BREAKING NEWS!!!!! A real shocker

[nat4900]

the holder of the sign is another example

of how dangerous and unsound islam is

Lots of crazies out there, right jon?

 

[nat4900]

besides the crusades came about to expel the dangerous and unsound invaders

the Islamist extremists

then as now islam is dangerous to free peoples all over the world

Yet another illiterate and uneducated right winger....Nothing new.

 

[nat4900]

Pamela Geller exposed what a lie it is to say " Islam is the religion of peace"

I believe the same exact quote as the above was stated by Saladin about Christianity during the Crusades launched by Richard the Lionheart.....

Does that "elevate" or debase Geller?

What a maroon, Richard the Lionheart wasn't even alive when the first Crusade took place.

--LOL

Hey jon....if you didn't have dyslexia and a low IQ you'd see that the moron sassy was rebuked....Ask a grown up to help you.

 

[Spare_change]

Am I allowed to crank call the police? Call in bom b threats to Burger King? Can I tell people on a plane that I have dynamite? It seems that there are limits on free speech. Why not here?

Threats of violence is not free speech.

Actually, it is .... missed that boat, huh?

Uhm no it's not...sit down

Threats of Violence Against Individuals
Threats of Violence Against Individuals.—The Supreme Court has cited three “reasons why threats of violence are outside the First Amendment”: “protecting individuals from the fear of violence, from the disruption that fear engenders, and from the possibility that the threatened violence will occur.”980 In Watts v. United States, however, the Court held that only “true” threats are outside the First Amendment.981 The defendant in Watts, at a public rally at which he was expressing his opposition to the military draft, said, “If they ever make me carry a rifle, the first man I want to get in my sights is L.B.J.”982 He was convicted of violating a federal statute that prohibited “any threat to take the life of or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States.” The Supreme Court reversed. Interpreting the statute “with the commands of the First Amendment clearly in mind,”983 it found that the defendant had not made a “true ‘threat,”’ but had indulged in mere “political hyperbole.”984

Threats of Violence Against Individuals First Amendment--Religion and Expression US Constitution US Codes and Statutes US Law Justia

You are applying a broad definition to a very narrow issue ...

Unless a 'threat' consists of direct communication, and has a credible potential of being executed, it does not constitute a 'true' threat. In short, I can tell you here that I am going to kick your butt, but because it does not have a credible potential of being executed, it does not qualify. I can stand in front of your apartment house and shout that I am going to kick your butt. I can even stand in the hallway outside your apartment and yell, but until I attempt to breach the door, I have violated no laws. (You MIGHT be able to find some esoteric nuisance law, but even then, probably not.)

Even the example you give is not a general example - but one a direct threat in violation of a specific law - was not upheld. Getting such a conviction is virtually impossible - see all the domestic violations in which verbal threats are thrown out. Typically, verbal threats are used in court to establish mood and intent of the suspect, but not for prosecution of some law. In fact, I will say that I have never seen a verbal threat prosecuted, and I suspect you won't find anyone else who has. In those few cases in which verbal comments have been used, they are executed as assault, not violations of free speech.

Keep trying....

When is an online threat illegal and when is it free speech?


WASHINGTON - Anthony Elonis claimed he was just kidding when he posted a series of graphically violent rap lyrics on Facebook about killing his estranged wife, shooting up a kindergarten class and attacking an FBI agent.

But his wife didn't see it that way. Neither did a federal jury.

Elonis, who's from Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, was convicted of violating a federal law that makes it a crime to threaten another person.

When is an online threat illegal and when is it free speech - CBS News

Let it play out - the appeal process is ongoing. It will be overturned.

 

[Annie]

This teenage boy was killed simply for being a Muslim.
Teenager hit by driver outside Somali Center of KC dies at hospital fox4kc.com

{According to some witnesses, the suspect is a man in his 30s and known to them. They say he is also from Somalia, }

Try again, sparky.

He is a Christian & he targeted the boy because he was a muslim.

I live here dumbfuck I know all the details.

I'm off to work in a couple minutes, I don't doubt what you're writing for a minute. I'll read more about this when I get home, but for the life of me, don't get what it has to do with 'free speech.' If it is as it appears, it's a crime, committed with prejudice intent.

Which is exactly what it would have been had these two animals killed Pamela. A crime as well as an act of terror.

Wrong, Geller had the right to rent a venue for a meeting with an announced agenda. The same venue that a group of Muslims rented to set an agenda to shut down anything they feel offensive to their prophet.

There were people offended about the Geller meeting, two of them tried to commit terror there, failed. There were people offended by the earlier Muslim meeting, they protested, but harmed no one.

You are arguing that the Geller one should be banned, equal to inciting violence. Yet, it's ok to have the Muslims, their protesters resort only to speech, not violence.

Me? I think both should be allowed, as often as they wish. That's the nature of the first amendment.

 

[oldernwiser]

I fail to see where this is a democrat/republican, conservative/liberal issue. To me, this is accepting the wisdom of Justice J Murphy in a 1942 SCOTUS ruling (Chaplinsky v New Hampshire) who held that:

"Allowing the broadest scope to the language and purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment, it is well understood that the right of free speech is not absolute at all times and under all circumstances. There are certain well defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting" words -- those which, by their very utterance, inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality. "

And further went on to say:

"The word "offensive" is not to be defined in terms of what a particular addressee thinks. . . . The test is what men of common intelligence would understand would be words likely to cause an average addressee to fight. . . . The English language has a number of words and expressions which, by general consent, are "fighting words" when said without a disarming smile. . . . such words, as ordinary men know, are likely to cause a fight. So are threatening, profane or obscene revilings. Derisive and annoying words can be taken as coming within the purview of the statute as heretofore interpreted only when they have this characteristic of plainly tending to excite the addressee to a breach of the peace. . . . The statute, as construed, does no more than prohibit the face-to-face words plainly likely to cause a breach of the peace by the addressee, words whose speaking constitutes a breach of the peace by the speaker -- including "classical fighting words," words in current use less "classical" but equally likely to cause violence, and other disorderly words, including profanity, obscenity and threats."

I dunno... maybe you could construe this as fear if you squinted really hard. It would seem to me that your 1st amendment rights will come to an abrupt end if, in your ranting, you reach the point where the person or entity you were addressing could reasonably be expected to hit you square in the face. Perhaps many times. Some of us understood that before 4th grade, some needed a few black eyes to understand how proper Justice Murphy's ruling was. Stating your opinion is protected, being an ass isn't. And knowing the difference is priceless. (like I said - accumulated common sense)

So then, your position is:

the holder of the sign is another example

of how dangerous and unsound islam is

Want to show pictures of dangerous people with signs?
Here's a few. These are Christians supporting Christian ideals. How do you feel being judged by this?

 

[oldernwiser]

I fail to see where this is a democrat/republican, conservative/liberal issue. To me, this is accepting the wisdom of Justice J Murphy in a 1942 SCOTUS ruling (Chaplinsky v New Hampshire) who held that:

"Allowing the broadest scope to the language and purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment, it is well understood that the right of free speech is not absolute at all times and under all circumstances. There are certain well defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting" words -- those which, by their very utterance, inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality. "

And further went on to say:

"The word "offensive" is not to be defined in terms of what a particular addressee thinks. . . . The test is what men of common intelligence would understand would be words likely to cause an average addressee to fight. . . . The English language has a number of words and expressions which, by general consent, are "fighting words" when said without a disarming smile. . . . such words, as ordinary men know, are likely to cause a fight. So are threatening, profane or obscene revilings. Derisive and annoying words can be taken as coming within the purview of the statute as heretofore interpreted only when they have this characteristic of plainly tending to excite the addressee to a breach of the peace. . . . The statute, as construed, does no more than prohibit the face-to-face words plainly likely to cause a breach of the peace by the addressee, words whose speaking constitutes a breach of the peace by the speaker -- including "classical fighting words," words in current use less "classical" but equally likely to cause violence, and other disorderly words, including profanity, obscenity and threats."

I dunno... maybe you could construe this as fear if you squinted really hard. It would seem to me that your 1st amendment rights will come to an abrupt end if, in your ranting, you reach the point where the person or entity you were addressing could reasonably be expected to hit you square in the face. Perhaps many times. Some of us understood that before 4th grade, some needed a few black eyes to understand how proper Justice Murphy's ruling was. Stating your opinion is protected, being an ass isn't. And knowing the difference is priceless. (like I said - accumulated common sense)

So then, your position is:

No more than any of these would (presumably) be yours. And so I promise not to judge you based on what others of your faith might tend to believe.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Pamela Geller exposed what a lie it is to say " Islam is the religion of peace"

I believe the same exact quote as the above was stated by Saladin about Christianity during the Crusades launched by Richard the Lionheart.....

Does that "elevate" or debase Geller?

What a maroon, Richard the Lionheart wasn't even alive when the first Crusade took place.

--LOL

Hey jon....if you didn't have dyslexia and a low IQ you'd see that the moron sassy was rebuked....Ask a grown up to help you.

You never rebuked anything you fake professor

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Gnatty would be over his head in foot deep water

 

[bripat9643]

I fail to see where this is a democrat/republican, conservative/liberal issue. To me, this is accepting the wisdom of Justice J Murphy in a 1942 SCOTUS ruling (Chaplinsky v New Hampshire) who held that:

"Allowing the broadest scope to the language and purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment, it is well understood that the right of free speech is not absolute at all times and under all circumstances. There are certain well defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting" words -- those which, by their very utterance, inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality. "

And further went on to say:

"The word "offensive" is not to be defined in terms of what a particular addressee thinks. . . . The test is what men of common intelligence would understand would be words likely to cause an average addressee to fight. . . . The English language has a number of words and expressions which, by general consent, are "fighting words" when said without a disarming smile. . . . such words, as ordinary men know, are likely to cause a fight. So are threatening, profane or obscene revilings. Derisive and annoying words can be taken as coming within the purview of the statute as heretofore interpreted only when they have this characteristic of plainly tending to excite the addressee to a breach of the peace. . . . The statute, as construed, does no more than prohibit the face-to-face words plainly likely to cause a breach of the peace by the addressee, words whose speaking constitutes a breach of the peace by the speaker -- including "classical fighting words," words in current use less "classical" but equally likely to cause violence, and other disorderly words, including profanity, obscenity and threats."

I dunno... maybe you could construe this as fear if you squinted really hard. It would seem to me that your 1st amendment rights will come to an abrupt end if, in your ranting, you reach the point where the person or entity you were addressing could reasonably be expected to hit you square in the face. Perhaps many times. Some of us understood that before 4th grade, some needed a few black eyes to understand how proper Justice Murphy's ruling was. Stating your opinion is protected, being an ass isn't. And knowing the difference is priceless. (like I said - accumulated common sense)

So then, your position is:

the holder of the sign is another example

of how dangerous and unsound islam is

Want to show pictures of dangerous people with signs?
Here's a few. These are Christians supporting Christian ideals. How do you feel being judged by this?

Do you think they should be killed? I don't see any sign saying non-Christians or FAGs should be killed.

 

[jon_berzerk]

the holder of the sign is another example

of how dangerous and unsound islam is

Lots of crazies out there, right jon?

View attachment 40981

yeah you are one of them

 

[Annie]

Just came across the following, seemed relevant to this discussion and yes, related to what I've expressed previously:

Garland Texas and the Right to Blaspheme - The Atlantic

The Right to Blaspheme
Dissenting from the tenets of a particular religion is very different than discriminating against a category of persons.

...

The right to blaspheme is not a right most of us make much use of these days, and for excellent reason. In modern Western free societies, we take it absolutely for granted that nobody can enforce religious dogma on anybody else. And since we take it for granted, few of us feel much need to make a big deal about denying and defying other people's dogmas. It feels stupid and rude precisely because it is pointless. Nobody's compelling you to respect the Host, so you are merely a jerk, not a martyr, if you gratuitously insist on disrespecting something so holy to so many of your neighbors.

...

When vigilantes try to enforce the tenets of a faith by violence, then it becomes a civic obligation to stand up to them. And if the people doing the standing up are not in every way nice people—if they express other views that are ugly and prejudiced by any standard—then the more shame on all the rest of us for leaving the job to them.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Pamela Geller exposed what a lie it is to say " Islam is the religion of peace"

I believe the same exact quote as the above was stated by Saladin about Christianity during the Crusades launched by Richard the Lionheart.....

Does that "elevate" or debase Geller?

What a maroon, Richard the Lionheart wasn't even alive when the first Crusade took place.

--LOL

Hey jon....if you didn't have dyslexia and a low IQ you'd see that the moron sassy was rebuked....Ask a grown up to help you.

oh my fuck you loser

 

[jon_berzerk]

I fail to see where this is a democrat/republican, conservative/liberal issue. To me, this is accepting the wisdom of Justice J Murphy in a 1942 SCOTUS ruling (Chaplinsky v New Hampshire) who held that:

"Allowing the broadest scope to the language and purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment, it is well understood that the right of free speech is not absolute at all times and under all circumstances. There are certain well defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting" words -- those which, by their very utterance, inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality. "

And further went on to say:

"The word "offensive" is not to be defined in terms of what a particular addressee thinks. . . . The test is what men of common intelligence would understand would be words likely to cause an average addressee to fight. . . . The English language has a number of words and expressions which, by general consent, are "fighting words" when said without a disarming smile. . . . such words, as ordinary men know, are likely to cause a fight. So are threatening, profane or obscene revilings. Derisive and annoying words can be taken as coming within the purview of the statute as heretofore interpreted only when they have this characteristic of plainly tending to excite the addressee to a breach of the peace. . . . The statute, as construed, does no more than prohibit the face-to-face words plainly likely to cause a breach of the peace by the addressee, words whose speaking constitutes a breach of the peace by the speaker -- including "classical fighting words," words in current use less "classical" but equally likely to cause violence, and other disorderly words, including profanity, obscenity and threats."

I dunno... maybe you could construe this as fear if you squinted really hard. It would seem to me that your 1st amendment rights will come to an abrupt end if, in your ranting, you reach the point where the person or entity you were addressing could reasonably be expected to hit you square in the face. Perhaps many times. Some of us understood that before 4th grade, some needed a few black eyes to understand how proper Justice Murphy's ruling was. Stating your opinion is protected, being an ass isn't. And knowing the difference is priceless. (like I said - accumulated common sense)

So then, your position is:

the holder of the sign is another example

of how dangerous and unsound islam is

Want to show pictures of dangerous people with signs?
Here's a few. These are Christians supporting Christian ideals. How do you feel being judged by this?

why should i be judged by that

 

[jon_berzerk]

Pamela Geller exposed what a lie it is to say " Islam is the religion of peace"

I believe the same exact quote as the above was stated by Saladin about Christianity during the Crusades launched by Richard the Lionheart.....

Does that "elevate" or debase Geller?

What a maroon, Richard the Lionheart wasn't even alive when the first Crusade took place.

--LOL

Hey jon....if you didn't have dyslexia and a low IQ you'd see that the moron sassy was rebuked....Ask a grown up to help you.

You never rebuked anything you fake professor

exactly

--LOL

 

[jon_berzerk]

I fail to see where this is a democrat/republican, conservative/liberal issue. To me, this is accepting the wisdom of Justice J Murphy in a 1942 SCOTUS ruling (Chaplinsky v New Hampshire) who held that:

"Allowing the broadest scope to the language and purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment, it is well understood that the right of free speech is not absolute at all times and under all circumstances. There are certain well defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting" words -- those which, by their very utterance, inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality. "

And further went on to say:

"The word "offensive" is not to be defined in terms of what a particular addressee thinks. . . . The test is what men of common intelligence would understand would be words likely to cause an average addressee to fight. . . . The English language has a number of words and expressions which, by general consent, are "fighting words" when said without a disarming smile. . . . such words, as ordinary men know, are likely to cause a fight. So are threatening, profane or obscene revilings. Derisive and annoying words can be taken as coming within the purview of the statute as heretofore interpreted only when they have this characteristic of plainly tending to excite the addressee to a breach of the peace. . . . The statute, as construed, does no more than prohibit the face-to-face words plainly likely to cause a breach of the peace by the addressee, words whose speaking constitutes a breach of the peace by the speaker -- including "classical fighting words," words in current use less "classical" but equally likely to cause violence, and other disorderly words, including profanity, obscenity and threats."

I dunno... maybe you could construe this as fear if you squinted really hard. It would seem to me that your 1st amendment rights will come to an abrupt end if, in your ranting, you reach the point where the person or entity you were addressing could reasonably be expected to hit you square in the face. Perhaps many times. Some of us understood that before 4th grade, some needed a few black eyes to understand how proper Justice Murphy's ruling was. Stating your opinion is protected, being an ass isn't. And knowing the difference is priceless. (like I said - accumulated common sense)

So then, your position is:

the holder of the sign is another example

of how dangerous and unsound islam is

Want to show pictures of dangerous people with signs?
Here's a few. These are Christians supporting Christian ideals. How do you feel being judged by this?

Do you think they should be killed? I don't see any sign saying non-Christians or FAGs should be killed.

not one said that

islam is the only religion that demands to convert or die

 

[Skylar]

I fail to see where this is a democrat/republican, conservative/liberal issue. To me, this is accepting the wisdom of Justice J Murphy in a 1942 SCOTUS ruling (Chaplinsky v New Hampshire) who held that:

"Allowing the broadest scope to the language and purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment, it is well understood that the right of free speech is not absolute at all times and under all circumstances. There are certain well defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting" words -- those which, by their very utterance, inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality. "

And further went on to say:

"The word "offensive" is not to be defined in terms of what a particular addressee thinks. . . . The test is what men of common intelligence would understand would be words likely to cause an average addressee to fight. . . . The English language has a number of words and expressions which, by general consent, are "fighting words" when said without a disarming smile. . . . such words, as ordinary men know, are likely to cause a fight. So are threatening, profane or obscene revilings. Derisive and annoying words can be taken as coming within the purview of the statute as heretofore interpreted only when they have this characteristic of plainly tending to excite the addressee to a breach of the peace. . . . The statute, as construed, does no more than prohibit the face-to-face words plainly likely to cause a breach of the peace by the addressee, words whose speaking constitutes a breach of the peace by the speaker -- including "classical fighting words," words in current use less "classical" but equally likely to cause violence, and other disorderly words, including profanity, obscenity and threats."

I dunno... maybe you could construe this as fear if you squinted really hard. It would seem to me that your 1st amendment rights will come to an abrupt end if, in your ranting, you reach the point where the person or entity you were addressing could reasonably be expected to hit you square in the face. Perhaps many times. Some of us understood that before 4th grade, some needed a few black eyes to understand how proper Justice Murphy's ruling was. Stating your opinion is protected, being an ass isn't. And knowing the difference is priceless. (like I said - accumulated common sense)

So then, your position is:

the holder of the sign is another example

of how dangerous and unsound islam is

Want to show pictures of dangerous people with signs?
Here's a few. These are Christians supporting Christian ideals. How do you feel being judged by this?

Do you think they should be killed? I don't see any sign saying non-Christians or FAGs should be killed.

not one said that

islam is the only religion that demands to convert or die

Well, now. Christianity hasn't always been so tolerant.

 

[nat4900]

Well, now. Christianity hasn't always been so tolerant.

Indeed, from the Spanish Inquisition to the Salem witch trials.

 

[Skylar]

Well, now. Christianity hasn't always been so tolerant.

Indeed, from the Spanish Inquisition to the Salem witch trials.

My only point in noting that is that we're dealing with religious interpretations. Which can certainly be dangerous. But aren't necessarily inevitable.

As all the non-inquisiting Christians today demonstrate.

 

[nat4900]

Regardless of how right wing nitwits try to spin it, NO ONE on the left is condoning terrorist behavior and killings......likewise, NO ONE on the left is trying to silence the Gellers of this world.....HOWEVER, NO ONE on the right should stop me or others from calling Geller a media whore and self-aggrandizing idiot.