The New York Times is reporting on a disturbing courtroom scene in rural Alabama. A circuit judge apparently required those who owe fines to give blood or face incarceration.
From the article:
“Good morning, ladies and gentlemen,” began Judge Wiggins, a circuit judge here in rural Alabama since 1999. “For your consideration, there’s a blood drive outside,” he continued, according to a recording of the hearing. “If you don’t have any money, go out there and give blood and bring in a receipt indicating you gave blood.”
For those who had no money or did not want to give blood, the judge concluded: “The sheriff has enough handcuffs.”
[...] The dozens of offenders who showed up that day, old and young, filed out of the Perry County courthouse and waited their turn at a mobile blood bank parked in the street. They were told to bring a receipt to the clerk showing they had given a pint of blood, and in return they would receive a $100 credit toward their fines — and be allowed to go free.
[...] On Monday, the Southern Poverty Law Center filed an ethics complaint against Judge Wiggins, saying he had committed “a violation of bodily integrity.” The group also objected to the hearing beyond the matter of blood collection, calling the entire proceeding unconstitutional.
Payment-due hearings like this one are part of a new initiative by Alabama’s struggling courts to raise money by aggressively pursuing outstanding fines, restitution, court costs and lawyer fees. Many of those whose payments are sought in these hearings have been found at one point to be indigent, yet their financial situations often are not considered when they are summoned for outstanding payments.
Is it ethical to require blood donations under any circumstance?
Is the threat of jail for non-compliance (given that, theoretically, we don't have debtor's prison in the U.S.) even constitutional?
Is this a Fourth Amendment issue?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Ethanol-fueled on Wednesday October 21 2015, @09:25AM
They tried, but the samples I gave blew up their machinery.
But seriously, this is a P.R. attempt to frame the SPLC as being knights in shining armor akin to the EFF or ACLU. SPLC is a Trojan Horse.
Care about human rights? Support those organizations that fight to preserve them. Like all organizations, SPLC has an agenda -- but free speech is often not one of them.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 21 2015, @10:17AM
I'm not following you. What does this have to do with speech? Take a hard look at yourself, man. Are you seriously siding with abuse of state power because you don't like the politics of one party who happens to be complaining about it?
You need to climb down off your partisan horse and recognize when somebody is advocating in your best interests.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Francis on Wednesday October 21 2015, @02:40PM
So in other words, there should be no limits on free speech and it's OK to encourage other people to murder their fellow man as long as you yourself didn't pull the trigger?
Take a look at their list of monitored organizations, these are not good people, they're well beyond the boundaries of free speech and keeping an eye on them is a very legitimate anti-terrorist activity. Far more so than molesting children at the air port and killing brown people in foreign countries.
Yes, some of the groups might be a tad debatable, but these are groups that were set up to spew hatred and in some cases encourage violence against some group in society. Even the more benign ones like the Family Research Council provide cover to those with extreme beliefs and encouragement to view the targets as subhuman or even inhuman entities.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_organizations_designated_by_the_Southern_Poverty_Law_Center_as_hate_groups [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday October 21 2015, @04:07PM
So in other words, there should be no limits on free speech and it's OK to encourage other people to murder their fellow man as long as you yourself didn't pull the trigger?
Sounds like you're a fan of blaming someone for other people's actions.
Take a look at their list of monitored organizations, these are not good people, they're well beyond the boundaries of free speech and keeping an eye on them is a very legitimate anti-terrorist activity.
Of course. They're Bad People, so their rights no longer apply. I have zero interest in misusing the word "terrorist" merely because someone says something I don't like. Spewing hatred isn't illegal even in the authoritarian society of the US.
(Score: 5, Touché) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday October 21 2015, @05:32PM
Of course. They're Bad People, so their rights no longer apply.
Exactly how has the SPLC removed anyone's rights?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 21 2015, @05:56PM
I don't know, if say a large organization started to loudly and very publicly call you a racist for something taken out of context, which then kicks off investigations of you by the FBI would you feel your rights had been trampled?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 22 2015, @10:31AM
And the FBI would be responsible for violating your rights. Like Anal said, "Sounds like you're a fan of blaming someone for other people's actions."
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday October 21 2015, @06:12PM
Why not read the comment I was replying to? He spoke of how there should be limits to freedom of speech and how the activities of the groups the SPLC speaks of go beyond the boundaries of free speech. What else could that imply but that their speech is actually illegal? If that's not what that person meant, then it was simply phrased in a confusing way.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 21 2015, @08:32PM
That's a strawman you retarded sack of shit. Nowhere in the post that you're referencing did he say that they should have fewer rights.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday October 21 2015, @08:49PM
"So in other words, there should be no limits on free speech and it's OK to encourage other people to murder their fellow man as long as you yourself didn't pull the trigger?"
Why would he say this if he didn't want to discuss limits on free speech?
"Take a look at their list of monitored organizations, these are not good people, they're well beyond the boundaries of free speech and keeping an eye on them is a very legitimate anti-terrorist activity."
What does that mean, if not that what they're saying is not protected speech? What does it mean for something to be "well beyond the boundaries of free speech" if not that their speech is illegal? He further goes on to say that keeping an eye on them is a very legitimate anti-terrorist activity. Usually, terrorism is illegal, so that seems to me to be another accusation that their activities are illegal, or at least some of them.
I'm only responding to what I'm reading. If you think there's a more reasonable interpretation, then say so. Just because you're too dumb to look at the specific parts I responded to doesn't make what I said a straw man.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by curunir_wolf on Wednesday October 21 2015, @05:04PM
It's not even that they want to ostracize certain groups and stop them from speaking, it's that they only want to ostracize certain groups that fall outside of their (extreme left-wing) ideology. Inflammatory rhetoric is fine as long as it supports their viewpoint. Only if they disagree with the message will they call it "hate speech". Same thing with groups. It's okay to criticize groups that you don't agree with, that's what debate is about. But what the SPLC does is when any group is lobbying a different side of policy than they are, they will list them as a "hate group", and describe their educational literature as "hate speech". It's a technique to shut down debate.
They even added GOP Presidential candidate Ben Carson to their list, because he opposes universal health care.
I am a crackpot
(Score: 3, Insightful) by nukkel on Wednesday October 21 2015, @08:21PM
It's typical leftist behavior. Oh-so-tolerant toward others... as long as those others think exactly like them, of course.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Francis on Wednesday October 21 2015, @08:30PM
The SPLC is not an extremist organization, no matter how you want to view it. The fact that you consider them to be extreme left-wing speaks more about your own biases than theirs. Seriously, look at the list, with a few possible exceptions, these are not organizations that are just having a disagreement with the SPLC, these are people that are actively encouraging hatred and devaluation of people.
Are you seriously suggesting that they listed the KKK because of a minor disagreement? Or how about the Westboro Church? The Family Research Council's main reason for existing is to encourage the oppression of non-Christians and Christians that fail to adhere to their extremist values.
I didn't see a single group on the list that I could identify as being there over a minor policy disagreement.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by curunir_wolf on Wednesday October 21 2015, @10:33PM
The fact that you consider them to be extreme left-wing speaks more about your own biases than theirs.
No, that's bullshit. They are extreme left-wing. To quote:
Seriously, look at the list, with a few possible exceptions, these are not organizations that are just having a disagreement with the SPLC, these are people that are actively encouraging hatred and devaluation of people.
Yes, some of them are. Certainly when they were founded and for many years the SPLC did good work. That time has long passed. Note that many of these groups are insignificant, inactive, often non-groups at all, but as long as they are right-wing SPLC comes up with some justification to add them. They co-mingle actual "hate" groups with Christian groups and other mainstream educational organizations. They will add any non-left group to their list simply for taking a right-wing political position, while ignoring virtually any left-wing groups even with documented history of violent activity.
The Family Research Council's main reason for existing is to encourage the oppression of non-Christians and Christians that fail to adhere to their extremist values.
That's simply false. I'm no fan of the FRC, and won't defend them or their positions, many of which I disagree with. However, they are not a "KKK-like" organization. SPLC lists them as a "hate" group simply for things they SAY (none of which comes anywhere near to the standard of inciting violence). You're wrong that it's not over a policy disagreement - that's ALL it is. Same thing with Ben Carson and many of the Christian groups they target.
I am a crackpot
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Wednesday October 21 2015, @06:51PM
But seriously, this is a P.R. attempt to frame the SPLC as being knights in shining armor akin to the EFF or ACLU.
Is this also a P.R. attempt to lionize the NYU Langone Medical Center and LifeSouth as similar knights in shining armor? We know that those organizations eat baby genitals and torture kittens.
The issue (regardless of who was involved) relates to coercion by the state. If you dislike the SPLC, good for you. Regardless of your personal feelings about the SPLC, the issue in that county courthouse is still one that merits discussion IMHO.
Rejecting the discussion because one of the participants in that discussion isn't to your liking is your privilege, but that doesn't make the discussion less worthwhile. Or are you advocating the restriction of free speech (which is one of the primary arguments against SPLC)? That seems a little disingenuous.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr