archipelago
New Member
Welcome to America, Hometown, USA!
Aim: Though the title line may seem very broad and dramatic, the question concerns a very specific case, with the aim in mind to find out 1) whether or not a particular expression in and of itself constitutes a crime and 2) if not or unclear, whether a case could be made and how.
Context: I live in Santa Cruz, California, on the campus of UCSC, where a car was firebombed early in the morning, nearly at the same time that a house was firebombed in a neighborhood not far away. The case has fallen under the jurisdiction of the FBI and is being investigated as "domestic terrorism." The two individuals apparently targeted both work at UCSC, both biomedical researchers. Animal rights activists are suspected, though there is no released information at this time.
Earlier in the week, a pamphlet was apparently discovered at a local cafe and reported to the police that is being linked to the case. The details concerning the pamphlet are also unknown in terms of who produced it and why, who turned it in and when they found it and where, and how long if at all it remained in public view. We have only the police report which suggests that the police arrived at the cafe's corner, where an unidentified individual was standing with approximately a dozen handmade pamphlets, saying he was a customer and found them inside the cafe.
Question: Does the pamphlet itself constitute a crime? if so, what sort and why? if not, why not? if not known, what else would have to be determined?
Details: The pamphlet has not been released to the public in full. The facts so far are as follows:
Front cover: language to the effect of "murderers and torturers" as in a WANTED poster.
Back cover: language to the effect of "We know where you work. We know where you live. We will not ever stop until you stop your abuse."
Inside: the names, photos, home addresses, home phone numbers of 13 individuals, most of whom work for UCSC and are scientists (though it has been reported that at least 3 mistakes were found in the information, so not all turned out to be connected to UC science research or animal research for that matter)
I have read about "harm" and about "clear and present danger" and about "imminent illegal activity" and even about "hate speech," but none of these seem to cover the particulars very well so I am puzzled about whether or not this is in fact protected speech and secondarily curious about how a case could be made somehow that argues that it is not protected speech.
Also I welcome general views about the situation, either as I have presented it or based on national media coverage, by people who are versed in the legal and/or ethical issues involved. But let me say that my post aims simply (in so far as that is possible) to address the particularities of the case in terms not of terrorism per se, but the ways in which law enforcement would go about prosecuting the case with regard to the existence of the pamphlet in question. And there are reasons for this focus, but suffice it to say, with perhaps a risk of hyberbole: the firebombs are the violence, but the pamphlet is the terrorism. Why would I say such a thing? Many details but basically you have to understand and disregard what might have appeared in the media about the incidents. Were we only dealing with a situation of firebombings that targeted University researchers, we would have one situation, but it wouldn't necessary or at least would be open to argument as to whether it were "domestic terrorism" straightforward, no questions asked. And what is behind that statement? Many things, but the most factual and inarguable is that the firebombings, despite unfortunately what has been released to the public thus far, are NOT readily or easily tied to the suspected groups related to animal rights. Why? Because the firebomb on campus where I live occurred without regard to the issue of animals and research in any way. The researcher involved does not work with animals but with yeast, a fact readily available to anyone who simply has a search engine and can type in "yeast" to the UCSC site.
In other words, with only two firebombings as the only thing to go on, albeit connected in lots of ways, we still would not have a clear or reasonable, let alone provable case, that it has to do with so-called "animal rights terrorism." How could we, if the two researchers did not have in common animal research?
In case it is not clear or concisely put, my understanding is based on the fact that it is in the pamphlet, found days before actual acts of violence, related or not (meaning that it has not yet been stated nor confirmed although the FBI is clearly proceeding with that in place as a fact. That underscores my point that that the pamphlet is worth trying to undertsand in terms of law (not to mention other legitimate and even more pressing issues).
So I repeat, what about the pamphlet itself, even just based on the limited information released so far, that raises legal issues and concerns? And how are the law enforcement involved going to to make a case, since it is obvious that the pamphlet does skirt the issues involved in a whole range of precedents about this sort of problem?
I am hesitant to add, but have to, based squarely on practical matters, though ethical issues and basic codes of civil conduct too are at stake, that I don't want to be exposed to thoughtless expressions that dismiss the impact of the terrorist threats, or that nit-pick in such a way that is humiliating and in a sense harmful
I welcome real and truthful statements, even those that argue the points in ways that I may or may not think are helpful or whatever else I might happen to possibly think. Just keep in mind, please, out of common decency, that people's lives have been and continue to be at risk. And since I live here and could also have been bombed and still live with the reality that it may happen again, this is rather serious and even urgent.
Therefore I will say right up front that any insinuations or rudeness of any kind, i will try not to engage, even if I have reasonable argument against. It is not only not worth the time and effort but is ethically repugnant and so not to be tolerated, on a whole range of grounds, but there are a whole range of reasons why such things would and indeed should be avoided.
Remember, though it is sad to have to state this to people who should be ethically committed to understanding (here i am not attacking the site, but rather commenting in a broad way so as to head off certain types of unrestrained or thoughtless expression, just based on thinking about it and being respectful in terms of timing and the rest.)
Enough said for now. More interested in finding out from outsiders or observers what the heck is going on and how the heck to fight it.
Aim: Though the title line may seem very broad and dramatic, the question concerns a very specific case, with the aim in mind to find out 1) whether or not a particular expression in and of itself constitutes a crime and 2) if not or unclear, whether a case could be made and how.
Context: I live in Santa Cruz, California, on the campus of UCSC, where a car was firebombed early in the morning, nearly at the same time that a house was firebombed in a neighborhood not far away. The case has fallen under the jurisdiction of the FBI and is being investigated as "domestic terrorism." The two individuals apparently targeted both work at UCSC, both biomedical researchers. Animal rights activists are suspected, though there is no released information at this time.
Earlier in the week, a pamphlet was apparently discovered at a local cafe and reported to the police that is being linked to the case. The details concerning the pamphlet are also unknown in terms of who produced it and why, who turned it in and when they found it and where, and how long if at all it remained in public view. We have only the police report which suggests that the police arrived at the cafe's corner, where an unidentified individual was standing with approximately a dozen handmade pamphlets, saying he was a customer and found them inside the cafe.
Question: Does the pamphlet itself constitute a crime? if so, what sort and why? if not, why not? if not known, what else would have to be determined?
Details: The pamphlet has not been released to the public in full. The facts so far are as follows:
Front cover: language to the effect of "murderers and torturers" as in a WANTED poster.
Back cover: language to the effect of "We know where you work. We know where you live. We will not ever stop until you stop your abuse."
Inside: the names, photos, home addresses, home phone numbers of 13 individuals, most of whom work for UCSC and are scientists (though it has been reported that at least 3 mistakes were found in the information, so not all turned out to be connected to UC science research or animal research for that matter)
I have read about "harm" and about "clear and present danger" and about "imminent illegal activity" and even about "hate speech," but none of these seem to cover the particulars very well so I am puzzled about whether or not this is in fact protected speech and secondarily curious about how a case could be made somehow that argues that it is not protected speech.
Also I welcome general views about the situation, either as I have presented it or based on national media coverage, by people who are versed in the legal and/or ethical issues involved. But let me say that my post aims simply (in so far as that is possible) to address the particularities of the case in terms not of terrorism per se, but the ways in which law enforcement would go about prosecuting the case with regard to the existence of the pamphlet in question. And there are reasons for this focus, but suffice it to say, with perhaps a risk of hyberbole: the firebombs are the violence, but the pamphlet is the terrorism. Why would I say such a thing? Many details but basically you have to understand and disregard what might have appeared in the media about the incidents. Were we only dealing with a situation of firebombings that targeted University researchers, we would have one situation, but it wouldn't necessary or at least would be open to argument as to whether it were "domestic terrorism" straightforward, no questions asked. And what is behind that statement? Many things, but the most factual and inarguable is that the firebombings, despite unfortunately what has been released to the public thus far, are NOT readily or easily tied to the suspected groups related to animal rights. Why? Because the firebomb on campus where I live occurred without regard to the issue of animals and research in any way. The researcher involved does not work with animals but with yeast, a fact readily available to anyone who simply has a search engine and can type in "yeast" to the UCSC site.
In other words, with only two firebombings as the only thing to go on, albeit connected in lots of ways, we still would not have a clear or reasonable, let alone provable case, that it has to do with so-called "animal rights terrorism." How could we, if the two researchers did not have in common animal research?
In case it is not clear or concisely put, my understanding is based on the fact that it is in the pamphlet, found days before actual acts of violence, related or not (meaning that it has not yet been stated nor confirmed although the FBI is clearly proceeding with that in place as a fact. That underscores my point that that the pamphlet is worth trying to undertsand in terms of law (not to mention other legitimate and even more pressing issues).
So I repeat, what about the pamphlet itself, even just based on the limited information released so far, that raises legal issues and concerns? And how are the law enforcement involved going to to make a case, since it is obvious that the pamphlet does skirt the issues involved in a whole range of precedents about this sort of problem?
I am hesitant to add, but have to, based squarely on practical matters, though ethical issues and basic codes of civil conduct too are at stake, that I don't want to be exposed to thoughtless expressions that dismiss the impact of the terrorist threats, or that nit-pick in such a way that is humiliating and in a sense harmful
I welcome real and truthful statements, even those that argue the points in ways that I may or may not think are helpful or whatever else I might happen to possibly think. Just keep in mind, please, out of common decency, that people's lives have been and continue to be at risk. And since I live here and could also have been bombed and still live with the reality that it may happen again, this is rather serious and even urgent.
Therefore I will say right up front that any insinuations or rudeness of any kind, i will try not to engage, even if I have reasonable argument against. It is not only not worth the time and effort but is ethically repugnant and so not to be tolerated, on a whole range of grounds, but there are a whole range of reasons why such things would and indeed should be avoided.
Remember, though it is sad to have to state this to people who should be ethically committed to understanding (here i am not attacking the site, but rather commenting in a broad way so as to head off certain types of unrestrained or thoughtless expression, just based on thinking about it and being respectful in terms of timing and the rest.)
Enough said for now. More interested in finding out from outsiders or observers what the heck is going on and how the heck to fight it.
