Glenn, I owe you an apology. I was one of those people after 9/11 who was willing to give up some of my freedoms if it would keep America safe. You sounded the alarm. You were right and I was wrong. Recently, when you referenced the Claiborne County case I researched it and also read about the 9th Circuit decision on the Nuremberg Files …
Glenn, I owe you an apology. I was one of those people after 9/11 who was willing to give up some of my freedoms if it would keep America safe. You sounded the alarm. You were right and I was wrong. Recently, when you referenced the Claiborne County case I researched it and also read about the 9th Circuit decision on the Nuremberg Files website case. The website published the names and addresses of abortion doctors and later three doctors were murdered. I know personally how horrific and tragic those murders were because two occurred in the city where I lived at the time. Planned Parenthood sued the Nuremberg Files website creators. The 9th Circuit, probably the most liberal court in the country, ruled unanimously it was protected speech with similar reasoning used in the Claiborne case.
Excellent article . . . depressing and scary but excellent.
>> and also read about the 9th Circuit decision on the Nuremberg Files website case. The website published the names and addresses of abortion doctors and later three doctors were murdered. I know personally how horrific and tragic those murders were because two occurred in the city where I lived at the time. Planned Parenthood sued the Nuremberg Files website creators. The 9th Circuit, probably the most liberal court in the country, ruled unanimously it was protected speech<<
Not really accurate.
That 9th Circuit case was overturned en banc (all the judges of that circuit rehearing the matter):
>>The decision of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco (9th Cir.) overturns a three-judge panel ruling from March 2001 that deemed the Web site’s content protected speech because it did not directly threaten violence.
But a 6-5 majority thought otherwise.
Judge Pamela Ann Rymer, writing for the majority, said the American Coalition of Life Activists clearly issued a threat to abortion doctors listed on the Nuremberg Files site.
“ACLA was aware that a “wanted”-type poster would likely be interpreted as a serious threat of death or bodily harm by a doctor in the reproductive health services community who was identified on one, given the previous pattern of “WANTED” posters identifying a specific physician followed by that physician’s murder,” Rymer wrote.<<
On the narrow facts of that case I find that the en banc court had the stronger case. That is, The Nuremberg Files site did constitute a "true threat," which is not protected speech.
Right, and Hugo Black was a KKK member and Supreme Court Justice. Not every voter thinks that lawyers and judges should be the final word, especially when the bar is the largest criminal organization in America, and probably the most powerful. Any ruling not affirmed or voided by the Supreme Court is really just waiting for reversal.
That is the problem with America today, lawyers are running the place.
Would you call it "a true threat" if someone reads Henry VI, Part 2, Act IV, Scene 2 in public?
Ultimately. But thats because the members of the 9th circuit change, no? You conveniently ignore the FACT that they did rule unanimously it was protected speech.
But there you are, good little DNC lawyer, picking out a specific point that helps your case and ignoring the poster pointing out the hypocrisy of the people in power on cases that help their narrative vs hurt them.
"But thats because the members of the 9th circuit change, no?"
No.
It's because the full circuit of judges reversed the subset that was the original 3-judge panel. There was a mere year between the 2 decisions.
In any event, I wished to correct the error the original commenter made, as the 9th Circuit (sitting en banc) did not ultimately rule as she said. Your non sequiturs -- including ad hominem attacks on me -- are all irrelevant to that.
The original 9th circuit ruling was as the poster said though? So they were speaking factually.
It's not an ad hominem attack to point out the poster was accurate and the 9th circuit did rule that way, even if it was overturned. Not every petitioner has unlimited funds and time to continue hoping a court "gets it right".
The judiciary is the ruling class. If you have any doubt, remember that legislation passed by congress and signed into law by the President still can be declared illegal or unconstitutional by people appointed for life by politicians, every single one of whom has been a member of the bar at some point.
Every single corporation and entity on earth someone would declare as "powerful" has an attorney or multiple in their upper management and a budget for them as well.
The real gunslingers of the 21st century are lawyers and they have endless paperwork and cost for weapons.
You are most welcome, Margaret. It's not easy to follow the history of a case unless one is using a pricey legal database. Your error is an easy one to make -- it's not usual for a circuit court panel to be reversed by the full circuit, as happened in this case.
I unsuccessfully tried to follow the trail with my limited resources because I did assumed it would have eventually ended up in the Supreme court. I also appreciate your clear and concise explanation to a non-attorney like me!
Glenn, I owe you an apology. I was one of those people after 9/11 who was willing to give up some of my freedoms if it would keep America safe. You sounded the alarm. You were right and I was wrong. Recently, when you referenced the Claiborne County case I researched it and also read about the 9th Circuit decision on the Nuremberg Files website case. The website published the names and addresses of abortion doctors and later three doctors were murdered. I know personally how horrific and tragic those murders were because two occurred in the city where I lived at the time. Planned Parenthood sued the Nuremberg Files website creators. The 9th Circuit, probably the most liberal court in the country, ruled unanimously it was protected speech with similar reasoning used in the Claiborne case.
Excellent article . . . depressing and scary but excellent.
>> and also read about the 9th Circuit decision on the Nuremberg Files website case. The website published the names and addresses of abortion doctors and later three doctors were murdered. I know personally how horrific and tragic those murders were because two occurred in the city where I lived at the time. Planned Parenthood sued the Nuremberg Files website creators. The 9th Circuit, probably the most liberal court in the country, ruled unanimously it was protected speech<<
Not really accurate.
That 9th Circuit case was overturned en banc (all the judges of that circuit rehearing the matter):
>>The decision of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco (9th Cir.) overturns a three-judge panel ruling from March 2001 that deemed the Web site’s content protected speech because it did not directly threaten violence.
But a 6-5 majority thought otherwise.
Judge Pamela Ann Rymer, writing for the majority, said the American Coalition of Life Activists clearly issued a threat to abortion doctors listed on the Nuremberg Files site.
“ACLA was aware that a “wanted”-type poster would likely be interpreted as a serious threat of death or bodily harm by a doctor in the reproductive health services community who was identified on one, given the previous pattern of “WANTED” posters identifying a specific physician followed by that physician’s murder,” Rymer wrote.<<
https://www.rcfp.org/appeals-court-deems-anti-abortion-site-threat/
On the narrow facts of that case I find that the en banc court had the stronger case. That is, The Nuremberg Files site did constitute a "true threat," which is not protected speech.
Right, and Hugo Black was a KKK member and Supreme Court Justice. Not every voter thinks that lawyers and judges should be the final word, especially when the bar is the largest criminal organization in America, and probably the most powerful. Any ruling not affirmed or voided by the Supreme Court is really just waiting for reversal.
That is the problem with America today, lawyers are running the place.
Would you call it "a true threat" if someone reads Henry VI, Part 2, Act IV, Scene 2 in public?
It's easy to forget that rule of law is just a euphamism for rule by lawyers. Laws, after all, have no agency.
Your non sequiturs do not alter the fact that the 9th Circuit ultimately ruled as I indicated it did in the Nuremberg Files case.
Ultimately. But thats because the members of the 9th circuit change, no? You conveniently ignore the FACT that they did rule unanimously it was protected speech.
But there you are, good little DNC lawyer, picking out a specific point that helps your case and ignoring the poster pointing out the hypocrisy of the people in power on cases that help their narrative vs hurt them.
"But thats because the members of the 9th circuit change, no?"
No.
It's because the full circuit of judges reversed the subset that was the original 3-judge panel. There was a mere year between the 2 decisions.
In any event, I wished to correct the error the original commenter made, as the 9th Circuit (sitting en banc) did not ultimately rule as she said. Your non sequiturs -- including ad hominem attacks on me -- are all irrelevant to that.
Good night.
The original 9th circuit ruling was as the poster said though? So they were speaking factually.
It's not an ad hominem attack to point out the poster was accurate and the 9th circuit did rule that way, even if it was overturned. Not every petitioner has unlimited funds and time to continue hoping a court "gets it right".
Oh my goodness, you don't know that you're not making any sense, do you?
And P.S.: The Supreme Court twice rejected an appeal of the case.
PS there is a new conservative court in town, perhaps you hadn't noticed.
The judiciary is the ruling class. If you have any doubt, remember that legislation passed by congress and signed into law by the President still can be declared illegal or unconstitutional by people appointed for life by politicians, every single one of whom has been a member of the bar at some point.
Every single corporation and entity on earth someone would declare as "powerful" has an attorney or multiple in their upper management and a budget for them as well.
The real gunslingers of the 21st century are lawyers and they have endless paperwork and cost for weapons.
Thank you the additional information and clarification.
You are most welcome, Margaret. It's not easy to follow the history of a case unless one is using a pricey legal database. Your error is an easy one to make -- it's not usual for a circuit court panel to be reversed by the full circuit, as happened in this case.
I unsuccessfully tried to follow the trail with my limited resources because I did assumed it would have eventually ended up in the Supreme court. I also appreciate your clear and concise explanation to a non-attorney like me!