(Christian Gallery News Service, June 8, 2003) The cartoon below is the latest and most obvious example in a long string of examples stretching back nearly six years proving that there is a legal double standard being applied in the United States of America. People opposed to abortion have to operate under one set of legal rules; people in favor of abortion get to live under another set of rules. This proves that the ideal of equal justice for all in the USA is not even an ideal anymore, much less a reality. See for yourself.
This picture, published this month by Larry Flynt in Hustler Magazine, clearly paints abortionists as being the potential target for terrorist assassination.
But is there any outcry from the abortion industry that the abortionists of the world are being targeted for assassination?
There was not so much as a peep, and this in spite of the fact that millions of people who fit the profile of the potential abortionist assassin (male, white, heterosexual) actually saw the image in Hustler magazine.
If this cartoon had been published first in "The Abortion Abolitionist" magazine or in the Christian Gallery News Service, it would have immediately been labeled as a terroristic threat and become the subject of numerous lawsuits and perhaps criminal prosecution.
How do we know that?
Look at what happened to my publication The Nuremberg Files. The Web site, which contained nothing but a list of names of abortionists and their evil lackeys who perpetuate the practice of legally tearing little babies limb from limb and flushing them into metal trash containers was made the brunt of a series of law suits and court cases and censorship actions that occur to this day without any hint of abating.
And it turns out that the reason the Nuremberg Files was so "threatening" was that "graphic devices" were used that frightened the poor people who make their living legally eviscerating (visualize tearing a chicken apart) the most vulnerable human beings in the dear old USA, the land of the free and the home of the brave.
Look at the facts for yourself. Her Lordship, Pamela Ann Rymer, writing for the majority in the Federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Nuremberg Files decision, explained it this way. "We reheard the case en banc because these issues are obviously
important..." The Judgess continued, "ACLA [American Coalition of Life Activists, the group of 13 separate individuals sued by Planned Parenthood] made
statements to intimidate the physicians, reasonably foreseeing
that physicians would interpret the statements as a serious
expression of ACLA's intent to harm them because they provided
reproductive health services...ACLA was aware that a "wanted"-type
poster would likely be interpreted as a serious threat of death
or bodily harm by a doctor in the reproductive health services
community...The same is true of
the posting about these physicians on that part of the "Nuremberg
Files" where lines were drawn through the names of doctors
who provided abortion services and who had been killed
or wounded...ACLA's conduct amounted to a true threat and is
not protected speech."
So there you have it. If you say something and the people you say it to think you meant to threaten them, then their Lordships conclude you can be charged with issuing a "true threat" even if the words you used said nothing whatsoever about inflicting illegal bodily harm on anyone at anytime; but if the people you speak to don't think you want to harm them, you can say anything you want.
I know that sounds weird but the cartoon puts it into truthful perspective.
In the cartoon, we have Larry Flynt publishing an image that says nothing except it is likely that abortionists can be targeted for hot lead intrusion.
But Larry Flynt's publication is not a threat while my publication of the Nuremberg Files is a threat.
And what is the total difference between the publications?
Everybody knows that I want nothing more than the abolition of legalized abortion. And everybody knows equally well that Larry Flynt is a world renowned reprobate totally committed to furthering in all ways possible every type of sexual depravity and debauchery and licentiousness known to man.
And that makes all the difference according to the honorable Lordships now in the majority in the ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and, if appearances are correct, in firm majority throughout the length and breadth of these presently united States of America.
Because Larry Flynt could never be expected to be trying to abolish legalized abortion, nothing he could say can be construed as a threat. But because everybody knows I hate legalized abortion from its socially accepted outer perimeter down to its stinking evil blood-soaked core, anything I say can be construed as a threat...And I can be prosecuted for saying it.
Perhaps the most bizarre part of this story is the fact that the Bush administration is determined to keep this double standard in place. The ninth circuit decision that created this obvious double standard is now before the Supreme Court for review. But the Bush administration urged the Supreme Court to reject what the Associated Press called "a politically charged abortion case that seeks free-speech protection for protesters who used "wanted" posters to target doctors." The White House said the court should leave undisturbed a ruling against anti-abortion protesters for listing personal information about abortion clinic employees on the Internet and on posters.
Anyone who thinks the Bush administration is opposed to legalized abortion must factor that decision into the equation they are using to reach that conclusion.
Anyway, there is your "Constitutionally Protected Freedom of Speech" in the USA today.
This article demonstrates how a generation of Christians can be walking around in something, be up to their ears in it, be tasting it in their mouths, even, but still won't allow anyone to name it because it might jar the socially acceptable Christian decorum. Isn't it time we started speaking the truth even when it stinks?
Written by: Neal Horsley
Return to Christian Gallery News Service"