SCA Hate Crime Witnesses?
jkle...@slip.net
"Kirk Taskila" <k...@arq.net> wrote:
>Please respond to this message if you were a witness or know of someone who
>witnessed the recent SCA event in Hawkland Moor (Ann Arbor, MI). This event
>held in honor of Baron Thorvald im Grimmi who was the founding Baron of
>Northwoods and has recently stepped down from his office.
>
>There have was allegedly an outdoor firepit where several members of the
>Chivalry were burned in effigy (including two former Dukes of the Midrealm)
>while many people cheered on this activity.
>
>Please reply via this posting or contact the Crown of the Midrealm directly with
>any knowledge you may have of this incident.
>
>An investigation into this incident is being pursued as civil litigation may be
>forthcoming.
Sounds more like a political statement than a hate crime to me.
Chandra
Lee Morley
call me old fashioned (I am English after all), but litigation for burning
effigies of medieval personas?
This is supposed to be for fun, I only hope Europe never becomes as PC as
USA seems to be.
Where would we be if we all took ourselves as seriously as some of the
chivalry seem to.
Keirik of Wath,
A humble peasant and probably destined to stay that way
Kirk Taskila <k...@arq.net> wrote in article
<64dooo$4nm$1...@michigan.arq.net>...
>snip
>
> There have was allegedly an outdoor firepit where several members of the
> Chivalry were burned in effigy (including two former Dukes of the
Midrealm)
> while many people cheered on this activity.
>
> An investigation into this incident is being pursued as civil litigation
may be
> forthcoming.
>
> Thomas Gryffyth
> m.k.a. Kirk Taskila
>
Susan Rankin
In article <64dooo$4nm$1...@michigan.arq.net>, k...@arq.net says...
>There have was allegedly an outdoor firepit where several members of the
>Chivalry were burned in effigy (including two former Dukes of the Midrealm)
>while many people cheered on this activity.
>
>Please reply via this posting or contact the Crown of the Midrealm directly with
>any knowledge you may have of this incident.
>
>An investigation into this incident is being pursued as civil litigation may be
>forthcoming.
>
>Thomas Gryffyth
>m.k.a. Kirk Taskila
Sounds political, harmless, and a really silly thing with which to burden the
already glutted court system. Maybe those that were represented in effigy should
find out WHY they were chosen for this and remedy the situation within themselves if
the case is such that they've done something to offend the burners. It's a rare effigy
that is done for no good reason.
Luta
Bryan J. Maloney
> Sounds more like a political statement than a hate crime to me.
>
Citizen, in our political doubleplusgood world that all of the SCA must
adhere to, any and all expression of opinion that might have the
doubleplussmall chance of unpleasing a person is a doubleplusungood
thoughtcrime of type hatecrime.
Please report to your goodthought enhancement facility immedieately.
--
To respond via email, switch the elements of my domain.
http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/bjm10/
"If there is no human nature outside social construction, no needs or capacities other than those constructed by a particular discourse, then there is no basis for social criticism and no reason for protest or rebellion"
--The Nation, June 9, 1997.
Bryan J. Maloney
> Please reply via this posting or contact the Crown of the Midrealm
directly with
> any knowledge you may have of this incident.
Y'know, I'm beginning to be glad that I moved east. Is this yobbo acting
entirely on his own or is there really a slimy little dirtball fascist on
the Middle throne?
My vote is for the former...
Joe Pinegar
Kirk Taskila wrote in message <64dooo$4nm$1...@michigan.arq.net>...
><snip>
>
>There have was allegedly an outdoor firepit where several members of the
>Chivalry were burned in effigy (including two former Dukes of the Midrealm)
>while many people cheered on this activity.
Why is this not an expression of free speech which, as mundane law,
supersedes any SCA regulation ever dreamed of? If the courts let me burn a
U.S. flag, why would they care about a few guys being burned ****in
effigy**** (as opposed to 'in the flesh') in a group occasionally considered
to be a cult?
>
>Please reply via this posting or contact the Crown of the Midrealm directly
with
>any knowledge you may have of this incident.
I suspect Their Majesties have *much* better things to do with their time.
>
>An investigation into this incident is being pursued
?
as civil litigation may be
>forthcoming.
On what conceivable grounds?
Look, whenever you get a group of three people together, chances are that
two of them won't like the third. In a group the size oif the SCA, not
everyone likes everyone else. Not everyone agrees with the beliefs or
actions of everyone else, but as long as the person not agreed with is not
doing anything against the rules or laws, there is no cause for legal
action. Disagreement is not a cause for litigation, and disagreement with
someone or something does not mean that the thing you disagree with is
wrong.
Suppose a few friends of mine and I decide that this is the most stupid
thing we've ever heard of, and burn the investigating and potential
litigating parties in effigy? Are they going to come to Kansas and file
charges against me?
As an attorney friend of mine once said, "Any idiot with the filing fee has
access to the judicial system. That doesn't mean he should be there."
Ellen Pinegar
Trevor Barker
Lee Morley <l...@silvermanor.demon.co.uk> wrote
> This is supposed to be for fun, I only hope Europe never becomes as PC as
> USA seems to be.
Amen to that. (Ooops, that's probably "offensive" due to its religious
connotations!)
> Where would we be if we all took ourselves as seriously as some of the
> chivalry seem to.
>
> Keirik of Wath,
> A humble peasant and probably destined to stay that way
Ah but Keirik, you have so much to be humble about ;-)
Robert fitz John
--
Opinions expressed are mine and not those of Logica
Trevor Barker
sheriff "at" weylea "dot" demon.co.uk
Zen Bitz
Kirk Taskila wrote:
> There have was allegedly an outdoor firepit where several members of the
> Chivalry were burned in effigy (including two former Dukes of the Midrealm)
> while many people cheered on this activity.
WTF is a "former Duke"?? Well, I can think of ONE... but
he was in the East.
--
Void Where Prohibited * Laden With Cosmic Significance
"Second place? Second place in a gunfight gets you an 80 lb.
granite trophy, enscribed with your name and the date."
+== To send mail replace die@spammerscum with hitz@burrito===+
Ben Hitz -- Do not reply Directly -- Dept. of Biochemistry
*** http://tincan.bioc.columbia.edu/Home/ben.home/ ***
Josh Mittleman
Ellen asked:
> Why is this not an expression of free speech which, as mundane law,
> supersedes any SCA regulation ever dreamed of?
Because the right to free speech only applies in disputes with the
government. The SCA, Inc. is a private organization and private
organizations are permitted to restrict speech. If the Midrealm wanted to
pass a law forbidding the defamation of the Crown (for example), it would
be entirely legal. Stupid, perhaps; but legal. And if a Midrealmer
violated that law and the ensuing dispute involved damages to some party,
then the matter could be taken up in a civil court. It's wildly unlikely,
but possible.
Arval
Josh Mittleman
The phrase "hate crime" has a legal meaning: A crime motivated by racial,
sexual, or ethnic prejudice. The details vary from one jursidiction to
another, but it certainly does not mean "any expression of hatred" nor does
it mean "any speech that someone objects to."
Since burning someone in effigy is not a crime, it cannot possibly be a
"hate crime" regardless of the motivation. If the Midrealm Crown is using
that terminology, I hope someone will advise them _VERY_ strongly to stop.
If that phrase wa introduce by someone else, I hope they take the same
advice. At best, the phrase is inflammatory. It could well be actionable
slander. If the Crown feels that burning a fellow Society member in effigy
is discourteous and inappropriate behavior in the Society, then it should
pursue the matter. But it serves no one's interests to demonize the people
involved before a proper inquiry is completed.
The ignorant rhetoric against "PC-ism" that has been posted here is not
worthy of comment. Like any mundane politics, it certainly doesn't belong
on this newsgroup.
Arval
Shaun Nelson
That's kinda of interesting,
When we burnt the Eastern King in effigy (at pennsic) a while back, all the
problems we recieved were from the Midrealm King.
Oh, Settmour Swamp is in the east.
Alexander the younger slumlord
Joe Pinegar
Josh Mittleman wrote in message <64fo7n$3...@news1.panix.com>...
>Because the right to free speech only applies in disputes with the
>government. The SCA, Inc. is a private organization and private
>organizations are permitted to restrict speech. If the Midrealm wanted to
>pass a law forbidding the defamation of the Crown (for example), it would
>be entirely legal. Stupid, perhaps; but legal. And if a Midrealmer
>violated that law and the ensuing dispute involved damages to some party,
>then the matter could be taken up in a civil court. It's wildly unlikely,
>but possible.
Yes, you are right. I made the really stupid mistake of posting before I
calmed down. There may be a question here of whether libel was committed.
However, on another point, the Midrealm keeps detailed troll records.
Everyone signs in with name and address. Why post the issue to the Rialto
for inflammatory explosions, such as mine, rather than simply contact the
people who attended the event?
Ellen Pinegar
>
> Arval
Joe Pinegar
Bruce Mills
I fail to see how this constitutes a "hate crime". Surely you have better
things to be doing?
Akimoya
Ealdormere
Joe Pinegar
Bryan J. Maloney
I, Bryan J. Maloney, do hereby grant permission for myself, as Symon
Freser, to be burnt in effigy, so long as I am invited to join in the
festivities.
Zen Bitz
Josh Mittleman wrote:
>
> > > WTF is a "former Duke"?? Well, I can think of ONE... but
> > > he was in the East.
>
> his rank.
Thank you for the clarification. I did not intend to muddy his Graces
name any further.
Ld Alexndr
>Because the right to free speech only applies in disputes with the
>government. The SCA, Inc. is a private organization and private
>organizations are permitted to restrict speech. If the Midrealm >wanted to
pass a law forbidding the defamation of the Crown (for >example), it would be
entirely legal. Stupid, perhaps; but legal. >And if a Midrealmer violated
that law and the ensuing dispute >involved damages to some party, then the
matter could be taken >up in a civil court. It's wildly unlikely, but
possible.
Um.... No....
The SCA cannot make laws that contradict mudane law. If we were to do so, we
would be liable in a civil rights case if action were taken against an
individual who broke said law. We're about to go through that, oh..
nevermind...
~Alex
W1ccan
I suppose the next thing you know, Scadians will be called child abusers for
burning babies in effigy at the Hell party at last Pennsic.... It was done
as a joke at the war. Suppose the other effigy burning was done with the same
intent... not hate, or harm, but a joke, however I wasn't there. Just a
thought.
Anna
Est modo ludus.
Thomas Ireland-Delfs
bj...@edu.cornell (Bryan J. Maloney) writes: > In article <346B4E...@spammerscum.bioc.columbia.edu>, Zen Bitz
> <d...@spammerscum.bioc.columbia.edu> wrote:
>
> > Kirk Taskila wrote:
> > > There have was allegedly an outdoor firepit where several members of the
> > > Chivalry were burned in effigy (including two former Dukes of the Midrealm)
> > > while many people cheered on this activity.
> >
> > he was in the East.
>
Nope, he's still a Duke. You can take many things away, but history is still
history, and Aonghais dubh was twice King of the East (no matter how often his
name is left off the Rolls Royal).
FRIDRIKR
Bryan J. Maloney
In article <346B4E...@spammerscum.bioc.columbia.edu>, Zen Bitz
<d...@spammerscum.bioc.columbia.edu> wrote:
> Kirk Taskila wrote:
> > There have was allegedly an outdoor firepit where several members of the
> > Chivalry were burned in effigy (including two former Dukes of the Midrealm)
> > while many people cheered on this activity.
>
> WTF is a "former Duke"?? Well, I can think of ONE... but
> he was in the East.
Yeah, you're right. Somebody has got to be a truly amazing bastard to be
a *former* duke...
Bryan J. Maloney
In article <64fvo9$huk$1...@nnrp3.rcsntx.swbell.net>, "Joe Pinegar"
<pine...@swbell.net> wrote:
> However, on another point, the Midrealm keeps detailed troll records.
> Everyone signs in with name and address. Why post the issue to the Rialto
> for inflammatory explosions, such as mine, rather than simply contact the
> people who attended the event?
Exactly. If they want to run things like a police state, they already
have the means to do so.
So, do you think they'll adopt a Stalinist or Maoist model?
Josh Mittleman
> > WTF is a "former Duke"?? Well, I can think of ONE... but
> > he was in the East.
Aonghais is still a Duke and a knight. The Board has not stripped him of
his rank.
In fact, I know of only one former royal peer: Viktor von dem Kleinfluesse,
who resigned his county rank. Are there any others?
Arval
JHrisoulas
And what's wrong with being a slimey dirtball facist?? You know..living in a
police state ain't half bad as long as you are one of the police...
But in all seriousness....someone getting all up in arms about this burning
dummies...big deal..this is the United States..the Courts have ruled that
freedom of speech is freedom of speech.. If someone can be protected by the
1st Ammendment for burning our nation's flag..well then...I would say that the
same protection is provided for burning a dummy...
I suggest that this person get a life,,,,or look into the fire codes for the
area.. Maybe that burning was a violation..that's usually what these
protesters are charged under...illegal burning..
Sheesh!~! guess they don't have anyhting better to do there than rile folks up
Atar Bakhtar, slimey dirtball facist.....
Dr JP Hrisoulas,
Las Vegas, Nevada
Bladesmith, Metallographer, Researcher, Lecturer
Author:
"The Complete Bladesmith"
"The Master Bladesmith"
"The Pattern Welded Blade"
SFC, NVDoM
pyotr filipivich
bj...@edu.cornell (Bryan J. Maloney) writes:
>I, Bryan J. Maloney, do hereby grant permission for myself, as Symon
>Freser, to be burnt in effigy, so long as I am invited to join in the
>festivities.
"Come one come all to the witchburning and potluck"
I don't know if the witches will be burning their potluck
offerings or not. :-)
(I have an "award" for silly wordplay, and I'm not ashamed to use it.)
Nikolai Petrovich Flandropoff
Whimiscal Order of the Ailing Wit
Loose Canon, An Tir Heavy Opera Company
--
pyotr filipivich, sometimes owl, Nikolai Petrovich in the SCA.
"Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes."
(If you can read this, you're overeducated.)
Josh Mittleman
Greetings from Arval! I wrote:
> If the Midrealm wanted to pass a law forbidding the defamation of the
> Crown for example), it would be entirely legal.
Alexander replied:
> The SCA cannot make laws that contradict mundane law.
True. What mundane law do you think it would contradict?
Please don't say the Constitution: The Constitution only regulates the
behavior of the government: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the
freedom of speech." The Constitution does not regulate the behavior of
individuals or private organizations. If you visit my home, your freedom
of speech is subject to my wishes. If you visit an event run by the SCA,
Inc., then your freedom of speech is subject to the SCA's wishes.
Arval
Roger Cole
On 13 Nov 1997 20:33:59 GMT, Josh Mittleman <mit...@panix2.panix.com> wrote:
>Ellen asked:
>
>> Why is this not an expression of free speech which, as mundane law,
>> supersedes any SCA regulation ever dreamed of?
>
>Because the right to free speech only applies in disputes with the
>government. The SCA, Inc. is a private organization and private
>organizations are permitted to restrict speech. If the Midrealm wanted to
>pass a law forbidding the defamation of the Crown (for example), it would
>be entirely legal. Stupid, perhaps; but legal. And if a Midrealmer
>violated that law and the ensuing dispute involved damages to some party,
>then the matter could be taken up in a civil court. It's wildly unlikely,
>but possible.
>
> Arval
I HIGHLY doubt this. You could throw them out of the society, of course, but
bring civil suit? Well, of course you can sue anyone for anything, but that
doesn't mean it won't and shouldn't be thrown out. Too bad that the balif won't
be ordered to kick the plaintiff in the butt too.
If this sort of malarcky is EVER enacted, I vow to make a very big exit from the
society by being its first test case.
Ragnar Thorvinsson
Luke SCA
>>Chivalry were burned in effigy (including two former Dukes of the Midrealm)
>>while many people cheered on this activity.
Maybe this is a good wake up call to the people whos images match the
effigies... It takes a major arse ( or in this case, arses) to ( pardon my
pun) ignite such passion.
If those who were burned in effigy were not members of the Chivalry, would
there still be such a reaction???
Luke
Roger Cole
On Sat, 15 Nov 1997 03:17:34 GMT, rc...@usit.net (Roger Cole) wrote:
>On 14 Nov 1997 19:25:55 GMT, Josh Mittleman <mit...@panix2.panix.com> wrote:
>
>>Greetings from Arval! I wrote:
>>
>>> If the Midrealm wanted to pass a law forbidding the defamation of the
>>> Crown for example), it would be entirely legal.
>>
>>Alexander replied:
>>
>>> The SCA cannot make laws that contradict mundane law.
>>
>>True. What mundane law do you think it would contradict?
>>
>>Please don't say the Constitution: The Constitution only regulates the
>>behavior of the government: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the
>>freedom of speech." The Constitution does not regulate the behavior of
>>individuals or private organizations. If you visit my home, your freedom
>>of speech is subject to my wishes. If you visit an event run by the SCA,
>>Inc., then your freedom of speech is subject to the SCA's wishes.
>>
>> Arval
>
>Say WHAT? This flies in the face of everything I read in the paper on every
>court case concerning civil rights, ever. If I go to your house and say
>something you don't like, you can kick me out. That is called "property
>rights." But you can't file a criminal charge because I broke a "law of the
>household" and you wouldn't have any basis for a civil claim providing I had
>your permission to be there and left when asked. "The Constitution does not
>regulate the behavior of individuals or private organizations?" Then why on
>earth can a court order a private organization to admit women? They can and
>have and no doubt will continue to do so.
>
>Ragnar Thorvinsson
Due to the way the other messages stacked up in the thread, this is in part a
commentary on things I've said both in the post above and a couple of others.
Anyway - I thought about it, and I see how you are right, as far as the
Constitution itself goes. It just so happens that there are statutes, at both
the federal and state levels, that grant citizens certain protections from
individuals and groups that parallel to some degree the protections from the
government guaranteed by the Consitution. (They are not granted by it. A right
exists with or without the Constitution, it merely guarantees the protection of
it and forbids the governement from infringing it.) Thus, anti-descrimination
laws and so on mean that courts can order a club to admit minorities, though the
Constitution itself would not so mandate.
However, having said that, I still can't see that the mundane courts could in
any way be used to enforce SCA "laws" beyond maybe restraining someone from
coming who won't obey them. You could charge 'em with trespassing if they won't
leave, that kind of thing. In the example you gave in another message, of
someone violating SCA "laws" and causing damage, this would be actionable
whether or not it violated SCA laws. If you damage someone, or their property,
you can be held reponsible. However, if you merely violated an SCA "law" but
caused no damage, I can't see how the SCA would have any case. (Again, aside
from kicking you out and resorting to the courts to make sure you abide by that
ruling.)
Ragnar Thorvinsson
T.R. & E. Dennis
Roger Cole wrote:
>
> On 14 Nov 1997 19:25:55 GMT, Josh Mittleman <mit...@panix2.panix.com> wrote:
>
>Greetings from Arval! I wrote:
>True. What mundane law do you think it would contradict?
>Please don't say the Constitution: The Constitution only regulates
>the behavior of the government: "Congress shall make no law ... >abridging the freedom of speech." The Constitution does not regulate >the behavior of individuals or private organizations.
The Bill of Rights applies only to the government?!!!? You've got to be
kidding! Your history teacher must have been a Marxist, because that was
NOT the intention of the founding fathers!
Elizabeth
william thomas powers
I, William Thomas Powers--sca member 002384, a resident of the Middle Kingdom,
do hereby make known that I freely issue permission to any other
person or persons participating in a SCA event to lampoon, satirize,
ridicule or burn in effigy my personna know as wilelm the smith.
The only request that I make is that you let me know about it so I can
participate too...(I'll bring the marshmallows and the toasting forks!)
wilelm
William Thomas Powers
Morgan E. Smith
Before this thread goes too-oo much further:
Is not libel the act of WRITING lies and then spreading them: as in a
letter, newspaper, or other source? I am not sure how the mere act of
burning someone in effigy constitutes libel. If the effigy were LABELED as
the "former duke" in question, this might - maybe, on a long shot - be
considered libel, but then, someone would have to prove that burning a
cardboard label attached to the effigy in some way made it impossible for
the former duke to perform his former ducal responsibilities...
I'm a bit confused by the whole thing. Possibly, there was slanderous
action committed at this event, although in Canada, I believe that the
episode would be laughed out of the lawyers' office (we have a clause in
the slander and libel laws against "nuisance suits" to keep lawyers
from the temptation of bringing silly or frivolous litigation before the
courts) but I don't see how, in a supposedly literate society, an action
such as this can be considered LIBEL.
OTOH, should this actually go to court, I hope that the defendants'
lawyers will point this out, will also show that dukes and other gentles
of high estate put themselves willingly into positions that are roughly
analogous to pop stars and politicians in mundane life (and therefore have
no legal recourse against protests and demonstrations of this type, having
forfeited certain rights concerning critique and privacy), and in fact,
that within the context of a medievalist hobby, these were perfectly
period expressions of opinion, and therefore would be considered "part of
the game".
I would be very leery of throwing words like "libel" around. Part of the
definition of libel carries the onus upon the damaged party to prove that
these allegations are untrue. Should the defendants show that their
contention of poor behavior on the part of the "former duke" be, in fact,
a real and valid characterization, they could win this suit, and by doing
so, tar the plaintiffs with these allegations forever. Hard to live down,
all the way around...
Morgan the Unknown
Anthony Bryant
Bryan J. Maloney wrote:
>
> I, Bryan J. Maloney, do hereby grant permission for myself, as Symon
> Freser, to be burnt in effigy, so long as I am invited to join in the
> festivities.
Will you bring the marshmallows, or should I? <G>
Edward
CORWYN
Brian J Maloney wrote:
>Exactly. If they want to run things like a police state, they already
have the means to do so.
>So, do you think they'll adopt a Stalinist or Maoist model?
Now, now, now. Let's not be so non-period. The Tudors set up a perfectly
reprehensable police state in period. So I'm hoping that in the interests of
more period behavior they adopt a "Henrikin" or "Elizabethan" model of a
fascist dictatorship (star chamber, etc).
Corwyn
Joe Pinegar
Morgan E. Smith wrote in message <64ki5d$h...@ds2.acs.ucalgary.ca>...
>Before this thread goes too-oo much further:
> Is not libel the act of WRITING lies and then spreading them: as in a
>letter, newspaper, or other source? I am not sure how the mere act of
>burning someone in effigy constitutes libel.
<snip>
When I posted that there might be a concern that libel had happened, it was
because my husband, who knows just about everything - just ask him or anyone
who's tried to argue with him 8) - fussed at me that this COULD be
libel/slander (I can never remember which is written and which is verbal)
because it was at an SCA event and could damage their reputations. I
conceded that he might have a point.n However, if a person were to suffer
damages from this act, it would only be in the SCA, which is a ***hobby
group***. I still think it is closer to free speech than libel, though.
I do believe that the person who posted the original message couldn't care
less about hearing from people who might have seen the burning, but instead
wanted to get a big Rialto uproar going. If he really wanted to find people
who might have seen the incident, he would have consulted the troll records
and NOT put this out for international comment. If he didn't want to make
a political statement, he wouldn't have used the term 'hate crime', either.
Ellen
Holly Cochran
Ya know, I remember once long, long ago when someone wanted to change
personas (for good) they would kill off the old one. Hopefully in some
large public display. Now I know how Aidan will go when I am tired of
her.....
Ms. Aidan
Barony of al-Barran
Kingdom of the Outlands
Calonitiri by Heritage
JR Farris
Kirk Taskila wrote in message <64dooo$4nm$1...@michigan.arq.net>...
>Please respond to this message if you were a witness or know of someone who
>witnessed the recent SCA event in Hawkland Moor (Ann Arbor, MI). This
event
>held in honor of Baron Thorvald im Grimmi who was the founding Baron of
>Northwoods and has recently stepped down from his office.
>
>There have was allegedly an outdoor firepit where several members of the
>Chivalry were burned in effigy (including two former Dukes of the Midrealm)
>while many people cheered on this activity.
>
>Please reply via this posting or contact the Crown of the Midrealm directly
with
>any knowledge you may have of this incident.
>
>An investigation into this incident is being pursued as civil litigation
may be
>forthcoming.
>
>Thomas Gryffyth
>m.k.a. Kirk Taskila
Civil litigation? Only if there is evidence of a person's reputation being
harmed
in some fashion by the action. Sounds more like a case of hurt feelings to
me.
Chances are our legal system will look at this case and say "Sorry, First
Amendment says you can say anything about anyone as long as it doesn't
slander
them." Otherwise, think of the old rhyme 'sticks and stones'....
As far as WITHIN the Game, I can see where this is an affront to the
Nobility.
Action such as banishment might be in order (as we are supposed to at least
*act* respectful of those of higher rank). That would be up to the Royalty
of that
Kingdom, however. Not being a resident of that Kingdom, I could not
precisely
say what action should be taken
Either way, this should not have been brought up in the Rialto. This sounds
like
a matter of the Kingdom involved, not the Society as a whole. When a
possible
crime or other injurous matters happen at an event, it should be dealt with
internally, not across a public forum as this. Now the entire group is
involved
in something that really didn't affect us until now.
In Service,
Michael Talon of Ansteorra
John & Kristi Johnston
Even the Middle Ages are not far enough removed from the whiny '90's.
(man oh man, am I getting tired of the mewling, thin-skinned geldings of my
generation)
Anthony Bryant
Luke SCA wrote:
>
>
> If those who were burned in effigy were not members of the Chivalry, would
> there still be such a reaction???
>
If they were pelicans, would anyone have NOTICED?
Edward
A pelican
Anthony Bryant
Joe Pinegar wrote:
> However, on another point, the Midrealm keeps detailed troll records.
> Everyone signs in with name and address. Why post the issue to the Rialto
> for inflammatory explosions, such as mine, rather than simply contact the
> people who attended the event?
Because the people with the list of names might be... with THEM...
Edward
Anthony Bryant
John & Kristi Johnston wrote:
>
> Even the Middle Ages are not far enough removed from the whiny '90's.
>
> (man oh man, am I getting tired of the mewling, thin-skinned geldings of my
> generation)
>
You and me, both.
Ugh.
Edward
JSchl65101
And another thread wonders why people look down on the SCA?
Daniel Boyd Fox
In article <19971115121...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
Luke SCA <luk...@aol.com> wrote:
>>Kirk Taskila wrote in message <64dooo$4nm$1...@michigan.arq.net>...
>>>
>>>There have was allegedly an outdoor firepit where several members of the
>>>Chivalry were burned in effigy (including two former Dukes of the Midrealm)
>>>while many people cheered on this activity.
>
> effigies... It takes a major arse ( or in this case, arses) to ( pardon my
> pun) ignite such passion.
>
> there still be such a reaction???
>
What confuses me is the line "Former Dukes of the Midrealm". I don't
remember any Dukes stepping down. Now, "Dukes Formerly of the Midrealm"
is possible, but....
Methinks I see a big hairy TROLL....
Audelindis de Rhiems
Kent & Kat
i did not realize ther was any one over 200 years old alive
today!!!
please tell me which of the fathers was it you talked to
that told you this? and by the way wert do you live? i love
meeting truly unique people, and any one able to survive
200+ years has got to be unique.
ld aelfraed of shyrwode
> Elizabeth
Ld Alexndr
>True. What mundane law do you think it would contradict?
>Please don't say the Constitution: The Constitution only regulates the
>behavior of the government: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the
>freedom of speech." The Constitution does not regulate the
SCA,
>Inc., then your freedom of speech is subject to the SCA's wishes.
Ok... But no...
The Bill of Rights, we all know what that says.....
Now... Becoming like "He Who Must Be Shunned".. let me quote chapeter and verse
out of "The Organizational Handbook, Second Edition, For The Society For
Creative Anacronism, INC." Copyright 1995. Otherwise known.. by those who read
it as.. "Copora".....
Let us now, my children, open our holy books to the following:
"Article Six. Branch Administration.
Section A. Royalty
Part one. General
Paragraph G. Royalty and Law.
Verse #3
If a new law of the realm conflicts with an existing provision, the latter must
be explicitly repealed. Should any law conflict with any law of the nation or
any of the subdivisions of that nation in which it would apply, it shall be
automatically null and void in each and every such area of conflict. Likewise,
a law which conflicts with the governing documents of the Society shall be
automatically null and void."
::doesn't ask for an Amen from the choir::
Now, no private organization is above the law. The SCA, even if it wasn't
expressly forbiden in Copora, could not make laws that violate state and
federal stutes. Even in a private home, the freedom of speach is still
protected. You might not like what I have to say; however, as the property
holder, you would have the right to remove me from said property, or not read
this post. Whatever the case may be.
~Alex
"HelpHelp!! I'm being repressed!!"
Josh Mittleman
Greetings from Arval!
Several people took issue with my statement that the Bill of Rights applies
only to the government and that private organizations are not obliged to
honor your freedom of speech.
You are overlooking the distinction between the Constitution and statutory
law. They are not the same thing.
Ragnar Thorvinsson wrote:
> This flies in the face of everything I read in the paper on every court
> case concerning civil rights, ever. If I go to your house and say
> something you don't like, you can kick me out. That is called "property
> rights." But you can't file a criminal charge because I broke a "law of
> the household" and you wouldn't have any basis for a civil claim
> providing I had your permission to be there and left when asked.
That's true. Read again Ragnar: I never suggested that I could file a
criminal or civil suit, just that I could prevent you from speaking freely
in my house. As you said, it is a matter of property rights: If I don't
like your behavior in my house, I can throw you out. That means, quite
simply, that you do _not_ have the right the speak freely in my house. The
import of the First Amendment is that the government cannot do the same
thing on its property; you cannot be ejected from a public park simply for
speaking an unpopular opinion. In other words, the government does not
have all the same property rights as a private individual or organization.
> "The Constitution does not regulate the behavior of individuals or
> private organizations?" Then why on earth can a court order a private
> organization to admit women?
Because there are federal and state statutes which forbid that kind of
discrimination. Statutes, not the Constitution. But there is no statute
which requires a private organization to respect the right to free speech.
The distinction between rights granted by statute and rights granted by the
Constitution is mis-understood by a remarkably large number of people,
considering how vital that distinction is to understanding our system of
government.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Elizabeth wrote:
> The Bill of Rights applies only to the government?!!!? You've got to be
> kidding!
No, I'm not kidding. Read the words, Elizabeth: "The Congress shall make
no law..." That is a limitation only on the government.
> Your history teacher must have been a Marxist, because that was NOT the
> intention of the founding fathers!
I'm afraid that you are quite wrong. The original intent of the Bill of
Rights was quite specifically to limit the power of government. That's
what the amendments say, and that's what they mean. Personal rights vs.
private organizations are guaranteed by statutes, not the Constitution.
Read the words, Elizabeth: The meaning is unavoidable.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Alexander wrote:
> Now, no private organization is above the law. The SCA, even if it wasn't
> expressly forbiden in Copora, could not make laws that violate state and
> federal stutes.
That is correct. What statute forbids the SCA, Inc. from restricting your
freedom of speech, or forbids me from restricting your freedom of speech in
my house?
You won't find one because such laws do not exist. Further, I suspect they
could not exist because they would be held to violate the 4th and 5th
amendment protections of property rights (and possibly other amendments).
The government's authority to guarantee personal rights is itself limited
by the Bill of Rights, as the Supreme Court has ruled many times.
Arval
Bojegei
In article <346d1301...@news.usit.net>, rc...@usit.net (Roger Cole)
writes:
>Say WHAT? This flies in the face of everything I read in the paper on every
>court case concerning civil rights, ever. If I go to your house and say
>something you don't like, you can kick me out. That is called "property
>rights." But you can't file a criminal charge because I broke a "law of the
>household" and you wouldn't have any basis for a civil claim providing I had
>your permission to be there and left when asked. "The Constitution does not
>regulate the behavior of individuals or private organizations?" Then why on
>earth can a court order a private organization to admit women? They can and
>have and no doubt will continue to do so.
>
>Ragnar Thorvinsson
The constitution only applies to the FEDERAL government. However, the
supreme court, in several landmark cases, has determined that their are
certain rights whose preservation is so importatant that they can be
imposed upon the states & private organizations. Hence the civil rights
laws. The trend began shortly after the close of the civil war when the
court determined that local, state justice wouldn't be likely to uphold the
rights of the freed slaves. (see political texts, history of the civil
rights laws, and various constitution law books for more info)
Bojegei
Josh Mittleman
Greetings from Arval! Bojegei <boj...@aol.com> wrote:
> The constitution only applies to the FEDERAL government. However, the
> supreme court, in several landmark cases, has determined that their are
> certain rights whose preservation is so importatant that they can be
> imposed upon the states & private organizations. Hence the civil rights
> laws.
That's partly right. The Supreme Court ruled very early on -- before 1800,
I think -- that all levels of government are bound by the Bill of Rights.
But the courts have not applied the Bill of Rights to private
organizations, because those Amendments only apply to the government.
Civil rights laws were enacted by the Congress and other legislatory
bodies; the courts cannot enact laws. The courts have interpretted and
applied those laws, some of which do apply to some kinds of private
organizations. But all these laws are limited in their scope.
The courts have also applied various Constitutional Amendments to civil
rights cases, but only when those cases involved a dispute with the
government or its agents.
Arval
Richard D. Sanford Jr.
Before I begin, my father is a newspaper publisher, which is how I
know about slander and libel.
<Ther will be random snippage to conserve bandwidth>
In <64ki5d$h...@ds2.acs.ucalgary.ca> "Morgan E. Smith"
<mes...@freenet.calgary.ab.ca> writes:
>
>Before this thread goes too-oo much further:
> Is not libel the act of WRITING lies and then spreading them: as in
a
>letter, newspaper, or other source? I am not sure how the mere act of
>burning someone in effigy constitutes libel.
You are correct. Libel requires that the act the plantiff is suing
for be *written*. The corresponding term for a purely word-of-mouth
campaign is slander.
<Quick Bobbitage>
Actually, the choice of "Bobbitage" was deliberate. John Wayne
Bobbit was unknown in the US (or anywhere else, for that matter) before
his wife decided to, uh...make his name a synonym for trimming :-).
After the incident, there was a lot of editorial and Letters to the
Editor debate about whether he was a victim or deserved what he got. A
lot of people said, in essance, "I think Bobbit is scum and deserved
everything his wife did to him." Despite what a lot of people may
think, this statement is not libelous because it is an *opinion*, and
expression of opinion is guaranteed as a part of freedom of speech.
Libel comes into play only when you start representing what you say
as *fact*. If some editor had said, "John Wayne Bobbit repeatedly
raped and beat his wife," THAT would be actionable, because the editor
stated that was a *fact*
Even then, that statement wouldn't necessarily be libel. (See
below).
The point to the last three paragraphs comes when you look at the
nature of burning in effigy. What is the burner doing? He/She/They
are shouting out, "I hate this person!" Which is, rather obviously, an
opinion and therefore covered under freedom of speech.
> I'm a bit confused by the whole thing. Possibly, there was
slanderous
>action committed at this event, although in Canada, I believe that the
>episode would be laughed out of the lawyers' office (we have a clause
in
>the slander and libel laws against "nuisance suits" to keep lawyers
>from the temptation of bringing silly or frivolous litigation before
the
>courts) but I don't see how, in a supposedly literate society, an
action
>such as this can be considered LIBEL.
It isn't, and boy do I wish we had some of those laws in the US.
<Snip>
> I would be very leery of throwing words like "libel" around. Part of
the
>definition of libel carries the onus upon the damaged party to prove
that
>these allegations are untrue.
Even worse, in the US at least, not only do they have to prove that
the allegations are untrue, they also have to prove that the defendants
*knew* they were untrue. In _Sullivan vs. New York Times_ the Supreme
Court (I think, I'm no legal scholoar) ruled that simply being mistaken
did not consitute libel, if the newspaper published the erroneous
information in good faith. In other words, libel is not just
publishing false statements, it's *deliberatly* publishing false
statements. See the movie _Absence of Malice_ (Paul Newman and Sally
Field) for a very good treatment of the subject (as well as a damn good
story).
<Snip of rest for bandwidth>
Richard,
(No SCA name as yet)
mai...@ix.netcom.com
Bryan J. Maloney
In article <19971115200...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, cor...@aol.com
(CORWYN) wrote:
My pardon. I had completely forgotten about the state of affairs under
Elizabeth (wherein travel abroad and within the confines of the realm was
about as tightly regulated as under the Soviets).
--
To respond via email, switch the elements of my domain.
http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/bjm10/
"If there is no human nature outside social construction, no needs or capacities other than those constructed by a particular discourse, then there is no basis for social criticism and no reason for protest or rebellion"
--The Nation, June 9, 1997.
Arval d'Espas Nord
Charles Buckley <buc...@refuge.Colorado.EDU> wrote:
> The core Constitution does cover only governmental actions. The
> Amendments immediately added were placed to cover personal issues and
> right of citizens. In particular, the 9th and 10th Amendments
> specifically are directed at the rights of the private citizen. ... You
> can argue all you want about how to interpret the 9th Amendment, but the
> previous poster is 100% correct when she states that the Bill of Rights
> cover personal rights.
That's true, but that is not what the lady argued. She asserted that the
Bill of Rights protects the rights of individuals versus private
organizations, and that is simply incorrect. It protects the rights of
individuals against the governments and the rights of the states with
respect to the federal government.
The Bill of Rights prevents the government from infringing on my right to
speak freely. But it is not relevent to whether the SCA, Inc. can limit my
freedom to speak.
Arval
Russell Kinder
JR Farris wrote:
> Either way, this should not have been brought up in the Rialto.
> This sounds like a matter of the Kingdom involved, not the
> happen at an event, it should be dealt with internally, not across
> a public forum as this. Now the entire group is involved in
> something that really didn't affect us until now.
> In Service,
> Michael Talon of Ansteorra
That seems the correct appraisal of the situation to me.
--
Lord Guillaume de Troyes
...
Luke SCA
>There have was allegedly an outdoor firepit where several members of
>the Chivalry were burned in effigy (including two former Dukes of the
>Please reply via this posting or contact the Crown of the Midrealm
>directly with any knowledge you may have of this incident.
>
>An investigation into this incident is being pursued as civil
>litigation may be forthcoming.
>
>Thomas Gryffyth
>m.k.a. Kirk Taskila
Hmmm... Civil Litigation in Mundane Courts... Only one word can be used for
these
actions... dull... dull, dull, dull... and boring... ( ok.. two words...)
Why not instead
have the people who lit the 'fires" ( if they are Heavy Fighters) face the
offended Chivalry on the list field and fight each Knight One round for thier
belt and One round for each time the Knight was King. ( and maybe face each of
their Squires as well) And if the offenders are not Heavy Fighters, have them
give a service ( polish boots, serve them at feast, ect...) to each Knight in
the same way as the Heavy's fight a round one the list field. Hold an event
just for these actions...
There is a great opportunity for Fun here... for the whole family... :-)
at the end of the List have the offender's images drawn then have the populous
throw 25 cent pieces at them with the money going to the Kingdom Funds.
After all, this is the Society for CREATIVE Anachronism... sadly, there is
nothing
creative about mudane civil litigation...
Luke
Naomi Rivkis
In article <19971117224...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
ldal...@aol.com says...
> >Several people took issue with my statement that the Bill of Rights applies
> >only to the government and that private organizations are not obliged to
> >honor your freedom of speech.
> >
> >You are overlooking the distinction between the Constitution and statutory
> >law. They are not the same thing.
>
>
> The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. All laws spring from the
> foundations of that document. The Bill of Rights is a set of amendments to the
> Constitution. Therefore, by definition and reality, they *are* laws. And
> remember, the states would not ratify the Constitution without them.
>
> I will also say again. No private organization is above the law.
And you are coming to the wrong conclusion from this, because
of what the law in question says.
> Here's a quick reference section for our discussion..
>
> Amendment I.
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
> prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or
> of the press; or the right of thepeople peaceably to assemble, and to petition
> the Government for a redress of grievances.
Exactly. The operative word here is "CONGRESS." The first
Amendment does not say that freedom of speech can't be
abridged by anyone at all. It only says that it can't
be abridged by Congress. Even to extend it to protecting
against *state* legislatures, it took the 14th Amendment
seventy-five years later.
Read the case law on the subject if you're interested
further.
-Naomi
Matthew Saroff (Remove 123456. to reply)
nri...@worldnet.att.net (Naomi Rivkis) wrote:
--Much snipped--
>Exactly. The operative word here is "CONGRESS." The first
>Amendment does not say that freedom of speech can't be
>abridged by anyone at all. It only says that it can't
>be abridged by Congress. Even to extend it to protecting
>against *state* legislatures, it took the 14th Amendment
>seventy-five years later.
>
>Read the case law on the subject if you're interested
>further.
It's nice for all the libertarians out there to say that
the Bill of rights only applies to the congress, or by extension
of the 14th amendment, governmental agencies.
This simply isn't so. Employers don't have the right to
discriminate on the basis of (insert here), etc. This includes
things like religion and political affiliation and disability.
Most of this power comes from the right of the federal government
to regulate interstate commerce, which is explicitly enumerated
in the constitution, and has generally been reinforced by the
courts.
I would also state that as condition a 501(c)3 tax exempt
status, the government does have the right to regulate what we
do. Witness Bob Jones University, which was stripped of tax
exempt status on the basis of it's prohibition of interracial
dating.
That being said, this is like the guy who sued an armorer
because his finger got broken in a set of gauntlets that the
armor (in an amazingly stupid move) guaranteed not to injure the
fellows hands.
The question is not whether laws apply to private or (as
in the case of the SCA) publicly supported (not for profit
postage rates) organizations, but why on earth we want to get
lawyers involved in this.
--
--Sfi Mordehai ben Yosef Yitzhak, Aka Matthew G. Saroff
This is not the Dream. This is what I do on weekends to have
some fun.
The Dream involves 4 sets of identical twins, 2 gallons of Cool
Whip, 5 quarts of chocolate syrup, 2-1/4 pounds of strawberries,
satin sheets, a magnum of champagne, a trapeze, and a python.
Check http://www.pobox.com/~msaroff, including The Bad Hair Web Page
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes
Josh Mittleman
Greetings from Arval!
The complaints that this thread does not belong here any more are
well-justified, so this is the last I'll post on it.
Alexander, I am obviously not going to shake your conviction, so I will
instead offer some advice. You probably know at least one lawyer, maybe
more. Ask them to explain it to you.
Mordehai ben Yosef wrote:
> Employers don't have the right to discriminate on the basis of (insert
> here), etc. This includes things like religion and political affiliation
> and disability.
You are correct, of course, that there are federal and state statutes which
forbid employers from discriminating on certain specific grounds. But
beyond that, I'm afraid you are mistaken. In the absense of a specific
statute, employers may discriminate on any basis they wish.
More to the point, the restrictions that do exist are _not_ consequences of
the Constitution, but of specific statutes. (It is of course true, as you
said, that the statutes exist only because the Constitution gives the
legislature the power to make them, but the specific effect of these
statutes exists only because they were enacted. Without them, these
protections would not exist.)
> I would also state that as condition a 501(c)3 tax exempt status, the
> government does have the right to regulate what we do. Witness Bob Jones
> University, which was stripped of tax exempt status on the basis of it's
> prohibition of interracial dating.
Apples and oranges, Mordechai, for two reasons. First, universities are
not 501(c)3 organizations. Different categories of tax-exempts are treated
differently by the law. Second, there clearly are laws forbidding private
organizations from discriminating on the basis of race; but there are no
laws forbidding private organizations from restricting freedom of speech.
> The question is not whether laws apply to private or (as in the case of
> the SCA) publicly supported (not for profit postage rates) organizations,
> but why on earth we want to get lawyers involved in this.
Undoubtedly true, and truly the central point in this thread.
Arval
Bryan J. Maloney
In article <19971117224...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
ldal...@aol.com (Ld Alexndr) wrote:
> Constitution. Therefore, by definition and reality, they *are* laws. And
> remember, the states would not ratify the Constitution without them.
>
> I will also say again. No private organization is above the law.
Please learn something before you spout off on this topic again.
Constitutional law is VERY limited in its application. If this is a "free
speech" matter, it falls under STATUTORY law, not Constitutional.
Before you embarass yourself further, please learn the differences, and
venues appropriate for:
Constitutional Law
Statutory Law
Tort Law
Contract Law
Other Bodies of the Common Law (as opposed to Admiralty Law) not mentioned
above.
John Wheeling Jr.
Bryan J. Maloney wrote:
>
> I, Bryan J. Maloney, do hereby grant permission for myself, as Symon
> Freser, to be burnt in effigy, so long as I am invited to join in the
> festivities.
>
> To respond via email, switch the elements of my domain.
>
> http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/bjm10/
>
> "If there is no human nature outside social construction, no needs or capacities other than those constructed by a particular discourse, then there is no basis for social criticism and no reason for protest or rebellion"
> --The Nation, June 9, 1997.
Likewise, Feel Free to burn Leohtulf of the Silver Hills, just keep in
mind that I like my stake rare.
Bryan J. Maloney
In article <34710e78...@snews.zippo.com>, msa...@123456.pobox.com
(Matthew Saroff (Remove 123456. to reply)) wrote:
> This simply isn't so. Employers don't have the right to
> discriminate on the basis of (insert here), etc. This includes
This is laid down in STATUTORY law, not Constitutional. Learn the
difference. The basis may be in several clauses of the Constitution, but
the specific protection is statutory, not Constitutional. This is an
important difference if matters get to a court. State courts do not have
US Constitutional jurisdiction, for example.
Bojegei
In article <64nov8$p...@news1.panix.com>, Josh Mittleman
<mit...@panix2.panix.com> writes:
>Greetings from Arval! Bojegei <boj...@aol.com> wrote:
Hi Arval!
>> The constitution only applies to the FEDERAL government. However, the
>> supreme court, in several landmark cases, has determined that their are
>> certain rights whose preservation is so importatant that they can be
>> imposed upon the states & private organizations. Hence the civil rights
>> laws.
>
>That's partly right. The Supreme Court ruled very early on -- before 1800,
>I think -- that all levels of government are bound by the Bill of Rights.
>But the courts have not applied the Bill of Rights to private
>organizations, because those Amendments only apply to the government.
I beg to differ - this contradicts the information I was taught at a
training session just a week ago (most of the profs were AUSAs and
absolutely fascinated with constitutional law and the evolution of all the
stuff we have to apply). They stressed, repeatedly, that the Supreme
Court has only selectively applied constitutional rights to the states.
This was discussed as part of the history of search and seizure laws. It
wasn't until a 1961 Supreme Court case (Weeks vs St of Ohio??? anyway, it
came out of the actions of the Cleveland police dept.) that the Court
ruled that the States couldn't conduct unreasonable searches & seizures.
I agree that the Court hasn't applied the bill of rights to private
organizations.
>Civil rights laws were enacted by the Congress and other legislatory
>bodies; the courts cannot enact laws. The courts have interpretted and
>applied those laws, some of which do apply to some kinds of private
>organizations. But all these laws are limited in their scope.
You're totally correct of course. I phrased things badly. What I meant
was that as a result of these court decisions congress could pass statutes
regulating the behavior of the states in these areas.....
Bojegei
CORWYN
>> Brian J Maloney wrote:
>>
> >Exactly. If they want to run things like a police state, they already
>> have the means to do so.
>
>> >So, do you think they'll adopt a Stalinist or Maoist model?
>>
>> Now, now, now. Let's not be so non-period. The Tudors set up a perfectly
>> reprehensable police state in period. So I'm hoping that in the interests
of
>> more period behavior they adopt a "Henrikin" or "Elizabethan" model of a
>> fascist dictatorship (star chamber, etc).
>My pardon. I had completely forgotten about the state of affairs under
>Elizabeth (wherein travel abroad and within the confines of the realm was
>about as tightly regulated as under the Soviets).
There's a reason some of us spend as much time on boats as possible: it's far
safer than hanging around court, even with the "ponsy Dons" taken into account
(or on account as the case may be...:)).
Corwyn
Andrew mac Fergus
Anthony Bryant (alca...@socantel.net) wrote:
: Luke SCA wrote:
: >
: >
: > If those who were burned in effigy were not members of the Chivalry, would
: > there still be such a reaction???
: If they were pelicans, would anyone have NOTICED?
: Edward
: A pelican
--
Sure they would have, its hard not to notice the smell of burning
feathers.
Andreas maqqas Feragusu
The opinions expressed are mine and do not reflect the views of a rational human being.
Black...@worthington.loathes.spam
Has anyone else noticed that the original poster has
vanished? Granted, my newsreader may be mucked up, but after that
one brief, practically detail-less post, he/she has not been heard
from. (Can we say "troll"?)
While I'm not saying that I don't know any sca-folk who couldn't
do with a little effigy burning, (yes, I know, I've just guaranteed that
I will _never_ receive another award. *grin*) I find it interesting
that no names were mentioned, and that noone from Northwoods has, as
far as I can tell, said a thing. Even more interesting is that all
the discussion has been (again, afaict) among those who are not
from the Midrealm.
Foot in mouth yet again,
Kate
k a w o r t h (at) ilstu dot edu
http://www.ilstu.edu/~kaworth
"Preach always. If necessary, use words."
- St. Francis
McLean1382
To Indaxelndr:
I sincerely hope that you are not an attorney or law student. If you are,
your profound misunderstanding of constitutional law is tragic. If you are
not a lawyer, please be advised that you are wrong and the people you are
so vigorously disagreeing with are correct.
W. McLean, Esq. (spouse of Galleron de Cressy)
Naomi Rivkis
> nri...@worldnet.att.net (Naomi Rivkis) wrote:
> --Much snipped--
> >Exactly. The operative word here is "CONGRESS." The first
> >Amendment does not say that freedom of speech can't be
> >abridged by anyone at all. It only says that it can't
> >be abridged by Congress. Even to extend it to protecting
> >against *state* legislatures, it took the 14th Amendment
> >seventy-five years later.
> >
> >Read the case law on the subject if you're interested
> >further.
> It's nice for all the libertarians out there to say that
> the Bill of rights only applies to the congress, or by extension
> of the 14th amendment, governmental agencies.
I'm not a libertarian, merely a legal scholar.
> This simply isn't so. Employers don't have the right to
> discriminate on the basis of (insert here), etc. This includes
> things like religion and political affiliation and disability.
> Most of this power comes from the right of the federal government
> to regulate interstate commerce, which is explicitly enumerated
> in the constitution, and has generally been reinforced by the
> courts.
And it therefore has chosen, by STATUTE law, to regulate
it. You're getting cause and effect wrong. Private companies
don't get forbidden from discriminating by the 14th amendment.
Private companies get forbidden from discriminating based on
statute law -- usually state statute law, not even federal.
The government may so forbid them because there *isn't* a
constitutional right to discriminate, but it's the legislature's
choice to forbid them or not forbid them. It's chosen, in many
cases (not all) to do so. It is not *required* to do so. The
Constitution is entirely silent on whether it should or not,
so it has madeup its own mind.
> I would also state that as condition a 501(c)3 tax exempt
> status, the government does have the right to regulate what we
> do. Witness Bob Jones University, which was stripped of tax
> exempt status on the basis of it's prohibition of interracial
> dating.
Sure, it's got a right to. But the Constitution does not actually
apply to the companies. It merely permits the government to make
other laws which *do* prohibit discrimination by the companies.
> --Sfi Mordehai ben Yosef Yitzhak, Aka Matthew G. Saroff
-Naomi
McLean1382
> It's nice for all the libertarians out there to say that
>discriminate on the basis of (insert here), etc. This includes
>things like religion and political affiliation and disability.
>Most of this power comes from the right of the federal government
>to regulate interstate commerce, which is explicitly enumerated
>in the constitution, and has generally been reinforced by the
>courts.
The laws prohibiting discrimination in employment are statutes - Title VII
of the Civil Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act, to name a few. They were enacted by
Congress because the courts had determined that the Constitution did NOT
prohibit such discrimination by private employers. Likewise, the Fair
Housing Act (another section of the Civil Rights Act) was enacted by Congress
to address the problem of private parties discriminating in the provision of
housing. Congress found this to be necessary because the Constitution does
NOT regulate the behavior of individuals or of private organizations.
> I would also state that as condition a 501(c)3 tax exempt
>status, the government does have the right to regulate what we
>do. Witness Bob Jones University, which was stripped of tax
>exempt status on the basis of it's prohibition of interracial
>dating.
I would be surprised if Bob Jones University lost tax exempt status. I
think it is much more likely that it lost its ability to receive or use
federal funds, including federally guaranteed student loans. The IRS, which
keeps an eye on tax exempt status, is not particularly interested in
discrimination. It only cares about whether an organization does or does not
have a charitable purpose and whether it handles its income correctly.
Churches, for example, maintain their tax exempt status even though they
obviously "discriminate" against people not of their denomination. However,
they cannot receive federal funds. Church-related educational institutions
have to have a non-discrimination policy if they want to receive federal
grants and use federal scholarship programs, but they rarely lose tax-exempt
status.
The SCA, in my opinion, is much more at risk of losing tax-exempt status
because of its lack of educational outreach than because of any purported
discriminatory behavior. Many groups operate only for their only pleasure
and not for any true educational mission.
W. McLean, Esq.
(Spouse to Galleron de Cressy)
LarethDF
Borrowing from another thread, I think that the 109 posts about effigy-burning
and it's potential legal implications would constitute reason for some
particularly sane people to look down on the SCA. As if that's the first time
anybody ever burned a Duke....get a grip! A certain well-known band of merry
drunkards with beautiful pavilions did it at Pennsic many years ago to the
amusement of hundreds. (Geez, I wonder if the statute of limitations has
passed? :) ) People cheered then, too....
Lareth Die Fledermaus
Kirk Taskila
I have not disappeared. After posting the original message which has generated
a good deal of controversy, I as well as many others have been reading these
postings. I am not here to debate this issue nor did I solicit any advice. I
will try to clarify a few issues that people have raised.
The only thing I have asked for is for any witnesses to please come forward.
Yes. I agree this is a Kingdom issue, or at the very least a regional issue.
I, however, am not a subscriber to the Middlebridge but I have made those
officials that need to know aware of my grievance and have urged them to take
appropriate action.
I did not provide any details regarding this incident because there are over 27
years of history and aggrivation that do not need to be made public nor is it my
goal to ridicule anyone else.
Several have commented on my use of the phrase "and two former Dukes". I
originally wrote Kings but remembered that each was King twice.
Some have criticized my use of the title "Hate Crime." So be it. Knowing the
history of the situation involved, I do believe it is a "Hate Crime." And if it
were an issue of race, how many people would be preaching that ... hey, it's ok
to burn a cross so long as everyone at the event didn't object to it.
Some have objected citing, what Society laws were broken? Well, I am not the
interpreter of Kingdom law, however, I do have my Known World Handbook here.
Taken from page 2, third paragraph,
"...But more than research and practice, the Society also attempts to embody the
ideals of the medieval romances: chivalry, courtesy, honor, and graciousness.
This is re-creating the Middle Ages as they might have been, adding a not of
consideration for others in an often too-indifferent world."
Is effigy burning historically accurate? YES.
Should it be done at SCA insured events, in order to ridicule and demean
another? You decide.
This was done at an event to pay honor and homage for Baron Thorvald im Grimmi.
In my opinion, there is no reason or excuse for a display of this type of
activity. There is absolutely no need to tear down the reputation of another in
order to raise someone else up.
This was not done if fun or jest. Nor were the individuals involved part of the
festivities, nor were they asked for their permission. These effigies were
burnt as an expression of malice toward the individuals involved. And although
I respect everyone's opinions regard the wealth of legal advice, I did not say
that legal action WAS being taken only that "possible legal action" may be
taken. If it were, it wouldn't be my me anyway. More than likely this issue
will be resolved within the confines of the SCA (where it originated).
The only intent that this message had, was to urge any witnesses to please come
forward so that those who need to can investigate it. Thank you.
Chatzie Massey
T.R. & E. Dennis <denni...@mcleodusa.net> wrote in article
<346DAA...@mcleodusa.net>...
: Roger Cole wrote:
: >
: > On 14 Nov 1997 19:25:55 GMT, Josh Mittleman <mit...@panix2.panix.com>
wrote:
: >
: >Greetings from Arval! I wrote:
:
: >True. What mundane law do you think it would contradict?
: >Please don't say the Constitution: The Constitution only regulates
: >the behavior of the government: "Congress shall make no law ...
>abridging the freedom of speech." The Constitution does not regulate >the
behavior of individuals or private organizations.
:
: The Bill of Rights applies only to the government?!!!? You've got to be
: kidding! Your history teacher must have been a Marxist, because that was
: NOT the intention of the founding fathers!
: Elizabeth
:
Dear Elizabeth,
It is not my intention to troll or flame, and I mean no disrespect, milady.
The gentle to which you respond above is correct. The Constitution is
intended to control the structure, growth, and maximum capacity of the
Federal Government. The documents that make up the Constitution and the
Bill of Rights are directives that tell the Government what IT can and
cannot do. The Constitution says "This is how you are going to be
organized, these are the basic job requirements for each of the branches of
government, this is how much power you all have, this is how much
responsibility you all will have, and this is the only acceptable ways to
change this basic document." The Bill or Rights says "These rights will
NOT BE INFRINGED upon, no matter what else Government does, it CANNOT
impose laws or codes that remove or replace these basic, inalienable
rights."
In the face of a King that had all the gold and made all the rules, the
control of Government is exactly what our founding fathers were aiming for
and intended with full awareness and much tenacity. They strove for
freedom of the People through control of the Government. Quite the
opposite of the King's Governing Theories.
I think what you were trying to convey is that the benefits returned with
these documents was intended for the People, and in that bent you are
absolutely correct.
What was requested by the gentle to whom you responded was the specific law
that would be violated, and pointed out that it had to be a law, (Federal,
State, County/Township, and/or City/Municipality) since the Constitution
was intended to control what Government can do, not specific citizens.
However, with the persona of an SCA member being a solely fictitious
character, and the purpose of the burning of the effigy was not to
demonstrate intended harm to the physical person who carries that persona,
there will be much research that will have to be done to find a law that
covers that specific instance, if indeed one actually exists somewhere.
The act may have been intended as a joke, albeit an utterly tasteless and
unnecessary one. There are far more appropriate ways to "flame" someone.
For instance, a bardic ballad starring the persona in question. Mayhaps a
poem of the escapades of said persona.
The thing I don't know for certain is, mayhaps this is the way the owner of
the persona wanted to "kill off" that persona so as to start over again
with something new? After all, politically motivated murders are extremely
period, .......and Meridies has killed off (oooops, I mean "lost") more
Monarchs to creative (and sometimes humorous) "deaths" than I care to count
at the moment (20 years worth, I believe). I have heard of folks who have
"killed off" their persona and then "come back" as that persona's later
descendant (such as a Great Niece or a Great Grand Son) so that they can
keep many aspects of their old persona, but get to build a new wardrobe and
more updated mannerisms that better suit their actual personalities.
Dear Elizabeth, please don't put too, too, too much worry and effort into
this whole matter. There are far more interesting things to turn your
attention to.
For example, how is your latest SCA research project going? I would be
very interested to hear what you are working on. I may get inspired by
your ideas. I am currently working on period dried foods, such as fruits
and meats for traveling (The Mongols in Osprey think it is really neat!).
Mayhaps you have a few thoughts or ideas in that regard? I would dearly
appreciate any input you care to give. (Please, let's turn our attention
to things that truly deserve our attention.)
--
Lady Chatzie Massey
Shire of Arenal
Kingdom of Meridies
Madness takes it's toll,
please have exact change.
Joe Pinegar
>In article <652jfj$8ll$1...@michigan.arq.net>, "Kirk Taskila" <k...@arq.net>
wrote:
>
>
>> Some have criticized my use of the title "Hate Crime." So be it.
Knowing the
>> history of the situation involved, I do believe it is a "Hate Crime."
<snip>
No, the incident was a difference of political opinion, not a criminal act
perpetrated towards a person or persons based on race, religion, or gender.
Feelings of 'hate' or 'extreme dislike'or 'strong difference of opinion' may
have figured into the situation, just as they can in burglaries, murders,
arson, and other criminal acts, but that doesn't make them hate crimes,
either.
Ellen Pinegar
Bryan J. Maloney
> Some have criticized my use of the title "Hate Crime." So be it. Knowing the
> history of the situation involved, I do believe it is a "Hate Crime."
And if it
> were an issue of race, how many people would be preaching that ... hey,
it's ok
> to burn a cross so long as everyone at the event didn't object to it.
"Hate Crime" is the 1990s equivalent of "Communist Subversion" in the USA.
Susan Carroll-Clark
Greetings!
>In my opinion, there is no reason or excuse for a display of this type of
>activity. There is absolutely no need to tear down the reputation of another
>in order to raise someone else up.
While this is, indeed, true, the response to these acts should have
been that people whose conscience was truly bothered should have had the
strength of character to step forward and say "This is not acceptable."
Personally, although I have no knowledge of whose effigies were burnt,
I wouldn't be particularly pleased to see *any* effigies burnt at an
SCA event. I go to events to have fun. Effigy burning, to me, sounds
like a political rally of some sort. Ugh.
>This was not done if fun or jest. Nor were the individuals involved part of
>the festivities, nor were they asked for their permission. These effigies
>were burnt as an expression of malice toward the individuals involved. And
>although I respect everyone's opinions regard the wealth of legal advice, I
>did not say that legal action WAS being taken only that "possible legal
>action" may be taken. If it were, it wouldn't be my me anyway. More than
>likely this issue will be resolved within the confines of the SCA (where
>it originated).
IMHO, resolutions within the SCA should always be the *first*
recourse. Making comments about legal action--even "possible legal action"--
makes it seem that you want lawyers to solve your problems for you. That
may sound harsh, but it's true.
Burning effigies is tacky. I think those who agree will condemn those
who did it, whether they like those two Dukes or not, in the court of public
opinion.
Cheers--
Nicolaa de Bracton
ejs...@hotmail.com
> I did not provide any details regarding this incident because there are over
27
> years of history and aggrivation that do not need to be made public nor is it
my
> goal to ridicule anyone else.
Was the savage mob giggling as the foul crime was perpetrated? I have
witnessed a royal being burned in effigy (at Pennsic some years ago), and
in my opinion the major effect was to clear the air of a lot of bad
feelings.
> Some have criticized my use of the title "Hate Crime." So be it. Knowing the
> history of the situation involved, I do believe it is a "Hate Crime." And if
it
> were an issue of race, how many people would be preaching that ... hey, it's
ok
By your definition, almost every murder would qualify as a 'hate crime'.
Were the burnies picked for their race, religion, or(to stretch a point
to breaking) their houshold affiliation? Did they burn whitebelts at
random simply because they were KA-NIGGETS? Your usage trivialises the
real meaning.
> to burn a cross so long as everyone at the event didn't object to it.
KKK style cross burnings are done with the intent of instilling fear.
Somehow, I doubt anyone is going to burn down the houses or churches(or
synagoges, or temples, or etc..) of these peers.
Some have objected citing, what Society laws were broken? Well, I am
not the
> interpreter of Kingdom law, however, I do have my Known World Handbook here.
> Taken from page 2, third paragraph,
> "...But more than research and practice, the Society also attempts to embody
the
> ideals of the medieval romances: chivalry, courtesy, honor, and graciousness.
> This is re-creating the Middle Ages as they might have been, adding a not of
> consideration for others in an often too-indifferent world."
>
> Is effigy burning historically accurate? YES.
>
> Should it be done at SCA insured events, in order to ridicule and demean
> another? You decide.
>
> This was done at an event to pay honor and homage for Baron Thorvald im
Grimmi.
> In my opinion, there is no reason or excuse for a display of this type of
> activity. There is absolutely no need to tear down the reputation of another
in
> order to raise someone else up.
>
> This was not done if fun or jest. Nor were the individuals involved part of
the
> festivities, nor were they asked for their permission. These effigies were
> burnt as an expression of malice toward the individuals involved. And
although
So they came on site without paying the troll, did their little bonfire
thing and left?
> I respect everyone's opinions regard the wealth of legal advice, I did not say
> that legal action WAS being taken only that "possible legal action" may be
> taken. If it were, it wouldn't be my me anyway. More than likely this issue
> will be resolved within the confines of the SCA (where it originated).
>
> The only intent that this message had, was to urge any witnesses to please
come
> forward so that those who need to can investigate it. Thank you.
Investigate it for what? To find out why people were so pissed off? Was
property damaged, or were threats made? Why do you feel this burning ;)
need to stir up the ashes of this act?
> Thomas Gryffyth
> m.k.a. Kirk Taskila
Erica Poitevins (and her evil twin Snippy)
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Joe Pinegar
Brian M. Scott wrote in message <34777705...@news.csuohio.edu>...
>On Thu, 20 Nov 1997 20:31:08 -0500, "Kirk Taskila" <k...@arq.net>
>wrote
:
<snip>
>>The only intent that this message had, was to urge any witnesses to please
come
>>forward so that those who need to can investigate it.
You set forth to stir up a ruckus. IF an investigation is started, THEN
(note use of LOGIIC) those doing the investigation, which I would certainly
hope include the regional and/or kingdom seneschal, will have access to the
detailed troll records kept in the MK. For the benefit of those who have
never signed in at a MK troll, these troll records include mundane name,
printed and written, SCA name, home address and SCA group. I don't
remember if a home telephone number is included.
What possible 'witnesses' can the Rialto offer that would not be on the
troll records? Or are you concerned that the burners circumvented the troll
and sneaked onto the site? This would be, BTW, an actual violation of an
actual requirement, not some nebulous and personal interpretation of a
statement made of the scope of the SCA.
Please think carefully the next time you are taken by a fit to recklessly
post on the Rialto.
Ellen Pinegar
Ur-poster of reckless messages to the Rialto 8)
Brian M. Scott
[snip]
>I did not provide any details regarding this incident because there are over 27
>years of history and aggrivation that do not need to be made public nor is it my
>goal to ridicule anyone else.
If you did not wish to stir up old controversy, you should have used
less inflammatory language originally. One sentence would have
sufficed: 'I am interested in hearing from anyone who witnessed the
burnings in effigy at such-and-so event.'
>Some have criticized my use of the title "Hate Crime." So be it. Knowing the
>history of the situation involved, I do believe it is a "Hate Crime."
You have not established that it is a crime, let alone that it falls
under the heading of 'hate crime', which does not cover mere personal
animosity, howsoever intense.
>The only intent that this message had, was to urge any witnesses to please come
>forward so that those who need to can investigate it. Thank you.
You have not established that any investigation is needed.
Talan Gwynek
Anthony Bryant
Bryan J. Maloney wrote:
> > By your definition, almost every murder would qualify as a 'hate crime'.
>
But Bryan... what about all those murders that are crimes of passion?
Edward
T.R. & E. Dennis
Chatzie Massey wrote:
>
> I think what you were trying to convey is that the benefits returned with
> these documents was intended for the People, and in that bent you are
> absolutely correct.
> Lady Chatzie Massey
> Shire of Arenal
> Kingdom of Meridies
Greetings!
Yes, that's what I meant, and only what I meant. I didn't intend to say
a great deal. I find that it's easy (for myself as well as others) to
interpret according to what we THINK the person means, not according to
what we actually say--although since what we say is often not specific
enough, it's understandable that misunderstandings occur. I once had a
long discussion with another gentle based solely on a series of
misunderstandings! It was very interesting, but we were talking at cross
purposes the whole time. It ended up we were in agreement without
realizing it.
Actually, the discussion prompted me to go back and look at the
Federalist papers and the constitution in greater detail than I had in
many years. That's a terrific side effect; no complaints here!
Best regards,
Elizabeth
Dennis O'Connor
Anthony Bryant wrote in message <3479E2...@socantel.net>...
And what about murders where the target may be hardly
known at all, but is simply inconvenient ?
--
Dennis O'Connor http://www.primenet.com/~dmoc/
Jeff Suzuki
Chatzie Massey (cha...@geocities.com) wrote:
: The gentle to which you respond above is correct. The Constitution is
: intended to control the structure, growth, and maximum capacity of the
: Federal Government.
This is a statement that should be emblazoned on every public gathering
place. I'm tired of hearing people say "the constitution forbids this" or
"the constitution forbids that", or claiming a violation of their
constitutional rights by this or that person or organization.
I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on the internet, but the vagaries of my
profession (mathematics) have required me to look into the constitution from
time to time ('struth! Banzhaf indices, anyone?); in addition, I've actually
read the Constitution. (And analyzed it symbolically...but that's another
story)
To the above statement, I would make one addition: the interpretation of the
bill of rights is that the restrictions apply to the Federal Government and
its agents (I forget the legal term). Thus, city, state and local governments
must also abide by the bill of rights' provisos, as does any public individual
(e.g., a corporation) that is deemed to be fulfilling a function of the
Federal government.
By _statute_ law, it is illegal for certain corporations to discriminate on
the basis of race, religion, or internet browser, but a violation would not
be a violation of someone's "constitutional rights" per se, but rather a
violation of statute law.
Jeffs
CORWYN
Hmmmm.
Is it my imagination, or does it seem to others that there has been a recent
sharp increase in troll-like postings to this NG ?
Particularly of the one-shot,stir em up and leave variety ?
Corwyn
Aengus
Well, you have to admit, it sure keeps the conversations interesting (grin)