Verdict against the Aryan Nations -- anyone else think this is wrong???

[AndrewR]

I read about this case a few weeks ago. Here's the link to the report about the verdict:http://www.msnbc.com/news/456715.asp
While I do not agree with the Aryan Nations and Richard Butler's views, this verdict is a load of crap and needs to be overturned.

Why? What happens when Morris Dees disagrees with what you have to say? He'll sue you and bankrupt you the exact same way. Does anyone else see a problem with that??

These are the same tactics that the Scientologists use to silence their critics, except they always use copyright law to bludgeon their detractors. In the case of the Aryan Nations, we have people acting outside the scope of their employment (they actually weren't paid, though), outside of the compound, under no direct orders, and basically completely disconnected from the Aryan Nations and Richard Butler. However, since Morris Dees disagrees with their message (I actually disagree with Dees' politics just as much), he sues to silence them.

If this isn't an attack on the 1st Amendment, I'm not sure what is. Richard Butler has every right in this country to espouse his views. Tort law was never intended to silence that right for Butler, for Al Sharpton, or for anyone else.

I mean, it's right there in that article:

<< ?You are the conscience of this community,? Dees told jurors. ?Tell Richard Butler, ?We don?t believe in your America, Mr. Butler.?? >>


That has NOTHING to do with the tort action in the case.

Lawyers like Dees make me sick that I went to law school.

 

[dabuddha]

i agree with the verdict completely. maybe cause im biased a little and can't stand hate groups. They're nothing but ignorant and cause nothing but trouble. If you're going to express your contreversial views publically like that, you should also be prepared to be the target of many people. It sickens me when people claim their first amendment right to free speech when they use it out of context. I bet if you asked the same people to state the bill of rights, they wouldn't be able to.
society's been going downhill since everyones been demanding to have &quot;freedoms&quot; Kids are out of control, parent's don't do anything to teach them. I used to be a liberal but after seeing how our country is ending up, im becoming more and more conservative

 

[Moonbeam]

As a commie pinko pacifist, I'm afraid I have to very strongly agree, provided of course I have the real facts, which I'm sure I don't. Since that won't stop others from forming an absolute conviction in this matter, I won't let it stop me either. The facts as I heard them is that the suee has a known, professed policy of non violence and the perps acted violently. Not his fault in my humble opinion. We have to be extremely careful not to use the law on people we don't like because we are sure they are evil. For example I was just the other day tarred in the court of one person's public opinion, by somebody who had the amazing ability to extrapolate from my words all sorts of fantastical notions about my philosophy without ever suspection the existence of alternative explanations. Had it been pacificist season I could have easily been shot.

Fortunately for me, as a veteran of the Great War, I have gotten somewhat used to bullet holes.

PS It just occured to me to wonder how the course of human history might have changed if some worthless scum lawyer had sued Hitler into bankrupsy and oblivion. The point being that it would be nice if society had a some mechanism to prevent or eliminate psychopaths from taking the reigns of power and before the death of millions. What are the characteristics of our societh that we often wait too long before taking action.

 

[convex]

Morris Dees actions and statements in court were totally inapporpriate for that particular case. I don't care for the Aryan Nations myself, but that was not the issue at hand. The legal system has crapped out again.

 

[AndrewR]

Pardon me if I don't respond right away, I'm recovering from the shock of having Moonbeam agree with me.

dabuddha: It's not conservative or liberal to understand and insist on the enforcement of the rights under the first ten amendments -- it's a civic duty. Obviously, they can be interpreted in conservative or liberal ways, but I really don't think this is the case with the Aryan Nations. Morris Dees made it VERY clear that this case was not about the torts committed against the injured plaintiffs (psychological, not physical as I understand it), but that this case was being prosecuted because of the views of the Aryan Nations and Richard Butler.

There is a serious problem with that because if it is done for the Aryan Nations, it could just as easily be done with some issue that you hold sacred. If Morris Dees wants to work through the legislature to shut down the Aryan Nations, then he should do that. If the citizens of Idaho wish to do so as well, then they have that avenue. However, the separation of powers in this country was put in place for a reason. Those jurors, and Morris Dees, cannot and should not speak for the entire state or for the entire nation in silencing the Aryan Nations through bankruptcy, and the judicial branch should never institute defacto legislation through decisions (though they do all the time -- Scalia is the only Supreme Court justice who recognizes that).

Unless Morris Dees also takes on Farrakhan for the same reason he took on Butler, he's a hypocrite as well as a predator.

 

[BiB]

This Verdict is good, and I liked to see it. This aryan nation crap is a hate group; it has no place in a civilized society. Its the sort of s*it that leads to mass-bombings. The only better verdict would have been if the gov't was told they have to carpet bomb the whole place.

I understand why somebody would think this could be used to silence other groups, but in this case this particular group sucks donkey nuts.

I won't say it was legally sound, but I guess in this case I won't complain.

BiB

 

[FettsBabe]

Preach on Brother Andrew...I agree with you.

 

[DABANSHEE]

Well its normal legal practice for employers to be responsable for their employees actions, during their hours of employment. Of cource there are exceptions, such as when an employee is not following work policies, etc. But even then, employers can still be held liable. Is this another reason to sub-contract out work?

If Americans are sick of outrageous law suites &amp; punitive damages claims, its up to them to elect representatives into the legislature, who are willing to do something about it.

Still I don't know what this case has to do with 'hate crimes'.

 

[rahvin]

Regardless of what the lawyer said the Judge would have instructed the Jury on the legal definitions. He has his legal appeals, if the verdict was unjust it will be overturned on appeal. I think he and his group were responsible for the actions of those guards, the mother and son that were assaulted should own the place.

 

[dabuddha]

that's not the point at hall
It isn't my concern whether Morris Dees is a hypocrite or not.
I'm with BiB all the way
hate groups and people that embrace their beliefs shouldn't be allowed to be in the US even but thats just my opinion, and opinions are like a$$holes, everyones got one
Today's society has turned an almost complete 360 compared to the past
And its the public's claim to freedom of speech that has hurt us most.
Same deal with the burning the American flag. If someone burns the flag, i say we should deport their sorry asses to Canada

 

[AndrewR]

What's that adage (very rough paraphrasing): &quot;First they came for the Jews, and I did not protest since I am not Jewish. Next they came for the homosexuals, and I did not protest since I am not homosexual. Then they came for me, and there was no one left to protest.&quot;

I think that applies here, for all of those who object to what the Aryan Nations has to say but agree with the ruling. Think about it -- don't take the knee jerk response.

DABANSHEE:

<< Well its normal legal practice for employers to be responsable for their employees actions, during their hours of employment. >>

Only if the employees are acting within the scope of their employment or acting with the knowledge of the employer. I'm not current on employment law to a great degree, but there would have to be exceptional circumstances (ie, employer knew and did nothing, employee commonly took such actions without discipline, etc) to hold the employer responsible in a case like this. If some worker goes nuts and kills people while on the job, the employer cannot be held responsible unless that employer should have known the action was going to take place. Absent extenuating circumstances, we can't just willy-nilly hold the &quot;deep pockets&quot; responsible simply because of the locus/time of the tort.

Rahvin:

<< Regardless of what the lawyer said the Judge would have instructed the Jury on the legal definitions. >>

Geez, have you ever heard those instructions? It's probably one of the most borings things you will ever have to sit through, and I can almost guarantee that most of the jurors couldn't recite much of what was said. Juries always have and always will pass judgment with only a nod to the law -- they look to what they feel is just, not what is legal. That is why we have the appellate process. That being said, however, appellate decisions are not always done on legal precedent and jury rulings are regarded with great respect since it is the &quot;will of the people&quot;, as it were.

dabuddha:

<< opinions are like a$$holes, everyones got one >>

Exactly, and one of the underpinnings of this country is that you are allowed to express yours without being silenced by someone who disagrees with it. This use of the court system is especially egregious because it is under the color of law.

I do agree with you, however, on the flag burning issue. I consider that the one notable exception to the rule since so many people have died to protect that very symbol in cloth and in idea. The average lifespan of a color bearer in the Civil War was something like 13 seconds (it's ridiculously short -- don't know the exact figure), and constant volunteers replaced those who fell in combat to keep the colors aloft. With that history, I have strong feelings about that one issue. Plus, there are other ways to express yourself in that regard without resorting to the destruction of the flag.

In this case, the Aryan Nations are being effectively silenced through monetary penalty levied for reasons unrelated to the cause of the suit. Dees is not removing one method of their speech, he's trying to remove it all.

 

[BoberFett]

<< As a commie pinko pacifist >>

What's that about admittance being the first step to curing a problem?

 

[Tom]

Freedom of speech isn't freedom from responsibility.

 

[Raspewtin]

I'm no political or legal expert, but this does NOT seem about the first ammendment.

For example, if any other apolitical organizations' guards attacked individuals in this manner, it would also go to litigation probably. Now granted they used the plaintiff lawyers used the social beliefs of Aryan Nation against them, but both lawyers would use anything they could to win the case. Anyone who thinks otherwise, has not seen much trial law in their life. And trial law is a big part of the &quot;justice&quot; process.

First Ammendment says nothing abouting employees attacking individuals on corporate property. IMO, the Aryan Nation is using the Freedom of Speech Ammendment as a blanket to cover irresponsible corporate behavior. Everyone loves to be a martyr. Now if we all had non-traditional beliefs, we could get medieval on anyone, and then cry &quot;Don't hate me because I think differently.&quot; (while we beat the heck out of someone). When will some people learn that with freedom comes responsability. And I agree this is not about being conservative or liberal, as I lean to the left.

Very many Americans died for our freedom, and it annoys me when it's used as a blanket for irresponsible behavior.

 

[DABANSHEE]

aHey Andy, if you read the rest of that parragreph, you'll noticed I followed that statement with a qualifyer.

 

[AndrewR]

DABANSHEE: I know you did, but if you'll read the post just above your last one, you'll see why I explained it in a little more detail. I knew other people would assume the being on the job means liability for the employer.

Raspewtin:

<< For example, if any other apolitical organizations' guards attacked individuals in this manner, it would also go to litigation probably. >>

Yes, it would go to litigation since plaintiff's lawyers are always looking for deep pockets from which to garner a large reward. However, that doesn't mean that there is legal liability, only that there was a tort committed.

Yes, litigators use whatever they can to sway a jury, but that doesn't justify a verdict that should be based upon the law. Did you agree with the O.J. verdict? He was so definitely guilty that it wasn't even funny, but the jurors decided that the racist L.A.P.D. shouldn't be allowed to convict him.

I mean, come on -- who actually believes that Morris Dees cares one bit about the plaintiffs? They are pawns for him to use, that's it. This decision might make you feel good, but it's bad law and bad precendent.

 

[Moonbeam]

BoberFett, welcome to my club. Your admittance therein, I'm sure, will put you well on the road to cure.

AndrewR, Just when I had begun to relish our sympatico, you had to go off the deep end with the flag. I deeply appreciate your passion on the issue and agree that alternative means could be found to express protest, but you missed the fundamental issue in my opinion, one that relates to this thread. Burning the flag and espousing racial supremicy are contemptable acts of expression that need the protection of the 1st ammendment. Freedom is inalienable, and the flag is our symbol of that freedom. To make an exception to that freedom for the symbol would be the height of hypocracy in my opinion. Too, all those flag bearers you honor, picked up a flag they could also have burned. Maybe that's why they did. I have never felt any desire to burn our flag, but if the worshipers of symbol over substance get their way with law, I will. You cannot demand respect, it must be earned.

 

[CyberSax]

What does this have to do with Freedom of Speech? Is beating the living sh|t out of someone constitute as freedom of speech, I guess it does in your book, because you're probably a Nazi. As far as I can tell, this case has to do with compensation for damages, damages incurred when the Aryan nation beat the sh|t out of two individuals.

Don't worry @sshole, no one's trying to silence your buddies at the Aryan Nation. But don't expect society to tolerate their violence

anyone else think this is wrong???

What I think is wrong is the fact that you're alive. Feel free to ram a screwdriver into your skull. I doubt the Jewish guy down the street on whose garage door you drew a Swastika or the little Hispanic boy you tried to rape last week would mind.

 

[Moonbeam]

CyberSax, That's an interesting technique you have there. Pick something really disgusting, like Aryan Nation, and act just like them. Are you blind?

 

[Crystal Bay]

As a owner of multiple self defence items, yes it bothers me ....

I am not a Racist of Color, Just a Racist of Bad Character

&quot;Everyone can be trusted to a point ,,,, However very few can be trusted to the heart&quot; R.J.P...


Russ, RD, RIO, are you opinionating, even though I can anticipate your replys...well maybe not R.R.s'


There are assholes of all color... It is all about honesty ,integrety and at least some trust..,,babble babble....

 

[~zonker~]

from the article:

-------------------------------------------

DEFENSE ARGUMENT
Steele [the defense attorney] conceded that the Keenans had been terrorized but suggested that they only be awarded $4,000 to $10,000 each.

They admitted guilt......

His disciples [Butler's Church] have included some of the most notorious figures in the white supremacist movement, such as Robert Mathews, Randy Weaver and Buford Furrow, who is awaiting trial in Los Angeles on charges of killing a Asian-American postal carrier and shooting up a Jewish day care center last summer.

Stopping hate that kills is not wrong, in my view....

-------------------------------

This was a civil action, not initiated by the government. A jury found the defendants guilty and punished them. If you are trying to argue against the jury system of civil justice, again I have to disagree. Was this a just verdict? I may have my doubts. Was justice served in the verdict? Undoubtedly, again my opinion.

 

[AndrewR]

Hey CyberSax, you're about the biggest fscking idiot I've seen in awhile around here. If you are simply too simple to understand the how this case implicates free speech, perhaps you should stay out of a discussion which is obviously over your head. Perhaps when you reach high school and take a government class or something that might make you an informed citizen, you can contribute to an intelligent discussion. Until then, go away and play with your legos.


<< compensation for damages, damages incurred when the Aryan nation beat the sh|t out of two individuals >>


Since you appear to be quite dense, I'll explain. It wasn't the Aryan Nations which beat those two individuals (and, in fact, I don't think they were injured at all physically -- no matter that you are ignorant of the facts, it's in character), but three men acting outside the scope of their employment, two of which are in jail and the other a fugitive from justice. The perpetrators were punished. This case is politics, plain and simple, and bad precedent for future decisions -- can your little mind grasp the implications of that? Apparently not.

zonker: My guess is that they offered compensation for the victims to give the jury a means of providing money to them while not destroying the organization because of the lack of legal support for that action. I don't agree with that tactic from a legal perspective since it does undermine their inherent position. However, if the attorney thought the case was going badly, a concession like that might limit the damage (didn't work, obviously!).


<< If you are trying to argue against the jury system of civil justice, again I have to disagree. >>


I am trying to argue that the jury system of civil justice can be and is often flawed. If it were perfect, we would have no appellate review process to correct their mistakes. I thoroughly understand the sentiment behind their actions as I am very aware of how reprehensible that group is.

However, what happens if Morris Dees takes on the NRA in the same manner (I know I lost Moonbeam on this one)? Or, what if some other attorney takes on the NAACP or the ACLU (no loss to me!)? Whatever your political motivation, there is some group that advocates a position dear to you, unless you're just an apathetic robot. With this decision, those groups can be similarly silenced. That is not a good or a just result.

Moonbeam: I knew I'd lose you on the flag issue. I understand that it does not coincide with this free speech argument though I think the differentiation I made above explains it from my perspective. Being connected with the military, however, I must place special emphasis on the flag. To do otherwise does a disservice to the memories of those who have fallen in its defense -- which includes the defense of the cloth symbol itself.

 

[~zonker~]

Andrew, they are free to appeal, aren't they?

The NAACP, NRA and the ACLU are are all acountable to the same civil laws that were used in this case. I don't see anyone suing them in civil court, do you?

 

[TimberWolf]

~zonker~, et al:

What AndrewR is saying is that this establishes, or serves to legitimize, a precedent for doing so.

The &quot;legal&quot; tactics used to encourage this verdict (and award) concern me far more than than any hate group. In effect, it clearly states that you can be stripped of your rights if you (or your organisation, cause, religion, etc.) are unpopular enough with any majority viewpoint.

That's nothing less than &quot;Mob Rule&quot;; and it's precisely why the authors of the Constitution included the Bill of Rights in the same document that established our government as a representative Republic based on democratic principles, rather than a &quot;pure&quot; Democracy - a distinction that is all to frequently ignored.

 

[chess9]

We all need a hate group to hate. So, UP with hate groups. Let's encourage the swine to stoop to the lowest levels possible so the rest of us can feel like moral lions.