Re: Westboro Baptist Church

On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 22:42:33 GMT, Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net> wrote:

>CyberDroog wrote:
>> These are the people who where going to stage a protest at the funerals of
>> the little Amish girls murdered last week. They planned to carry signs
>> saying things such as "Your daughter's were whores and are in hell now."
>
>That's not free speech, that's personal, vicious harassment. Harassment
>is not protected speech. IIRC, that POS has some assault convictions.
>Give them a one-way ticket to Iraq, and let them preach in the Sunni
>Triangle. Of course our troops couldn't offer them protection, because
>our troops are sodomites and are going to hell, so we wouldn't want to
>offend the good reverend's sensibilities.

So far the courts are powerless to stop them. Two of the leaders of the
church are lawyers, so they know what they can get away with. Religious
expression, no matter how vile, is protected speech.

These are the times when society has to step in and make it clear that such
behavior won't be tolerated.

In message <an1hi25odkms9g3dni5bq57uhnskh2rkgc@news.easynews. com>,
CyberDroog <CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> writes
>On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 22:42:33 GMT, Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>CyberDroog wrote:
>>> These are the people who where going to stage a protest at the funerals of
>>> the little Amish girls murdered last week. They planned to carry signs
>>> saying things such as "Your daughter's were whores and are in hell now."
>>
>>That's not free speech, that's personal, vicious harassment. Harassment
>>is not protected speech. IIRC, that POS has some assault convictions.
>>Give them a one-way ticket to Iraq, and let them preach in the Sunni
>>Triangle. Of course our troops couldn't offer them protection, because
>>our troops are sodomites and are going to hell, so we wouldn't want to
>>offend the good reverend's sensibilities.
>
>So far the courts are powerless to stop them. Two of the leaders of the
>church are lawyers, so they know what they can get away with. Religious
>expression, no matter how vile, is protected speech.
>
>These are the times when society has to step in and make it clear that such
>behavior won't be tolerated.

They'd be in clink for their behaviour over here; incitement to
religious hatred is a crime, and free speech isn't a defence.

--
The opinions given above may be mine. They might also
just be what I feel like saying right now, okay?

x-no-archive: yes

Alan Harding wrote:
> In message <an1hi25odkms9g3dni5bq57uhnskh2rkgc@news.easynews. com>,
> CyberDroog <CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> writes
>
>> On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 22:42:33 GMT, Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> CyberDroog wrote:
>>>
>>>> These are the people who where going to stage a protest at the
>>>> funerals of
>>>> the little Amish girls murdered last week. They planned to carry signs
>>>> saying things such as "Your daughter's were whores and are in hell
>>>> now."
>>>
>>>
>>> That's not free speech, that's personal, vicious harassment. Harassment
>>> is not protected speech. IIRC, that POS has some assault convictions.
>>> Give them a one-way ticket to Iraq, and let them preach in the Sunni
>>> Triangle. Of course our troops couldn't offer them protection, because
>>> our troops are sodomites and are going to hell, so we wouldn't want to
>>> offend the good reverend's sensibilities.
>>
>>
>> So far the courts are powerless to stop them. Two of the leaders of the
>> church are lawyers, so they know what they can get away with. Religious
>> expression, no matter how vile, is protected speech.
>>
>> These are the times when society has to step in and make it clear that
>> such
>> behavior won't be tolerated.
>
>
> They'd be in clink for their behaviour over here; incitement to
> religious hatred is a crime, and free speech isn't a defence.


Did they ever prosecute any of these folks?

www.nefafoundation.org/video/protest.wmv

"Janithor" <Janithor@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:452965C8.7030503@comcast.net...
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> Alan Harding wrote:
>> In message <an1hi25odkms9g3dni5bq57uhnskh2rkgc@news.easynews. com>,
>> CyberDroog <CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> writes
>>
>>> On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 22:42:33 GMT, Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> CyberDroog wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> These are the people who where going to stage a protest at the
>>>>> funerals of the little Amish girls murdered last week. They planned to
>>>>> carry signs saying things such as "Your daughter's were whores and are
>>>>> in hell now."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That's not free speech, that's personal, vicious harassment.
>>>> Harassment
>>>> is not protected speech. IIRC, that POS has some assault convictions.
>>>> Give them a one-way ticket to Iraq, and let them preach in the Sunni
>>>> Triangle. Of course our troops couldn't offer them protection, because
>>>> our troops are sodomites and are going to hell, so we wouldn't want to
>>>> offend the good reverend's sensibilities.
>>>
>>> So far the courts are powerless to stop them. Two of the leaders of the
>>> church are lawyers, so they know what they can get away with. Religious
>>> expression, no matter how vile, is protected speech.
>>>
>>> These are the times when society has to step in and make it clear that
>>> such behavior won't be tolerated.
>>
>> They'd be in clink for their behaviour over here; incitement to religious
>> hatred is a crime, and free speech isn't a defence.
>
> Did they ever prosecute any of these folks?
>
> www.nefafoundation.org/video/protest.wmv

my guess would be no. prosecutions under this law are unusual, hard to win,
and rarely undertaken for actions and utterances at public rallies. so i
wouldn't be so quick to assert that the westboro loonies would be in the
clink now in either canada or the UK. but here's a prosecuted case you might
be interested in, if you're not familiar with it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Zundel

cal wrote:

>"Janithor" <Janithor@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:452965C8.7030503@comcast.net...
>
>
>>x-no-archive: yes
>>
>>Alan Harding wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In message <an1hi25odkms9g3dni5bq57uhnskh2rkgc@news.easynews. com>,
>>>CyberDroog <CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> writes
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 22:42:33 GMT, Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>CyberDroog wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>These are the people who where going to stage a protest at the
>>>>>>funerals of the little Amish girls murdered last week. They planned to
>>>>>>carry signs saying things such as "Your daughter's were whores and are
>>>>>>in hell now."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>That's not free speech, that's personal, vicious harassment.
>>>>>Harassment
>>>>>is not protected speech. IIRC, that POS has some assault convictions.
>>>>>Give them a one-way ticket to Iraq, and let them preach in the Sunni
>>>>>Triangle. Of course our troops couldn't offer them protection, because
>>>>>our troops are sodomites and are going to hell, so we wouldn't want to
>>>>>offend the good reverend's sensibilities.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>So far the courts are powerless to stop them. Two of the leaders of the
>>>>church are lawyers, so they know what they can get away with. Religious
>>>>expression, no matter how vile, is protected speech.
>>>>
>>>>These are the times when society has to step in and make it clear that
>>>>such behavior won't be tolerated.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>They'd be in clink for their behaviour over here; incitement to religious
>>>hatred is a crime, and free speech isn't a defence.
>>>
>>>
>>Did they ever prosecute any of these folks?
>>
>>www.nefafoundation.org/video/protest.wmv
>>
>>
>
>my guess would be no. prosecutions under this law are unusual, hard to win,
>and rarely undertaken for actions and utterances at public rallies. so i
>wouldn't be so quick to assert that the westboro loonies would be in the
>clink now in either canada or the UK. but here's a prosecuted case you might
>be interested in, if you're not familiar with it.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Zundel
>
>
>
>
The 1988 trial was chronicled in part in Errol Morris's 1999 documentary
_Mr. Death: The Rise and Fall of Fred A. Leuchter, Jr. Definitely worth
watching.

"Noon Cat Nick" <chatdemidiSPAMBEGONE@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:452985CF.20202@hotmail.com...
> cal wrote:
>
>>"Janithor" <Janithor@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>news:452965C8.7030503@comcast.net...
>>
>>>x-no-archive: yes
>>>
>>>Alan Harding wrote:
>>>
>>>>In message <an1hi25odkms9g3dni5bq57uhnskh2rkgc@news.easynews. com>,
>>>>CyberDroog <CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> writes
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 22:42:33 GMT, Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>CyberDroog wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>These are the people who where going to stage a protest at the
>>>>>>>funerals of the little Amish girls murdered last week. They planned
>>>>>>>to carry signs saying things such as "Your daughter's were whores and
>>>>>>>are in hell now."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>That's not free speech, that's personal, vicious harassment.
>>>>>>Harassment is not protected speech. IIRC, that POS has some assault
>>>>>>convictions. Give them a one-way ticket to Iraq, and let them preach
>>>>>>in the Sunni Triangle. Of course our troops couldn't offer them
>>>>>>protection, because our troops are sodomites and are going to hell, so
>>>>>>we wouldn't want to offend the good reverend's sensibilities.
>>>>>>
>>>>>So far the courts are powerless to stop them. Two of the leaders of the
>>>>>church are lawyers, so they know what they can get away with. Religious
>>>>>expression, no matter how vile, is protected speech.
>>>>>
>>>>>These are the times when society has to step in and make it clear that
>>>>>such behavior won't be tolerated.
>>>>>
>>>>They'd be in clink for their behaviour over here; incitement to
>>>>religious hatred is a crime, and free speech isn't a defence.
>>>>
>>>Did they ever prosecute any of these folks?
>>>
>>>www.nefafoundation.org/video/protest.wmv
>>
>>my guess would be no. prosecutions under this law are unusual, hard to
>>win, and rarely undertaken for actions and utterances at public rallies.
>>so i wouldn't be so quick to assert that the westboro loonies would be in
>>the clink now in either canada or the UK. but here's a prosecuted case you
>>might be interested in, if you're not familiar with it.
>>
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Zundel
>
> The 1988 trial was chronicled in part in Errol Morris's 1999 documentary
> _Mr. Death: The Rise and Fall of Fred A. Leuchter, Jr. Definitely worth
> watching.

yeah, i saw that a couple of years ago. it's a remarkable documentary.

In article <452985CF.20202@hotmail.com>,
Noon Cat Nick <chatdemidiSPAMBEGONE@hotmail.com> wrote:

> The 1988 trial was chronicled in part in Errol Morris's 1999
> documentary _Mr. Death: The Rise and Fall of Fred A. Leuchter, Jr.
> Definitely worth watching.

I have *got* to see that movie sometime. I worked for a while for the
company that analyzed the gas chamber wall samples for cyanide. James
Roth, the lab manager, who appears in the movie, was my boss.

Mark

"RGB" <mark022806-asd@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:H1gWg.18796$N72.12778@fe12.news.easynews.com. ..
> In article <452985CF.20202@hotmail.com>,
> Noon Cat Nick <chatdemidiSPAMBEGONE@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The 1988 trial was chronicled in part in Errol Morris's 1999
>> documentary _Mr. Death: The Rise and Fall of Fred A. Leuchter, Jr.
>> Definitely worth watching.
>
> I have *got* to see that movie sometime. I worked for a while for the
> company that analyzed the gas chamber wall samples for cyanide. James
> Roth, the lab manager, who appears in the movie, was my boss.
>
> Mark

jesus
that sounds cheery as hell!

RGB wrote:

>>The 1988 trial was chronicled in part in Errol Morris's 1999
>>documentary _Mr. Death: The Rise and Fall of Fred A. Leuchter, Jr.
>>Definitely worth watching.

> I have *got* to see that movie sometime. I worked for a while for the
> company that analyzed the gas chamber wall samples for cyanide. James
> Roth, the lab manager, who appears in the movie, was my boss.

Sounds like you had an interesting, gig.
If I can find my copy, yer welcome to
it. I've tried to watch it several times
and I end up in some kind of weird fugue
state every time. My dad was a guard on
death row at Walpole State Prison during
the 60s and -- I dunno, the film flips
some kind of switch in me (no pun
intended) related to that. And it's just
that particular film. I've got a high
toleration for that kind of, um, topic.

Gayle

In article <K8gWg.10204$GR.8339@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net> ,
"justabeing" <just.a.being@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> The 1988 trial was chronicled in part in Errol Morris's 1999
> >> documentary _Mr. Death: The Rise and Fall of Fred A. Leuchter, Jr.
> >> Definitely worth watching.
> >
> > I have *got* to see that movie sometime. I worked for a while for the
> > company that analyzed the gas chamber wall samples for cyanide. James
> > Roth, the lab manager, who appears in the movie, was my boss.
>
> jesus
> that sounds cheery as hell!

It was OK. I was their IT department, when "IT" consisted of managing an
Oracle server with a bunch of VT220s connected to it. The president had
a fear of the Internet but I finally persuaded him to let me set up a
dialup UUCP feed for email.

It was kind of scary, all these coolers full of samples coming in for
analysis, all day long, with God knows what in them. One of the first
things I was told was what to do if I smelled almonds.

Roth wasn't a bad guy. From what I understand, he was tricked into
performing the analysis in a way that was guaranteed *not* to detect
significant amounts of cyanide.

Mark

In article <56WdnRMiGIhDD7TYnZ2dnUVZ_omdnZ2d@rcn.net>,
Gayle <gayleco@rcn.com> wrote:

> If I can find my copy, yer welcome to it. I've tried to watch it
> several times and I end up in some kind of weird fugue state every
> time.

Hey, thanks, I may take you up on that if alternative acquisition
methods fail.

Did you watch enough of it to see Roth interviewed?

Mark

RGB wrote:

> Did you watch enough of it to see Roth interviewed?

Well, it's kinda fuguey -- but I
remember at least one clip that might
have been him. You said something like
he felt set up somehow? For the
interview or the research?

Gayle

In article <FeOdncLG-puSPLTYnZ2dnUVZ_o6dnZ2d@rcn.net>,
Gayle <gayleco@rcn.com> wrote:

> Well, it's kinda fuguey -- but I remember at least one clip that
> might have been him. You said something like he felt set up somehow?
> For the interview or the research?

The research. From Wikipedia:

"Lab manager James Roth swore under oath to the results at the trial. It
was only after he got off the stand that Roth learned what the trial was
about. In an interview for Morris's film, Roth states that cyanide would
have formed an extremely fine layer on the walls, to the depth of
one-tenth of a human hair. Leuchter had taken samples of indeterminate
thickness (he is seen in Morris's film hammering at the bricks with a
rock hammer). Not informed of this, Roth had pulverized the entire
samples, thus severely diluting the cyanide-containing layer of each
sample with an indeterminate amount of brick, varying for each sample.
Roth offers the analogy that the tests were like looking at timbers when
one needed to be looking at the paint."

On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 12:50:00 +0100, Alan Harding <Alan@harding.demon.co.uk>
wrote:

>In message <an1hi25odkms9g3dni5bq57uhnskh2rkgc@news.easynews. com>,
>CyberDroog <CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> writes
>>
>>So far the courts are powerless to stop them. Two of the leaders of the
>>church are lawyers, so they know what they can get away with. Religious
>>expression, no matter how vile, is protected speech.
>>
>>These are the times when society has to step in and make it clear that such
>>behavior won't be tolerated.
>
>They'd be in clink for their behaviour over here; incitement to
>religious hatred is a crime, and free speech isn't a defence.

So telling someone else that they are going to hell is incitement to
religious hatred in the U.K.?

Hey Gayle,

I got a copy of that movie about Leuchter. Jesus Christ. I was
especially charmed by his description of how much better a job he could
have done of designing *real* mass human extermination facilities. And
that business about how he and his wife spent their honeymoon
vandalizing the gas chambers in Auschwitz.

And it was WEEEEEEEIRD seeing my old boss in there!!!

Mark

RGB wrote:

>Hey Gayle,
>
>I got a copy of that movie about Leuchter. Jesus Christ. I was
>especially charmed by his description of how much better a job he could
>have done of designing *real* mass human extermination facilities. And
>that business about how he and his wife spent their honeymoon
>vandalizing the gas chambers in Auschwitz.
>
>And it was WEEEEEEEIRD seeing my old boss in there!!!
>
>Mark
>
>
Leuchter was/is quite a piece of work. Also a rather naïve fellow, with
regard to his own self. He got so wound up in the celebrity and
attention he was receiving that he never thought about the possible
negative fallout from it. He also couldn't stand even to consider that
his research was faulty from the get-go.

As he said earlier in the movie, it was odd and irrational that all
these prison officials considered him an expert on all forms of
state-operated human execution when his knowledge was pretty much
confined to electric chairs. Unfortonately for him, he obviously came to
be convinced of it himself. Which partly led to his downfall.

In article <452A3DA1.8090303@hotmail.com>,
Noon Cat Nick <chatdemidiSPAMBEGONE@hotmail.com> wrote:

> As he said earlier in the movie, it was odd and irrational that all
> these prison officials considered him an expert on all forms of
> state-operated human execution when his knowledge was pretty much
> confined to electric chairs. Unfortonately for him, he obviously came to
> be convinced of it himself. Which partly led to his downfall.

Yeah. His statements about how he was the only person in the world
qualified to determine the function of the alleged gas chambers were a
little crazy.

"CyberDroog" <CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote in message
newsjhji2lqp2f7qvhr52fo660jkngkioo4bd@news.easyn ews.com...
> On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 12:50:00 +0100, Alan Harding <Alan@harding.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>>In message <an1hi25odkms9g3dni5bq57uhnskh2rkgc@news.easynews. com>,
>>CyberDroog <CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> writes
>>>
>>>So far the courts are powerless to stop them. Two of the leaders of the
>>>church are lawyers, so they know what they can get away with. Religious
>>>expression, no matter how vile, is protected speech.
>>>
>>>These are the times when society has to step in and make it clear that
>>>such behavior won't be tolerated.
>>
>>They'd be in clink for their behaviour over here; incitement to
>>religious hatred is a crime, and free speech isn't a defence.
>
> So telling someone else that they are going to hell is incitement to
> religious hatred in the U.K.?

dunno about that, but publicly calling someone a whore entirely for reasons
of religious hatred could be grounds for a defamation conviction even in the
land of the free.

On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 12:21:57 GMT, Noon Cat Nick
<chatdemidiSPAMBEGONE@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Leuchter was/is quite a piece of work. Also a rather naïve fellow, with
>regard to his own self. He got so wound up in the celebrity and
>attention he was receiving that he never thought about the possible
>negative fallout from it. He also couldn't stand even to consider that
>his research was faulty from the get-go.

Was that the guy who tried disproving the existence of gas chambers in
Germany by testing scrapings from the concrete walls for cyanide?

On Mon, 9 Oct 2006 12:39:51 -0400, "cal" <cal1360@gmaNOSPAMail.com> wrote:

>"CyberDroog" <CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote in message
>newsjhji2lqp2f7qvhr52fo660jkngkioo4bd@news.easy news.com...
>>
>> So telling someone else that they are going to hell is incitement to
>> religious hatred in the U.K.?
>
>dunno about that, but publicly calling someone a whore entirely for reasons
>of religious hatred could be grounds for a defamation conviction even in the
>land of the free.

Seems like too much room for argument. Whore, to the uber religious, means
many different things.

CyberDroog wrote:

>On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 12:21:57 GMT, Noon Cat Nick
><chatdemidiSPAMBEGONE@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Leuchter was/is quite a piece of work. Also a rather naïve fellow, with
>>regard to his own self. He got so wound up in the celebrity and
>>attention he was receiving that he never thought about the possible
>>negative fallout from it. He also couldn't stand even to consider that
>>his research was faulty from the get-go.
>>
>>
>
>Was that the guy who tried disproving the existence of gas chambers in
>Germany by testing scrapings from the concrete walls for cyanide?
>
>
>
Yep. He went into the chambers and hacked off various-sized chunks of
brick from the walls, then took them to a U.S. lab and asked they be
checked for cyanide. Not knowing what they had, the chemists pulverized
the brick pieces and put the whole shebang into the testing fluid. They
tested positive for cyanide, but the way in which they were tested threw
the results way off, by a factor of between 1,000 and 100,000, according
to RGB's former boss. He explained that Leuchter misinstructed them, and
that he should've had the lab test the surfaces of the samples.
According to him, cyanide gas only penetrates 10 microns deep into a
brick; in comparison, the average strand of human hair has a diameter of
100 microns. The improper method of testing used thus grossly diluted
the results.

RGB wrote:

> I got a copy of that movie about Leuchter. Jesus Christ. I was
> especially charmed by his description of how much better a job he could
> have done of designing *real* mass human extermination facilities. And
> that business about how he and his wife spent their honeymoon
> vandalizing the gas chambers in Auschwitz.

Yeah, his affect or lack of context for
his work -- or whatever the heck was
going on with him -- was beyond
disturbing to me.

> And it was WEEEEEEEIRD seeing my old boss in there!!!

Heh, I'll bet.

Gayle

In article <p6adnR1bNdmcWLfYnZ2dnUVZ_uudnZ2d@rcn.net>,
Gayle <gayleco@rcn.com> wrote:

> > And it was WEEEEEEEIRD seeing my old boss in there!!!
>
> Heh, I'll bet.

I worked for Jim a couple of years after the whole Leuchter incident,
and you know, in the whole year or so I was there, he never once
mentioned it -- and this dude was one of the gabbiest people I've ever
met. I suppose it was something he *really* wanted to put behind him.

Mark

On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 21:28:39 GMT, Noon Cat Nick
<chatdemidiSPAMBEGONE@hotmail.com> wrote:

>CyberDroog wrote:
>
>>Was that the guy who tried disproving the existence of gas chambers in
>>Germany by testing scrapings from the concrete walls for cyanide?
>>
>Yep. He went into the chambers and hacked off various-sized chunks of
>brick from the walls, then took them to a U.S. lab and asked they be
>checked for cyanide. Not knowing what they had, the chemists pulverized
>the brick pieces and put the whole shebang into the testing fluid. They
>tested positive for cyanide, but the way in which they were tested threw
>the results way off, by a factor of between 1,000 and 100,000, according
>to RGB's former boss. He explained that Leuchter misinstructed them, and
>that he should've had the lab test the surfaces of the samples.
>According to him, cyanide gas only penetrates 10 microns deep into a
>brick; in comparison, the average strand of human hair has a diameter of
>100 microns. The improper method of testing used thus grossly diluted
>the results.

FRom what I saw in the documentary and read from scientists on the net,
testing the surfaces of the bricks that long after the fact would be
useless either way. It was a pointless examination from the start.