Free speech for me but not for thee. ACLU busted!

okie wrote:

keltic, Abortion Services can be a service dedicated to providing information about and preventing abortion

Baloney. The Ford dealer who places an ad stating, "Interested in a Chevy? Come down to Smith's Car World" can make the same claim-that since "advising" the customer is part of the car buying process, telling customers what is wrong with Chevies and what is right with Fords is a key part of advising the car buyer.

The state trade commission will not see it that way, and the fraudulent ad will have to be removed, and possible fines and penalties levied.

When you deliver the opposite of what you advertise, you are engaging in a fraud. A center full of anti-abortion convincers in no way provides Abortion Services, is therefore fraudulent, and should be made illegal.

okie wrote:

just as Planned Parenthood provides information about preventing parenthood, whether planned or not it makes no difference, they are not about parenthood, they are about preventing it.

That is a lie. Planned Parenthood is NOT about preventing parenthood, it is about family planning-becoming pregnant when the woman chooses to become so, not becoming pregnant when she chooses not to become so. It is about the thing you loathe the most-a woman's choice in her own reproductive life.

Several times I have said that most people become parents eventually. You have never denied that fact. Postponing parenthood until the future parent is emotionally and financially ready for it is not the same as preventing parenthood.

You are just as much of a parent if you have two children you were hoping for at the time as if you have five children you were NOT hoping for at the time.

But since choosing the time of pregnancy involves giving the woman more power over the key decisions in her own life than the edicts of the grey-haired men who run our government and religious institutions, it is not surprising that you oppose it so vigorously.

0 Replies

Keltic Wizard has placed himself in the ridiculous position of attempting to stifle free speech. If, as he and some others would hold, the Anti-abortion clinics are yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre, there certainly would be legislation on that regard or, at least, a court finding. There is none, so Keltic Wizard is frustrated and practically foaming at the mouth.

Again--

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Okie- You must pardon me, but I think it would be beat to again note what the left wing Abortionists want to do. They are in favor of making it a TORT when an organization counsels a woman not to have an abortion.

The ACLU has been referenced as itself having an internal struggle concerning their desire that women seeking abortion should not be dissuaded from their goal against the right the ACLU has always worked to defend--Freedom of Speech.

I view the charge that the organizations which counsel a woman against abortion are committing a TORT as an idiocy and am asking that a legal source which holds that incredible position be cited--preferably a judicial source!!!

0 Replies

Quote:

Religious persecution masquerading as hatred against the ACLU. Jesus General finds this heartbreaking story about a Jewish family that is forced to move out of town becausethey are Jewish.

A large Delaware school district promoted Christianity so aggressively that a Jewish family felt it necessary to move to Wilmington, two hours away, because they feared retaliation for filing a lawsuit. The complaint recounts a raucous crowd that applauded the board's opening prayer and then, when sixth-grader Alexander Dobrich stood up to read a statement, yelled at him "take your yarmulke off!" His statement, read by Samantha, confided "I feel bad when kids in my class call me Jew boy."

A former board member suggested that Mona Dobrich might "disappear" like Madalyn Murray O'Hair, the atheist whose Supreme Court case resulted in ending organized school prayer. She disappeared in 1995 and her dismembered body was found six years later.The crowd booed an ACLU speaker and told her to "go back up north."
In the days after the meeting the community poured venom on the Dobriches. Callers to the local radio station said the family they should convert or leave the area. Someone called them and said the Ku Klux Klan was nearby.

Read JC's email exchange with Nedd Kareiva who is pretty proud of himself.

Richard Bartholomew documents the entire story:

Alex Dobrich claims that he was called "Christ-killer" by classmates; the school board's lawyer, Thomas Neuberger of the Rutherford Institute, suggests that Dobrich is lying. One website, the Stop the ACLU Coalition, decided to publicise the Dobriches' home address and phone number, as part of an "Expose the ACLU Plaintiff" campaign.read on

source

0 Replies

The ACLU is the most patriotic organization in the country by virtue of its dedication to defend the Bill of Rights. It is the latter that separates us from totalitarian countries. Unfortunately, the right looks at the Bill as a nuisance to be evaded in any way possible.

0 Replies

kelticwizard wrote:

okie wrote:
keltic, Abortion Services can be a service dedicated to providing information about and preventing abortion

Baloney. The Ford dealer who places an ad stating, "Interested in a Chevy? Come down to Smith's Car World" can make the same claim-that since "advising" the customer is part of the car buying process, telling customers what is wrong with Chevies and what is right with Fords is a key part of advising the car buyer.

The state trade commission will not see it that way, and the fraudulent ad will have to be removed, and possible fines and penalties levied......

If its illegal, then no new laws required then, keltic. If the abortion services people are breaking the law, as applied across the board, fine, go prosecute them. My bottom line, no laws specifically targeting them are appropriate or proper. Specific laws to single out anti-abortion clinics show you have a vendetta against them. I don't particularly care for pro-abortion clinics, but I am not proposing special laws targeting them. As I've said a dozen times, you are not interested in prosecuting fraud here in this debate. You simply want to deny free speech.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

If its illegal, then no new laws required then, keltic.

But most scams were legal when they started out. When the legislature realized these were scams, in the sense that people were deceived, they passed a law against it. This is what the legislature should do against this scam as well-the one where centers full of nothing but anti-abortion convincers advertise under Abortion Services and try to lure unsuspecting women through the door.

Saying that a practice is presently legal is NOT a logical answer to the question of whether a deceptive practice should be made illegal. Your "reasoning" goes around in circles, in the following path:

A) This practice is legal, therefore it is all right.
B) Since it is all right, a law should not be passed against.

If we follow your "reasoning", no new laws can ever be passed against any new deceptive practices which arise in the future. Schemers and con men will have a field day.

0 Replies

olie wrote:

My bottom line, no laws specifically targeting them are appropriate or proper. Specific laws to single out anti-abortion clinics show you have a vendetta against them.

What is this mania of yours against passing laws against specific scams? According to you, every anti-fraud law must apply to all industries or else the author has a "vendetta" against the industry.

Do you support the law that car dealers should not be allowed to roll back the odometer on used cars to make them appear to have fewer miles than they actually have? Because according to your definition, that law should go because it targets a specific industry.

Do you support truth in lending laws? Because according to your definition, those laws have to go too, since they target only one industry-the lending industry.

If we followed your cockamamie requirements for anti-fraud laws, three quarters of the anti-fraud laws on the books would have to be thrown out.

Okie, you'll say anything, no matter how absurd, in order to defend the lies and deceptions of these anti-choice centers masquerading as places which provide Abortion Services, won't you?

0 Replies

Because Keltic Wizard does not know what he is talking about- His ideas on the economy are also absurd--he goes on trying to derail freedom of speech.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keltic Wizard has placed himself in the ridiculous position of attempting to stifle free speech. If, as he and some others would hold, the Anti-abortion clinics are yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre, there certainly would be legislation on that regard or, at least, a court finding. There is none, so Keltic Wizard is frustrated and practically foaming at the mouth.

The ACLU has been referenced as itself having an internal struggle concerning their desire that women seeking abortion should not be dissuaded from their goal against the right the ACLU has always worked to defend--Freedom of Speech.

I view the charge that the organizations which counsel a woman against abortion are committing a TORT as an idiocy and am asking that a legal source which holds that incredible position be cited--preferably a judicial source!!!

Keltic Wizard will not address this because he can't. It would make his anti-freedom of speech position look ridiculous.

When Keltic Wizard can point to a court decision which outlaws the work of Anti-Abortion counseling, then he has a leg to stand on. Until then, his blatherings are just useless and irrelevant arguments because they do not refference the First Amendment!!!

0 Replies

kelticwizard wrote:

okie wrote:
If its illegal, then no new laws required then, keltic.

But most scams were legal when they started out. When the legislature realized these were scams, in the sense that people were deceived, they passed a law against it. This is what the legislature should do against this scam as well-the one where centers full of nothing but anti-abortion convincers advertise under Abortion Services and try to lure unsuspecting women through the door.

Saying that a practice is presently legal is NOT a logical answer to the question of whether a deceptive practice should be made illegal.

Fraud is fraud. It has always been fraud. Deceptive advertising is deceptive advertising, whether its cars or abortion. Stealing was stealing 200 years ago. It still is. Keltic, you simply want to make more punitive laws to target anti-abortion centers and stifle them. Thats like allowing 1 strike, or even none, to some baseball players and leaving 3 strikes allowed for others.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

kelticwizard wrote:
okie wrote:
If its illegal, then no new laws required then, keltic.

But most scams were legal when they started out. When the legislature realized these were scams, in the sense that people were deceived, they passed a law against it. This is what the legislature should do against this scam as well-the one where centers full of nothing but anti-abortion convincers advertise under Abortion Services and try to lure unsuspecting women through the door.

Saying that a practice is presently legal is NOT a logical answer to the question of whether a deceptive practice should be made illegal.

Fraud is fraud. It has always been fraud. Deceptive advertising is deceptive advertising, whether its cars or abortion. Stealing was stealing 200 years ago. It still is. Keltic, you simply want to make more punitive laws to target anti-abortion centers and stifle them. Thats like allowing 1 strike, or even none, to some baseball players and leaving 3 strikes allowed for others.

There is no law against 'deceptive adverstising' unless the advertising misleads the person to the extent s/he suffers measurable harm. The technical definition of fraud: "intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right b : an act of deceiving or misrepresenting."

You can advertise a pully as the most inexpensive, easy to install, and effective product on the market when there are cheaper, simpler, and more efficient products out there. But you can't say that it will support a 500-pound weight when it won't.

You can say that your product is the best when it isn't. But you can't say it will cure cancer if it won't.

Terms such as 'better', "best", and 'expensive' are subjective and generally would not be held to be fraudulent when used. But make claims for a product that could cause loss of property or injury, and that's a different matter.

Planned Parenthood can bill itself as a 'family planning' organization even when its primary thrust (and income) is in helping women obtain abortions.

And a clinic can bill itself as an "abortion counseling' service when it fully intends to provide women counseling re the life within in them along with alternatives to abortion.

If Planned Parenthood counseled women that there were no viable alternatives or the Abortion Counseling service counseled women that abortion would do them irreversible harm, both could be guilty of fraud.

0 Replies

While there may be no criminal statute involved, something may still be a civil wrong. As I stated, a phony abortion organization may commit torts, and be sued for monetary damages.

0 Replies

You have to be able to show personal damages. No matter what the the misrepresentation, when there is no direct harm, there is no foul. If false advertising was a crime in all circumstances, every poltiician who has ever been in office would be in jail.

0 Replies

Who said otherwise?

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

Who said otherwise?

You said

Quote:

While there may be no criminal statute involved, something may still be a civil wrong. As I stated, a phony abortion organization may commit torts, and be sued for monetary damages.

Being a 'phony abortion organization' is not a crime. A 'civil wrong' implies damages as does 'tort'.

Yes, ANY organization can be sued for tort action and that includes any kind of counseling service, pro or con abortion, that misleads to the extent that personal damages occur. But billing yourself as an 'abortion counseling service' that specializes in talking women out of abortion does not rise to that level any more than does Planned Parenthood who rarely brings up alternatives to abortion which pretty well eliminates the "Parenthood" emphasis in their name.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

While there may be no criminal statute involved, something may still be a civil wrong. As I stated, a phony abortion organization may commit torts, and be sued for monetary damages.

But,if you arent a woman,then nothing that concerns abortion concerns you.
Therefore,you have not been harmed at all.

0 Replies

I gave an example earlier in which a woman would probably have a civil action against such an organization. If the latter falsely tells the woman it will help her get an abortion, but instead delays her to the extent that she cannot get legally get one, she would have a valid action against the organization.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

But,if you arent a woman,then nothing that concerns abortion concerns you.
Therefore,you have not been harmed at all.

Well, why are we men then engaged with this topic at all?

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

I gave an example earlier in which a woman would probably have a civil action against such an organization. If the latter falsely tells the woman it will help her get an abortion, but instead delays her to the extent that she cannot get legally get one, she would have a valid action against the organization.

And what would her cause of action against the organization be, Advocate?

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

But,if you arent a woman,then nothing that concerns abortion concerns you.
Therefore,you have not been harmed at all.

Well, why are we men then engaged with this topic at all?

Last I checked, it took a man to help a woman become pregnant, and if that pregnancy results in the birth of a child, the man can be held responsible for helping support it. So common sense, Walter, tells me that pregnancies are also of great interest to men, at least they should be, not just because they result into their children, but also the men have a legal right to have some say in the matter. Along with responsibilities should come some rights as well.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

And what would her cause of action against the organization be, Advocate?

*************************************************************
I would like to know that also< Mr. Advocate!!!

0 Replies

Free speech for me but not for thee. ACLU busted!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know