|
ver heard of freedom of thoughts?
Another reason why Scientologists and all other people have a right to
sign a waiver refusing psychiatric treatments.
FORCEFUL ADMINISTRATION OF ANTIPSYCHOTIC MEDICATION TO A PRETRIAL
DETAINEE IMPLICATES THE DETAINEE'S FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF
THOUGHT. A court noted in Riggins, 504 U.S. at 134, the invasion of
one's bodily integrity posed by the forcible injection of
antipsychotic medication is particularly severe because the medication
affects not only the body, but the mind as well. See also Harper, 494
U.S. at 229.
The government should not be permitted to forcibly alter a pretrial
detainee's mental functions by the use of antipsychotic medication
unless its action is the least restrictive means by which it may
accomplish a compelling interest. The First Amendment Protects Freedom
of Thought protects persons from government interference with their
thoughts at least as stringently as it protects spoken or written
words.
Courts have held that although the First Amendment directly refers
only to "freedom of speech," it also protects the "freedom of thought"
which is a necessary predicate to the freedom of speech. Texas v.
Johnson, 491 U.S. 397,404 (1989) ("The First Amendment['s] protection
does not end at the spoken or written word."); Abood v. Detroit Ed. of
Ed., 431 U.S. 209 (1977) ("At the heart of the First Amendment is the
notion that an individual should be free to believe as he will, and
that in a free society one's beliefs should be shaped by his mind and
his conscience rather than coerced by the State"); Wooley v. Maynard,
430 U.S. 705 (1977) (holding that a New Hampshire statute mandating
the display of license plates bearing the state motto "Live Free or
Die" violated "the right of freedom of thought protected by the First
Amendment"). In Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 326-27(1937), this
Court recognized that "freedom of thought. .. is the matrix, the
indispensable condition, of nearly every other form of freedom."
Barbara Schwarz (the only real one)
P.S. Postings with e-mail address Barbara_Schwarz@emailaccount.com and
identities "Barbara_Schwarz", "the real Barbara Schwarz de Rothschild"
and "Truth Speaker 2" are not done by me. Those are forgeries of
criminal, Aids infected, gay lunatic Garry Lynn Scarff who is a
fanatical Dave Touretzky defender. Scarff persecutes me from thread to
thread often using my name as identity for those crimes (!) and
verbally assaults me, threatens me, harasses me, sexually harasses me,
tries to intimidate me, libels, insults and lies about me. He also
lied that he spoke to a roomate of mine in the Utah mental health
hospital. I never was in that hospital, but he probably escaped from
one. Scarff is active member of the gay WeHo "church", that according
to Scarff applaudes Scarffs lawless behavior against me. An ex-WeHo
member wrote me that this "church" sanctions and promotes dishonorable
behavior and that he and his friends were raped and drugged by one of
their active members, and that one of their active members murdered
others under the guise of "drug overdose". The ex-WeHo wrote that the
gay men make sexual innuendo during sermon and "church" leadership
doesn't see what's wrong with that.
Barbara Graham Warr, self-proclaimed "caplain" of the A.R.S. newsgroup
and snakepit, another David Touretzky promoter, is a DUI offender and
pleaded guilty to possession and manufacturing of prohibited weapon
under California penal code. She congratulated the WeHo "congregation"
accepting Scarff's criminal behaviors against me. However, she posted
before that there is no God. She also posts with stolen identity de
Rothschild. - For more, click on the below links.
----------------------------------------------
Linda Anderson
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/andersenl1.html
Gerald Armstrong
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/armstrong1.html
Jim Beebe
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/beebej1.html
Graham Berry
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/berry.html
David Bird
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/birdd1.html
Tory Christman
http://religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/christmant4.html
Ursula Caberta
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/caberta.html
Ida Camburn
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/camburn1.html
Joe Cisar
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/cisarj1.html
Robert Clark
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/clark1.html
Elizabeth Ann Cox
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/coxea1.html
Mark Dallara
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/dallara1.html
Alexander Dvorkin
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/dvorkin1.html
Valerie Emanuel
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/emanuelv1.html
Steven Fishman
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/fishman1.html
Vickki Ford Cook
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/fordv1.html
Phil Georgi
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/jacobsen6.html
Scott Goehring
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/goehrings1.html
Roger Gonnet
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/gonnet1.html
Barbara Graham
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/graham1.html
Gregg Hagglund
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/hagglund1.html
Steve Hassan
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/false_exp/hassan1.html
Tilman Hausherr
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/hauser1.html
Andreas Heldal-Lund
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/lund1.html
Keith Henson
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/henson1.html
Deana Holmes
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/holmes1.html
Jeff Jacobsen
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/jacobsen1.html
Patrick Jost
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/jost1.html
Charlotte Kates
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/katesc1.html
Rod Keller
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/keller1.html
Steven Kent
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/false_exp/kent1.html
Arnie Lerma
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/lerma1.html
Joe Lynn
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/lynn1.html
Ted Mayett
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/mayett1.html
Frank Oliver
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/oliver.html
Kady O'Malley
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/omalley1.html
Zenon Panoussis
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/panoussis1.html
Ted Patrick
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/false_exp/patrick1.html
Michael Pattinson
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/pattinsonm1.html
Robert Peterson
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/peterson1.html
Bruce/Kathleen Pettycrew
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.or
|
| |
| |
On 27 Jan 2004 08:33:16 -0800, ARS-is-a-cult@myway.com (The only true
Barbara Schwarz - other postings with my name are forgeries) wrote:
Ever heard of freedom of thoughts?
Why don't you take your medication like a good little psycho?
Now then.
Please produce your evidence that claims I "wish to kill FBI agents,"
as you claim. What the @$#* are you waiting for? How many hundreds of
times must I ask for you to prove your claim?
--
"To the bat tank!" --- Tank Girl
Asking a Creationist for scientific evidence is like asking a hippo to ride
a unicycle.
|
| |
| |
desertphile@cchr.ws (Rev. Desertphile) wrote in message news:<bv6r68$ok13v$9@ID-197010.news.uni-berlin.de>...
On 27 Jan 2004 08:33:16 -0800, ARS-is-a-cult@myway.com (The only true
Barbara Schwarz - other postings with my name are forgeries) wrote:
Why don't you take your medication like a good little psycho?
Now then.
Please produce your evidence that claims I "wish to kill FBI agents,"
as you claim. What the @$#* are you waiting for? How many hundreds of
times must I ask for you to prove your claim?
Stand in line, god dammit. Wait your turn! I'm still waiting for a
promised ride on the secret Nazi German submarine docked underwater in
Salt Lake.
How about it, Barbara? :-)
|
| |
| |
Ever heard of freedom of thoughts?
Sure we have. We have the freedom to believe you are a pussy-whipping,
ape-raping, crotch-licking, dick-munching, zit-nibbling, cunt-brained
@$#*tard!
Answer your questions?
|
| |
| |
The only true Barbara Schwarz - other postings with my name are forgeries
wrote:
Ever heard of freedom of thoughts?
Another reason why Scientologists and all other people have a right to
sign a waiver refusing psychiatric treatments.
FORCEFUL ADMINISTRATION OF ANTIPSYCHOTIC MEDICATION TO A PRETRIAL
DETAINEE IMPLICATES THE DETAINEE'S FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF
THOUGHT. A court noted in Riggins, 504 U.S. at 134, the invasion of
one's bodily integrity posed by the forcible injection of
antipsychotic medication is particularly severe because the medication
affects not only the body, but the mind as well. See also Harper, 494
U.S. at 229.
I haven't even checked this out, but if it is
real it would be a very strange decision.
The US Supreme court has repeatedly found that
freedom of speech applies only to political speech,
so there is no right to engage in psychotic
ramblings, thus no right to this so called
"freedom of thought" if the thought you are
talking about is psychosis.
|
| |
| |
thisisme wrote:
I haven't even checked this out, but if it is
real it would be a very strange decision.
The US Supreme court has repeatedly found that
freedom of speech applies only to political speech,
False. (My apologies for the crossposting.)
|
| |
| |
thisisme <thisisme@cotse.net> wrote in
news:dGhpc2lzbWU=.ccf373372db208ec68e6d2fcb5fe2fc5@1075315386.nulluser.com:
I haven't even checked this out, but if it is
real it would be a very strange decision.
The US Supreme court has repeatedly found that
freedom of speech applies only to political speech,
so there is no right to engage in psychotic
ramblings, thus no right to this so called
"freedom of thought" if the thought you are
talking about is psychosis.
I trhink it's application is somewhat broader than that. Anyway, as long as
you're not hurting anyone else why should it matter if your words or
beliefs meed with approval or not? 'Psychotic' is a subjective term.
FWIW, I've heard the term 'psychotic' applied even to explicitly political
opinions (usually as a sneaky means of gaining the upper hand in a debate
or of deliberately invalidating someone else's perspectives in the absence
of fact).
|
| |
| |
On 27 Jan 2004 22:49:09 -0800, Haywood_Yablowme@excite.com (Papa
Boner) wrote:
desertphile@cchr.ws (Rev. Desertphile) wrote in message news:<bv6r68$ok13v$9@ID-197010.news.uni-berlin.de>...
On 27 Jan 2004 08:33:16 -0800, ARS-is-a-cult@myway.com (The only true
Barbara Schwarz - other postings with my name are forgeries) wrote:
Ever heard of freedom of thoughts?
Why don't you take your medication like a good little psycho?
Now then.
Please produce your evidence that claims I "wish to kill FBI agents,"
as you claim. What the @$#* are you waiting for? How many hundreds of
times must I ask for you to prove your claim?
Stand in line, god dammit. Wait your turn! I'm still waiting for a
promised ride on the secret Nazi German submarine docked underwater in
Salt Lake.
Yeah, like *THAT* is also gonna happen! (LOL!) Unfortunately, her
claiming Nazis rule the world isn't slander and libel: her claiming I
posted in USENET that I "wish to kill FBI agents" *IS* slander and
libel. (It's her sexual fantasies spilling out into the real world,
and she's made me a part of that fantasy for some crazy reason.) I
have asked the Salt Lake City authorities to see if they can provide
her with mental health care, and then deport her back to Germany. I
would not want her to be sent home the raving lunatic she is: the USA
already has a horrible reputation.
How about it, Barbara? :-)
--
"To the bat tank!" --- Tank Girl
Asking a Creationist for scientific evidence is like asking a hippo to ride
a unicycle.
|
| |
| |
On 27 Jan 2004 22:53:16 -0800, Haywood_Yablowme@excite.com (Papa
Boner) wrote:
Ever heard of freedom of thoughts?
Psycho-Barb would like to have people believe she believes that when a
Scientology customer signs a waiver, they no longer have human rights.
*WRONG!* No one can sign away one's human rights; rights can be
denied, but never taken away. Being tortured and killed, like Lisa
McPherson was (http://holysmoke.org/lm/lm.htm) by her Scientology
"friends," is not a "freedom of thought" issue: it's a homicide and
human rights issue.
Sure we have. We have the freedom to believe you are a pussy-whipping,
ape-raping, crotch-licking, dick-munching, zit-nibbling, cunt-brained
@$#*tard!
Please don't hold any thing back: tell her how you *REALLY* feel about
her.
Answer your questions?
In the half-year or so I've asked her for evidence of her Nazi claims,
she has consistantly refused to provide any. Don't hold your breath
waiting for it.
--
"To the bat tank!" --- Tank Girl
Asking a Creationist for scientific evidence is like asking a hippo to ride
a unicycle.
|
| |
| |
desertphile@cchr.ws (Rev. Desertphile) wrote in message news:<bv9g41$pviu0$1@ID-197010.news.uni-berlin.de>...
On 27 Jan 2004 22:49:09 -0800, Haywood_Yablowme@excite.com (Papa
Boner) wrote:
On 27 Jan 2004 08:33:16 -0800, ARS-is-a-cult@myway.com (The only true
Barbara Schwarz - other postings with my name are forgeries) wrote:
Ever heard of freedom of thoughts?
Why don't you take your medication like a good little psycho?
Now then.
Please produce your evidence that claims I "wish to kill FBI agents,"
as you claim. What the @$#* are you waiting for? How many hundreds of
times must I ask for you to prove your claim?
Yeah, like *THAT* is also gonna happen! (LOL!) Unfortunately, her
claiming Nazis rule the world isn't slander and libel: her claiming I
posted in USENET that I "wish to kill FBI agents" *IS* slander and
libel. (It's her sexual fantasies spilling out into the real world,
and she's made me a part of that fantasy for some crazy reason.) I
have asked the Salt Lake City authorities to see if they can provide
her with mental health care, and then deport her back to Germany. I
would not want her to be sent home the raving lunatic she is: the USA
already has a horrible reputation.
And what makes you think Germany *wants* the problem skank, back??
|
| |
| |
desertphile@cchr.ws (Rev. Desertphile) wrote in message news:<bv9g9u$pviu0$2@ID-197010.news.uni-berlin.de>...
On 27 Jan 2004 22:53:16 -0800, Haywood_Yablowme@excite.com (Papa
Boner) wrote:
Ever heard of freedom of thoughts?
Psycho-Barb would like to have people believe she believes that when a
Scientology customer signs a waiver, they no longer have human rights.
*WRONG!* No one can sign away one's human rights; rights can be
denied, but never taken away. Being tortured and killed, like Lisa
McPherson was (http://holysmoke.org/lm/lm.htm) by her Scientology
"friends," is not a "freedom of thought" issue: it's a homicide and
human rights issue.
Please don't hold any thing back: tell her how you *REALLY* feel about
her.
In the half-year or so I've asked her for evidence of her Nazi claims,
she has consistantly refused to provide any. Don't hold your breath
waiting for it.
I'm still waiting for a lawsuit complaint and summons she promised to
send me last September. I'm thinking she probably put the complaint in
a bottle, corked it, and tossed it into Salt Lake hoping the tides and
the wakes made from all those German Nazi secret submarines would
eventually float the bottle to me in L.A.
|
| |
| |
hisisme <thisisme@cotse.net> wrote in message news:<dGhpc2lzbWU=.ccf373372db208ec68e6d2fcb5fe2fc5@1075315386.nulluser.com>...
The only true Barbara Schwarz - other postings with my name are forgeries
wrote:
I haven't even checked this out, but if it is
real it would be a very strange decision.
The US Supreme court has repeatedly found that
freedom of speech applies only to political speech,
so there is no right to engage in psychotic
ramblings, thus no right to this so called
"freedom of thought" if the thought you are
talking about is psychosis.
Where are those Supreme Court decisions exactly? Post the case titles,
Mike.
You are so wrong. It doesn't matter what a person is thinking and
rambling, as long as the person does not violate any laws, she has a
right to her thoughts and opinions and nobody is allowed to take it
away from her.
Moreover, we know that psychiatry is no science but a junk "science".
They Should not determine what are wrong and right thoughts.
Barbara Schwarz (the only real one)
P.S. Postings with e-mail address Barbara_Schwarz@emailaccount.com and
identities "Barbara_Schwarz", "the real Barbara Schwarz de Rothschild"
and "Truth Speaker 2" are not done by me. Those are forgeries of
criminal, Aids infected, gay lunatic Garry Lynn Scarff who is a
fanatical Dave Touretzky defender. Scarff persecutes me from thread to
thread often using my name as identity for those crimes (!) and
verbally assaults me, threatens me, harasses me, sexually harasses me,
tries to intimidate me, libels, insults and lies about me. He also
lied that he spoke to a roomate of mine in the Utah mental health
hospital. I never was in that hospital, but he probably escaped from
one. Scarff is active member of the gay WeHo "church", that according
to Scarff applaudes Scarffs lawless behavior against me. An ex-WeHo
member wrote me that this "church" sanctions and promotes dishonorable
behavior and that he and his friends were raped and drugged by one of
their active members, and that one of their active members murdered
others under the guise of "drug overdose". The ex-WeHo wrote that the
gay men make sexual innuendo during sermon and "church" leadership
doesn't see what's wrong with that.
Frederic Rice, another fierce David Touretzky defender, posted also
with the stolen identity de Rothschild. He is as little a de
Rothschild as a dirty slimy and greasy punch bag is an impressive man.
He threatened governmental officials over the Internet, wants to
celebrate when both President Bush's are dead and has tips on his
website on how to kill bikers.
His brother David Rice, posts with "Dr." or "Reverend" Desertphile and
also with the stolen identity de Rothschild. He suggested to kill
members of the FBI. (Go to www.religiousfreedom.watch.org, the
extremist pages on David Touretzky, page 9, his connections and click
on the PDF file.) Dave Rice also posted a long time with the identity
"Prozac filled gay terrorist psycho", which tells a lot about him.
Barbara Graham Warr, self-proclaimed "caplain" of the A.R.S. newsgroup
and snakepit, another David Touretzky promoter, is a DUI offender and
pleaded guilty to possession and manufacturing of prohibited weapon
under California penal code. She congratulated the WeHo "congregation"
accepting Scarff's criminal behaviors against me. However, she posted
before that there is no God. She also posts with stolen identity de
Rothschild. - For more, click on the below links.
----------------------------------------------
Linda Anderson
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/andersenl1.html
Gerald Armstrong
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/armstrong1.html
Jim Beebe
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/beebej1.html
Graham Berry
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/berry.html
David Bird
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/birdd1.html
Tory Christman
http://religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/christmant4.html
Ursula Caberta
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/caberta.html
Ida Camburn
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/camburn1.html
Joe Cisar
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/cisarj1.html
Robert Clark
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/clark1.html
Elizabeth Ann Cox
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/coxea1.html
Mark Dallara
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/dallara1.html
Alexander Dvorkin
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/dvorkin1.html
Valerie Emanuel
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/emanuelv1.html
Steven Fishman
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/fishman1.html
Vickki Ford Cook
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/fordv1.html
Phil Georgi
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/jacobsen6.html
Scott Goehring
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/goehrings1.html
Roger Gonnet
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/gonnet1.html
Barbara Graham
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/graham1.html
Gregg Hagglund
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/hagglund1.html
Steve Hassan
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/false_exp/hassan1.html
Tilman Hausherr
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/hauser1.html
Andreas Heldal-Lund
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/lund1.html
Keith Henson
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/henson1.html
Deana Holmes
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/holmes1.html
Jeff Jacobsen
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/jacobsen1.html
Patrick Jost
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/jost1.html
Charlotte Kates
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/katesc1.html
Rod Keller
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/keller1.html
Steven Kent
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/false_exp/kent1.html
Arnie Lerma
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/lerma1.html
Joe Lynn
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/lynn1.html
Ted Mayett
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/mayett1.html
Frank Oliver
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/oliver.html
Kady O'Malley
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/om
|
| |
| |
B.L. Zebub wrote:
thisisme <thisisme@cotse.net> wrote in
news:dGhpc2lzbWU=.ccf373372db208ec68e6d2fcb5fe2fc5@1075315386.nulluser.com:
I trhink it's application is somewhat broader than that. Anyway, as long
as
you're not hurting anyone else why should it matter if your words or
beliefs meed with approval or not? 'Psychotic' is a subjective term.
Personally, I dont think it should matter,
and I agree that psychotic is a subjective term,
but then again I'm not the legislature, supreme court,
and president rolled into one.
FWIW, I've heard the term 'psychotic' applied even to explicitly
political
opinions (usually as a sneaky means of gaining the upper hand in a
debate
or of deliberately invalidating someone else's perspectives in the
absence
of fact).
Of course we could try to make a law against that sort
of thing but then ... ... ...
|
| |
| |
The only true Barbara Schwarz - other postings with my name are forgeries
wrote:
thisisme <thisisme@cotse.net> wrote in message
news:<dGhpc2lzbWU=.ccf373372db208ec68e6d2fcb5fe2fc5@1075315386.nulluser.com
...
Where are those Supreme Court decisions exactly? Post the case titles,
Mike.
I admit there may be an issue here, but really
unimportant. The SCOTUS has said its OK to ban
speech if it is: Obscene, libelous, seditious,
harms a trade secret, and lots of other stuff.
And of course gag orders are OK.
So the glass really is half full instead of
half empty.
But it still doesn't matter to the main argument,
because the judge certainly can ban psychotic
behavior (and speech) in court.
You are so wrong. It doesn't matter what a person is thinking and
rambling, as long as the person does not violate any laws, she has a
right to her thoughts and opinions and nobody is allowed to take it
away from her.
It certainly does matter if a person is rambling
in court. Which a psychotic person would be doing.
|
| |
| |
Barbara Schwarz wrote:
<...>
Moreover, we know that psychiatry is no science but a junk "science".
<...>
Warum immer diese vllig unlogischen Verschreiber? Immer wenn
Psychobarbie 'Scientology' schreiben will, schreibt sie in ihrer
geistigen Verwirrung (an der eben diese 'Scientology' massgeblich Schuld
trgt) 'Psychiatrie' :-)
Peter
--
Peter Widmer <pwidmer@quicknet.ch>
3802 Waldegg <http://www.pewid.ch>
|
| |
| |
hisisme <thisisme@cotse.net> wrote in message news:<dGhpc2lzbWU=.48fc5471fdf234c335cc72861062bd57@1075417697.nulluser.com>...
The only true Barbara Schwarz - other postings with my name are forgeries
wrote:
news:<dGhpc2lzbWU=.ccf373372db208ec68e6d2fcb5fe2fc5@1075315386.nulluser.com
I admit there may be an issue here, but really
unimportant.
It is not unimportant. I found Supreme Court and other court opinions
against forceful treatments of people:
The detrimental effects of antipsychotic drugs alter the patient's
thought processes and ability to think and reason. (No wonder so many
posters post wild illogical text!)
The fact that antipsychotic drugs are intended to benefit a patient
(and I personally doubt that they were developed with good intentions)
by restoring "normal" thought processes should not reduce the level of
scrutiny where the government seeks to forcibly administer these
agents. As Justice Brandeis warned in Olmstead v.U.S., 277 U.S.
438,479 (1928) (Brandeis, J., Concurring):
Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty
when the Government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are
naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded
rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment
by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.
More recently, several members of this Court have affirmed that
judicial scrutiny of government's intrusion on individuals' rights is
not lessened merely because the government asserts benevolent motives.
In Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200, 226 (1995), this
Court held that strict scrutiny applies to racial classifications by
the government even where the racial classification is "benign."
Justice Thomas dismissed the notion that any lesser standard of review
should be applied to actions which the government claimed were
well-meaning:
That these programs have been motivated, in part, by good intentions
cannot provide refuge from the principle thatunder our Constitution,
the government may not make distinctions on the basis of race.
Adarand Constructors, 515 U.S. at 240 (Thomas, J., concurring).
Several years earlier, Justice O'Connor, joined by Chief Justice
Rehnquist and Justices Scalia and Kennedy, criticized the Court's
lesser standard of review for "benign racial classifications,"
stating, "the Court's emphasis on 'benign racial classifications'
suggests confidence in its ability to distinguish good from harmful
uses of racial criteria. History should teach greater humility." Metro
Broadcasting, Inc. v. FCC, 497 U.S. 547,609 (1990) (O'Connor, J.,
dissenting). See also Mississippi Univ.for Women v. Hogan, 458 U.S.
718, 723 (1982) (That a statute discriminated against males rather
than females "does not exempt it from scrutiny or reduce the standard
of review.")
Moreover, lowering the bar for the government to forcibly administer
mind-altering drugs to an individual where it does so to "restore
normalcy" would require courts to make the historically elusive and
dubious distinction between normal and abnormal thoughts. What
constitutes normal mental processes is necessarily subjective and
changes over time. No objective definition of normalcy can be
identified by which courts can differentiate between well-intended and
ill-intended forced injections of individuals with antipsychotic
medications. For example, as recently as the late 1980's Soviet
psychiatrists used antipsychotic medication to "treat" individuals for
"delusions of reformism" and "anti-Soviet thoughts." Richard J. Bonnie
& Svetlana v. Polubinskaya, Unraveling Soviet Psychiatry, 10 J.
CONTEMP. LEGAL ISSUES 279, 282-83 (1999). Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S.
200,207 (1927) with Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535,541 (1942)
(criticizing rationale of Buck). In view of the jurisprudential
lessons of history in this area, the Court should avoid making itself
the final arbiter for what are normal or abnormal thoughts. Such would
come perilously close to the government prescribed orthodoxy of
thought that this Court refuted in West Virginia v. Barnette, 319 U.S.
624, 642 (1943).
Well what does this mean? It means that the posters that scream that a
person should take anti-psychotic medicine, as they don't agree with
her views and opinions, is at heart and mind nothing but an old and
moldy Soviet, a communist, as invented by the Germans.
Hey, if a person is rambling in court, the court might just order an
attorney to assist that person. And most of the time it are the
attorneys that are rambling :)
As far as hate and obscene speech is concerned, I have psychs not seen
doing much against that. But if somebody causes violence through hate
speech, incarceration is the right remedy, but drugging the person and
ruining his body and mind is not the way to go. Moreover, most people
that are getting those drugs are harmless. They may just talk
nonsense, but would not harm a fly. And psychs have no right to force
the drugs onto them.
Barbara Schwarz (the only real one)
P.S. Postings with e-mail address Barbara_Schwarz@emailaccount.com and
identities "Barbara_Schwarz", "the real Barbara Schwarz de Rothschild"
and "Truth Speaker 2" are not done by me. Those are forgeries of
criminal, Aids infected, gay lunatic Garry Lynn Scarff who is a
fanatical Dave Touretzky defender. Scarff persecutes me from thread to
thread often using my name as identity for those crimes (!) and
verbally assaults me, threatens me, harasses me, se
|
| |
| |
It is not unimportant. I found Supreme Court and other court opinions
against forceful treatments of people:
Indeed being forced to attend a trial is a forceful treatment.
You would rather be off in a field somewhere picking petunais,
but instead your very person is seized by les gendarmes and
you are trotted off to court. Yuch. But that's the way it is.
|
| |
| |
|
