when the U.S.
#  Supreme Court earlier this year refused to grant a stay against
#  an injunction prohibiting Operation Rescue from demonstrating at
#  abortion clinics in Atlanta.  Columnist James Kilpatrick, who
#  praised another court decision unfavorable to Operation Rescue
#  activities, criticized the Atlanta decision as an unconstitu-
#  tional prior restraint on speech."

Again, can you explain how the injunction restrained their speech?
Do you know the details?

#   From: "Abortion foes stereotyped, some in the media believe",
#   by David Shaw, Los Angeles Times, July 2, 1990

Yes, we know.  As soon as someone confirms that you didn't alter
any text, we'll know if Mr. Shaw actually wrote all of this, too.

## The group sued the city of
## Pittsburgh in federal court - the case was dropped because
## there was no evidence of any of their claims.  In another
## incident, an O.R. member here claimed that he had been
## stun-gunned by the police.  The videotape that they offered
## as evidence clearly showed the officer's "stun gun" to
## be a flashlight.  
#
#So what?  

Well, Reverend, some of us (of course, we aren't members of
your congregation) disapprove of flase allegations.  I realize
that you think that it's acceptable to lie in all cases (with
your "ends justify the means" mentality, who could expect you
to respect honesty?), but not everyone agrees with you.

#Are you claiming these cases prove that the members
#of Operation Rescue have never had their constitutional rights 
#restricted?

I'm saying that I've yet to see any evidence that they have been
denied their constitutional rights because of their membership in
O.R.  

## Are you defending O.R. because they're fetus fanatics like
## you, or because they're pathological liars like you?
#
#No, I'm defending Operation Rescue's right to free speech.

Then it would behoove you to provide some examples of a 
restriction of their right to free speech.  You haven't yet
done so - you've just quoted from a single article with
vague accusations.   Surely if you're convinced that their
rights have been abridged, you can provide a specific 
example and detail the restraint.  (Or, you can just "change
the subject" again.)

Susan