NationStates Jolt Archive

Imagine you own a (edit - book printing) company. Authors come to you with their work and pay you to create thousands of copies of their works for them to distribute. You do not sponsor then nor distribute them. theses sorts of business are common.

Now imagine that a group - lets say the KKK or Nazi or whomever, comes to you to have their work published. The work is first amendment protected speech and does not contain anything illegal (bomb making, incite to riot, etc).

Do you accept the job? Explain your answer.

(poll)

edit - assume that your publishing company will NOT be named in the document. Nobody would know you did it.

No, I don't want people associating the name of my publishing company with racism. That would be bad publicity and would probably hurt me financially. People would likely boycott.

I would have too. I am a believer in free speech. And I mean real free speech, the one which allows everyone to say what they want not just people who say what I want them too. If we censor them then we're just the same.

I would publish the drivel - two reasons.

1. To let the world read for themselves how stupid they are.

2. Money

Which order of importance these two reasons occupy is for you to decide.

The first amendment only stops Congress from interfering, as a private publisher I have my own discretion. All the same, money from the KKK spends the same as money from the ACLU, so I'd probably publish for them.
I might raise the price a bit, though, as there probably would be fewer other publishers willing to make such a deal.

It depends. How successful is my publishing company so far?

If I have the luxury of choice, then I would decide on the merit of the work. Not the Group.

If I don't have the luxury of choice, (i.e. My company needs the business) then I would print it, but put a disclaimer that the views of the work does not relfect the views of the publishing company.

Um... I dunno.

Part of me says it's important that everyone has the right the free speech. But another part says as a private individual/company then it's not my obligation to give them that platform.

I would choose not to publish it, as is my right as a private business, but refer them to other publishers who would. As for free speech, Belschaft, I too staunchly support freedom of speech and protection against censorship. However, that isn't the issue in this hypothetical. Censorship is saying something cannot be published/displayed/read/etc. I'm not saying that, I'm saying I'm personally not going to do it.

oops.

sure i would. im not a publisher im a PRINTER.

For me, it has nothing to do with free speech.

I'm the publisher, I can choose what to publish. It comes down to how I feel about the material. It's hard to be entirely sure... I mean, it's pretty objectionable. But then, where I am, almost anything that would get submitted is going to be pretty objectionable. So - how much trade do I want...

Depends on whether or not the money I get is worth the bad PR and lost sales that would almost certainly stem from it. People are quite likely to associate my decision to publish it with a covert endorsement of the book's contents. As you know, that's not a good thing if I want to sell books to people other than the Aryan Nations or Saudi Arabian madrassas.

I wouldn't want to aid the spread of something like that. "Someone else would do it anyway" isn't an excuse.

It depends. How successful is my publishing company so far?

If I have the luxury of choice, then I would decide on the merit of the work. Not the Group.

If I don't have the luxury of choice, (i.e. My company needs the business) then I would print it, but put a disclaimer that the views of the work does not relfect the views of the publishing company.

For the sake of the argument presume your publishing company is reasonably successful and you are not in dire need of cash. You clientel is made up primarily of small self-publishing authors. The topics vary from poetry to political discourse - but you don't really care because your job is simply printing the books and handing them back.

For the record - your company name does not appear in the document anywhere. Most authors request you use a pseudo publisher that suits them such as "published by Mystic Skeptic publishing company and ice-cream shoppe" or whatever...

I'd publish it as humor.

I voted no. As the owner of the publishing company, I would have the right to publish whatever I chose and this kind of matterial would not be acceptable to me even if it is protected by the first amendment.

Before you answer - or if you already have - consider this;
http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2008/08/19/california-doctors-cant-refuse-care-to-gays-on-religious-grounds/

...the (California) state Supreme Court ruled yesterday that doctors can’t refuse to treat gays and lesbians, even when doing so goes against their religious beliefs.

Guadalupe Benitez said she was denied fertility treatment because she was gay. The rulings in the case went back and forth as it moved through the courts, but the state’s supremes decided yesterday that a California law that bars businesses from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation trumps the doctors’ right to freedom of religion

So - you have to realize that if you deny someone (or treat them differently) your business services because of your religious or moral beliefs you are wrong according to California law and liable...

For the sake of the argument presume your publishing company is reasonably successful and you are not in dire need of cash. You clientel is made up primarily of small self-publishing authors. The topics vary from poetry to political discourse - but you don't really care because your job is simply printing the books and handing them back.

For the record - your company name does not appear in the document anywhere. Most authors request you use a pseudo publisher that suits them such as "published by Mystic Skeptic publishing company and ice-cream shoppe" or whatever...

Then I have the Luxury of Choice. so my answer would then be...

I would decide on the merit of the work. Not the Group.
I won't print just any old crap, it would have to meet my standards in order to be published.

As a rule, Manefesto-type works would not be printed unless it's a special order for a conference or something, but NOT for general sales (and the prices would be different.)

I won't accept nor will I refuse a job merely because I don't like the group behind the work.

After all, the KKK just might want to put together a compilation of Poetry or a collection of printed artwork, or even some favorite Recipies.

I would choose not to publish it, as is my right as a private business, but refer them to other publishers who would. As for free speech, Belschaft, I too staunchly support freedom of speech and protection against censorship. However, that isn't the issue in this hypothetical. Censorship is saying something cannot be published/displayed/read/etc. I'm not saying that, I'm saying I'm personally not going to do it.

Well said, Ryadn.
Unless your publication policy explicitly states you'll publish anything legal (non-libelous, etc.) without regard to content, you have a right to refuse to publish anything, whether that's because it's poorly written or because you disagree with the content or because your coffee tasted bad that morning.
As half-serious bumper stickers in newsrooms read, "Freedom of the press is reserved for those who know how to operate one." If these KKK folks really want to publish their books, they certainly can go out, buy a press, learn how to run it, and do it themselves.

So - you have to realize that if you deny (or treat someone differently) someone your business services because of your religious or moral beliefs you are wrong according to California law and liable...

Well, doctors are a different case than most other businesses; especially in California, they're certainly going to be part of a hospital system or group as a way of mitigating malpractice insurance costs and other expenses. I don't think it should be up to them to make a decision regarding their provision of care unless they are independent practitioners.

I highly doubt this would be applied on a universal basis, especially given the context of the decision.

If the group doesn't permit discrimination, then under no circumstances are any of its members allowed to do so. The same is true with pharmacists and contraception; if you want to refuse access on moral grounds, start your own business and discriminate. Otherwise, you're SOL and rightfully so.

Before you answer - or if you already have - consider this;
http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2008/08/19/california-doctors-cant-refuse-care-to-gays-on-religious-grounds/



So - you have to realize that if you deny someone (or treat them differently) your business services because of your religious or moral beliefs you are wrong according to California law and liable...

the law also tends to recognize that there's a difference between medical attention (which, to avoid slippery-slope issues, treats emergency treatment and fertility treatment similarly) and book publication. Restaurants can refuse to serve you if you're barefoot (or gay), but doctors can't; they're held to a different standard.

Most physicians are not part of a hospital - most are sole proprietors. The California law does not make exception for sole proprietors. Every doctor MUST provide their service without moral judgment.

Imagine you own a publishing company. Authors come to you with their work and pay you to create thousands of copies of their works for them to distribute. You do not sponsor then nor distribute them. theses sorts of business are common.

Typically a publishing company pays authors for the right to publish their works, not the other way around....

Well said, Ryadn.
Unless your publication policy explicitly states you'll publish anything legal (non-libelous, etc.) without regard to content, you have a right to refuse to publish anything, whether that's because it's poorly written or because you disagree with the content or because your coffee tasted bad that morning.
As half-serious bumper stickers in newsrooms read, "Freedom of the press is reserved for those who know how to operate one." If these KKK folks really want to publish their books, they certainly can go out, buy a press, learn how to run it, and do it themselves.

We had that bumper sticker on the bulletin board in our news room! :D Also the one-panel comic of two people in prison, with one guy saying, "I robbed a liquor store. What are you in for?" and the other guy saying, "I protected a source." :)

Barefoot is not a protected right. Free speech is - and sexual orientation is in California.

the scenario in the OP isnt one of a publisher.

if i were a publisher, i would never print a book like that.

the scenario is one of being a printer of books contracted by the writer.

as such i would not deny my services to anyone with a legal printing project.

Before you answer - or if you already have - consider this;
http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2008/08/19/california-doctors-cant-refuse-care-to-gays-on-religious-grounds/



So - you have to realize that if you deny someone (or treat them differently) your business services because of your religious or moral beliefs you are wrong according to California law and liable...

I suggest you learn the important difference between medicine and books, or you will have a very difficult and confusing life.

Typically a publishing company pays authors for the right to publish their works, not the other way around....

not really; http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=active&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=self+publishing&spell=1

there are thousands of print shops just waiting for your money to publish whatever drivel you desire...

Before you answer - or if you already have - consider this;
http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2008/08/19/california-doctors-cant-refuse-care-to-gays-on-religious-grounds/



So - you have to realize that if you deny someone (or treat them differently) your business services because of your religious or moral beliefs you are wrong according to California law and liable...

there is a difference between refusing medical treatment and refusing to publish someone's work.

Typically a publishing company pays authors for the right to publish their works, not the other way around....

I don't think the OP is talking about a REAL publishing company, I think s/he's more referencing a printer; you know, somewhere you can take your stuff in and have it copied and bound, then you can try to sell it or give it to friends.

I would choose not to publish it, as is my right as a private business, but refer them to other publishers who would. As for free speech, Belschaft, I too staunchly support freedom of speech and protection against censorship. However, that isn't the issue in this hypothetical. Censorship is saying something cannot be published/displayed/read/etc. I'm not saying that, I'm saying I'm personally not going to do it.

True, but if the concerns of the puplishing companies companies mean no one will print it the they have no platform from wich to practice there right to free speech. It's better to print it and let people make their own decision than hide it from them. The majority will disagree with them, so won't buy the book, and hopefully the bill for all those unsold and therefore unprofitable books will bankrupt the fuckers. ;)

the scenario in the OP isnt one of a publisher.

if i were a publisher, i would never print a book like that.

the scenario is one of being a printer of books contracted by the writer.

as such i would not deny my services to anyone with a legal printing project.

Reasonable point. In this sense, and as described in the op they are synonymous - but I could see a distinction. Maybe I will edit the post.

not really; http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=active&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=self+publishing&spell=1

there are thousands of print shops just waiting for your money to publish whatever drivel you desire...

I also suggest you learn the difference between a printer and a publisher

Before you answer - or if you already have - consider this;
http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2008/08/19/california-doctors-cant-refuse-care-to-gays-on-religious-grounds/



So - you have to realize that if you deny someone (or treat them differently) your business services because of your religious or moral beliefs you are wrong according to California law and liable...

The difference, of course, is that in your example, a person is refusing a service based on sexual orientation, and in the OP, we are discussing whether it's okay to refuse to assist someone ELSE in the spread of their ideology.

Barefoot is not a protected right. Free speech is - and sexual orientation is in California.

The government does not have the right to stop me from suggesting that a certain resturant is the worst one in town and should be avoided like the plague. That's what we mean by freedom of speech. What we don't mean is that the resturant has to serve us while we yell "I'm only eating here because this is what my priest told me to do as penance".

Typically a publishing company pays authors for the right to publish their works, not the other way around....

Actually, it's more of a contract partnership. The author gets a percentage of the sales and the publisher keeps the rest as well as the rights of the work.

rights to the work is also worked out between the publisher and arthor. some authors keep their hand on the copyright while others turn it over to the publisher for a larger percentage.

but it really depends on the contracts between each arthor and publisher.

In terms of being libel, it's my right as a private business person to refuse to publish a work of this kind, and it's not the government's job to step in and tell me or anyone what can and can not be done in that sense unless there is a direct violation of someone's human rights, which there clearly isn't in this case. (I'm assuming what they want to publish is what most people would consider terribly offensive in nature.)

I suggest you learn the important difference between medicine and books, or you will have a very difficult and confusing life.

In the context of discrimination of legally protected activity neither is morally superior.

True, but if the concerns of the puplishing companies companies mean no one will print it the they have no platform from wich to practice there right to free speech. It's better to print it and let people make their own decision than hide it from them. The majority will disagree with them, so won't buy the book, and hopefully the bill for all those unsold and therefore unprofitable books will bankrupt the fuckers. ;)

Not so. Anyone with access to a computer and printer has a platform from which to practice their right of free speech. Anyone with paper and pens has a platform.

In the context of discrimination neither is morally superior.

You can kill somebody if you refuse to provide medical care. You can't kill somebody by refusing to publish their book.

In terms of being libel, it's my right as a private business person to refuse to publish a work of this kind, and it's not the government's job to step in and tell me or anyone what can and can not be done in that sense unless there is a direct violation of someone's human rights, which there clearly isn't in this case. (I'm assuming what they want to publish is what most people would consider terribly offensive in nature.)

Libel =/= offensive. As I said in the OP there is nothing in the works which is illegal.

In the context of discrimination of legally protected activity neither is morally superior.

morality, being entirely subjective, is not suitable for reasonable debate. From a legal perspective, the difference is obvious.

You can kill somebody if you refuse to provide medical care. You can't kill somebody by refusing to publish their book.

Not all medical care is life or death - do you then support discrimination in non-life or death situations? (such as was the case in the California judgment)

Libel =/= offensive. As I said in the OP there is nothing in the works which is illegal.

I think s/he might have meant "liable".

Not so. Anyone with access to a computer and printer has a platform from which to practice their right of free speech. Anyone with paper and pens has a platform.

Perhaps but for the purpose of this scienario I would be denying them that right. That is something I refuse to do. Freedom of speech is the one right on which all others are built.

morality, being entirely subjective, is not suitable for reasonable debate. From a legal perspective, the difference is obvious.

I think you misread my response. I stated that neither occupation has a superior right to the other to make moral judgments about their customers.

Not all medical care is life or death - do you then support discrimination in non-life or death situations? (such as was the case in the California judgment)

The ruling stated that no doctor may deny treatment, regardless of their beliefs. That, to me, seems like the very opposite of discrimination.

I'm unsure what definition of discrimination you're using, but since it seems you're using it to mean something that is applied equally without regard to individual concerns, then it seems to be the wrong one.

I think you misread my response. I stated that neither occupation has a superior right to the other to make moral judgments about their customers.

from a legal perspective, they most certainly do. And if you understood even the most fundamentally basic concepts of our legal system you'd understand why.

I think s/he might have meant "liable".

either way - there is no liability for offensive speech - it is constitutionally protected. (If it were not imagine how many people would sue because htey were offended by anyone from Larry Flint to Malcolm X)

from a legal perspective, they most certainly do. And if you understood even the most fundamentally basic concepts of our legal system you'd understand why.

You would be fallacious to imply that I am not familiar with the laws of the US or the operations of the Judicial branch. If you cannot clearly describe your distinction that is your inadequacy - not mine.

You would be fallacious to imply that I am not familiar with the laws of the US or the operations of the Judicial branch. If you cannot clearly describe your distinction that is your inadequacy - not mine.

If you understood it, you wouldn't have created this asinine thread in the first place.

The ruling stated that no doctor may deny treatment, regardless of their beliefs. That, to me, seems like the very opposite of discrimination.

I'm unsure what definition of discrimination you're using, but since it seems you're using it to mean something that is applied equally without regard to individual concerns, then it seems to be the wrong one.

I'm not sure we're having the same conversation together. The CA law says that physicians may not discriminate against sexual orientation because it is a protected right.

In this post I have pointed out that a printer of books may not discriminate against content because it (free speech) is a protected right.

If you understood it, you wouldn't have created this asinine thread in the first place.

Thank you for waiving the white flag of surrender so early.

I'm not sure we're having the same conversation together. The CA law says that physicians may not discriminate against sexual orientation because it is a protected right.

In this post I have pointed out that a printer of books may not discriminate against content because it (free speech) is a protected right.

and thus you demonstrate a complete and total failure to understand the basics of our legal system. Namely that your right to free speech does not include your right to force me to publish your works, as doing so would violate my rights to free speech.

Being a doctor, on the other hand, is not a fundamentally protected liberty, and the government may place whatever rational restrictions it wishes on the profession in order to serve a legitimate state interest

Thank you for waiving the white flag of surrender so early.

let's take a poll, shall we? Dear readers of NSG, between myself and Mystic Skeptic, who do you believe has a firmer grasp of the laws of the United States?

let's take a poll, shall we? Dear readers of NSG, between myself and Mystic Skeptic, who do you believe has a firmer grasp of the laws of the United States?

ROFLMAO!

I suppose you expect to get your next college degree by having a vote also? No need to actually DEMONSTRATE you know anything! You have done nothing to demonstrate anything resembling aptitude for law. You probably think a tort is something that you pop into a toaster.

Libel =/= offensive. As I said in the OP there is nothing in the works which is illegal.

Speaking their minds about what they believe isn't illegal because Americans have the right to free speech, but it is considered offensive to a lot of people, and as a publisher/printer I can refuse to print the work. That is also my right as an American. :)

either way - there is no liability for offensive speech - it is constitutionally protected. (If it were not imagine how many people would sue because htey were offended by anyone from Larry Flint to Malcolm X)

...people did sue Larry Flint. The fact that the Court upheld the first amendment does not change that people sued him.

You have done nothing to demonstrate anything resembling aptitude for law.

*sobs* it's true, I admit it! I got my juris doctorate from a box of cracker jacks.

I think s/he might have meant "liable".

I did. :) I figured out I misspelled it after I posted it. Sorry about that.

...people did sue Larry Flint.

Jerry Falwell, to be precise...

ROFLMAO!

I suppose you expect to get your next college degree by having a vote also? No need to actually DEMONSTRATE you know anything! You have done nothing to demonstrate anything resembling aptitude for law. You probably think a tort is something that you pop into a toaster.

Neo Art has, in his 6,000+ posts, time and again answered legal questions, cited relevant cases and laws, and displayed a solid grasp not only of the strict wording of law--which anyone may look up--but the history and purpose behind it, the way it has been used, the ways in which it is subject to interpretation, etc.

You, in 300+ posts, have failed to grasp the basics of good grammar. Most of your arguments in this thread are of the, "But look at what words THIS CALIFORNIA THING uses!"

...people did sue Larry Flint. The fact that the Court upheld the first amendment does not change that people sued him.

Actually - he was arrested, not sued, and the supreme court reversed all of the charges against him. People have attempted to sue him - but they did not succeeded.

Actually - he was arrested, not sued, and the supreme court reversed all of the charges against him. People have attempted to sue him - but they did not succeeded.

Once again, demonstrating you don't even know what it means to "sue". Also he was arrested twice. Once the charges were dismissed, not reversed. Important distinction there. The second time he was convicted and served 6 months. At no point did SCOTUS ever reverse any conviction of his.

Jerry Falwell, to be precise...

I know, but shh. It would have taken him an hour online to come up with that!

The most amusing thing about this thread is the OP's insistence on comparing a first amendment right of protected speech to a statutorily created business law.

You wonder what goes through some people's minds.

Neo Art has, in his 6,000+ posts, time and again answered legal questions, cited relevant cases and laws, and displayed a solid grasp not only of the strict wording of law--which anyone may look up--but the history and purpose behind it, the way it has been used, the ways in which it is subject to interpretation, etc.

You, in 300+ posts, have failed to grasp the basics of good grammar. Most of your arguments in this thread are of the, "But look at what words THIS CALIFORNIA THING uses!"

I will ignore the flame nature of this post and instead address to obvious - within the context of this thread NA has contributed nothing which would indicate any competence whatsoever interpreting law. I do not have and will not accept responsibility to gravedig his posts to determine if he is actually more intelligent than his posts here would indicate.

I don not have to school you in law for you to understand the difference between a constitutionally protected right and a state statute. Nor should I have to describe to you the concept of comparison. You made it as far as high school at least so I give you the benefit of the doubt.

If you intellect is so limited and narrow that you cannot fathom a comparison such as this it is your own shortcoming - not mine. You will have to try a form of avoidance other than transference in this case.

Neo Art
*sobs* it's true, I admit it! I got my juris doctorate from a box of cracker jacks.


*laughs*

My company, my standards, so, no, I wouldn't publish it. There are hundreds of companies out there, let them publish trash (at both ends of the spectrum). Whether others know I published it or not, I would know and, in the end, I'm the one who would have to live with it.

Once again, demonstrating you don't even know what it means to "sue". Also he was arrested twice. Once the charges were dismissed, not reversed. Important distinction there. The second time he was convicted and served 6 months. At no point did SCOTUS ever reverse any conviction of his.

Maybe you should read a little closer - the six month sentence was for desecration of the flag - and unless Larry Flit is publishing space on his ass that was a sentence unrelated to his publishing enterprise. Legendary phail. Time for a refund for your crackerjacks.

Perhaps but for the purpose of this scienario I would be denying them that right. That is something I refuse to do. Freedom of speech is the one right on which all others are built.

Again--you would not be denying them the right to practice free speech, you would be refusing to be made a participant. If the group in question had no other means with which to publish their ideas--hardly plausible, since writing material and utensils are abundant--you would not be responsible for proving them with one.

Imagine for a moment that you worked the screen at a baseball park--the great big (in some snotty parks HD) screen that shows the score, posts player profiles, shows the lineup, etc. Now, in most parks, regular people can, for a small fee, arrange to have a short message displayed on the screen--usually a "Happy Birthday, [name]!!!" or a welcome for a group of school students, or even a marriage proposal.

If our KKK group came to you with the appropriate fee and asked you to display the message "Death to n***ers", would you be denying them their right to free speech if you refused? After all, they probably can't afford their own ballpark, oversized screen and captive audience.

People have attempted to sue him

I'm actually curious as to what "attempted to sue" means exactly. Did they trip on the courthouse stairs and never make it inside or something?

I'll further amend my answer.

I would inform the Nazis that I will charge them double, since publishing this material might put my company at risk.

After I have made enough money, I will subtly leak that I am Jewish, and have been using the money to enrich myself. Oh, and I have laced the propaganda with drugs that cause testicular shrinkage.

Who is Larry Flint?

I'll further amend my answer.

I would inform the Nazis that I will charge them double, since publishing this material might put my company at risk.

After I have made enough money, I will subtly leak that I am Jewish, and have been using the money to enrich myself. Oh, and I have laced the propaganda with drugs that cause testicular shrinkage.

Not a bad plan, but it could backfire by reinforcing stereotypes-- "See, them Jews'll do anything to make a buck, even publish stuff about how greedy they are!" The irony might be worth it, though.

I'm actually curious as to what "attempted to sue" means exactly. Did they trip on the courthouse stairs and never make it inside or something?

Attempted to sue = sued but lost. I have difficulty accepting that you could not grasp this. Well, actually no - I don't.

Again--you would not be denying them the right to practice free speech, you would be refusing to be made a participant. If the group in question had no other means with which to publish their ideas--hardly plausible, since writing material and utensils are abundant--you would not be responsible for proving them with one.

Imagine for a moment that you worked the screen at a baseball park--the great big (in some snotty parks HD) screen that shows the score, posts player profiles, shows the lineup, etc. Now, in most parks, regular people can, for a small fee, arrange to have a short message displayed on the screen--usually a "Happy Birthday, [name]!!!" or a welcome for a group of school students, or even a marriage proposal.

If our KKK group came to you with the appropriate fee and asked you to display the message "Death to n***ers", would you be denying them their right to free speech if you refused? After all, they probably can't afford their own ballpark, oversized screen and captive audience.

My understanding of the First Amendment is that it says you have the right to freedom of speech. It does not say that you have the obligation, as an individual, to become the spokesperson for opinions you do not hold in the name of free speech. If they can't get their message out on their own, it's not up to you to do it for them. Privately held businesses also, are not obligated to go against their own standards of what is right, to pimp a message with which they disagree.

Maybe you should read a little closer - the six month sentence was for desecration of the flag - and unless Larry Flit is publishing space on his ass that was a sentence unrelated to his publishing enterprise.

Maybe you should read your own words a little closer, hm?

he was arrested, not sued, and the supreme court reversed all of the charges against him.

Where did you ever place the caveat that we were discussing only his publishing enterprises? The fact is, you stated he was arrested, which he was, twice. I actually pretty much assumed you did not want to restrict the discussions of his arrest to only activities stemming from his publishing enterprise, since he was arrested for two things:

1) flag desecration
2) contempt of court

neither one of which has ANYTHING to do with his publishing activities, so not only was your statement of:

the supreme court reversed all of the charges against him.

False from the onset, but if you insist that we restrict the topic of his arrest to only arrests stemming from his activities as a publisher, since he was NEVER arrested for any activities stemming from his publishing activities, that makes this statement:

he was arrested

false as well.

So your statements of:

1) he was arrested
2) he was not sued
3) the supreme court reversed his convictions

If we ignore that caveat, at least #1 was true, he has been arrested. But if you insist on claiming that you were only referring to arrests related to his publishing activities, I regret to inform you that not a single one of those statements is correct.

Fail.

Attempted to sue = sued but lost.

So in order to attempt to sue, you have to sue.

I'm unsure you know what the word "attempt" means.

Maybe you should read your own words a little closer, hm?



Where did you ever place the caveat that we were discussing only his publishing enterprises?


Hmm - (looks at title of the thread)


I suppose you never studied "Obvious-ology" at UOC (University of Crackerjack).

[/QUOTE]

I will ignore the flame nature of this post and instead address to obvious - within the context of this thread NA has contributed nothing which would indicate any competence whatsoever interpreting law. I do not have and will not accept responsibility to gravedig his posts to determine if he is actually more intelligent than his posts here would indicate.

I don not have to school you in law for you to understand the difference between a constitutionally protected right and a state statute. Nor should I have to describe to you the concept of comparison. You made it as far as high school at least so I give you the benefit of the doubt.

If you intellect is so limited and narrow that you cannot fathom a comparison such as this it is your own shortcoming - not mine. You will have to try a form of avoidance other than transference in this case.

You'd do well to ignore it, because I don't see how my response constitutes flaming.

Your attempt to be condescending is cute. Ineffective, but cute. I do not have an education in law, which is why I listen well when authorities on the subject speak, and follow up with my own research.

I "fathomed" the comparison. I found it uneven, and your argument for it wanting. If you wish to strengthen your argument, you may do so, but I believe I will still find the equation you proposed quite flawed.

Hmm - (looks at title of the thread)

So then you claim now is that you only meant to imply that the "arrest" you spoke of related to his publishing activities?

Perhaps you can point out what arrest that was, exactly.

Not a bad plan, but it could backfire by reinforcing stereotypes-- "See, them Jews'll do anything to make a buck, even publish stuff about how greedy they are!" The irony might be worth it, though.

Just the looks on their faces would be worth it.

So in order to attempt to sue, you have to sue.

I'm unsure you know what the word "attempt" means.

Ah yes - grammar nazi-ism. The last resort of failed debaters.

(and I suppose next you'll try to pin me with a Godwin for using 'nazi'!

LOL

So in order to attempt to sue, you have to sue.

I'm unsure you know what the word "attempt" means.

Neo Art, I'm so sick of your ignorant Jew bullshit.

Give me one, just ONE fucking instance where the rigorously precise meaning of attempt is central to a legal issue, and while you're at give, me one, JUST FUCKING ONE illustrative case wherein capacity to form mental state versus actual formation of mental state associated with motive, intent or malice aforethought in regards to a specific crime is important.

Just one.

No, seriously, I have an exam in an hour, and I need one. Please.

My understanding of the First Amendment is that it says you have the right to freedom of speech. It does not say that you have the obligation, as an individual, to become the spokesperson for opinions you do not hold in the name of free speech. If they can't get their message out on their own, it's not up to you to do it for them. Privately held businesses also, are not obligated to go against their own standards of what is right, to pimp a message with which they disagree.

Exactly. Refusing to publish material with which you disagree is a far cry from making it illegal to publish such material.

Neo Art, I'm so sick of your ignorant Jew bullshit.

Give me one, just ONE fucking instance where the rigorously precise meaning of attempt is central to a legal issue, and while you're at give, me one, JUST FUCKING ONE illustrative case wherein capacity to form mental state versus actual formation of mental state associated with motive, intent or malice aforethought in regards to a specific crime is important.

Just one.

No, seriously, I have an exam in an hour, and I need one. Please.

I hate to inform you, but from a criminal law perspective, any crime of "attempt" is a specific intent crime, meaning that in many instances, save for other specific intent crime, the mental state required to commit a crime of "attempt" is actually higher than that required to commit the actual crime.

So then you claim now is that you only meant to imply that the "arrest" you spoke of related to his publishing activities?

Perhaps you can point out what arrest that was, exactly.

Every first year law student and Hustler fan knows Chucky K got him on Obscenity during our bicentennial.

I'm going to have to start charging you for this schooling.

Ah yes - grammar nazi-ism. The last resort of failed debaters.

(and I suppose next you'll try to pin me with a Godwin for using 'nazi'!

LOL

Yeah, you tell him, MS.

Grammar Nazi-ism, i.e. the careful and almost surgically precise use of language in not only grammar but syntax and carefully, explicitly, and laboriously delineated definitions has NO FUCKING PLACE in legal discourse.

Makes him a failed debater, not a successful practitioner of actual law, s'what it does.

Sorry, I meant "Makes him failer debate, not a goodly practicer on law".

Again--you would not be denying them the right to practice free speech, you would be refusing to be made a participant. If the group in question had no other means with which to publish their ideas--hardly plausible, since writing material and utensils are abundant--you would not be responsible for proving them with one.

Imagine for a moment that you worked the screen at a baseball park--the great big (in some snotty parks HD) screen that shows the score, posts player profiles, shows the lineup, etc. Now, in most parks, regular people can, for a small fee, arrange to have a short message displayed on the screen--usually a "Happy Birthday, [name]!!!" or a welcome for a group of school students, or even a marriage proposal.

If our KKK group came to you with the appropriate fee and asked you to display the message "Death to n***ers", would you be denying them their right to free speech if you refused? After all, they probably can't afford their own ballpark, oversized screen and captive audience.

Once again your post is coherent and makes a good point, quite rare in this thread. In the above case I would kick them out of the booth. However I took this general dilema to mean 'do you hold freedom of speech more highly than any personal objections to what is being said' instead of to mean what the OP said, as he kinda screwed up the original idea. If I was the only one who could print it I would 100%, and even if I wasn't I probably still would as I believe having their beliefs out there to public scrutiny is a good thing.

I hate to inform you, but from a criminal law perspective, any crime of "attempt" is a specific intent crime, meaning that in many instances, save for other specific intent crime, the mental state required to commit a crime of "attempt" is actually higher than that required to commit the actual crime.

Stop being a grammar nazi.

Neo Art, I'm so sick of your ignorant Jew bullshit.

.

Any post which starts with this makes me immediately want to take the other person's side.

Stop being a grammar nazi.

That's it, off to the semi colon factory for you.

Once again your post is coherent and makes a good point, quite rare in this thread. In the above case I would kick them out of the booth. However I took this general dilema to mean 'do you hold freedom of speech more highly than any personal objections to what is being said' instead of to mean what the OP said, as he kinda screwed up the original idea. If I was the only one who could print it I would 100%, and even if I wasn't I probably still would as I believe having their beliefs out there to public scrutiny is a good thing.

Fair enough. I certainly hold freedom of speech to be more important than my personal objections, and had I interpreted the question that way, I would have had the same response.

...oh my god, did we just have an adult discussion? Quick, call me a baby-eating feminazi.

Any post which starts with this makes me immediately want to take the other person's side.

I don't think you have the balls, legal knowledge, or acumen of rhetoric to say anything that supports Neo Art's filthy Jew position on this.

If you even try, I will pick it apart so fiercely and demonstrate it so fallacious, you will short out your keyboard with your tears.

I'll let you give it a try and look back in a few hours. Real life calls.

Quick, call me a baby-eating feminazi.

please, feminists don't want to EAT babies. They just want to abort them.

And eat the fetus.

Again--you would not be denying them the right to practice free speech, you would be refusing to be made a participant. If the group in question had no other means with which to publish their ideas--hardly plausible, since writing material and utensils are abundant--you would not be responsible for proving them with one.

Maybe - bat as the California judgment illustrates - refusing service IS a denial of a right. One of the physicians actually referred the patient to a physician who would not object to performing the procedure. The referring physician was still found at fault for not performing the procedure.




Imagine for a moment that you worked the screen at a baseball park--the great big (in some snotty parks HD) screen that shows the score, posts player profiles, shows the lineup, etc. Now, in most parks, regular people can, for a small fee, arrange to have a short message displayed on the screen--usually a "Happy Birthday, [name]!!!" or a welcome for a group of school students, or even a marriage proposal.

If our KKK group came to you with the appropriate fee and asked you to display the message "Death to n***ers", would you be denying them their right to free speech if you refused? After all, they probably can't afford their own ballpark, oversized screen and captive audience.

Ahh, but the flaw is that the ballpark owns the media used - the banner. They can exercise editorial control over the content just as if it were their own newspaper or magazine. Now if the Klan came in wanting to buy the display then the Klan would assume editorial privilege. However no park owner is going to sell the display - only access to be part of the content of it.

In the case of this thread - they customer (KKK or otherwise) is buying the media - the books themselves - not asking to publish an article in an already existing magazine.

please, feminists don't want to EAT babies. They just want to abort them.

And eat the fetus.

Untrue. While abortion is our highest priority, many of us who refuse to be reined in by the "middle of the road" crowd feel that much more could be done to address the problem of preexisting babies, and the mothers upon whom they parasitically feed. Although not yet recognized by NOW, baby-eating is both an effective method of liberating our enslaved sisters and a tasty and sustainable snack source.

I don't think you have the balls, legal knowledge, or acumen of rhetoric to say anything that supports Neo Art's filthy Jew position on this.

If you even try, I will pick it apart so fiercely and demonstrate it so fallacious, you will short out your keyboard with your tears.

I'll let you give it a try and look back in a few hours. Real life calls.

That's it - it may be unilateral but as far as you are concerned Neo and I are now buds.

You, sir, are a goofball. (not to be confused with an attempted goofball)

Maybe - bat as the California judgment illustrates - refusing medical service IS a denial of a right.

Fixed. Now keep reading that over and over until it sinks in, and you begin to understand the distinction.

If you still can't quite figure out the difference here, please read through the amendments to the constitution that guarantees the right of a publisher to control his press. Shouldn't take you very long.

Once you finish with that, please find me the part of the constitution that guarantees the right of a doctor to discriminate between his patients. That one might take you a little longer.

Untrue. While abortion is our highest priority, many of us who refuse to be reined in by the "middle of the road" crowd feel that much more could be done to address the problem of preexisting babies, and the mothers upon who they parasitically feed. Although not yet recognized by NOW, baby-eating is both an effective method of liberating our enslaved sisters and a tasty and sustainable snack source.

how are you even supposed to get pregnant, you're all lesbians anyway.

And it's "upon whom" :p

how are you even supposed to get pregnant, you're all lesbians anyway.

And it's "upon whom" :p

Haven't you read any of the 50 threads about rape? The question is how some of us manage not to get pregnant.

We don't use the grammar rules of the oppressor, fascist. *grumbles*

No doubt this post will already be outdated by the time I post it. Such is life.

Regardless, I'll address the OP's hypothetical on its own merits (as opposed to its facetious relation to today's California Supreme Court opinion)separately.

Before you answer - or if you already have - consider this;
http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2008/08/19/california-doctors-cant-refuse-care-to-gays-on-religious-grounds/

So - you have to realize that if you deny someone (or treat them differently) your business services because of your religious or moral beliefs you are wrong according to California law and liable...

Most physicians are not part of a hospital - most are sole proprietors. The California law does not make exception for sole proprietors. Every doctor MUST provide their service without moral judgment.

I'm not sure we're having the same conversation together. The CA law says that physicians may not discriminate against sexual orientation because it is a protected right.

In this post I have pointed out that a printer of books may not discriminate against content because it (free speech) is a protected right.

This thread (including the above posts) demonstrate a fundamental failure to understand EITHER the point at issue in the recent California Supreme Court case of North Coast Women's Care Medical Group v. Superior Court of San Diego County OR the Court's decision in that case.

For those that care, here is a link to a Word Document containing the opinion in the case (http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S142892.DOC). I am sure there are PDF docs available of the opinion, but I'm not going to be bothered finding them for you.

At issue in the CSC case was: "Do the rights of religious freedom and free speech, as guaranteed in both the federal and the California Constitutions, exempt a medical clinic’s physicians from complying with the California Unruh Civil Rights Act’s prohibition against discrimination based on a person’s sexual orientation?" The CSC's UNANIMOUS opinion was no -- there is no such exemption.

The court explained what, at the time relevant to the case, the Unruh Civil Rights Act provided:

"All persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, or medical condition are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever.” (Civ. Code, § 51, former subd. (b), as amended by Stats. 2000, ch. 1049.)

The Unruh Civil Rights Act’s antidiscrimination provisions apply to business establishments that offer to the public “accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services.” (Civ. Code, § 51, subd. (b); see Curran v. Mount Diablo Council of the Boy Scouts (1998) 17 Cal.4th 670, 700; Warfield v. Peninsula Golf & Country Club (1995) 10 Cal.4th 594, 622-623.) A medical group providing medical services to the public has been held to be a business establishment for purposes of the Act. (Leach v. Drummond Medical Group, Inc. (1983) 144 Cal.App.3d 362.)

As others have pointed out, your attempt to analogize between the CSC decision and your hypothetical is flawed in multiple respects. Perhaps the most critical is that refusing to print a publication because it's contents are offensive is NOT a violation of the California statute -- the statute ONLY prohibits discrimination on the basis of "sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, or medical condition."

As for your implicit contention that one's free speech or freedom of religion rights SHOULD entitle one to a exemption from an otherwise generally applicable law, I suggest you familiarize yourself with well-settled legal principles, including those summarized in Employment Division v. Smith (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=494&invol=872), 494 U.S. 872 (1990) and Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=508&invol=520), 508 U.S. 520 (1993). These cases make clear that a religious objector has no federal constitutional right to an exemption from a neutral and valid law of general applicability on the ground that compliance with that law is contrary to the objector’s religious beliefs. CSC caselaw is similar concerning the California Consitution.

Libel =/= offensive. As I said in the OP there is nothing in the works which is illegal.

Liability does not necessarily mean illegal. A tort is not a crime.

But let's assume for the point of this discussion (such as it is) that you meant in the OP that nothing in the works was basis for any cause of action -- civil or criminal.

Actually - he was arrested, not sued, and the supreme court reversed all of the charges against him. People have attempted to sue him - but they did not succeeded.

Um. You really should not blather on about things that you do not understand. Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=485&invol=46), 485 U.S. 46 (1988), was a CIVIL lawsuit, where Falwell SUED Hustler Magazine. The Supreme Court decision was that Flynt (Hustler) could not be forced to PAY DAMAGES for speech at issue. I won't go into why the Court decided that, because it isn't really important here. Read the case for yourself sometime.

Fixed. Now keep reading that over and over until it sinks in, and you begin to understand the distinction.

If you still can't quite figure out the difference here, please read through the amendments to the constitution that guarantees the right of a publisher to control his press. Shouldn't take you very long.

Once you finish with that, please find me the part of the constitution that guarantees the right of a doctor to discriminate between his patients. That one might take you a little longer.

I think you missed Ash's suggestion for an edit of the OP. She suggested changing it from 'publisher' to "a printer of books contracted by the writer." (post 25). I changed it a bit to suit her valid observation. This might clarify things a bit.

Alright, I'm going to be really clear here, and put an end to this simply.

The law in California states that a doctor can not refuse a patient based on the patient's sexual orientation. You have attempted to analogize, and argue why is it ok for a publisher to refuse a client based on the client's material, but not ok for a doctor to refuse a patient based on the patient's sexual orientation

Well, here's why it's ok. The first amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. You can not inhibit, compel, or limit what a publisher publishes. If you require a publisher/printer to publish/print any material, or prevent the publication of any material (obscenity notwithstanding) then you violate that publisher's first amendment rights to free speech and freedom of the press. Freedom of the press means we can't tell publishers what they can, and can not publish. The occupation of publisher is a constitutionally protected occupation. The government can not stop me from publishing, and they can not tell me what I must, or must not publish. The publishers have the same constitutional rights as the KKK.

The profession of doctor, on the other hand, is not a constitutionally protected profession. Thus the government can regulate the profession, with far stricter regulation than that of a publisher. A restriction need only be rationally related to some legitimate government interest.

That's the entire point.

Haven't you read any of the 50 threads about rape? The question is how some of us manage not to get pregnant.

Well it's really your own fault if you do, what with the boobs hanging out and all....

I think you missed Ash's suggestion for an edit of the OP. She suggested changing it from 'publisher' to "a printer of books contracted by the writer." (post 25). I changed it a bit to suit her valid observation. This might clarify things a bit.

I'd say from a constitutional perspective it doesn't really matter. A press is a press, words are words, speech is speech. You can't compel me to publish or print your speech, it would violate my right to free expression, and freedom of the press.

As others have pointed out, your attempt to analogize between the CSC decision and your hypothetical is flawed in multiple respects. Perhaps the most critical is that refusing to print a publication because it's contents are offensive is NOT a violation of the California statute -- the statute ONLY prohibits discrimination on the basis of "sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, or medical condition."

TCT, here's the more interesting question, to me, and I'd like your thoughts on the matter. Could a publishing enterprise still refuse on those grounds, based on their first amendment rights to freedom of speech and freedom of the press?

For example, could a "whites only" publishing company exist under that law?

Maybe - bat as the California judgment illustrates - refusing service IS a denial of a right.

Once again, you should at least have a basic grasp of a decision before you start opining about it.

Denying full and equal access to medical treatment on the basis of forbidden discrimination is a violation of a California statute. Nothing more, nothing less. (And nothing in today's opinion changes this -- it wasn't even at issue in the case. The issue was whether there existed a RIGHT to violate such statute.)

One of the physicians actually referred the patient to a physician who would not object to performing the procedure.

Um. This is a disputed issue of fact not relevant to today's opinion. When this case is returned to the trial court, whether this is true -- and whether it matters -- will be litigated.

The referring physician was still found at fault for not performing the procedure.

Wrong again. No one has been "found at fault" in this case. The liability of the physicians has not yet been decided.

*snip*

Oh, man, you did not want Cat to duck into the phone booth and put on his Lawyer suit.

*takes a step back so the carnage won't spatter her shoes*

Oh, man, you did not want Cat to duck into the phone booth and put on her Lawyer suit.

*takes a step back so the carnage won't spatter her shoes*

....her? and how come you never say anything about MY lawyer suit? I spent ALL NIGHT embroidering this "L" on, you could show a LITTLE appreciation!

....her? and how come you never say anything about MY lawyer suit? I spent ALL NIGHT embroidering this "L" on, you could show a LITTLE appreciation!

It's not as pretty.

....her? and how come you never say anything about MY lawyer suit?

How about because you're just ALL OVER my typos today?

And I did say something about your lawyerness! You were so busy policing my typing you didn't even NOTICE.

CATMAN!
sup.


You never fail to entertain me.

I enjoy is your selective logic; your argument essentially is that sexual orientation is a right that cannot be denied by a service provider but freedom of speech is a right which can be denied by a service provider. Glorious!

You have always constrained your arguments to what has already been argued, thought of, or discussed - never open to discussing new ideas or comparisons - I could only suppose it is because you have nothing to fall back on but your own thoughts and are uncomfortable with that. I truly am sad for you for that because I know you would rock (be intellectually stimulating) if you shared a post solely consisting of your own original thoughts. I even suspect you could defend them and would enjoy it without being snarky, offensive or offended.

Meanwhile - while you may not be creative on your own - you certainly are open to creative interpretation! Comparing cases denying animal sacrifice and ingesting peyote to conscientious objectors is unique. (never mind the difference between activity and inactivity - I just love that the best you could come up with were peyote freaks and chicken chokers)

The discussion here is - if a moral judgment can be made by a publisher - why would a moral judgment be denied a physician during non-life threatening circumstances? Chicken choking peyote freaks are pretty far away from that discussion - but you get four stars for creativity - and I mean that with no sarcasm or malice.

How about because you're just ALL OVER my typos today?

And I did say something about your lawyerness! You were so busy policing my typing you didn't even NOTICE.

This is the problem with you women. Too emotional. Why don't you get in the kitchen and make me a sandwich honey?

It's not as pretty.

Also that. You need to add a few pieces of flair.

Also that. You need to add a few pieces of flair.

I don't like talking about my flair...

....her? and how come you never say anything about MY lawyer suit? I spent ALL NIGHT embroidering this "L" on, you could show a LITTLE appreciation!

Honey, I hate to tell you this, but blue lawyer suits are SO last season.

I'd say from a constitutional perspective it doesn't really matter. A press is a press, words are words, speech is speech. You can't compel me to publish or print your speech, it would violate my right to free expression, and freedom of the press.

So you too rest your case on; sexual orientation is a right that cannot be denied by a service provider but freedom of speech is a right which can be denied by a service provider.

So you too rest your case on; sexual orientation is a right that cannot be denied by a service provider but freedom of speech is a right which can be denied by a service provider.

I rest my case on the fact that you don't know what "freedom of speech" is, or what the first amendment requires.

This is the problem with you women. Too emotional. Why don't you get in the kitchen and make me a sandwich honey?

I could mention one of the problems with you men, but we really don't need to rehash that whole tear-soaked argument in the bedroom last night.

I could mention one of the problems with you men, but we really don't need to rehash that whole tear-soaked argument in the bedroom last night.

oh baby, you know I like it when you cry....

You have always constrained your arguments to what has already been argued, thought of, or discussed - never open to discussing new ideas or comparisons - I could only suppose it is because you have nothing to fall back on but your own thoughts and are uncomfortable with that.

If you don't want to base law on the Constitution, and you don't want to base it on precedents, I can only assume that what you want is to base the laws of the U.S. (or just California?) on your own nonsensical ramblings. Which sounds like a super platform, and I wish you luck with that.

Someone's going to make money off the wackos, it may as well be me.

oh baby, you know I like it when you cry....

You'd like me now then, I'm crying laughing at Mystic's attempts to rewrite the Constitution. That kind of maniacal Joker laughter you like.

You'd like me now then, I'm crying laughing at Mystic's attempts to rewrite the Constitution. That kind of maniacal Joker laughter you like.

you mean...you'll wear the costume?

If you don't want to base law on the Constitution, and you don't want to base it on precedents, I can only assume that what you want is to base the laws of the U.S. (or just California?) on your own nonsensical ramblings. Which sounds like a super platform, and I wish you luck with that.

How do you make the leap from; having a discussion - to; what context I want to base laws on?

Someone's going to make money off the wackos, it may as well be me.

Ho.

(screw you character limit)

How do you make the leap from having a discussion to what context I want to base laws on?

because you certainly don't seem to be basing your understanding of laws on reality, thus I fear we must conclude that you're basing them on your own little fantasy world

Who is Larry Flint?
here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Flynt)

Oh, man, you did not want Cat to duck into the phone booth and put on his Lawyer suit.

*takes a step back so the carnage won't spatter her shoes*

:hail: The Cat's got HIS claws out... carnage will definatly leave some interesting patterns on the wall.




anyhoo... I didn't answer the poll because none of the answers matches my post.

Even if the term "publisher" was changed... :p

Ho.

(screw you character limit)

Could've used WHORE 'ya know...

:p

you mean...you'll wear the costume?

Okay, but only if you wear the batsuit. And only if I get to rename it the Bat Mobile. ;)

Could've used WHORE 'ya know...

:p

Didn't have the same zing. Why have 236 words for the same thing if we can't use all of them?

Less dirty talk you two. Won't somebody please think of the children!

Okay, but only if you wear the batsuit. And only if I get to rename it the Bat Mobile. ;)

this is quite possibly the hottest idea I've ever heard.

And check your TGs

Less dirty talk you two. Won't somebody please think of the children!

They can join in if they want....

So, reading this thread has created several questions.

First of all, what exactly was the purpose of making the original post specifically about pro-Aryan publication, rather than any form of extremist publication? At the risk of being "schooled", I have to assume that the OP has an ulterior motive to this thread, beyond disagreement with this particular California statute brought up later in the thread.

Secondly, exactly which side of the argument did Hammurabi come down on? At first glance, it seems that he is very anti-NA, but I can't help feel the sarcastic tone seeping from his words. I'd be very interested to figure out that little quandry.

Third, since when did grammatical accuracy become a drawback? Particularly in a thread discussing law, where virtually every word scribed is interpreted laboriously, why would proper grammar be indicative of a failed argument? I've never quite understood this position.

Fourth, just where exactly has TCT been? I have seen nary a post from NSG's resident lawyer-that-isn't-NA in a long while. Have I just been missing the good threads?

Less dirty talk you two. Won't somebody please think of the children!

oh shit... sorry, I fucking forgot about the children... :headbang:

Secondly, exactly which side of the argument did Hammurabi come down on? At first glance, it seems that he is very anti-NA, but I can't help feel the sarcastic tone seeping from his words. I'd be very interested to figure out that little quandry.

Hammurabi is our resident satirist that I've let known that I don't take offense to his posts at me, thus you shouldn't either.

So you too rest your case on; sexual orientation is a right that cannot be denied by a service provider but freedom of speech is a right which can be denied by a service provider.

Frankly, if you can't separate in your mind how not publishing someone is not restricting their freedom of speech, you really should refrain from throwing around condescending remarks about the intelligence of the other people in this thread. Many, many, many, many, many people have self-published in the past.

They can join in if they want.... nah, you and TCT artfully carving up yet another lawyer wannabe is something that is best watched from a distance.

besides, my scars from my last 'tussle' with you two hasn't healed fully and the docs warned me about having old wounds reopened. :tongue:

Hammurabi is our resident satirist that I've let known that I don't take offense to his posts at me, thus you shouldn't either.

I was not taking offense, I was thoroughly baffled. It is quite good satire.

Ho.

Don't be hatin' on me.

Frankly, if you can't separate in your mind how not publishing someone is not restricting their freedom of speech, you really should refrain from throwing around condescending remarks about the intelligence of the other people in this thread. Many, many, many, many, many people have self-published in the past... ... and have been published professonally, as well as worked in the publishing field.

because you certainly don't seem to be basing your understanding of laws on reality, thus I fear we must conclude that you're basing them on your own little fantasy world

What, exactly would you say is incongruent?

So far many here have argued sexual orientation is a right that cannot be a basis for a service provider to deny service because of moral objections; but speech is a right which can be a basis for denial of service by a service provider who morally objects.

If you consider that congruent and me inconsistent then so be it.

I am not here to debate or author law - I am here to discuss the comparison of the two similar circumstances. It is others who have chosen to break out their casebooks.

AFIK - In CA it is forbidden to treat customers differently based on your religious or moral beliefs. It would be an interesting case if a book publisher (or one who prints books for a fee) were to deny access to someone with protected content over religious or moral objection. I have no doubt this recent ruling would be cited.

Another example mentioned - could a white supremacist legally operate a commercial press and deny customers due to content which they consider offensive? Or - could a black physician refuse to treat a white supremacist? (in a similarly non-life threatening situation - and ignoring the delicious irony such a situation could present)

It would be an interesting case if a book publisher were to deny access to someone with protected content over religious or moral objection. I have no doubt this recent ruling would be cited.

Wouldn't forcing a publisher to publish anything be a violation of their first amendment rights?



Oh shit, I just took him seriously, does that mean the game is over now?

So far many here have argued sexual orientation is a right that cannot be a basis for a service provider to deny service because of moral objections; but speech is a right which can be a basis for denial of service by a service provider who morally objects.

According to the laws of California, it seems that a business can not discriminate based on sexuality, but a publisher can refuse to publish material he deems offensive. That's kind of what the law says. What's your point?

AFIK - In CA it is forbidden to treat customers differently based on your religious or moral beliefs. It would be an interesting case if a book publisher were to deny access to someone with protected content over religious or moral objection. I have no doubt this recent ruling would be cited.

cited, probably lose, as a publisher has far more constitutional protection than a doctor, as mentioned, and seemingly ignored by you.

Another example mentioned - could a white supremacist legally operate a commercial press and deny customers due to content which they consider offensive?

Most likely, first amendment and all.

Frankly, if you can't separate in your mind how not publishing someone is not restricting their freedom of speech, you really should refrain from throwing around condescending remarks about the intelligence of the other people in this thread. Many, many, many, many, many people have self-published in the past.

And if you could, in your own mind, realize that I never said it did - then we'd both get along just peachy. And if you don't like condescending remarks - then maybe you should consider the nature of the remarks to which I was replying - including your own.

ROFLMAO!

I suppose you expect to get your next college degree by having a vote also? No need to actually DEMONSTRATE you know anything! You have done nothing to demonstrate anything resembling aptitude for law. You probably think a tort is something that you pop into a toaster.

Hilarious.

It's like watching a bacon-smeared camper walk into a bear's den.

According to the laws of California, it seems that a business can not discriminate based on sexuality, but a publisher can refuse to publish material he deems offensive. That's kind of what the law says. What's your point?
I agree with the first part - but does CA law explicitly give printers the right to deny service to a customer based on their moral position? (presuming protected content)
I'm not so sure it does.

cited, probably lose, as a publisher has far more constitutional protection than a doctor, as mentioned, and seemingly ignored by you.
printer, not publisher. A publisher retains control over content - such as within a periodical; they own the masthead so editorial control is theirs. Printing is not necessarily the same. There is no masthead, circulation or ownership resumed. Editorial control cannot be presumed.



Most likely, first amendment and all.
First amendment protects their right to publish their hate speech - but I'm not certain it would protect them from not printing works from other people if and when they hold themselves out as a commercial public printer. Loose comparison; - could Circuit City refuse to sell them a HP printer and be protected? Unlikely.

And if you could, in your own mind, realize that I never said it did - then we'd both get along just peachy. And if you don't like condescending remarks - then maybe you should consider the nature of the remarks to which I was replying - including your own.

Then elaborate on your claim:

freedom of speech is a right which can be denied by a service provider

Precisely where is anyone's freedom of speech being violated?

First amendment protects their right to publish their hate speech - but I'm not certain it would protect them from not printing works from other people if and when they hold themselves out as a commercial public printer. Loose comparison; - could Circuit City refuse to sell them a HP printer and be protected? Unlikely.

Circuit City isn't engaged in the printing and publication of speech now is it? Printers aren't SELLING printing presses, they are engaged in the direct act of creating printed language. I would think that the first amendment would protect a publisher/printer from having to produce anything he didn't want to.

Hilarious.

It's like watching a bacon-smeared camper walk into a bear's den.

Gawd what arrogance this board issues. It's like watching a kid on the short bus brag about being the smartest one there - and all the others clapping their meat-hooks together and barking like seals in agreement.

It's like watching a kid on the short bus brag about being the smartest one there

Yeah that's...kinda the impression we've gotten from you, yes.

:d :d :d

I'm not even sure what this is. Are you eating shishkabob?

this is quite possibly the hottest idea I've ever heard.

And check your TGs

:D

Jolt totally messed up my first reply. Cockblocker.

:D

Jolt totally messed up my first reply. Cockblocker.

So, you in? Who rents the chicken costume?

Wouldn't forcing a publisher to publish anything be a violation of their first amendment rights?



Oh shit, I just took him seriously, does that mean the game is over now?

Yes. But don't blame yourself, it happens to all of us.

Then elaborate on your claim:



Precisely where is anyone's freedom of speech being violated?

not to be rude - but if you are going to quote me from several pages back - could you provide a link or at least a post #. If I made an erroneous statement it is easier to reconcile if I can see it. If the statement has been take out of context or mis attributed that too is easier to resolve with a post #. Where I am Jolt can go quite slow at times and finding posts can be laborious. You obviously have already done the work, so I hope adding the post # would not be too much to request.

printer, not publisher. A publisher retains control over content - such as within a periodical; they own the masthead so editorial control is theirs. Printing is not necessarily the same. There is no masthead, circulation or ownership resumed. Editorial control cannot be presumed.
wouldn't matter. A printing company can still refuse to print anything they want to refuse. Legally, any problems would come from any contract that would be broken by such refusal, and not from any Constitutional Amendment.

Would such a printing company be liable for refusing to print what they were contracted to print? yes, but only from any contracts that their company signed.

normally tho, printing companies don't read what they are printing. it's not their job so a printing company refusing to print something on the grounds of whats being printed is rare because the printers don't read what they are printing.

So, you in? Who rents the chicken costume?

What? You told me you'd never use the chicken suit with anyone but me! You bastard! *runs away sobbing*

Yes. But don't blame yourself, it happens to all of us.

you just lost the game!

What? You told me you'd never use the chicken suit with anyone but me! You bastard! *runs away sobbing*

baby, please, a rooster has needs....

So far many here have argued sexual orientation is a right that cannot be a basis for a service provider to deny service because of moral objections; but speech is a right which can be a basis for denial of service by a service provider who morally objects.

You're the only one who argued that, actually, and I agree that it's very silly.

Gawd what arrogance this board issues. It's like watching a kid on the short bus brag about being the smartest one there - and all the others clapping their meat-hooks together and barking like seals in agreement.

That sounds a little farcical. But as the authority, I'll take your word for it.

If I made an erroneous statement it is easier to reconcile if I can see it.

I could link to every post you've made in this thread, but it feels like overkill.

Circuit City isn't engaged in the printing and publication of speech now is it? Printers aren't SELLING printing presses, they are engaged in the direct act of creating printed language. I would think that the first amendment would protect a publisher/printer from having to produce anything he didn't want to.

It is a loose illustration - but still an interesting diversion. Where does protection start/stop?

If a printer refuses to print the offensive (yet protected) material are they protected.

If a printing press (offset printer or whatever) seller refuses to sell to the offending author are they protected?

If a parts provider refuses to sell them the parts and materials to assemble a printing device are they protected? ...Ad nauseam.

If an author cannot acquire the means to disseminate their material then do they really have a first amendment right? Where does protection begin?

te their material then do they really have a first amendment right?

Is the government stopping them from publishing it? Then no. Again, I'm not sure if you know what the first amendment actually means. I suggest you look at the first five words, "congress shall make no law . . ." No law prohibiting free exercise? no violation

Where does protection begin?

At the point it's speech.

Yeah that's...kinda the impression we've gotten from you, yes.

I was afraid you'd take offense to that - it really wasn't directed at you so much as the author of that post. If any offense was received by you then the comment is retracted. You have moved beyond the blathering braggart of your first few posts to become to an actual participant with valuable insight and opinion. Any offense you took in that post is regretted.

I'm not even sure what this is. Are you eating shishkabob?

I thought we were calling it Bat Mobile.

So, you in? Who rents the chicken costume?

Wait a minute, I thought it was the Joker costume. I thought I was dressing up like a psychotic mutilated clown, not a chicken, you freak!

you just lost the game!

I don't play the game.

(No, seriously, I'm never sure if that's in reference to something specific or just general pwnage.)

Gawd what arrogance this board issues. It's like watching a kid on the short bus brag about being the smartest one there - and all the others clapping their meat-hooks together and barking like seals in agreement.

More like, some of us here have actually had legal training...and it's VERY clear that if you've paid for any courses, you should be demanding a refund.

I was afraid you'd take offense to that - it really wasn't directed at you so much as the author of that post. If any offense was received by you then the comment is retracted. You have moved beyond the blathering braggart of your first few posts to become to an actual participant with valuable insight and opinion. Any offense you took in that post is regretted.

Dude, look up real quick--there's something hanging over your head.

Nevermind, it's gone now.

I'm not even sure what this is. Are you eating shishkabob?I thought we were calling it Bat Mobile.

Take it back, THAT is the hottest thing I've read.


Wait a minute, I thought it was the Joker costume. I thought I dressing up like a psychotic mutilated clown, not a chicken, you freak!

No baby, the chicken costume is for AFTER.

wouldn't matter. A printing company can still refuse to print anything they want to refuse. Legally, any problems would come from any contract that would be broken by such refusal, and not from any Constitutional Amendment.
.

Don't be so sure. If a printer were to refuse to print material for a gay and lesbian group because of their religious beliefs I have no doubt they would find themselves on the wrong end of the judicial bench.

Don't be so sure. If a printer were to refuse to print material for a gay and lesbian group because of their religious beliefs I have no doubt they would find themselves on the wrong end of the judicial bench.

Then you have no idea what you're talking about. Not that we hadn't already come to that conclusion 10 pages ago.

You're the only one who argued that, actually, and I agree that it's very silly.

Wrong, and right. In that order.


That sounds a little farcical. But as the authority, I'll take your word for it.

I could link to every post you've made in this thread, but it feels like overkill.

Ah I see, you are just striving for the last little insult, eh? Well, my friend. If that is easier for you than actually participating (and if you'd rather make up quotes for me than use real ones) then so be it. You got it.

Don't be so sure. If a printer were to refuse to print material for a gay and lesbian group because of their religious beliefs I have no doubt they would find themselves on the wrong end of the judicial bench.

again, your first hypothetical, presumably, had to do with the content of the material, not the orientation of the group.

And again, the line may be questionable as to whether the entity was a publishing firm, that actually published books and the like, or more like a kinkos that just created photocopies. It would also depend on whether the refusal was due to the content of the material, or the demographic of the group. your hypothetical is far too vague to address.

baby, please, a rooster has needs....

Oh yeah? Well, just for that, I am never going to do that thing with the slinky and the inflatable walrus ever again, mister.

Is the government stopping them from publishing it? Then no. Again, I'm not sure if you know what the first amendment actually means. I suggest you look at the first five words, "congress shall make no law . . ." No law prohibiting free exercise? no violation

At the point it's speech.

Ah, but is speech protected the same way religion or sexual orientation is? Can a person be denied service because of their religion? Orientation? Speech?

More like, some of us here have actually had legal training...and it's VERY clear that if you've paid for any courses, you should be demanding a refund.

And it is even more obvious that some of us here are capable of having a discussion of law, morality, and comparisons between various concepts all at the same time and not get confused between one or the other.

-Hopin you can get over yourself and join us soon.

Ah, but is speech protected the same way religion or sexual orientation is? Can a person be denied service because of their religion? Orientation? Speech?

what does the law protect and what does it not?

snip...

So the brown media and politically correct and inane "news"papers ensure free publicity of the same work? Certainly. With little people having the fiber to take it, it would certain guarantee near monopoly over a niche market and I wouldn't have to spend a dime with ads. It would be the sort of thing "most don't admit to own" but which would have good revenues, provided the country I published it at wasn't a joke regarding its laws. So in US, I would for sure.

Also from a moral standpoint, it is surely the pinnacle of democracy to commit the censorship of authoritarian or racist beliefs and symbols. And the fact it is "forbidden" or taboo serves as a magnet to draw more people interest to them, specially of teenagers.

again, your first hypothetical, presumably, had to do with the content of the material, not the orientation of the group.

And again, the line may be questionable as to whether the entity was a publishing firm, that actually published books and the like, or more like a kinkos that just created photocopies. It would also depend on whether the refusal was due to the content of the material, or the demographic of the group. your hypothetical is far too vague to address.

It would seem congruent that business which are solely book printers would fall in the category of Kinko's more so than publishers like Random House. (who handle distribution and sales in addition to printing)

Content of material will most likely be related to the material. If the printer were to deny printing because they found the content objectionable then the objection would also be to the author.

Added twist - what if the content were objectionable because it were endorsing 'switching back to straight'? Now we have a gay author, writing about the gay lifestyle (or 'reversing' it) and a printer who calls bullshit?

Is the printer discriminating? Refusing service based on content? Either way - they are denying service based on their religious or moral beliefs - something physicians are denied. Why should ANY business be afforded that?

Really, you're butchering the issue so badly by so utterly misusing terms like "rights" in improper contexts. Really it's three very simple questions:

1) does a business engaged in the printing or publishing material violate a client's constitutional rights if it refuses to publish the material because it finds it offensive, or disagrees with the affiliations of the client?

Answer: no. The first amendment only protects against state action. One business refusing to do business with a prospective client, absent some entanglement with the government, is not a state action. Thus, no constitutional rights violation.

2) Is the civil rights act of California violated if a printing/publishing business discriminates against clients because the business disagrees with the hate speech content of the printed material, or the hate prorogation principles of the group the client belongs to?

Answer: Maybe, maybe not. The statute doesn't seem to protect from discrimination based on belonging to certain groups, but it's possible the statute could be read broadly to prevent discrimination based on political/social affiliation

3) If such action as described in #2 DOES violated the civil rights act of California, do the first and fourteenth amendments to the United States Constitution give additional protection to a publisher/printer

Answer: Probably. Certainly a publisher would have broad protection, as to require a publisher to publish material from a source, despite their objection, would violate the rights of the publisher for free speech and free press. To require a publisher to publish something would be to compel speech and that IS unconstitutional. Unlike the answer in #1, a law requiring such WOULD be state action, and give rise to a constitutional violation. On the other hand, if the business was more of a "you bring it, we copy it" printer, like a Kinkos or something, the line as to whether it is "compelled speech" or not becomes questionable, as it's not questionable as to whether it's actually published speech, or merely copying.

There, now, that wasn't so hard, was it?

what does the law protect and what does it not?

In this case - access to service.

In this case - access to service.

I mean what CLASS of people does it protect? Against whom does it prevent discrimination? It prevents discrimination against people based on sexual orientation, or disability, or religion, does it protect against discrimination based on social affiliation? Moreover, see my post above.

Not all medical care is life or death - do you then support discrimination in non-life or death situations? (such as was the case in the California judgment)

It hinges on the way service is provided. People who own and operate their own business can discriminate however they want, but if you're part of an organization that strictly opposes such policies you have no choice but to comply. That being said, I have no idea what the law says about such matters.

On the other hand, if the business was more of a "you bring it, we copy it" printer, like a Kinkos or something, the line as to whether it is "compelled speech" or not becomes questionable, as it's not questionable as to whether it's actually published speech, or merely copying.

There, now, that wasn't so hard, was it?

Finally, it only took you twelve pages to get on the same page as me. (pun intended) And you even made it four posts without some arrogant snarky comment. That is a record for you! (offers a box of crackerjacks - Maybe you'll find another JD inside! -post 58 )

Wrong, and right. In that order.



Ah I see, you are just striving for the last little insult, eh? Well, my friend. If that is easier for you than actually participating (and if you'd rather make up quotes for me than use real ones) then so be it. You got it.

It's certainly more entertaining than smashing my head against the brick wall you've constructed to repel all reason.

Finally, it only took you twelve pages to get on the same page as me. (pun intended)

The problem is, you kept talking about "free speech" of the client as if it mattered. It really didn't. If you were trying to discuss whether the California civil rights act protected against discrimination based on social affiliation, that's an ENTIRELY separate thing, and something you should have said in the first place.

It's certainly more entertaining than smashing my head against the brick wall you've constructed to repel all reason.

and fine, don't respond to my TGs :(

Finally, it only took you twelve pages to get on the same page as me. (pun intended) And you even made it four posts without some arrogant snarky comment. That is a record for you! (offers a box of crackerjacks - Maybe you'll find another JD inside! -post 58 )

Riiiight. I'm gonna have to go ahead and just ignore you now, mmkay?

and fine, don't respond to my TGs :(

I like to leave you wanting more. ;)

I like to leave you wanting more. ;)

tease...

I kinda like that....

It hinges on the way service is provided. People who own and operate their own business can discriminate however they want, but if you're part of an organization that strictly opposes such policies you have no choice but to comply. That being said, I have no idea what the law says about such matters.

There are some who feel that a business owner should be able to discriminate however they wish - but for now the law strictly prohibits discriminatory practices based on primary factors such as race, religion, etc.

As you stated it before you would seem to fall in the first category.

Answer: Probably. Certainly a publisher would have broad protection, as to require a publisher to publish material from a source, despite their objection, would violate the rights of the publisher for free speech and free press. To require a publisher to publish something would be to compel speech and that IS unconstitutional. Unlike the answer in #1, a law requiring such WOULD be state action, and give rise to a constitutional violation. On the other hand, if the business was more of a "you bring it, we copy it" printer, like a Kinkos or something, the line as to whether it is "compelled speech" or not becomes questionable, as it's not questionable as to whether it's actually published speech, or merely copying.

There, now, that wasn't so hard, was it?
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3065/is_n17_v26/ai_20080760

Did some digging and there is actually another dimension we both ignored - the 'hostile workplace'. There could be people working at the print shop who could find the content offensive for religious or other reasons. I have found that a printer DOES HAVE the right to refuse service if they feel it could expose them or their employees to a hostile workplace.

It boils down to this; presently in the US no PRINTING business can be forced to accept business which MAY be objectionable to them or their employees - while a PHYSICIAN can be FORCED to accept business which IS objectionable to that physician.

My position has consistently been that this is an inconsistent circumstance - I've not held out that printers are forced to accept business (with one generalized exception which I will not correct) - but I did question it and I also did suggest the possibility exists that the CA judgment could be applied to all businesses the same. You correctly pointed out may be true for some classes but not all - racists being an excluded class. Now we also find cause to believe that yet another value must be balanced in addition to moral/religious objections - the hostile workplace - which could potentially exclude some included classes...

The parallel I've drawn is not to imply that a printer should be forced to accept business - it has been to bring an example that nearly anyone could relate to of what this judgment would feel like to a dissenting physician.

Interesting observation - The description for why a printer can refuse business is fear of a 'hostile workplace' where an employee's religion could be offended. If a physician is an EMPLOYEE would it also not be considered a hostile workplace if their religion is offended? How are these to be reconciled? Barring life threatening situations; that is a peculiar dichotomy.

It is apparent from all parties that this case will lead to future legislation which will clarify and possibly balance some of these contrasting circumstances. The question now is - in what form should they take? What is the ideal way to balance the rights of all parties?

Should a physician be treated with the same rights of refusal as a printer? Would it apply the same to independent practitioners as well as employee physicians?

CATMAN!
sup.

Howdy.


You never fail to entertain me.

This -- and much of the rest of your response and your general attitude -- is illustrative of why I rarely post anymore.

I laid out in rather clear terms why the premises of the arguments you were making are false. You are wrong about what the California Supreme Court said today. You are wrong about the relevant facts. You are wrong about the relevant legal context. And -- even ignoring your errors in understanding and the falsity of your premises -- your argument is flawed.

In addition, several various comments you made about reality, law, Larry Flynt, torts, etc, were demonstrably untrue.

No doubt it stings when one's opinion is exposed to being so wrong. But I tried to be explicit about the flaws in your assumptions and arguments and tried to avoid purely personal attacks.

You respond to none of the substance of what I posted (with the dubious exception of mischaracterizing and trivialing some seminal SCOTUS caselaw) and rely on a condescending demeanor and some personal insults. Fine. But don't expect it to impress or persuade anyone.

I enjoy is your selective logic; your argument essentially is that sexual orientation is a right that cannot be denied by a service provider but freedom of speech is a right which can be denied by a service provider. Glorious!

There are so many things wrong with your "summary" of my alleged argument that I'm not sure where to begin. I guess I'll just start listing a few.

1. Nothing in what I said or the California Supreme Court said today had anything to do with whether sexual orientation is a right. (For the record, however, I do believe there is such a right.) The closest thing to this being at issue is the question of whether one can discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. The answer in California is NO -- not because of any "rights," but because there is a statute that says so.

2. Nothing in what I said or the California Supreme Court said today had anything to do with whether or not a service provider can deny one a sexual orientation. The more relevant point is that a service provider cannot deny one free and equal access to public services on the grounds of one's sexual orientation.

3. Nothing in what I said or the California Supreme Court said today had anything to do with whether freedom of speech is a right. Of course it is. The question is whether it is a right that exempts one from compliance with neutral, generally applicable anti-discrimination laws. The answer is no -- it doesn't.

4. Nothing in what I said or the California Supreme Court said today had anything to do with denial of freedom of speech by a service provider. NOR DOES YOUR HYPOTHETICAL! Refusing to publish/print something does not violate the author's freedom of speech. One has a right to free and equal access to publication/printing without discrimination on protected grounds -- but that is a completely different question than whether one has a right to force someone else to publish/print something that they disagree with, object to, find offensive, etc.

You have always constrained your arguments to what has already been argued, thought of, or discussed - never open to discussing new ideas or comparisons - I could only suppose it is because you have nothing to fall back on but your own thoughts and are uncomfortable with that. I truly am sad for you for that because I know you would rock (be intellectually stimulating) if you shared a post solely consisting of your own original thoughts.

Yes, it is most sad that my discussion of ideas or comparisons is limited by reality, reason, facts, logic, etc. It is particularly sad that my discussion of a California Supreme Court opinion is rooted in what the opinion actually says and that my discussion of legal rights tends to focus on what the law actually is.

My primary point was that the factual premise of your argument ("The California Supreme Court said 'X'") was untrue. (The CSC did not say "X." To the contrary, they said "Y.") All of your hypothesizing about implications of the CSC saying "X" are based on a falsehood.

Moreover, the internal logic of your argument falls apart. Even if the CSC had said "X," your conclusions do not follow.

I even suspect you could defend them and would enjoy it without being snarky, offensive or offended.

Poor kettle.

Meanwhile - while you may not be creative on your own - you certainly are open to creative interpretation! Comparing cases denying animal sacrifice and ingesting peyote to conscientious objectors is unique. (never mind the difference between activity and inactivity - I just love that the best you could come up with were peyote freaks and chicken chokers)

Ah. Your grasp of the value of precedent and the express opinions of the U.S. Supreme Court is typical of your discussion here. In Smith (at 879), the Court stated that the First Amendment’s right to the free exercise of religion “does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a ‘valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes).’ ” In Church of Lukumi Babalu, the Court reiterated this principle -- although it found the laws in question were not valid and neutral laws of general applicatibility. I could cite many more cases to the same effect -- but why bother, you'd just ignore or dismiss them as well.

But your hypocrisy is amusing. Let's see -- religious beliefs of some people are more equal than others. One can merely dismiss the First Amendment rights of "peyote freaks" and "chicken chokers." (BTW, perhaps you did not realize the "chicken chokers" won in Church of Lukumi Babalu). The right to be a bigot and discriminate against gays and lesbians is, however, sacrosanct. Those whose religion involves peyote or animal sacrifice are kooks who don't deserve rights. Those whose religion involves violating anti-discrimination laws and/or denying medical treatment to someone because of their sexual orientation are, in contrast, "conscientious objectors" with a right to be exempt from the law.

The discussion here is - if a moral judgment can be made by a publisher - why would a moral judgment be denied a physician during non-life threatening circumstances?

Cute usage of the phrase "moral judgment."

Does a "moral judgment" on my part make me immune from generally applicable, neutral laws?

Can I make a "moral judgment" that you don't deserve to live or am I constrained by laws against murder?

Can I make a "moral judgment" that you belong to an inferior race and should be denied equal access on that ground?

More to the point, can I make a "moral judgment" to deny someone free and equal access to a public service on the basis of their sexual orientation?

Hopefully, you'd agree the obvious answer to the above questions is NO.

On the other hand, can I make the "moral judgment" not to print something I disagree with? Of course you can. See the First Amendment.

So far many here have argued sexual orientation is a right that cannot be a basis for a service provider to deny service because of moral objections; but speech is a right which can be a basis for denial of service by a service provider who morally objects.

If you consider that congruent and me inconsistent then so be it.

For the reasons explained above (among others), neither I nor the California Supreme Court -- nor to my recollection anyone in this thread -- has made the argument you describe.

I am not here to debate or author law - I am here to discuss the comparison of the two similar circumstances. It is others who have chosen to break out their casebooks.

1. I have illustrated ad nauseam that the circumstances you seek to compare are NOT SIMILAR.

2. I have also illustrated that the circumstances you seek to compare are NOT BASED IN REALITY.

3. It was you who chose to base your discussion on your misunderstanding of today's California Supreme Court decision. It was you who first brought up that decision as relevant to this discussion. It is not my fault that you failed to understand that decision, the relevant facts, and the relevant law.

AFIK - In CA it is forbidden to treat customers differently based on your religious or moral beliefs.

If, AFAIK, the moon is made of cheese, would it make a fine fondue?

The primary point of my posts is that what you think you know about the law, particularly today's California Supreme Court decision, just ain't so.

It would be an interesting case if a book publisher (or one who prints books for a fee) were to deny access to someone with protected content over religious or moral objection. I have no doubt this recent ruling would be cited.

1. Pray tell, what is "protected content"? What law protects such content?

2. This recent ruling could also be "cited" in a case about whether monkeys are people or whether grass is green. It wouldn't be relevant -- whether "cited" or not.

Another example mentioned - could a white supremacist legally operate a commercial press and deny customers due to content which they consider offensive?

Yes.

Or - could a black physician refuse to treat a white supremacist? (in a similarly non-life threatening situation - and ignoring the delicious irony such a situation could present)

Could a physician refuse to treat someone on the basis of race under California law? NO.

Could a physician refuse to treat someone on the basis of their sexual orientation, sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, or medical condition? NO.

Could, theoretically, a physician refuse to treat someone on the basis of their political opinions? AFAIK, yes. If not, it would be because of some other statute with which I am unfamiliar. Regardless, that is a very different question than that answered today by the California Supreme Court.

I agree with the first part - but does CA law explicitly give printers the right to deny service to a customer based on their moral position? (presuming protected content)
I'm not so sure it does.

1. "Class/group/characterization protected from discrimination" does not equal "protected content." Nothing in the decision at hand says one cannot react or treat people differently based on the content of their speech.

2. The First Amendment gives everyone the right not to engage in speech based on their moral position.


It is a loose illustration - but still an interesting diversion. Where does protection start/stop?

If a printer refuses to print the offensive (yet protected) material are they protected.

If a printing press (offset printer or whatever) seller refuses to sell to the offending author are they protected?

If a parts provider refuses to sell them the parts and materials to assemble a printing device are they protected? ...Ad nauseam.

If an author cannot acquire the means to disseminate their material then do they really have a first amendment right? Where does protection begin?

Again, your notion of "protection" and what is protected is fatally vague and flawed.

In California, one is protected from discrimination in access to public services based on one's sexual orientation -- just as one is similarly protected from discrimination based on race, sex, religion, etc.

One is not, to my knowledge, protected from discrimination based on, for example, offensive speech.

One has a First Amendment right to free speech and (arguably) a moral right to speak freely. That does not mean you have the right to force someone else to speak or print your words.

Ah, but is speech protected the same way religion or sexual orientation is? Can a person be denied service because of their religion? Orientation? Speech?

The same law in California that protects one from discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation protects them from discrimination on the grounds of religion.

I am not aware of -- and today's decision did not relate to -- any law in California that prohibits denial of service on the basis of one's speech.

Forget it cat, it's chinatown.

Did some digging and there is actually another dimension we both ignored - the 'hostile workplace'. There could be people working at the print shop who could find the content offensive for religious or other reasons. I have found that a printer DOES HAVE the right to refuse service if they feel it could expose them or their employees to a hostile workplace.

It boils down to this; presently in the US no PRINTING business can be forced to accept business which MAY be objectionable to them or their employees - while a PHYSICIAN can be FORCED to accept business which IS objectionable to that physician.

Interesting observation - The description for why a printer can refuse business is fear of a 'hostile workplace' where an employees religion could be offended. If a physician is an EMPLOYEE would it also not be considered a hostile workplace if their religion is offended? How are these to be reconciled? Barring non-life threatening situations; that is a peculiar dichotomy.

Chocolate Jesus on a pogo-stick!!

:headbang:

Would you please refrain from further confusing your misunderstanding of one set of laws by making mistatements and leaping to false conclusions about another distinct set of laws?

Your understanding of the law relating to a hostile work enviroment is even worse than your understanding of the decision at issue. You are too off-base for me to even start explaining to you the difference between apples, oranges, handgrenades, and pineapples.

It is apparent from all parties that this case will lead to future legislation which will clarify some of these contrasting circumstances. The question now is - in what form should they take? What is the idea way to balance the rights of all parties?

WTF? On what do you base that rather bizarre assertion? Today's decision was a UNANIMOUS DECISION by a Republican- & conservative-dominated court based on well-established precedent. Although some of the subject matter may be controversial, the law in question was rather straight-forward.

Should a physician be treated with the same rights of refusal as a printer? Would it apply the same to independent practitioners as well as employee physicians?

Again, your assumptions are faulty.

Neither a physician nor a printer may deny free and equal access to a public service on the grounds of one's sexual orientation, race, religion, sex, etc.

Chocolate Jesus on a pogo-stick!!


This has got to be one of the greatest exclamations I have ever encountered.

That's it - it may be unilateral but as far as you are concerned Neo and I are now buds.

You, sir, are a goofball. (not to be confused with an attempted goofball)

So, you are now "buds" with Neo, and your best attempt at logic with me is namecalling.

Mystic Skeptic, your response reveals all of that tremendous grasp of language and its nuances (and all the thorough, critical, penetrating reading of the posts you are responding to) that is displayed in your legal opinions.

And Neo Art, you owe me 5 bucks for how easily he went for it. Or, in your language, 0.011 billable hours.

And Neo Art, you owe me 5 bucks for how easily he went for it. Or, in your language, 0.011 billable hours.

*sigh* given my firm rates, the sad part is...that number isn't that far off...

This has got to be one of the greatest exclamations I have ever encountered.

It was almost as enjoyable as watching the Mystic Skeptic get so supremely pwned.

Oh! Oh! If you don't spend your time showing me how I'm wrong, then clearly I'm right! Yeah! And even when you do show how I'm wrong, in excruciating detail, I'm not only going to pretend I'm smart enough to even understand what you said...I'm going to act like YOU'RE the dumb one!

Seriously. It's the same thing, over and over.

So, you are now "buds" with Neo, and your best attempt at logic with me is namecalling.

Mystic Skeptic, your response reveals all of that tremendous grasp of language and its nuances (and all the thorough, critical, penetrating reading of the posts you are responding to) that is displayed in your legal opinions.

And Neo Art, you owe me 5 bucks for how easily he went for it. Or, in your language, 0.011 billable hours.

Let me just say, I quite thoroughly enjoyed your participation in this thread.

Well If there is nothing illegal about it and I stood to gain from publishing it, of course I would, there's no reason not to really.

*ahem* not everyone lives in America *ahem* so first amendment considerations don't apply.

Depends. If they pay me a lot, I publish. If they don't, like anyone else they can sod off:p

I would publish, if there were no risks to my business I am a believer in freedom of speech and would do my part to uphold it when possible.

But I am torn, as I would not be a public entity my right to support (in even a small way) by publishing these books would be at my discretion and my wish to not support these entities would be at war with trying to have little to no restriction.

So yeah freedom of speech wins out for me but not by much and if there were ANY consequences that would be enough to reverse my decisions

*ahem* not everyone lives in America *ahem* so first amendment considerations don't apply.

SIlly. There's America (where all the culture and history is) and "Here There Be Monsters" full of fuzzywuzzies that eat their own children and have yet to evolve opposed thumbs.

I would print the job, but then I would donate the profits to a worthy cause antithetical to the group's vile ideology.

Hell no, I wouldn't.

I wouldn't want to aid the spread of something like that. "Someone else would do it anyway" isn't an excuse.
^ this.

Also, your poll options are a bit confused.

SIlly. There's America (where all the culture and history is) and "Here There Be Monsters" full of fuzzywuzzies that eat their own children and have yet to evolve opposed thumbs.

Do you mean opposable? Or are these regions of the world where the "thumbwar" hasn't been invented yet? :p

I wouldn't want to aid the spread of something like that. "Someone else would do it anyway" isn't an excuse.
To expand on that-I hate "Someone else would do it anyway" as an excuse for your own opportunistic behavior. It's a futile and transparent attempt to shift the blame for your own shittiness to someone else, some other fictional being. Someone else didn't do it, you did. You're 'someone else.' You're the dick. You don't get a pass because you saved some other dick from the opportunity. If 'someone else would do it anyway' ceased to be everyone's excuse, there would be no someone else.
Forget it cat, it's chinatown.
Forums made me make this a while ago...
http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/93/forgetitjakenh9.jpg

The motto of my publishing company would be 'If the cash is there, we don't care.'

Not only would I publish it, I would publicize that I published it, and that I would publish for anybody who could meet my rates.

oops.

sure i would. im not a publisher im a PRINTER.

I knew something about the scenario was bothering me...

Do you mean opposable? Or are these regions of the world where the "thumbwar" hasn't been invented yet? :p

One Two Three Four, I declare a...oh, never mind.

Crap, i clicked the wrong button, lol...

but, id publish, I firmly believe in the First Amendment, Censorship be Damned!

I said yes
Money is money my friend.

I said yes
Money is money my friend.

Yet publishing this would ultimately hurt you financially, as being associated with such people is bad for your image, and a bad image = less customers.

Yet publishing this would ultimately hurt you financially, as being associated with such people is bad for your image, and a bad image = less customers.

Not necessarily...I think if you made sure to tell everyone you only did it in support of Free Speech, then it could actually help your image, because you can say you publish indiscriminately...

If it was me, id try to get like an Affirmative Action book out at the same time, lol...

Yet publishing this would ultimately hurt you financially, as being associated with such people is bad for your image, and a bad image = less customers.

But didnt the orginal post say that my companies name would be nowhere on the book.

But didnt the orginal post say that my companies name would be nowhere on the book.

Id make sure my companies name was on the book, if you try and hide it, your sure as shit gonna get negative press...

Youve gotta be a head on hitter :wink:

Not necessarily...I think if you made sure to tell everyone you only did it in support of Free Speech, then it could actually help your image, because you can say you publish indiscriminately...

If it was me, id try to get like an Affirmative Action book out at the same time, lol...

Perhaps, however society tends not to be so open minded, and too quick to vilify something. Publishing something so horrible will probably generally be viewed as bad, regardless of whether it was published indiscriminately.

Yeah your probably right.

But didnt the orginal post say that my companies name would be nowhere on the book.

You'd probably get found out somehow.

Most likely I suppose that putting my name on it would be safer, if I put out a disclaimer or something

I knew something about the scenario was bothering me...
as a person who is printing up stuff for money, i dont think its my place OR a good use of my time to censor my customers.

wouldnt i have to be reading every freaking thing that comes into my shop just in case it contains something someone might think is offensive?

as a person who is printing up stuff for money, i dont think its my place

Of course it's your place, you're the publisher. You have complete control over what gets published under your name.


wouldnt i have to be reading every freaking thing that comes into my shop just in case it contains something someone might think is offensive?

You'd have to be doing that to check for anything illegal anyway.

/snip
You probably think a tort is something that you pop into a toaster.


Why would anyone put a torte (or a tort, for that matter) in a toaster? Wouldn't it just melt and make a big old mess (or alternatively in the case of a tort, catch fire)?

Of course it's your place, you're the publisher. You have complete control over what gets published under your name.



You'd have to be doing that to check for anything illegal anyway.
which is why i would NEVER check.

plausable deniability.

no im not the publisher. all i am is the printer. HE is the publisher.

Why would anyone put a torte (or a tort, for that matter) in a toaster? Wouldn't it just melt and make a big old mess (or alternatively in the case of a tort, catch fire)?

In America, there are little pastries sold called Pop-Tarts that you put in the toaster to warm them up. That's probably what he's referring to.