• 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!

Wichita Judge fails to issue Preliminary Injunction against Anti-Abortion Activist

repeter

repeter

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 2, 2009
Messages
3,445
Reaction score
682
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Wichita Judge fails to issue Preliminary Injunction against Anti-Abortion Activist

In her letter to Dr. Means, Dillard wrote among other things: "You will be checking under your car everyday - because maybe today is the day someone places an explosive under it." Later in the letter, Dillard added: "We will not let this abomination continue without doing everything we can to stop it."
Click to expand...

Although Judge Marten said that Dillard clearly intended to intimidate Dr. Means, he did not believe the letter constituted a "true threat" prohibited under FACE.
Click to expand...

I think that Judge is a total idiot; that statement was the absolute definition of a true threat.

Speech that has minimal social value, communicates serious intent to harm another individual, and causes the listener/reader to fear imminent injury is considered a true threat.

With that being the Supreme Court's definition of a true threat, from Watts v. U.S. and Virginia v. Black, does anyone have the audacity to tell me that this speech is protected speech under the first amendment?
 
Re: Wichita Judge fails to issue Preliminary Injunction against Anti-Abortion Activis

repeter said:
Wichita Judge fails to issue Preliminary Injunction against Anti-Abortion Activist




I think that Judge is a total idiot; that statement was the absolute definition of a true threat.

Speech that has minimal social value, communicates serious intent to harm another individual, and causes the listener/reader to fear imminent injury is considered a true threat.

With that being the Supreme Court's definition of a true threat, from Watts v. U.S. and Virginia v. Black, does anyone have the audacity to tell me that this speech is protected speech under the first amendment?
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's protected under the 1st amendment
 
Re: Wichita Judge fails to issue Preliminary Injunction against Anti-Abortion Activis

GPS_Flex said:
Yeah, it's protected under the 1st amendment
Click to expand...

Direct threats are not.
 
Re: Wichita Judge fails to issue Preliminary Injunction against Anti-Abortion Activis

Deuce said:
Direct threats are not.
Click to expand...

Hmmmm....If he was only in a Union then you'd get behind his rhetoric. In any case, I don't support threats like this, I prefer we win in the courts first, then in the Amendment process. Even though this was not a direct threat from this man, to the Doc.


j-mac
 
Re: Wichita Judge fails to issue Preliminary Injunction against Anti-Abortion Activis

I wonder if the judge would feel the same way if someone send him a letter stating that he should start checking for car bombs because of this ruling. I am okay with this sort of talk being legal, but only if a consistent standard is used.
 
Re: Wichita Judge fails to issue Preliminary Injunction against Anti-Abortion Activis

Deuce said:
Direct threats are not.
Click to expand...

The court decided that it wasn’t a direct threat. It sounded like the jerk who wrote it seriously pushed that envelope but I would rather see the courts err on the side of free speech for obvious reasons.
 
Re: Wichita Judge fails to issue Preliminary Injunction against Anti-Abortion Activis

j-mac said:
Hmmmm....If he was only in a Union then you'd get behind his rhetoric. In any case, I don't support threats like this, I prefer we win in the courts first, then in the Amendment process. Even though this was not a direct threat from this man, to the Doc.


j-mac
Click to expand...

The letter was sent to the Dr Means and it's not a direct threat to her? Or are you saying that "warning" someone about bomb being hidden under her car is not a "threat"?

It's a joke. Letters like that from an ex-boyfriend would likely result in an injuction. Freedom of speech doesn't include intimidating an individual with violence.
 
Re: Wichita Judge fails to issue Preliminary Injunction against Anti-Abortion Activis

GPS_Flex said:
The court decided that it wasn’t a direct threat. It sounded like the jerk who wrote it seriously pushed that envelope but I would rather see the courts err on the side of free speech for obvious reasons.
Click to expand...

I would rather the court err on the side of safety for Dr Means than people who use freedom of speech as a mask for intimidation.
 
Re: Wichita Judge fails to issue Preliminary Injunction against Anti-Abortion Activis

nonpareil said:
I would rather the court err on the side of safety for Dr Means than people who use freedom of speech as a mask for intimidation.
Click to expand...

No you wouldn’t. If the courts consistently did that you would have been arrested for the opinion you just expressed.

Don’t take your freedoms lightly. DR. Means obviously wasn’t in any real danger. Your first amendment rights are however (if you are an American that is).
 
Re: Wichita Judge fails to issue Preliminary Injunction against Anti-Abortion Activis

nonpareil said:
The letter was sent to the Dr Means and it's not a direct threat to her? Or are you saying that "warning" someone about bomb being hidden under her car is not a "threat"?

It's a joke. Letters like that from an ex-boyfriend would likely result in an injuction. Freedom of speech doesn't include intimidating an individual with violence.
Click to expand...

Read the letter and please post for me the area's that you consider the direct threat conveyed please.


j-mac
 
Re: Wichita Judge fails to issue Preliminary Injunction against Anti-Abortion Activis

j-mac said:
Read the letter and please post for me the area's that you consider the direct threat conveyed please.


j-mac
Click to expand...


Jeez, the part where he "warns" her she might have a bomb under her car one day?
 
Re: Wichita Judge fails to issue Preliminary Injunction against Anti-Abortion Activis

GPS_Flex said:
No you wouldn’t. If the courts consistently did that you would have been arrested for the opinion you just expressed.

Don’t take your freedoms lightly. DR. Means obviously wasn’t in any real danger. Your first amendment rights are however (if you are an American that is).
Click to expand...

Who specifically did I "warn" about a bomb again? Or who specifically did I intimidate with violence?

It's not "obvious" to some of us that she's not in any real danger. Coming from a state where Dr Tiller was killed for performing abortion and getting a letter from an admirer of the killer because you are training to perform the same job is in my book a threat.
 
Last edited:
Re: Wichita Judge fails to issue Preliminary Injunction against Anti-Abortion Activis

As powerful as the First Amendment is, there is no absolute right to free speech. Should this bomb threat be treated as if it was a terrorist threat?
 
Re: Wichita Judge fails to issue Preliminary Injunction against Anti-Abortion Activis

Your rights end where your threat to another person's right to life and property begins. It's why robbing somebody else's home isn't "free speech."
 
Re: Wichita Judge fails to issue Preliminary Injunction against Anti-Abortion Activis

GPS_Flex said:
The court decided that it wasn’t a direct threat. It sounded like the jerk who wrote it seriously pushed that envelope but I would rather see the courts err on the side of free speech for obvious reasons.
Click to expand...

The court did not decide it wasn't a direct threat, rather that it was not a true threat, which is vastly different. Watts and Virginia establish and define a true threat as speech that communicates a serious intent to harm another individual, which causes the listener to fear imminent injury.

The intent is obvious, despite the ambiguity. "Because maybe today is the day someone places an explosive under it...We will not let this abomination continue without doing everything we can to stop it." She does not have to nececssarily say I'm going to do this act on Tuesday.

As for the second part, cause the listener to fear imminent injury...Dr. Means took over after his predecessor was shot to death by a man this lady has been talking to for some time. There is a lot of polarized sentiment in the area. Yeah, passes this part of the test too.

Ergo, this speech is obviously unprotected speech, according to the Supreme Court.
 
Re: Wichita Judge fails to issue Preliminary Injunction against Anti-Abortion Activis

GPS_Flex said:
No you wouldn’t. If the courts consistently did that you would have been arrested for the opinion you just expressed.
Click to expand...

This statement is so wrong its funny

GPS_Flex said:
DR. Means obviously wasn't in any real danger. Your first amendment rights are however (if you are an American that is).
Click to expand...

To see whether he was in any real danger, you have to look at the context. His predecessor was shot to death. He received a letter from a lady who has been talking to his predecessor's killer. That right there is enough to make your argument look ridiculous, because it really is ridiculous. Furthermore, the true threat test depends on whether Dr. Means felt he was in danger. Furthermore, according to Chaplinsky v. State of New Hampshire, if speech has minimal social value and tends to incite breach of the peace, it is also unprotected. This speech had no social value, and had enough passion-filled rhetoric in it that it could incite others to breach the peace.

So, a total of 3 Supreme Court holdings declare this speech unprotected, and I'm just getting started.
 
Last edited:
Re: Wichita Judge fails to issue Preliminary Injunction against Anti-Abortion Activis

GPS_Flex said:
The court decided that it wasn’t a direct threat. It sounded like the jerk who wrote it seriously pushed that envelope but I would rather see the courts err on the side of free speech for obvious reasons.
Click to expand...

I can buy that.
 
Re: Wichita Judge fails to issue Preliminary Injunction against Anti-Abortion Activis

It is clear to me that there are laws against making threats by various means and to threaten someone for their involvement in legal activity.

I have made it clear that I am am not a pro-abortion type or close to it.

However I am also not totally anti-abortion either.

I am anti-abortion for birth control.

I believe in this day and age we should be doing much better at education than was the case when I was in high school, and I tell you way back in what my grandchildren call the old days we knew about birth control, and the options were very limited compared to today.

If think you your Grandmother and all the young women of her day were all virgins, get a grip. They were just as active sexually as teenagers are today.

The difference was there was a stigma attached to unmarried mothers of any age.

Are you aware that there was a time over 2,000 years ago that unmarried births in some parts of the world were referred to as Virgin Births?

Have you ever heard that term before? Read what you will into it.
 
Re: Wichita Judge fails to issue Preliminary Injunction against Anti-Abortion Activis

Blue Dog said:
As powerful as the First Amendment is, there is no absolute right to free speech. Should this bomb threat be treated as if it was a terrorist threat?
Click to expand...

Terrorism is ok if it's coming from a side I agree with!!!!! :roll:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom