Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Article

No idea this was happening in the US to be honest, thought others might want to read it. This isn't the entirety of the article, if you want that read the article.

In the United States Lively’s homophobic messages are largely ignored, and in recent years he has had to endure various setbacks at the state and federal level as equality makes historic gains. Undeterred, Lively has sought out foreign lands where his particular brand of ruthless anti-gay ideas are more accepted. In Uganda, he found a home away from home. During a Christian “workshop” in the African nation he managed to become one of the principal architects behind some of the most retrograde anti-gay legislation on the planet.

Officially titled the “Anti-Homosexuality Act” and more commonly known as the “Kill the Gays” bill, Lively’s vision was nothing less than a roadmap for the total persecution and eradication of homosexuals from Uganda. In Lively’s original design, anyone caught engaging in homosexuality would be executed. A newer bill softened that stance slightly after worldwide condemnation – in the latest version, homosexuals would only be sentenced to life in prison.

Unfortunately for Lively, orchestrating genocide in another country is kind of frowned upon, and in 2012 a lawsuit was filed against Lively in federal court in Massachusetts for crimes against humanity. This week, the First Circuit Court of Appeals denied Lively’s final request to have it dismissed because, well, the whole genocide thing.

tl;dr:

Private group files private lawsuit, court says suit can go forward.

Yeah, too good to be true.

Can 'Deathly' appeal anymore?

While I don't really care, I find it disheartening that Free Speech can be criminalized.

If so shouldn't we arrest every ME official who comes to the US?

A) It wasn't criminalized. It is a civil suit and no verdict yet.

B) calling for the deaths of people can be a criminal act.

 Frazzled wrote:
While I don't really care, I find it disheartening that Free Speech can be criminalized.

If so shouldn't we arrest every ME official who comes to the US?

If he helped to craft a bill that saw people killed over their sexuality, it has gone beyond "free speech".

 djones520 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
While I don't really care, I find it disheartening that Free Speech can be criminalized.

If so shouldn't we arrest every ME official who comes to the US?

If he helped to craft a bill that saw people killed over their sexuality, it has gone beyond "free speech".

You mean like the rest of the ME.

Its still speech, protecting under the First Amendment.

 Frazzled wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
While I don't really care, I find it disheartening that Free Speech can be criminalized.

If so shouldn't we arrest every ME official who comes to the US?

If he helped to craft a bill that saw people killed over their sexuality, it has gone beyond "free speech".

You mean like the rest of the ME.

Its still speech, protecting under the First Amendment.

I agree.

The proper response is absolute mockery in the public forum of this donkey-cave.

 Frazzled wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
While I don't really care, I find it disheartening that Free Speech can be criminalized.

If so shouldn't we arrest every ME official who comes to the US?

If he helped to craft a bill that saw people killed over their sexuality, it has gone beyond "free speech".

You mean like the rest of the ME.

Its still speech, protecting under the First Amendment.

No. The First Amendment is not a consequence free blanket. And show me an American who was instrumental in shaping the Iranian governments policy of chucking homosexuals off of buildings, and I'll say he should be criminally prosecuted as well.

 skyth wrote:
A) It wasn't criminalized. It is a civil suit and no verdict yet.

B) calling for the deaths of people can be a criminal act.

Generally it has to meet certain very clear critieria: A specific person; the ability to do so; it must be immediate.

For Example:
"We should kill all da X's" - protected as it meets none of them.

vs.

"Joe/Bob, go beat the crap of that X over there" immediate, specific, ability to do so.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 djones520 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
While I don't really care, I find it disheartening that Free Speech can be criminalized.

If so shouldn't we arrest every ME official who comes to the US?

If he helped to craft a bill that saw people killed over their sexuality, it has gone beyond "free speech".

You mean like the rest of the ME.

Its still speech, protecting under the First Amendment.

No. The First Amendment is not a consequence free blanket. And show me an American who was instrumental in shaping the Iranian governments policy of chucking homosexuals off of buildings, and I'll say he should be criminally prosecuted as well.

It is from the government. Else all the lefties would be in jail in Texas and the righties in jail in California.

 Frazzled wrote:

"Joe/Bob, go beat the crap of that X over there" immediate, specific, ability to do so.

And he helped craft a law that did exactly that, with 'beat the crap out of' replaced by 'kill/imprison'.

You can't shout fire in a theater, and you can't legally orchestrate crimes against humanity.

No-its not specific, its not to a person, and frankly its not even in the US.

also: You can shout fire in a theater, if you believe there's a fie in the theater.

"helping craft a law" is nebulous in the extreme. Please cite for me the case law that supports your statement.
Under an enlightened Trump Presidency everyone who spoke out against him would be in jail under such a standard.

 Spinner wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

"Joe/Bob, go beat the crap of that X over there" immediate, specific, ability to do so.

And he helped craft a law that did exactly that, with 'beat the crap out of' replaced by 'kill/imprison'.

That's really for Ugandian(sp?) or international law... not US.

You can't shout fire in a theater,

When there's a real fire... yes you can.

and you can't legally orchestrate crimes against humanity.

I'll be interested to see what statuatory laws will be used in this civil case.

Its scary. Whenever someone's ox is gored their side is always the first to attack free speech. I' occasionally shocked the founders put it in and that it survived so long. Both sides are always looking to attack it.

Since this pastor believes in the power of prayer, let's all get together and pray he falls into one of these:

I just realized, why are we arguing about a case decision from 2014?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 feeder wrote:
Since this pastor believes in the power of prayer, let's all get together and pray he falls into one of these:

Dude thats disgusting. All that molten metal would be ruined with impurities. Have you no decency sir?

 Frazzled wrote:
I just realized, why are we arguing about a case decision from 2014?

Case appears to be ongoing...?

Article is from 2014 and nothing on google further. I hink our OP has been hoodwinked, gobsmacked, snorgled, even klarpnepted.

 djones520 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
While I don't really care, I find it disheartening that Free Speech can be criminalized.

If so shouldn't we arrest every ME official who comes to the US?

If he helped to craft a bill that saw people killed over their sexuality, it has gone beyond "free speech".

You mean like the rest of the ME.

Its still speech, protecting under the First Amendment.

No. The First Amendment is not a consequence free blanket. And show me an American who was instrumental in shaping the Iranian governments policy of chucking homosexuals off of buildings, and I'll say he should be criminally prosecuted as well.

Does it have to be specifically anti-gay commentary to fall below the threshold of whether first amendment rights apply.

If yes, they why?

If no, then what about other calls directly or indirectly for persecution. There are rather a lot of them targeting different people groups for different reasons.


The US has always held a distinction between speech and action. If the private prosecution was for incitement instead there would be more logic to it. Then the prosecution would have to decide if the accused urged or cajoled anyone into breaking the law. As Lively appears to have influenced a foreign government in its legislation, his actions are a form of lobbying, which is legal as and of itself. Hence changing the legal goalposts, accusing someone of 'crimes against humanity' are a catchall designed to avoid excuses of defendants from the Third Reich. However in those cases the accused were people of power in the nation concerned. The accused is not, he has no authority in Uganda and the most he could do was lobby unless given power by the Ugandan authorities. If the accused is charged of running death camps or organised their set up there would be a point.

Frankly I suspect the purpose of the trial is just to put the accused in the dock, so that his viewpoints and consequences are aired in front of the public. There is nothing substantial to secure a conviction on though, which is why an attempt to dismiss was made. Had this been a public prosecution the case would have been dismissed, but it is a private and sending the case to trial is a choice made by the plaintiff, who has rights of their own to do so.

Let us see:

http://www.advocate.com/world/2016/1/05/trial-crime-against-humanity-homophobe-scott-lively-begs-cash

Two years on the case still hasn't come to trial, but the process is getting expensive.


http://religionnews.com/2015/10/01/lgbt-scott-lively-human-rights-persecution-uganda-russia-kim-davis/

This article covers the current range of charges facing the accused. 'Crimes against Humanity' has been dropped it appears, those dont normally result in fines.

Unfortunately for Lively, orchestrating genocide in another country is kind of frowned upon...

Whereas, historically, orchestrating genocide in your own country is routinely ignored by the entire world.

Let's see if it will stick.

 jreilly89 wrote:
Let's see if it will stick.

Inevitable that it won't. Things like this never end with the villain punished.

 Verviedi wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
Let's see if it will stick.

Inevitable that it won't. Things like this never end with the villain punished.

I know right, it's not like people ever get convicted for genocide in the hague or anything.

 Soladrin wrote:

 Verviedi wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
Let's see if it will stick.

Inevitable that it won't. Things like this never end with the villain punished.

I know right, it's not like people ever get convicted for genocide in the hague or anything.

Its not like the Hague only fines people for genocide either.

Could we maybe try dialling the snark back a few notches and making our points in a civil fashion without the sarcasm?

 insaniak wrote:
Could we maybe try dialling the snark back a few notches and making our points in a civil fashion without the sarcasm?

You want us to discuss this without any snark? Uganda be kidding me.

I dont think anyone is being snarky, sarcasm is fine.
However the mod community does go looking for reasons to find insult that isnt there.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
Could we maybe try dialling the snark back a few notches and making our points in a civil fashion without the sarcasm?

You want us to discuss this without any snark? Uganda be kidding me.

Ok, thats a good one.

 Orlanth wrote:
I dont think anyone is being snarky, sarcasm is fine.
However the mod community does go looking for reasons to find insult that isnt there.

Oh yeah, the mods are a regular feelings Gestapo around here and OT never degenerates into petty sniping.

So no updates on the case?

No updates I can find. Again, this is a two year old article.