Burnt Orange Report

Much as I despise the ACLU overall, at least THEY have a consistent approach to the First Amendment protection of free speech. This post suggests that you do not.

Let me just say as a first time commentator on burnt orange report that this site is awesome. We need more left wing insight on such topics as abortion and our crumy chief executive. Keep up the good work YALL! Let me just say this zealot may have free speech rights, but turnabout is fair play, someone needs to harrass his azz just short of beating it.

If you use the term "Anti-Choice" to describe your opponents, you can't complain too loudly when your opponents call you "Anti-Life".

I would not be so quick to concede that the letters are NOT illegal. First, Hagstrom has admitted that he intends to do everything in his power, including sending letters, to cause her to be evicted. Tortious interference with contractual relations is actionable, and he clearly has civil exposure, if in fact the Clinic's lease is terminated early.

Second, given the history of violence among anti-choice radicals (how many doctors have they shot?), it is entirely reasonable to assume that the purpose of the letters is to incite radicals to commit acts of violence against the owner. This, my friends is a crime.

Morris Dees at the Southern Poverty Law Center in Montgomery, Alabama has been very succesful in suing the Klan and other violence-prone organizations under similar theories. Not only has he been successful in bankrupting these organizations, his work has spurred law enforcement to bring criminal prosecutions as well. If anyone is close to the people at the clinic, I suggest you recommend that they contact the Southern Poverty Law Center (look on the internet for contact information).

I cherish our 1st Amendment rights more than anyone, especially those of people whose speech I despise. However, there is a difference between speaking out against a person and "exposing" that person with the intent that she become the victim of violence. (Reminds one of Karl Rove and CIA Plame) Given the context, you have to be blind to ignore that the purpose of these letters is to incite violence.

I support free speech and the ACLU. However, as the poster above mentions, the legality of some of the actions by this man are certainly questionable.

I refer to people who oppose abortion rights as "anti-choice" because "pro-life" is also a term that can refer to people who oppose capital punishment. I also have trouble personally refering to someone as "pro-life" who opposes abortion, but doesn't support having a safe home, stong health care and education for that child when it is born - something that the state of Texas doesn't do (as they make abortions more difficult to get). Finally, I don't refer to people who oppose abortion rights as "anti-abortion" because there are many people who oppose abortion, but support abortion rights, just as it's inappropriate (in my opinion) to classify all pro-choice folks as "pro-abortion".

However, there is a difference between speaking out against a person and "exposing" that person with the intent that she become the victim of violence. (Reminds one of Karl Rove and CIA Plame)

Actually, it reminds me of when all the Angry Left blogs posted the address, map and phone number of John Poindexter when he was named to the now-defunct TIPS program. TIPs for tat, then?

it's inappropriate (in my opinion) to classify all pro-choice folks as "pro-abortion".

"I don't choose to murder people with a pickaxe, but I support the right of those who do choose to murder people with a pickaxe. Therefore, I am not complicit in their action." False, just as what I call the Cuomo Copout: "I am personally opposed to abortion, but I will defend the right of others to abort." Fortunately, such hypocrisy by "Catholic" politicians no longer passes muster with voters.

Mr. Harden,

I do not know of the Poindexter example of which you speak, and therefore cannot comment on it. However, I do not condone anyone encouraging violence against anyone.

I do appreciate however your admission that the Austin activist's intentions were to incite violence (you even think it is justified - "TIPs for tat" in your own words) It is interesting that you have such a Machiavellian perspective - do you too support murdering abortion doctors as an exmaple of the ends justifying the means, or "TIPS for tat" in your own words?

The CIA had an opening for an assassin. After all of the background checks, interviews, and testing were done there were three finalists - two men and one woman. For the final test, the CIA agents took one of the men to a large metal door and handed him a gun.

"We must know that you will follow your instructions, no matter what the circumstances. Inside this room you will find your wife sitting in a chair. You have to kill her." The first man said. "You cant be serious. I could never shoot my wife!"The agent replies, "Then you?re not the right man for this job."

The second man was given the same instructions. He took the gun and went into the room. All was quiet for about five minutes. Then the agent came out with tears in his eyes. "I tried, but I cant kill my wife." The agent replies, "You dont have what it takes. Take your wife and go home."

Finally, it was the womans turn. Only she was told to kill her husband. She took the gun and went into the room. Shots were heard, one shot after another. They heard screaming, crashing, banging on the walls. After a few minutes, all was quiet. The door opened slowly and there stood the woman. She wiped the sweat from her brow and said, "You guys didnt tell me the gun was loaded with blanks. So I had to beat him to death with the chair."