Court Tells Former NRA President The First Amendment Protects Far More Than Polite Speech

from the what's-this-about-the-2nd-Amendment-protecting-the-First? dept

Wed, Nov 28th 2018 10:43am — Tim Cushing

Here in America, unpleasant speech is still protected speech, something a federal court recently reminded a plaintiff. (h/t Adam Steinbaugh)

The person bringing the lawsuit is Marion Hammer, the first female president of the National Rifle Association. A frequent target of online criticism, hate mail, and harassment, Hammer decided to sue a handful of her many, many detractors. The lawsuit [PDF] alleges an ongoing campaign of harassment and cyberstalking engaged in by the four defendants.

The suit was filed in July. Three of the four defendants failed to respond. The fourth, Lawrence T. "LOL" Sorensen, responded with a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Sorensen argued his communications with Hammer were protected speech. The judge agrees. In Robert Hinkle's short decision [PDF], the judge reminds Hammer that the First Amendment protects a lot of speech people don't like, even when it's targeting them.

Mr. Sorensen sent Ms. Hammer two emails, each transmitting one or more photographs showing injuries from gunshot wounds. Sending these unsolicited to anyone, even a public figure who advocates gun rights, was inappropriate, indeed disgusting. As Ms. Hammer correctly notes in response to the motion to dismiss, “there are limits on how people can treat those with whom they disagree.” Or at least on how people should treat those with whom they disagree. Emails like these should not be sent in a civilized society.

That does not mean, though, that emails like these can be made criminal or even tortious. Tolerating incivility, at least to some extent, is a price a nation pays for freedom. There is no clear line between incivility, on the one hand, and effective advocacy, on the other. Turning loose a legislature, judge, or jury to ferret out incivility would deter and even sometimes punish the robust public discourse that is essential to freedom—the public discourse whose protection is the main object of the First Amendment.

The judge notes that simply finding someone else's behavior unseemly isn't a federal case, especially not when First Amendment rights are on the line. He notes Sorensen never threatened Marion Hammer "explicitly or implicitly" when he sent her photos of gunshot wounds. All the email said was "Thought you should see a few photos of handiwork of the assault rifles you support." The second was along the same line, noting that the attached photo of a dead John F. Kennedy showed the damage done by an "outdated military rifle" and that today's rifles were far more powerful and "far more destructive."

The court reminds Hammer the First Amendment doesn't work the way she wants it to work. If the First Amendment only protected polite discourse, it would be useless. Not only that, but the sending of gunshot wound photos to an advocate of gun ownership is not harassment or cyberstalking. It's a discussion of a matter of public interest, even if the discussion is largely one-sided.

The photographs were germane to the policy debate that Ms. Hammer regularly participated in and Mr. Sorensen apparently sought to join. Sending these photographs, at least in these circumstances, was not tortious. And treating them as tortious would violate the First Amendment.

As Adam Steinbaugh notes in his follow-up tweet, it would be nice to have a federal anti-SLAPP law in place to deter lawsuits like these. If Hammer felt she may have to pay Sorensen's legal fees for bringing a misguided lawsuit against him, she may have decided to leave him out of it. Now, Sorensen's out time and money for doing nothing more than engaging in protected speech.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: 1st amendment, 2nd amendment lawrence sorensen, anti-slapp, first amendment, free speech, marion hammer
Companies: nra

58 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

I.T. Guy, 28 Nov 2018 @ 10:50am

Re: bdnews24
Isn't that just a CIA front?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

W. M. Bucket (s'il vous plait: prononcer boo-kay), 28 Nov 2018 @ 10:56am

So, 3 out of 4 so accurate that aren't contested.

Three of the four defendants failed to respond.

Guess those'll be default judgments = WIN.

As usual, Techdirt cheers incivility, esp against "political" opponents who are engaging in thier protected advocacy.

Marion Hammer should send the anti-Constitutionalist gun-grabber images of DEAD victims who didn't have a gun to defend selves with. -- BUT WON'T because irrelevant emotional and gruesome imagery isn't the way conservatives advocate.

But if I was able to post here images of the thousands Palestinian victims of Israeli Defense Forces protesting the wall and apartheid society, you'd go berserk. -- Won't even be able to stand this little bit of text being seen without a warning and extra click!

Techdirt's notion of free speech is to protect yourselves from what don't want to see. -- SO YOU AGREE with Hammer IN PRINCIPLE!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2018 @ 11:00am

Re: So, 3 out of 4 so accurate that aren't contested.
Quite frankly, I think the way the government of Isreal treats the citizens of Palestine is nothing more than barbarous, but regardless of that it's not actually on topic, you dickweed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2018 @ 11:17am

Possibly, she and others think the bill of rights only applies to them and not others. This is consistent with many things that they say and do.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2018 @ 11:29am

Re:
nods.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2018 @ 11:29am

Re: So, 3 out of 4 so accurate that aren't contested.
"BUT WON'T because irrelevant emotional and gruesome imagery isn't the way conservatives advocate."

You're living in an alternate reality.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2018 @ 11:32am

The court reminds Hammer the First Amendment doesn't work the way she wants it to work.

If only the first amendment was as simple as the second amendment, then simple-minded rubes could understand it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Lawrence D’Oliveiro, 28 Nov 2018 @ 11:33am

Lawrence’s Law Of Gun-Control Debates
No discussion about the harms of guns can go on very long without somebody trying to conflate guns with cars.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
bob, 28 Nov 2018 @ 11:34am

Re: So, 3 out of 4 so accurate that aren't contested.
Techdirt's notion of free speech is to protect yourselves from what don't want to see. -- SO YOU AGREE with Hammer IN PRINCIPLE!

What evidence do you have to support the idea that the writers of techdirt support that misinterpretation of the 1st amendment? Especially since that is exactly opposite what the article was stating.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2018 @ 11:35am

Re: So, 3 out of 4 so accurate that aren't contested.
BUT WON'T because irrelevant emotional and gruesome imagery isn't the way conservatives advocate.

Sure, except when the septuagenarian bible-lickers are outside Planned Parenthood with their aborted baby pictures.

Then it's different, amirite?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gwiz (profile), 28 Nov 2018 @ 11:35am

Re:

Techdirt's notion of free speech is to protect yourselves from what don't want to see.

That is Free Speech, you dolt.

You're free to say what you want (as long as it's actually protected speech) and I'm free to ignore you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jeff Green (profile), 28 Nov 2018 @ 11:36am

Re: So, 3 out of 4 so accurate that aren't contested.
It is entirely possible that 3 out of 4 defendants don't actually exist and non-existent defendants frequently keep their own council.
Personally I have always regarded the American worship of free speech above all else as downright silly but I've not seen Techdirt wandering from that stance. The IDF are far too often a bunch of vile thugs who use the excuse that there are vile thugs on the other side as an excuse to do whatever the hell they like but it is hardly relevant here.
Sending pictures of the outcome of gunshots to an advocate of everyone carrying and using their weapons is even in my jaundiced anti-American view of Free Speech so completely clearly uncriminal that I can't understand why you bothered posting it, still you have the right to your opinion, however silly.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
bob, 28 Nov 2018 @ 11:38am

Re: Lawrence’s Law Of Gun-Control Debates
Especially when you bring it up yourself.

So a self fulfilling law?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2018 @ 11:40am

when the shoe's on the other foot ...
Displaying gruesome pictures as a form of protest, once a common tactic by anti-abortion activists, is one Constitution "right" that has been restricted by US courts.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2013/08/gruesome-abortion-photos-and-the-supreme-court-the-justi ces-refuse-to-stand-up-for-the-first-amendment-rights-of-protestors.html

Hopefully the "right to be offensive" (or not) will apply equally to both liberals and conservatives when they're protesting controversial emotional issues.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2018 @ 11:45am

Couldn't sending someone pictures of gunshot wounds be considered threatening?

Sending threats is not protected speech.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
James Burkhardt (profile), 28 Nov 2018 @ 11:47am

Re: So, 3 out of 4 so accurate that aren't contested.
Failed to Respond =/= in the wrong. Depending on what pre-suit efforts were made to resolve the conflict, the filing of the suit may have had the same effect as a strongly worded letter/threat would another. That is, they choose to stop their actions. And then they ignored the suit, because Americans love to do that. And many may have ignored suits because they can't afford a lawyer, not realizing that some response is best.

Also, acknowledging the legality of the incivility, does not invalidate the acknowledgement of its incivility, nor does it cheer incivility. It only notes that a court is not way to remedy that behavior. No where does the author praise the incivility. Only says it is legal. Which as Popehat notes, if your only defense is that it's not illegal to say, it's probably not speech you should engage in. But the Moral/ethical questions ("should/should not") of civil speech are not legal ("Can/can not") arguments.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gary (profile), 28 Nov 2018 @ 11:55am

Re: So, 3 out of 4 so off topic
Here, have a downvote just to show you how much we value our freedom of speech!
Unless you want the Federal Government you love so much to step in and say Mike can't let us downvote you anymore?
Or maybe pass some Federal Regulations against downvotes?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Stephen T. Stone (profile), 28 Nov 2018 @ 11:56am

Techdirt's notion of free speech is to protect yourselves from what don't want to see.

Well…yeah. You have the absolute right to protect yourself from speech you do not want to see—but that right does not extend into a right to block someone else’s speech entirely. I consider the Westboro Baptist Church’s speech to be offensive and reprehensible; that subjective opinion does not grant me an objective legal right to silence them in any way. I can simply ignore them—or, better yet, counter them with less reprehensible speech/expression—but I cannot force them into silence just because I hate their “God Hates Fags” signs.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2018 @ 12:10pm

Re:

"Thought you should see a few photos of handiwork of the assault rifles you support."

There is no way that that is a threat.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2018 @ 12:11pm

yes, "hate speech" really is a crime
You are correct. Even constructing macabre Halloween-type art that is not directed at any particular person can be considered a death threat, which this guy got 6 months in jail for doing:

https://www.whsv.com/content/news/Court-Virginia-man-who-hung-noose-in-yard-not-protected-by-1 st-Amendment-402493176.html
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ECA (profile), 28 Nov 2018 @ 12:51pm

civilized society
That is interesting, and I will give an explanation..
Dogs have a long history with mankind..
From Wild to Equal Family member and protector, then to a Domesticated Lump on your floor.

Why get a Large dog? now? friendship? Partner in crime? Protector? something to scare your Ex?
Lie in a large City and train your dog to Spit, in the Corner.. Is that FAIR?? Or do you wander behind him along the street to pick up his waste??

But this is killing them. They need Room they need a job. they need Attention you arnt giving them..SQUIRREL..

You need abit of WILD in your life also..that way you wont be so FAT..
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Toom1275 (profile), 28 Nov 2018 @ 12:51pm

Re: Re: Lawrence’s Law Of Gun-Control Debates
The real Lawrence's law is: "No discussion that even mentions guns can go on very long without Lawrence D'Oliveiro shitposting all over it."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2018 @ 12:52pm

Re: when the shoe's on the other foot ...
I remember seeing those gruesome abortion pictures and laughing a lot.

The bullet ridden people are real.

A bloody baby head on salad tongs is not real and just being unnecessarily grotesque.

I really don't know why I need to explain to you that people don't rip baby heads off from the womb from salad tongs and why just being a lying dick might not get you many points with the judge but here we are.

People think all exploration past the Van Allen belt is fake.

The world is flat.

And that democrats rape children in pizza parlors.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Toom1275 (profile), 28 Nov 2018 @ 1:01pm

Instead of going federal, it sounds like she should have used state-level anti-abuse laws. If someone keeps sending abuse after being told to stop, a protective order can be sought. If it continues after granting, then using the court to punish the abusive turdlings can happen. Nothing in the 1A gives the defendants the right to force their vile hate to be seen by another.

Two things, though: One, a plaintiff can only really act on their own behalf. They can get a "Stop sending this shit to me" protective order, but they can't get a "stop sending this shit to us one.

And, of course, 1A would completely protect the defendants if they had decided to write blogs instead of emails.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Toom1275 (profile), 28 Nov 2018 @ 1:03pm

Re: when the shoe's on the other foot ...
Tactically and morally, there's little distinction between anti-abortion zealots and anti-gun zealots.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2018 @ 1:17pm

Re: So, 3 out of 4 so accurate that you promised to leave
It’s not about you dipshit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
James Burkhardt (profile), 28 Nov 2018 @ 1:22pm

Re: Re: when the shoe's on the other foot ...
Yes, but that's not in the logic of the court rulings refrenced by that post..

A better tack might have been to lean on the legal rulings in this case, and highlight that the judge noted that this images were being sent as a valid support of an argument that the plaintiff chose to be a part of by his own decisions, and were narrowly spoken only to him.

Contrasting the abortion protest cases, where it was a restriction based on the obscene content being thrust upon everyone, including those who chose to otherwise not be part of the debate, and those for whom such images are highly damaging.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2018 @ 1:23pm

Re: when the trees tell you leave
Whoops looks like someone brought an apples and photoshopped fetus head arguement to a gunfight.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2018 @ 1:24pm

Re:
Yes it could. This isn’t, thanks for playing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chip, 28 Nov 2018 @ 1:27pm

Re: Lawrence’s Law Of Gun-Control Debates
Chip's "Law" of PAINT chips!

If I "say" something about PAINT "chips", then someone will have Said something "about" Paint Chips!!!

Every Nation eats the Paint Chips it "deserves"!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chip, 28 Nov 2018 @ 1:29pm

Re: Re: Lawrence’s Law Of Gun-Control Debates
Oh Shit, "look"! I was RIGHT!

I wrote a "post" where i said Something about "aint" Chips,
and then there was a POST about PAINT CHIPS there!!

Thats how "Mart" my Law is!
It is "always" Right!!!

Every Nation eats the Paint chips it Desevs!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Glenn, 28 Nov 2018 @ 1:30pm

Does the court need to be reminded that harassment and threats are NOT "free speech"?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Thad (profile), 28 Nov 2018 @ 1:31pm

Re: yes, "hate speech" really is a crime
No, hate speech is not a crime; at least, not in the US.

Threats are not protected by the First Amendment. But threats are not the same thing as hate speech.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Thad (profile), 28 Nov 2018 @ 1:36pm

Re:
From context, it was clear that the images were not threats: "Thought you should see a few photos of handiwork of the assault rifles you support" clearly indicates that Sorenson is attempting to disgust and shame Hammer, not threaten her.

Hammer does not appear to have made a claim of harassment. The court can't rule on a harassment claim if none is presented.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2018 @ 2:10pm

Re: Re: when the shoe's on the other foot ...
"Tactically and morally, there's little distinction between anti-abortion zealots and anti-gun zealots."

The two groups, being at opposite ends of the political spectrum, almost never agree on anything. In this case, an exclusively "woman's rights" issue and a mostly "man's rights" issue. The one thing they do agree on, however, is that when the baby's father (alone) is the one who decides to abort his child, it's murder.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/08/02/spiking-drink-abortion-pill/8948040 02/

I've never quite understood the legal concept behind this, unless we accept the notion that equality does not really exist and a mother's legal rights are far superior than a father's legal rights. And that an unborn fetus can simultaneously be both a person in the eyes of the law and *not* a person, depending on the situation, in a kind of legalized cognitive dissonance.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Thad (profile), 28 Nov 2018 @ 2:16pm

Re: Re: Re: when the shoe's on the other foot ...
If you can't figure out the difference between a woman making a choice about her own body, and someone else making a choice about her body without her consent, then...yep, you sound like a pro-lifer, all right.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2018 @ 2:24pm

So, Mr. Sorensen should "stay in his lane"?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lawrence D’Oliveiro, 28 Nov 2018 @ 2:24pm

Re: when the shoe's on the other foot ...

Tactically and morally, there's little distinction between anti-abortion zealots and anti-gun zealots.

OK, I’ll bite.

Anti-abortion “pro-lifers” tend to be in favour of the death penalty. Real human lives seem to count less to them than mere fertilized eggs.

Gun-control advocates tend to be in favour of saving real human lives, rather than sacrificing them.

Which do you think sounds like a consistent position?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2018 @ 2:37pm

Re: Re: Re: Lawrence’s Law Of Gun-Control Debates
He and chip are birds of a feather.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
James Burkhardt (profile), 28 Nov 2018 @ 2:55pm

Re:
In threats, context matters.

"Man, it would be horrible if something happened to that [insert valuable property here], you need fire insurance" is a friendly comment when made by a friend.

"Man, it would be horrible if something happened to that [insert valuable property here], you need fire insurance" is a threat when made by a representative of a protection racket.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2018 @ 3:33pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: when the shoe's on the other foot ...
But is a fetus considered "her own body" or distinct person with legal rights? And if the answer is "her own body" then how is getting an involuntary abortion any different than getting an involuntary amputation, which while certainly not a nice thing to have done on anyone, would not conceivably be considered murder?

I'm not an ideological "pro-lifer" but one who finds the legal aspects of pre-term babies confusing. For instance, why is it that (secretly pregnant) teen-age girls who give birth in a public toilet and pull the flush will be tried for murder (same as if they killed someone else's child) yet had they instead gone to a Planned Parenthood clinic that week and got a late-term abortion, everything would be perfectly legal? It's a very fine line that separates the crime of murder from the non-crime of abortion. and unlike many other types of legal offenses such as speeding or illegal drug possession, the crime(s) and penalites are essentially binary rather than incremental.

As with assault weapons, abortion is something that modern technology has created, a highly contentious issue today that was never even a concern for previous generations. I'm going to guess that Techdirt, as a virtual stag party, has never touched on that distinctly female issue, and probably all the better.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lawrence D’Oliveiro, 28 Nov 2018 @ 4:12pm

Re: I'm not an ideological "pro-lifer" but
It’s always the “but”, isn’t it? This idea that “life begins at conception” doesn’t jibe with biological reality.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2018 @ 4:33pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: when the shoe's on the other foot ...
Late term abortion isn’t at 8.75 months bro. You would do well to learn a teeny bit about abortion before you go spouting off your ignorance like, well an “ideological pro-lifer.” Seriously abortion has been contentious since at least Roman times.

An example that might help you understand seemingly arbitrary additives better is put thusly. A teeny imaginary line seperate smoking weed legally in Colorado and going to jail for it in Utah.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
oliver (profile), 28 Nov 2018 @ 11:44pm

Impolite speech.....
"..this ticket gives me the right, no, the moral obligation to behave like a complete idiot..."

Simpsons did it already a long time ago ;-)

Cheers, oliver
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Nov 2018 @ 4:44am

Re: Re: Re: when the shoe's on the other foot ...
In the case of an abortion pill, that has deletrious effects on the woman's body as well, and is thus an issue of (body) property rights, much like abortion itself.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Nov 2018 @ 4:46am

Re: Re:
Now if only "assault rifles" as defined by anti gunners had some basis in reality beyond "they look scary!"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Nov 2018 @ 4:47am

Re: Re: yes, "hate speech" really is a crime
Hate speech is just as much of a crime as a prosecutor can convince a jury it is. That amount is more than zero.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Thad (profile), 29 Nov 2018 @ 7:48am

Re: Re: Re: yes, "hate speech" really is a crime

Hate speech is just as much of a crime as a prosecutor can convince a jury it is.

Until the case is appealed to a court that doesn't have a jury.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 29 Nov 2018 @ 12:13pm

Re: Re: when the shoe's on the other foot ...
There's one thing I'll give credit to the Catholic Church for, they're pretty consistently pro-life. Against abortion, against the death penalty, etc.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wendy Cockcroft, 30 Nov 2018 @ 2:32am

Re: Re: Re: Re: when the shoe's on the other foot ...
** you sound like a pro-lifer, all right.**

Anti-choice, Thad. Anyone who cared about the "all lives matter" thing wouldn't discriminate. Anti-choicers think of women as talking incubators with no rights and our health means little to them. That "love them both" thing is downright cruel and evil in practice, which is why Ireland repealed its 8th Amendment earlier this year.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wendy Cockcroft, 30 Nov 2018 @ 6:00am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: when the shoe's on the other foot ...
Okay, as a woman, I'll bite:

I'm not an ideological "pro-lifer" but one who finds the legal aspects of pre-term babies confusing.

I'm not an ideological conservative but I do share your confusion. Mind you, "Pro-life" is a misnomer, they're actually anti-choice and the ideology is all about controlling and restricting female sexuality. They're not interested in protecting the unborn, that's just a by-product of their activism. Consider this: there are fewer maternal deaths -- and abortions -- in blue states where the welfare is more generous. This is because pregnancy requires medical care throughout the pregnancy, not just at the end when it comes out.

For instance, why is it that (secretly pregnant) teen-age girls who give birth in a public toilet and pull the flush will be tried for murder (same as if they killed someone else's child) yet had they instead gone to a Planned Parenthood clinic that week and got a late-term abortion, everything would be perfectly legal?

The law differentiates between pre-born and post-born. Once it's out, it's a person in the eyes of the law. The trouble with granting full personhood to the unborn as we in Ireland previously did is that it pitted the mother against her own foetus and basically sided with the foetus. On paper, that's great. In practice, don't get me started. Okay, I'll start:

http://on-t-internet.blogspot.com/2018/05/irelands-8th-amendment-referendum-what.html

http:// on-t-internet.blogspot.com/2018/05/irelands-8th-amendment-repeal-why-are.html

http://www.patheos.com /blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2012/10/how-i-lost-faith-in-the-pro-life-movement.html

It's a very fine line that separates the crime of murder from the non-crime of abortion. and unlike many other types of legal offenses such as speeding or illegal drug possession, the crime(s) and penalites are essentially binary rather than incremental.

Whatever. When pregnancy robs you of your own personhood and effectively renders you a ward of the state with no rights of your own, that's a problem.

As with assault weapons, abortion is something that modern technology has created, a highly contentious issue today that was never even a concern for previous generations.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_abortion

You might be surprised to learn that the anti-abortion movement is the recent thing.

I'm going to guess that Techdirt, as a virtual stag party, has never touched on that distinctly female issue, and probably all the better.

Lurk moar. Ignorant authoritarians hop in to TD comments to opine on the subject on a regular basis, which is what prompted the above blog posts from On T'internet. If they were truly pro-life they'd be screaming for gun control and better welfare provision for pregnant women and for poor children, but they don't so excuse me for having no respect for them and their lies and hypocrisy.

I'm not ideologically pro-life, but damn it I see a correlation between making ob-gyn care and meds (including contraceptives of every kind) available to those who need it and welfare and healthcare during and after pregnancy for women and children, and the abortion rate plummeting, so that's what I recommend. I'm also horrified by gun worship and believe that criminals and loons should not have easy access to them. I suppose that makes me actually pro-life.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wendy Cockcroft, 30 Nov 2018 @ 6:06am

Re: Re: Re:
They tend to be more efficient at killing large numbers of people quickly. Consider this: you get two shells in a shotgun and have to reload after firing them. You kill by aiming and shooting at point blank range.

In a machine-gun with multiple bullets per clip, you spend less time reloading and can kill more people from further away by swinging your gun across as you shoot.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lawrence D’Oliveiro, 30 Nov 2018 @ 12:47pm

Re: The law differentiates between pre-born and post-born.
It seems to me the distinction should be based on the point where the foetus is capable of independent existence. From that point on, it’s a human being; before that point, it’s just a parasite.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 30 Nov 2018 @ 6:19pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not to come across like a gun nut or anything but...

you get two shells in a shotgun and have to reload after firing them.

With some shotguns. Others you can load six shells. There are military issue shotguns that are drum fed automatic fire weapons, though I don't know that civilians can get their hands on those.

You kill by aiming and shooting at point blank range.

Depending on what you mean by point blank range. Effective range for a shotgun could be 30 yards or more, depending on many factors. Personally I wouldn't call that point blank.

In a machine-gun with multiple bullets per clip

Machine guns generally don't have magazines (which is what almost everyone means by "clip"). They are usually belt fed, and are designed for sustained fully automatic firing. In the US, they are expensive, rare, and difficult to obtain. You're probably thinking of semi-automatic rifles, which are easy to get at a variety of stores.

can kill more people from further away by swinging your gun across as you shoot.

That is not how guns are used unless firing indiscriminately into a crowd. Such incidents are dwarfed by the number of one-on-one murders using handguns. If you really want to do something about people being killed by guns in the US, you have to do something about the handguns, because they're the real problem. Death by rifle is a much smaller issue even if that's what gets on the news.

Should you be in a different country, perhaps things are different for you there - and then of course you wouldn't have the 2nd amendment to worry about.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wendy Cockcroft, 3 Dec 2018 @ 2:27am

Re: Re: The law differentiates between pre-born and post-born.
That seems reasonable to me. I see our "pro-life" advocate has sodded off. Damn facts, scaring them off!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wendy Cockcroft, 3 Dec 2018 @ 2:30am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Thank you for correcting me. I know sod all about guns except what I see in the media. I do believe that restricting possession of any gun to sensible law-abiding folk would be a good start. As others have pointed out, domestic violence is a good indicator as to whether or not someone is likely to escalate to murder. It might be worth starting there.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 3 Dec 2018 @ 8:35am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

As others have pointed out, domestic violence is a good indicator as to whether or not someone is likely to escalate to murder.

That would probably help a lot.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2018 @ 2:18pm

Re: So, 3 out of 4 so accurate that aren't contested.
"But if I was able to post here images of the thousands Palestinian victims of Israeli Defense Forces protesting the wall and apartheid society, you'd go berserk."

No, I would thank you for proving how harmful guns are. And why Persia Palestinians are victims, most of them at least.

The one good thing i see from this piece of news is that, if the NRA director doesn't want to see the consequences of what they're advocating for, they at least have enough of a conscience to know that what they're doing is evil. They just are too greedy to stop.

"BUT WON'T because irrelevant emotional and gruesome imagery isn't the way conservatives advocate."

Thanks for this little bit of alternative facts, but I'd rather have actual facts.
[ link to this | view in thread ]