Hate on Trial

[Ana the Ist]

Now the truth comes out. Lively is being charged with something that someone else said.

Well, Charles Manson never killed anyone either....

Do you think he was wrongly convicted?

 

[MachZer0]

Well, Charles Manson never killed anyone either....

Do you think he was wrongly convicted?

Charles Manson was actually party to the murders. We don't have any evidence that actually links Lively to anything untoward. Perhaps you have some you'd like to share

 

[Billnew]

reading about this late in the discussion.

So he went to another country and spoke to lawmakers, legally.
He preached against a religious crime he holds dear, legally.
His speaking out, encouraged law makers of the other country to pass laws, legally.
So now all his legal actions are now accused of being illegal because others acted on his speaking to their leaders-legally.
So people that did not fair well under thier government actions that might have been influenced by this mans speaking to them are charging him with crimes against humanity for all his legal speaking? Because they can't charge their leaders with the crimes?
Did he do anything but speak? Did he commit any crimes other then speaking with words and money? Did he incite a riot? Lynchings? or did he encourage legal actions such as passing laws?
I don't see how a court could find anything other then first amendment freedoms.
I don't agree with what he was saying, but he said it all legally, and did not encourage lawlessness.
He gets charged with crimes against humanity for speaking. ie 1st Amendment protection.

 

[Billnew]

ok, read the posts.

No one disputes he is being charged with crimes against humanity for all his legal actions.

Had anything he did in Uganda been done here, he would be protected by first amendment. So unless he actually called for illegal extermination of people, he only asked for laws to be passed, which is legal.

Would we claim people wanting murderers to be executed be crimes against humanity? no.
So he asked for a law to be passed to execute people found guilty of another crime. Which is legal even if extreme over kill.

It is not a crime to ask lawmakers to make a law. That is how laws are passed. Even the most insane people can ask for a law to be passed.

Criminals seek to have mob justice or lynchings. This is criminal.

Where is a person to go, if they want a law passed if they can't ask lawmakers to do it without being liable for the request?

How can a person break a law by following all appropriate laws?

I say if he made a legal plea for a law, then he was acting legally. So he can't be guilty of a crime against humanity. no matter what law he asked to be passed.

 

[MachZer0]

ok, read the posts.

No one disputes he is being charged with crimes against humanity for all his legal actions.

Had anything he did in Uganda been done here, he would be protected by first amendment. So unless he actually called for illegal extermination of people, he only asked for laws to be passed, which is legal.

Would we claim people wanting murderers to be executed be crimes against humanity? no.
So he asked for a law to be passed to execute people found guilty of another crime. Which is legal even if extreme over kill.

It is not a crime to ask lawmakers to make a law. That is how laws are passed. Even the most insane people can ask for a law to be passed.

Criminals seek to have mob justice or lynchings. This is criminal.

Where is a person to go, if they want a law passed if they can't ask lawmakers to do it without being liable for the request?

How can a person break a law by following all appropriate laws?

I say if he made a legal plea for a law, then he was acting legally. So he can't be guilty of a crime against humanity. no matter what law he asked to be passed.

He opposes homosexuality. That's all some people need to know

 

[SepiaAndDust]

Well, Charles Manson never killed anyone either....

Do you think he was wrongly convicted?

Apples and oranges. Manson was part of a criminal conspiracy and was prosecuted under joint liability, wherein each member of a conspiracy is responsible for the criminal acts committed by any member.

Lively was not a part of any criminal conspiracy, so he isn't legally jointly liable for the laws passed by the (as far as I know) lawful government of Uganda.

I'm not familiar with the torts at issue, so I can't speak to the validity of the lawsuit.

 

[ChristsSoldier115]

I'm not sure why you would want to hold Lively responsible for the acts and speech of others when it can't be demonstrated that he actually encouraged such

I am not wanting to do anything. Uganda does.

 

[Maren]

I will merely state that he is being sued by Ugandans, for what he did there, in US courts. I will withhold commenting further until I see more of the evidence. Hopefully the court and jury will, after seeing all the evidence, come to the right verdict under the law.

 

[Maynard Keenan]

I say if he made a legal plea for a law, then he was acting legally. So he can't be guilty of a crime against humanity. no matter what law he asked to be passed.

Something can be legal, in a country, and still be a crime against humanity. What the Nazis did was legal, in their country. We still prosecuted them.

Note: This is not a Godwin. I am not comparing the situation in Uganda to Nazism. I am providing an example of a specific point, that something being legal in a country does not preclude that thing from being a crime against humanity.

 

[CaDan]

Ruling on motion to dismiss in August of '13 here. (PDF)

Pertinent part:

Based on these authorities it is clear that the Amended Complaint sets forth sufficient allegations to support a claim for activity outside the protection of the First Amendment. Plaintiff contends that Defendant’s conduct has gone far beyond mere expression into the realm not only of advocacy of imminent criminal conduct, in this case advocacy of a crime against humanity, but management of actual crimes -- repression of free expression through intimidation, false arrests, assaults, and criminalization of peaceful activity and even the status of being gay or lesbian -- that no jury could find to enjoy the protection of the First Amendment.​

 

[loveofourlord]

Odd that someone can be sued when the whole story is not known

Uhhh of course they can, thats what the courts decide, people sue all the time when they think they are wronged, doesn't mean they will suceed.

 

[MachZer0]

Uhhh of course they can, thats what the courts decide, people sue all the time when they think they are wronged, doesn't mean they will succeed.

Investigations determine the information. Courts act on what is already known.

 

[loveofourlord]

Investigations determine the information. Courts act on what is already known.

yes, and that will be the job of his defense lawyers to prove he's innocent, just as in a case if I sued you saying you stole money from me, I would have to prove you did it, and you would provide evidence that you couldn't have done it.

In the court the Ugundan's would provide their evidence, and he would provide evidence like transcripts, recordings and such of what he said.

If I want to sue you for stealing my money I don't have to prove you stole it before the case I just have to provide my claim. I'm not sure what kind of law you think the US has. were not talking criminal case, were talking civil case wich has lower standards to go to trial and to be held acountable.

 

[MachZer0]

yes, and that will be the job of his defense lawyers to prove he's innocent, just as in a case if I sued you saying you stole money from me, I would have to prove you did it, and you would provide evidence that you couldn't have done it.

In the court the Ugundan's would provide their evidence, and he would provide evidence like transcripts, recordings and such of what he said.

If I want to sue you for stealing my money I don't have to prove you stole it before the case I just have to provide my claim. I'm not sure what kind of law you think the US has. were not talking criminal case, were talking civil case wich has lower standards to go to trial and to be held acountable.

Rules of discovery require the defense to reveal whatever information they have, which means the information is there, we just don't have it. So if you did sue me, whatever information you had would have to be made available

 

[CaDan]

Investigations determine the information. Courts act on what is already known.

lolwut?

 

[WirSindBettler]

Often times coffee and donuts and after meeting discussions

Fell off my chair laughing.

 

[WirSindBettler]

I know I'm coming into this discussion late, but I think that the charges are absurd.

So he's opposed to homosexuality. So he voiced his opinion in such a manner that may have influenced others. Both of these things are legal, last time I checked.

So now he's being charged with crimes against humanity (that's pretty darn serious) by the Ugandans . . . in a U.S. Court.

What?

Why don't they just petition to have him extradited to Uganda?

Also, (a) he didn't physically draft the bill, and (b), the bill, if passed, had to at least been voted on by a parliament or some sort of council or people, so why is he charged and not this council?

If a person stands on the street corner and says that homosexuality is a disease and that it needs to go bye-bye, and some guy stands back, and, upon listening, decides to go kill a homosexual, is it the speakers fault? Did he decide to kill that individual and pull the trigger?

If that's the case, why do we blame Hitler, and not the Anti-Semites he quoted (such as, no matter how much it pains me to say this, my hero Martin Luther, or Wagner, or Henry Ford)?

The enactors should be punished, not the inspiration. Unless it can be proven that Scott Lively, legalistic Christian that he is, either drafted, enacted, or followed through on the Bill, he should not and cannot rightly be considered guilty.

 

[Trogdor the Burninator]

After reading a bit further, I have to retract some of my earlier statements. He didn't explicitly call for the death of gay people. He did put forth a lot of charged points, though, some of which are not supported by modern science.

That to me is the key distinction - did he expressly advocate for murder, or did he give an opinion which was then taken by others and used to advocate for murder.

If it's the latter - there shouldn't be a case, because merely expressing an opinion which subsequently gives rise to harm isn't (and shouldn't be) illegal.

 

[loveofourlord]

That to me is the key distinction - did he expressly advocate for murder, or did he give an opinion which was then taken by others and used to advocate for murder.

If it's the latter - there shouldn't be a case, because merely expressing an opinion which subsequently gives rise to harm isn't (and shouldn't be) illegal.

And thats for the courts to decide in this case, if he's directly responsible for the law in Ugunda then he be in trouble for pushing that kind of law in the US if it got passed let alone Uguna.

 

[MachZer0]

And thats for the courts to decide in this case, if he's directly responsible for the law in Ugunda then he be in trouble for pushing that kind of law in the US if it got passed let alone Uguna.

If the law in Uganda is a crime against humanity, why aren't the politicians who instituted the law the subjects of the law suit?