Any news on the Bartmess case? - Page 21

Yes, thanks Hexe. At this point, it is what it is. No additional arguing is going to change the minds of who think it is OK for Janice Bartmess to be allowed on any forum. To not sell her a dog because she's a dog abuser,  but allow her to speak freely? Pure hipocrisy!

Wow everyone... just wow. 

Its Hans' forum.  He calls the shots.  If you do not like the people or the content of a particular forum, you have the right to NOT look at that forum and to go on to another.  Nothing is forcing you to spare any of your precious time on reading the remarks of a person you dont like. 

It seems what many of you would prefer is self imposed censorship.  "I dont like this person, or what they are saying, so therefore he/she should not be allowed to say it!".  Guess what people!  you do NOT have the right to NOT be offended.  Instead of growing the hell up and putting content into perspective for yourselves, you would prefer to infantilize yourselves and have the content censored so that you dont have to do deal with being offended.  Its really a pathetic state of mind to be in. 

Ive seen the argument that she shouldnt have any freedom of speech because shes a convicted criminal and an animal abuser.  If you are standing behind that mode of thinking, then I would tell you that your argument is not with Hans.  Your argument is with the government.  Go take it up with them.  When the Constitution is amended to disqualify convicted criminals from having 1st amendment rights, then your argument will have some merit to it. 

Censorship is not the answer to dealing with unpopular people and opinions.  Thats how freedom dies.  Just look at history and you will see that censorship is usually one of the first steps taken when a tyrannical organization takes power.  Look at Nazi Germany, the theocratic dictatorships in the middle east, and almost all communist countries.  They all relied/rely on censorship to keep the masses in check and to strip away individual freedoms. 

I applaud Hans for not barring this vile, disgusting, pitiful excuse of a human being from his forum.  At least someone in this country hasnt forgotten the principles on which this country was founded on and thrived under. 

Convicted criminals do have strictures on their Constitutional rights, including the First Amendment: their right to vote is taken away, their right to association, privacy, movement, own guns, etc,depending (often) on their crimes.

Well, this issue is right up there with solving the Israeli/Palestine boarder problem. 

The only way to solve it now is to get Janice Bartmess behind bars. 

I am in awe that anyone thinks that banning that woman is interfering with her right to free speech.  

Perhaps she should be on a forum for the caregivers of the elderly?  

Hans, like it or not, by allowing her a voice on your board you are giving your approval to what she did and what she will do again just as soon as she has a chance.

The KKK has the right to assemble.    However they will not assemble on my property.  And they will not have a presence on any medium that I am a part of, let alone own.

Hi agates1, welcome to the board!  :

First off, you don't get to cherry pick if you are going to use a 1st Amendment  argument.  If you are going to say the forum should allow Janice Bartmess to post because to censor her would be in violation of the 1st Amendment, then you don't get to censor all cursing, and you don't get to censor personal attacks because those are also protected under the 1st amendment.

Secondly it's not even a 1st Amendment issue because it is a private message board, and having limited membership on a private message board does not violate the 1st Amendment or the right to free speech.  This brings us to your argument that it's Han's board to do with as he pleases, which pretty much everyone has already said, but this argument nullifies your 1st Amendment argument, you can't have it both ways.  This also goes back to my question about allowing the Joseph Mengela's and the Richard Allen Davis's of the world membership if they so desired.

Third, what many of us are talking to Hans about is what we see as a responsibility to protect the dogs.  If you think we are asking Hans to ban Janice as a member just because we don't like her or what she has to say, then you do not have a complete grasp of the situation, this has nothing to do with popularity.

Janice Bartmess has now not only been arrested for mistreating MORE dogs, she has escalated to torturing and abusing her own mother.   Many of us feel she was able to get her hands on more dogs by duping naive people who found her via her many postings on the internet.  She is able to seduce these people because she is extremely knowledgeable.   During the past 10 years she has resurfaced on this board and others, many times with with little to no argument from members.   The result of which is she gets her hands on more dogs.  That is what we are trying to prevent. 

If you feel preventing more dogs from ending up in her hands is less important than handing Janice Bartmess another platform, well I have no argument for that.    If that's the case, you are entitled to your opinion, just make no mistake, this has nothing to do with the 1st Amendment.

Agates,
Another poster that doesn't get it.  The Nazis succeeded because people stood by and did not object to the evil and cruelty.  Your right this country is based on people speaking up for what they believe is right.  That is what we are doing so no one ever forgets and it doesn't happen again.  If Hans wants to allow known convicted animal abusers on his forum, he most certainly can.  Why any animal lover would allow that baffles me. 

I'm finished commenting on Hans and his forum. 

Excellent post, Jim. Had ten or twenty thousand Germans spoken out, rather than stand by, we can only wonder what might have been avoided or prevented. Going along to get along has never served anything but self-interest.

mobjack Said:
IMO, your question to Jim is not fair even though it is a very good question. It seems you don't understand or know that Jim IS a LEO and a K9 officer. It's about like asking what a soldier would do if ordered to do something.


 
 Ace did not say soldier he said LEO( Law enforcement officer). LEO if he is forced to do something immoral can always quit. As a matter of fact there were soldiers who also quit. Huge amount of Czech army did not want to fight in WW 1 for Germans and a Austro Hungarian empire and they deserted by tens of thousands undetr possible penalty of execution. That was their moral choice..
Do you actually think that being moral and ethical through out of the life is easy? No it is not easy it is very difficult and oftern people are killed for doing the right thing.  
mobjack and 4pack
 That defense which you are suggesting  ( I was just following orders) was the exact defense in Nuremberg trial and it did not work. Many got executed.

Prager Hans
 
  

 "LEO if he is forced to do something immoral can always quit."

You worked for the Czechoslovakian state dog breeding program, correct?  Weren't some of those dogs then used to help the state oppress the citizenry?  

"Do you actually think that being moral and ethical through out of the life is easy?"

Not at all, which is why I raise the point above.  And I'm not saying I would have done any differently had I been in your circumstances, either.  But if we are looking at morality in terms of absolutes, then the mirror is often the best, if not the most comfortable, place to start.