- 3 US citizens (their socio political views are not really material), gave a series of "juiced up, fired up" presentations in another nation during which the activities of a rival socio political group were exaggerated.
- The US citizens did not call for violence, they were not volunteer fighters, and they had no ability to actually harm anyone in that nation.
-After the locals got juiced up, they passed a series of harsh laws, and some private citizens of that nation actually did harm gays. Meanwhile the US citizens distanced themselves (too a degree) from the laws and tried, though only to a degree, to soften the imapct of their "fired up" speeches.
- The US citizens then get sued by members of the harmed community for violating their human rights.... .
The Ugandans who were harmed need to sue the Ugandans who actually harmed them. Likewise, the liability of the US citizens should be restricted to cases where the US citizens actually called for violence.
In short one can be an inflammatory Christian, Muslim or secularist, who rails for or against religion, but unless one calls for violence, or perhaps in situations where it can be definively proven that they knew that their "fired up" speeches would lead to violence, it is just free speech.
Last edited by Cryptic; 12-09-14 at 09:23 AM.
"Pro Family" Groups from the US are almost exclusively responsible for whats happened in Uganda.
Again they couldn't win in the US, so they exported their hatred to a poor East African nation with a largely uneducated population that would easily lap up their message.
Says alot about them.
The ruling was on whether the case could be dismissed because the district court did not have jurisdiction to hear the case. The court over-ruled that defense contention.
On March 14, 2012, the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of Sexual Minorities Uganda (SMUG), a non-profit umbrella organization for LGBTI advocacy groups in Uganda, against Abiding Truth Ministries President Scott Lively, a U.S.-based attorney, author, and self-described world-leading expert on the “gay movement.” Filed in the United States District Court in Springfield, Massachusetts, the suit alleges that Lively’s involvement in anti-gay efforts in Uganda, including his active participation in the conspiracy to strip away fundamental rights from LGBTI persons, constitutes persecution.
This is the first known Alien Tort Statute (ATS) case seeking accountability for persecution on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. The United States Supreme Court has affirmed the use of the ATS as a remedy for serious violations of international law norms that are widely accepted and clearly defined. Persecution is defined in international law as the "intentional and severe deprivation of fundamental rights contrary to international law by reason of the identity of the group or collectivity."
Any definitions short of that lead to a very slippery slope of: No, you did not call for violence, but I dont like your speech. Furthermore, someone might have been partially influenced by your speech to actually commit violent acts.
The only exception to the above definition that I could see would be where it could be definitively shown that he knew that his speech would be taken as a call for violence:
- "Hey, everytime you have made these speeches, people have been attacked shortly afterwards, please not give anymore under these circumstances". or
- "I am a Ugandan police officer, please dont give the speech against the "X' people now- there is an aggitated lynch mob outside this buidling looking for excuses to harm "X" people."
Last edited by Cryptic; 12-09-14 at 11:43 AM.