OPINION Decision on RICO law means little in abortion battle Martin Fishf.r "Convictions nrr more date gerous enemies of truth than lies "— Friedrich Nietzsche By now you've probably hoard about the Supreme Court's abortion ruling Monday, allowing anti-abortion protesters to be sued under fed ural racketeering laws (called RICO). If you're like most peo ple. you probably have at least one of the two following ques »tions on your mind: 1) What is RICO? and; 2) What does Mon day's decision really mean? RICO is the Racketeer Influ enced Corrupt Organizations Act. a piece of l‘)7i)s legislation that was originally intended to provide a powerful weapon in the fight against organized crime. In a nutshell, a RICO violation requires engaging in any one of a broad list of offenses, including mail fraud, securities fraud and interference in commerce, at least twice There also inusi lx? a threat of continued violations If found liable under RICO, the guilty party must pay threefold damages So what does this have to do with abortion? In the usual sense in which discussions of abortion occur, not much. Mon day's decision makes no men tion of the right to choose, and in fact makes virtually no men tion of abortion other than to describe the activities of those involved in the suit Perhaps it would help at this point to put the case in some perspective. The suit involves the National Organization for Women and couple of abortion clinics and a number of uuti ahortion activists and organiza tions. The claim is that the activists' blockading of clinics and terrorizing of employees and patients has caused the i lin ics economic damages (spec ifi callv. they are charged with vio lating the Hobbs Act. which has to do with extortion) The suit goes on to claim that the repetitive nature of the offenses is sufficient to justify a RICO claim. The suit was dis missed by an Illinois district court and the dismissal was upheld by the Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit The reason for the dismissal was that the t ourts lielieved that for a RKX) i Iflim to bo valid, th»> offending parts must have l»>t>n staking some economic: benefit. The courts decided the anti abortion groups were not milk ing money by blockading i Un its, and thus there could he no RICO claim All the Supreme Court said Monday was that a RICO action does not require the defendant to have sought economu benefit from the otherwise illegal ncti\ its It then reinstated the low suit. which will now go to trial Pro-choice advocates are already claiming victory, and the decision is being heralded as placing a potent new weapon in the pro-c hoice arsenal Howev er, suc h proclamations are pre mature All the Court said is that a RICO suil may bo brought against % mlators who don't gain monetarily from their ac tions. The success of such a suit remains to be seen. And in fact, the sure ess of such an action was questioned by justices Souter and Kennedy. who in a concurring opinion pointed out that sue h a suit mnv not survive a First Amendment challenge It will be a number of years before the question is resolved, and eventually this case will all hut assuredly return to the Supreme Court on i First Amendment question Activists lire already claiming the dec i mod si i fles their efforts to protest at abortion clinics It does no such thing Rather, it stifles their efforts to inflict eco nomic damage on a clinic by blocking access, harassing patients and destroy ing proper ty In issues of free speech, the courts have tried hard to distin guish between speet h and action Molding a sign and chanting slogans outside a c Un it is speech Physic ally restrict mg access and vandalism are actions It is the latter at tivities that are the basis for this lacs suit, and it is unlikely that those activities will ho considered protes ted speech If pigeon-holing people into categories like- "liberal" and "conservative'' is how you get your ku ks. then you might be interested to know that Mon day's derision will do more to interfere with "liberal" activists than with "conservative" activists Groups such as PITA. Green peac e and Knrth First! are now w ide open to RICO suits, only a couple of whic h would be required to liankrupt an organi zation For example, tree spiking causes et onomic harm, and thus will expose offenders to RIGO suits Interferenc e with fishing vessels could create a Kil l) action. In short, every activist group would lie wise to re-evaluate its protest methods to ensure that they do not expose themselves to a potentially devastating law suit. It is worth noting that Mon day's decision was unanimous This is not a case of the "lilieral" Court furthering the Clinton agenda of baby killing, as some anti abortion cliques are claim ing The dei ision was written hv Chief Justice William Rehnquist, not exactly the poster child for liberal causes Rather, this is a case of the court say mg that those who vio late the law i annot escape lia hihty liecause they are political ly or morally motivated instead of liemg ei onomicallv driven. No one is suggesting that anti abortion protesters cannot con tinue to protest at clinics, and if their moral values require them to do so. they should he given tiie same degree of reaper t as anti-war or environmental pro testers if the suit is suci essful. it will send a powerful message to all who would protest You may say yvliat you like, hut you will tie held responsible for your ai turns, "moral'' or otherrvise Miirtin hshitr is a iolii/nno-l for thi' i merald LETTERS Placing blame When people experience feel ings in themselves with which they're uncomfortable. they con demn th.it whit h reminds them of those feelings. The OCA reminds people of hatred they feel inside, and peo ple blame the OCA for the expe rience of hatred This is paral leled by OCA members who blame homosexuals, who remind them of the feeling of hatred. Helen Posey [ODE. |an. 25) is reminded of the feeling of hatred by other people's belief in God. Il is easy to deny one s own hatred In blaming those who remind one of it. however, it's difficult to take responsibility for feelings one has that don't feel good. Some .ire so afraid of facing feelings that they try to make laws to prohibit expression that reminds them of how they feel To avoid feelings, barriers to free expression have been creat ed To illustrate this point. 1 offer some free expression; hvery week they added to the list of regulations One for every occasion which might make them feel The very things about themselves for which they lacked acceptance They continued their insis tenet* that thev were fitting real Pointing fingers uutwnrdi) detached from their weak spots It was always others, not themselves, from which the problems came l or if thev felt each circumstance, they'd touch where they aren't happy I he feelings there are "cruppv." so they stick with rules and blame Jeffrey Oswald Eugene Offensive This is a reply to the letter from Helen Posev (ODE. )an 15) regarding her opinion that Iwlief in God is the cause ol intoler ance such as that shown by the OCA. anti-abortion organiza tions and the anti-( ivil rights groups First you are wrong Many religious people do not agree with the doctrines held by these groups and very likely there are non-religious people yvho do. Belief in a divine being has nothing to do with intolerant behavior It is unfortunate that there are a number of people who claim God is the basis for their OW'D intolerance Second, no one is requiring you to believe in God In this country, we have freedom of religion. The University did not LETTERS The Oregon Daily Emerald will attempt to print all letters containing comments on topics of interest to the University community. Letters to the editor must be limited to no more than 250 words, legible, signed and the identifuation of tho writer must be verified when the letter is submitted. The Emerald reserves the right to edit any letter for length or style. ask VOU to profess ,1 belief I!) God to bei uiiiii a student or to hold a job, did it"' Nor will it prevent someone else from dis cussing their beliefs with regard to (iod or religion Finally your letter is offen sive That’s right, offensive When you publicly denigrate something that many people cherish and dw lure it "silliness'' to believe in such a thing, you are being offensive, as well as intolerant You could have stat ed your opinion in a much nit er way. If I muv rephrase a sentence from your letter "Until people dump intoler ance along with the rest of their K