• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Anti-gay activist Scott Lively's crimes-against-humanity case to proceed after federa

Re: Anti-gay activist Scott Lively's crimes-against-humanity case to proceed after fe

The US Constitution does not follow Americans to every corner of the world...It only works here in the good ol US of A.

The Pastor will have to prove he has free speech in Uganda.

The U.S. Constitution apparently doesn't follow Americans into U.S. Courts. Uganda is not hearing the complaint.
 
Re: Anti-gay activist Scott Lively's crimes-against-humanity case to proceed after fe

K
I can agree with you in this regard. I also agree with you that do not appear to have violated any law. What apears to have happened is:

- 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.

While I despise what is happening in Uganda and the action of the three men from the US, unless someone can demonstrate the US law that was broken, I do not feel US courts have jurisdiction in this case. PS, not disagreeing with you just clarifying my position better for other readers.
 
Re: Anti-gay activist Scott Lively's crimes-against-humanity case to proceed after fe

Call to violence would mean just that: The speaker is commanding or encouraging his listeners to use violence. One can also use euphamisms such as "special treatment" when calling for violence.

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."

Yes, it's not a line you can draw objectively. Intent isn't easy to measure. That's why courts have to apply a "reasonable person" standard to a lot of things. The lack of a clear line is why we have a court system to deal with it. It's not perfect, but it's the best we got. What's the alternative? Make it legal to call for someone's death?


The message has been "these people will kidnap and sodomize your children to recruit them, and destroy your marriage, and your society, you have to fight back." He said that homosexuals will try to blend in to get at your child to prey on them.

They are so far from normalcy that they’re killers. They’re serial killers, mass murderers. … This is the kind of person that it takes to run a gas chamber, right? Or to do a mass murder, like—the Rwandan stuff probably involved these guys.

Thats right. Gays are genocidal. They are insatiable sexual predators and they are coming for your children.


Watch the documentary I linked.
 
Re: Anti-gay activist Scott Lively's crimes-against-humanity case to proceed after fe

Lively violated no US law, and since it is the USA where jurisdiction is being sought, he will walk, and frankly, it doesn't even go to trial.

Tim-
 
Re: Anti-gay activist Scott Lively's crimes-against-humanity case to proceed after fe

This case is a slippery slope if there ever was one.

Despicable as this guy is, it doesn't appear as if he did anything more than give some speeches. Unless it can be shown(and it hasn't yet from what I've seen) that he called for violence against gays I would hope that the case gets dismissed. The Pandora's box that this would open if followed through to a conviction would be bottomless.
 
Re: Anti-gay activist Scott Lively's crimes-against-humanity case to proceed after fe

The lack of a clear line is why we have a court system to deal with it. It's not perfect, but it's the best we got. What's the alternative? Make it legal to call for someone's death?

The message has been "these people will kidnap and sodomize your children to recruit them, and destroy your marriage, and your society, you have to fight back." He said that homosexuals will try to blend in to get at your child to prey on them. Thats right. Gays are genocidal. They are insatiable sexual predators and they are coming for your children.

Historical US judicial practice is that in almost all cases (except say, direct incitiement to riot), inflammatory speech is still protected. For example:

- gangsta rappers can rap about killing police officers. A Country Western singer can call for vigilante violence.
- Far right radio radio talk show personalities can talk about threats posed by federal agents and how peole may need to "defend themselves".
- Louis Farakhan can say that jews, whites, asians and probably- gays etc. are uhmmm.... "possibly in" or even actually in a dazzling variety of deadly conspiracies against blacks.

In all of these cases, the claim could be made speech by these people might have partially inspired people to commit acts of violence against group "X".

You mentioned the "reasonable person standard". Courts also apply the concept of "slippery slopes". That is why under US judicial practice, inflammatory speech is covered by freedom of speech.

If the people above cannot be criminally charged nor civilly sued under our system, why would we allow a US citizens whose inflammaory speeech migh have partially inspired indirect listeners to har people "P" to be civilly sued. It is clear that he has notbroken any US law.
 
Last edited:
Re: Anti-gay activist Scott Lively's crimes-against-humanity case to proceed after fe

Remember the old days, when Americans were free to think and speak any idea they wished?

Well, we're Obamunists now, that nasty 1st amendment is a thing of the past. Views contrary to party canon will be severely punished.

Nothing has been decided so you are overreacting a smidge (OK, maybe your whole post is unfounded.)
 
Re: Anti-gay activist Scott Lively's crimes-against-humanity case to proceed after fe

The appeals court rejected their request for a 'writ of mandamus' which is an order from a higher court to a lower court commanding it to act in a certain way, in this case to dismiss the claim. These are exceedingly rare orders meant to control abuses in lower courts, but they are almost never granted so it isn't surprising this was denied. However I'd be very surprised if one way or another this claim isn't defeated.

Yeah, what I was trying to say ^^^
 
Re: Anti-gay activist Scott Lively's crimes-against-humanity case to proceed after fe

Say hello to what evangelicals have been doing in African countries for years now, under the guise of "missionary work". Livelys is just the most prominent, but he isn't the only one.

Evangelicals are a blight on the human race. They spread their hatred anywhere they go. They can't gain ground in the U.S. so they go to places where governments are less influential and the poorer populations are still ignorant / uneducated about the true evils of the world.

Makes me sick.
 
Re: Anti-gay activist Scott Lively's crimes-against-humanity case to proceed after fe

Nothing has been decided so you are overreacting a smidge (OK, maybe your whole post is unfounded.)

That an American can be held in American courts for "crimes against humanity" (Stalinist much?) for words spoken in a foreign land is the type of crap I used to call paranoid when people would warn that this was the goal of the left.

There is no reaction too strong to something like this. The left is at war to end civil liberties. When an open and direct attack on basic liberty is encountered, the response of all freedom loving people should be strong and unmistakably loud.
 
Re: Anti-gay activist Scott Lively's crimes-against-humanity case to proceed after fe

Say hello to what evangelicals have been doing in African countries for years now, under the guise of "missionary work". Livelys is just the most prominent, but he isn't the only one.

Evangelicals are a blight on the human race. They spread their hatred anywhere they go. They can't gain ground in the U.S. so they go to places where governments are less influential and the poorer populations are still ignorant / uneducated about the true evils of the world.

Makes me sick.

Maybe a group will arise who will kill them for you?

1,500 Iraqi Civilians Were Slaughtered Yesterday by ISIS, and the Obama Administration Issued a Statement | National Review Online
 
Back
Top Bottom