Texas Taleban?

Remove all ads!

War Nerve,
on their page Raven Amarillo says they are pleased the increased traffic their driving the swinger club into bankruptcy, no, their witnessing, has generated. Publicity does play a role.

LKD,
stalking laws apply. There is a saying in Germany - Wo kein Kläger, da kein Richter i.e. without charges or someone suing them there will be no judge ruling over them. I already pointed out the intimidation. Odds are the swingers are simply scared and thus don't press charges or cases. I probably would be scared if some paramilitary clad 'Christian Soldiers' would waylay me and my spouse on the way to my car and tell us our names and that they know where we live, and then start following me around.

Just so that we won't lose view on that - 'Repent Amarillo' didn't just out people - they outed them in a most creepy way, and then called their neighbours and employers. That's demented ex style creepy. So far I have yet to hear of environmentalists and vegetarians coming up to people at the parking lot in the night and telling them an equivalent of: You are godless fornicators Mr. and Mrs. Smith, and we know where you live. And we're going to tell everybody that you are perverts.

And it is really silly to bring celebrities into the debate. Brad and Angelina are as celebrities in the public spotlight and they sell not only their movies but their celebrity. Being the topic of gossip is almost part of their job. Different rules apply to them (roughly as in: Live by the sword, die by the sword) than to ordinary anonymous citizens.

Ruining people's personal lives through stalking is a far more insidious attack than throwing paint or blood at furs, or the incessant tabloid blathering about Brad Pitt's life. By equivalencing the three you trivialise Repent Amarillo's conduct.

Why that? Why the relativism? Why so defensive, as in 'hey, lefties do it too!'? It's not only that they don't really. Since everybody here basically agrees Repent Amarillo are kooks, why the effort? Rallying around the flag because conservatism is - again - under liberal onslaught? Trying to be fair and balanced? If so, balance out what? What is defensible about their conduct? Nothing. Since when is 'lefties do it too' an excuse for indefensible conduct by conservatives? If anything they're both kooks not to be tolerated. So what's the point?

I mean, I hear that tune over and over again here, just as if something silly that a three hugger does makes what happened in Amarillo any less scary or any less threatening. Just because they're (far out but still) social conservatives they are supposed to get a pass because organisations like the Animal Liberation Front and PETA exist and do crazy things? Silliness! And of course religion plays a role here, after all the swingers were targeted because they were 'sinners'. But no, let's rather not touch that subject with the proverbial ten foot pole. Well, why not?

Everybody speak after me (especially you, NOG) and repeat a couple times and maybe it will become easier: Repent Amarillo are religiously motivated kooks - followed by the apparently obligatory appeasing disclaimer - but they do not represent the majority of American Evangelical Christians, and especially not anyone present. Amen. So can we now talk about religion? Yes?

As for me 'thinly veiled' saying that religion makes people light in the head, that's nonsense, but I will elaborate on that later.

 

I just don't understand the nerve of those who want to tell others how to live their lives.... wait a minute. I do understand. They don't have lives of their own! Their pissed about it and want to ruin it for everyone else to. Now I get it! - My Rant

To enforce your views on others about topics such as religion, sex, abortion, etc... it's just ridiculous. - More Rant

My favorite George Carlin quote about religious fanatics: "Why is it that the people who are against abortion, are people you wouldn't want to f*** in the first place?"

 

Whatever! FOX & Company would be all over it.

You mean, "corporate communists?" Don't cha?

 

I trivialize nothing. What I am saying is that their actions are ones that have been done for years by all sorts of people, and the Constitutional right to self expression protects them. If I wanna call up anyone I want and tell them their spouse or employee is cheating, I have a legal right to do so. Is it creepy in a demented ex kind of way? You bet! I wouldn't want it happening to me, that's for sure, and I wouldn't wish it on anyone else, either. Taken as individual actions, though, as I have said, getting a conviction on any of that stuff is likely to be tricky. Near as I can tell, only by looking at the situation holistically is there any way that a successful court case can be made against them. They are dancing on the edge of the law.

And I don't believe that celebrities deserve whatever happens to them. I've arguned that before. Either they are law abiding citizens with the same rights as the rest of us, or they are not.

And it was not colours thrown at unworn furs, it was colours thrown on people wearing the furs -- in my book that's assault, not merely vandalism. How would you like it if you were walking out of a movie and some douchebag threw a bucket of red paint all over you? IMHO, calling it "merely vandalism" is trivializing that assault.

And I am not saying that because lefties do it too it makes it ok. I never once said or implied that. What I am noticing is that when a non-religious group pulls stuff like this, there is an eerie silence from the left, or a defense of their rights to free expression. Yet when a religiously motivated group does it, all of the sudden the moral outrage comes out. I am pointing out the double standard, not attempting to justify or downplay anyone's actions -- read what I said again -- if the laws don't classify what Repent Amarillo is doing as illegal, then those laws should be changed.

But that will never happen because then those laws would have to be applied to left wing kooks who burn down research labs, or trespass on a business' land.

The religious element that you seem to want to discuss eludes me, unless it's just a Dawkins-esque comment that religion ALWAYS causes more harm than good, which is so far removed from my experience that it isn't even funny. And anyone with a predetermined position on it that comes up with "research" that backs up their position doesn't really hold a lot of my attention.

Chandos, I don't care who is doing it or what label they are slapping onto their victims, all decent thinking people should be pissed about what is happening regardless of capitalist or communist or right or left or whatever. Instead we have a huge double standard that makes excuses for one group that does repugnant things and then paints the other group that does the same damn thing as the biggest threat to civilization ever. It's crap. We should punish both groups equally.

 

That could be considered harrasment, especially on the job. While it may be legal, that could be a civil case, and possibly a restraining order would be placed on you by the employee, or employer, or both. Then if continued, it would be considered "stalking" and that is illegal.

 

You completely miss my point. It is far more specific than that and it has nothing to do with religion per se.

There is among some evangelicals this supersticious, atavistic element - the fear that if they make God mad He will visit His venegance upon them. A couple examples: New Orleans was destroyed because of a gay parade, disabled children are God's punishment for women who have abortions, 9/11 was punishment for sinful gay-loving, abortion permitting culture, Haiti had a pact with the devil, or, currently my favourite: America will be ‘cursed’ by God if she rejects Israel by Michelle Bachmann.

What such views express is that these evangelicals apparently think that they indeed must actively prevent sins in order to keep The Lord's wrath at bay. If He Who Controls The Heavens sent Katrina because of a gay parade, what will He do because of a permanently sinful establishment like a swinger club? Better be safe than really sorry! Maybe Repent Amarillo just drove them swingers out to keep tornadoes at bay.

 

Ahh, if that is your point, then no arguments from me. Whatever their motivations, though, they should be stopped from doing such actions.

Chandos, I was referring to a one time phone call -- once someone has said "please don't call me anymore", that's different. But talking to / at someone from a public space? I can see that being construed as a civil liberties issue -- protestors can line up outside a company or factory and chant all sorts of things as long as they don't interfere with the coming and going of the workers and materials (though that is likely a rule that is ignored.) In a court of law where there are tons of precedents of people lining up exactly 500m from a business and being obnoxious scum, I can't see how these folks can be treated any differently than the people who protest G8 meetings. The law needs to be changed to stop that sort of harassment by EVERYONE.

 

Not really. Such an outing, even when true, qualifies as defamation of character. Even if the accusation is true, an outed individual that is fired or suffers other financial damages as a result of that outing would have just cause to sue for damages. He would likely be entitled to sue his employer for wrongful termination, too. Whether it's true or not, you can't just fire someone based on hearsay -- especially when that hearsay has nothing to do with job performance.

 

In the State of Illinois posting evidence of an affair at a work place is considered harrassment and is a prosecutable offense -- letting a spouse know about an affair is not illegal at all. I was advised of that once (I did neither, by the way).

 

Drew, I hear what you're saying -- but an outed individual might not suffer financial damages or be fired -- he might merely suffer social stigma. That's something that could still be argued in court, but in the absence of financial damages it would be quite difficult to get a conviction.

Depending on the job (going back to the public eye issue) a person's personal behaviour may still be grounds for termination, and I would hazard that if the claims were true and violated a morals clause such a civil suit would be a roll of the dice at best.

All it will take is for one harassed person to get lucky and get a conviction against these psychos and then their reign of terror will likely be curtailed. But it won't be stopped -- these types are stubborn.

 

Why 'merely' social stigma?

When your neighbours and co-workers stop talking to you or start to look at you funny because you have been defamed as a pervert that is not 'merely social stigma' but something that has a profound and negative impact on your life.

As for the absence of financial damages, that is not a problem, as financial damages are no necessity for a successful prosecution for stalking and harassment. It also isn't a necessity for a successful civil law suit (first of all aimed on a cease and desist order, or, also interesting in this context, especially under relatively permissive US law, for compensation for immaterial damages).

 

Well, it is social stigma, Rags. As for how much that is worth, I doubt LKD would be fond of being a pariah any mor than you would.

 

Or how about a bit embarrassed? I mean, if the fear is that these people may chose to tell others about their private lives, it certainly doesn't do them any good to file a law suit against them...

 

Good point, Aldeth.

 

The only part that's missing from the liberal extremists is the 'and we're going to tell everyone' and that's only missing because the behavior they're objecting to is usually considered the norm, so no one would care if they told everyone. Can you imagine an anti-fur nut threatening to 'tell the world you wear fur'? Most responses would be: '... Go ahead, they already know.' Raven Amarillo is targeting those who are performing a socially frowned upon behavior, so the threat is meaningful.

The second I'll agree with, but the first I'm not so sure. Having blood thrown on you, in public, is a very traumatizing thing for some people, not to mention publicly embarassing.

And, just for curiosity's sake, how would you define Code Pink's protests of soldiers' funderals? Does that similarly indicate stalking, is the invasion of an intensely private moment a similarly insidious attack, or is it something else in your eyes?

Ragusa, the objection is to your insistance that this is a conservative or religious thing. By showing that liberal atheists do it, too, we're countering that arguement. No one's defending the action, just saying that it isn't particularly conservative or religious in nature.

Actually, no. The swingers were targeted because they were objectionable. As War Nerve's link pointed out, there are far more pressing religious issues that Amarillo is facing that swingers. These people targeted the swingers just because they didn't like them, because they're different.

It would be wrong, but not nonsense. Not since we've had people say it outright on these forums (I don't think you were one of them, though).

Anyway, Ragusa, no one is making excuses for Repent Amarillo's actions. In fact, the very people pointing out that this isn't conservative or religious in nature are among those most vocally advocating legal action against them. We don't like it when PETA or the tree huggers or the fur nuts do it and we don't like it when these loons do it, either.

Then why are you insisting it does?

This, I agree with you on. This stuff is just creepy, and not at all in line with the Bible. That being said, your conclusion based on it is a leap that hasn't been made yet. I can see how you got there, but I have yet to hear anyone claim that action (of any kind) must be taken because of these.

I thought defamation suits required that the defendant either knew the information was false or made no proper attempt to verify it? I mean, if it's the way you say it is, couldn't any background-check company be sued for defamation if you don't get the job?

 

Pre-employment background checks generally deliver information of public record - criminal history, etc., and as regards information that isn't public record - credit reports, etc. - express permission to obtain the information, as well as an acknowledgement that the information may be used to base a hiring decision upon, is generally granted ahead of time by the prospective employee.

 

I have no idea what you are trying to illustrate with this point. You just seem to be saying that most liberals don't really care about how people live their personal lives in that regard, which I think most everyone would probably agree with. As far as the "anti-fur people" and that point: I don't have to imagine it because they have been fairly effective in some places:

That accomplished a whole lot more than calling someone's boss and telling him who is screwing whom.

What are you talking about here? And also, have you ever heard of the Westboro Baptist Church?



http://www.furisdead.com/history.asp

---------- Added 1 hours, 23 minutes and 56 seconds later... ----------

I have to admit, that I knew next to nothing about this PETA group, except from what I have read on the threads on this board and they seem very despised by conservatives on this board and are mentioned occasionally on a variety of threads that don't seem much to do with animal rights, so I figured their "liberal agenda" must be pretty broad. I did know a few friends in the past who were members, but were not really very political, mostly moderate conservatives, so I never really got into anything with them on the subject, except that they loved animals. In the past, I thought it was just another animal rights group, and since they never appeared on the liberal/progressive radar very much, I just mostly ignored them. I like animals just fine but I never thought of people liking animals as a left/right political issue.

But since they appeared on this thread about "Texas Talibans," I started researching them a bit, to try and discover what made them like the religious, sexually repressive, Taliban or other extreme religious groups that some were pointing to on this thread.

I did not discover anything particularly "liberal" about them, nor did I find anything about them regarding people's sex lives, perhaps the sexual lives of animals, I guess might be in there somewhere, since they promote "safe-sex" among animals. I did find out that they appear pretty good at what they do and that they do a lot of investigating into the government and corporate research of animals and that they have been very successful. But I still don't know that makes them so "liberal."

I can certainly see why corportists would really despise them, because they have been very successful in nailing some of the big fish in the corporate world with their undercover investigations.

As I mentioned, I can see why corporatists would not like them very much, but as a liberal/progressive myself, I just don't see what makes them "liberal" in the larger political sense. I have to say they certainly seem to do some good work (maybe they don't like the "naked" ads?). But I don't know what they have to do with sexually oppressive church groups or the Taliban, or even "extreme liberlism."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_for_the_Ethical_Treatment_of_Animals

 

I'm not sure where you got that, but it wasn't my point at all. My point was that liberals, pretty much by definition, champion causes that are generally socially unacceptable at the time. Threatening to point out that Person X in society doesn't actively participate in such a socially unacceptable activity is, well, not really a threat. Be it fur, gay rights, CO2, or whatever, threatening to reveal that an individual doesn't agree with them isn't really worth it. Conservatives, on the other hand, pretty much by definition defend the things that are the social norm, so pointing out that someone participates in the opposite means pointing out that they're not normal, that they participate in socially unacceptable actions.

I was just wondering where you felt that fell on the spectrum of evil. Honestly, I'm wondering how bad you label that.

Yes, another group of hate-mongers.

As for PETA, they are generally considered 'liberal' because they champion animal rights in all settings. I don't think that's very big on the liberal political radar any more, but on the social side it's still present. They're generally decried, though, for their use of extreme measures and tactics, their financial support of eco-terrorist groups, and a few comments some of their representatives have made, like this:

Spoiler

"If we really believe that animals have the same right to be free from pain and suffering at our hands, then, of course we're going to be, as a movement, blowing things up and smashing windows ... I think it's a great way to bring about animal liberation ... I think it would be great if all of the fast-food outlets, slaughterhouses, these laboratories, and the banks that fund them exploded tomorrow. I think it's perfectly appropriate for people to take bricks and toss them through the windows ... Hallelujah to the people who are willing to do it."
-Bruce Friedrich, PETA’s vice president of International Grassroots Campaigns

That being said, PETA is a large organization these days and does a lot more than just that. They also support very down-to-earth groups like the SPCA and do ad-campaigns like the Tiger Woods one promoting neutering pets, too.

 

Errrr ... no. The people did what they were entitled to under their constitutional rights, and that settles it. It is totally and utterly irrelevant whether someone would find their actions objectionable of frowns upon them.

What's going in the bedroom between consenting adults is nobody else's business. As a result it isn't objectionable, because there is nothing anyone has a right to object too - it is nobody else's business after all - and second, it is totally irrelevant whether or not it is frowned by someone else (if you only look long enough you will always find people who will feel called on to frown on something) as it isn't anybody else's business to care in the first place.

 

No on both counts. For starters, you agree in advance to a a background check, so the background check issue is a non-starter. Regarding defamation, true statements can also qualify. If the public outing is factually accurate but entirely irrelevant, there is just cause to sue for defamation of character. It is not an employer's business that one of its employees is a swinger or a philanderer. Outing the employee with malicious intent is textbook defamation of character. That the outing is true is beside the point.