Freedom of Religious Opinion? Not If You're Phil Robertson

[TemplarKormac]

Some speech is restricted: Incitement to violence, speech that would endanger the public. Threats are illegal and threatening the president constitutes a felony.

That's reasonable. But given the propensity of those in power to push the envelope, such a definition can be changed where even simple religious expression can be seen as an "incitement to violence" or "endangering the public." Threats to the president are unacceptable. Period.

It takes more than simple expressions to incite violence or endanger the public.

Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case based on the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Court held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is directed to inciting, and is likely to incite, imminent lawless action. Specifically, it struck down Ohio's criminal syndicalism statute, because that statute broadly prohibited the mere advocacy of violence. In the process, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927) was explicitly overruled, and doubt was cast on Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919), Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616 (1919), and Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494 (1951).

Brandenburg v. Ohio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Since our resident law student can't seem to find cases, I'll do it this time.)

Was that last bit directed at me?

Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927), was a United States Supreme Court decision upholding the conviction of an individual who had engaged in speech that raised a threat to society.

Whitney v. California - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919), was a United States Supreme Court decision concerning enforcement of the Espionage Act of 1917 during World War I. A unanimous Supreme Court, in a famous opinion by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., concluded that defendants who distributed leaflets to draft-age men, urging resistance to induction, could be convicted of an attempt to obstruct the draft, a criminal offense. The First Amendment did not alter the well established law in cases where the attempt was made through expressions that would be protected in other circumstances. In this opinion, Holmes said that expressions which in the circumstances were intended to result in a crime, and posed a "clear and present danger" of succeeding, could be punished. The Court continued to follow this reasoning to uphold a series of convictions arising out of prosecutions during war time, but Holmes began to dissent in the case of Abrams v. United States, insisting that the Court had departed from the standard he had crafted for them, and had begun to allow punishment for ideas. The "clear and present danger" standard remains the test of criminal prosecutions, but the Court has set another line of precedents to govern cases in which the constitutionality of statute is challenged on its face.

Schenck v. United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616 (1919), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States upholding the 1918 Amendment to the Espionage Act of 1917, which made it a criminal offense to urge curtailment of production of the materials necessary to the war against Germany with intent to hinder the progress of the war. The 1918 Amendment is commonly referred to as if it were a separate Act, the Sedition Act of 1918.

Abrams v. United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494 (1951), was a United States Supreme Court case relating to Eugene Dennis, General Secretary of the Communist Party USA. The Court ruled that Dennis did not have the right under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution to exercise free speech, publication and assembly, if the exercise involved the creation of a plot to overthrow the government.

Dennis v. United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[LoneLaugher]

Run-Roh! It's a Wikibattle! Everyone look out! There may be some smiting goin' down here!

 

[TemplarKormac]

That limey scum should be executed.

You should leave. An opinion that suggests genocide is not an opinion. Nobody has the freedom to slaughter someone because they are gay. The thought of it turns my stomach.

Executing a subversive isn't genocide you moron. I never brought up executing gays, that is absurd.This foreigner is trying to subvert the laws of our Republic, in this case, attacking the First Amendment. In sane societies, subversives are executed.

You do realize what the punishment for treason is, right?

Being gay is treason? What on earth are you smoking man? Not even I hold that view! And what the hell are you talking about? Who is this "foreigner" you speak of?

 

[LoneLaugher]

You should leave. An opinion that suggests genocide is not an opinion. Nobody has the freedom to slaughter someone because they are gay. The thought of it turns my stomach.

Executing a subversive isn't genocide you moron. I never brought up executing gays, that is absurd.This foreigner is trying to subvert the laws of our Republic, in this case, attacking the First Amendment. In sane societies, subversives are executed.

You do realize what the punishment for treason is, right?

Being gay is treason? What on earth are you smoking man? Not even I hold that view! And what the hell are you talking about? Who is this "foreigner" you speak of?

Pay attention. You missed his point. Try again.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

When is GLAAD going to show up in West Monroe to protest at the Duck Commander headquarters. Have a gay pride parade right down main street.

Better yet, when are they going to show up to stop the Westboro Baptist Church from picketing gay funerals, something the SCOTUS has said they have every right to do provided the keep a certain distance away.

Unsurprisingly, this doesn’t make any sense.

The First Amendment has nothing to do with whether or not a private entity demonstrates against another private entity, unless government seeks to place unwarranted restriction on either or both.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Executing a subversive isn't genocide you moron. I never brought up executing gays, that is absurd.This foreigner is trying to subvert the laws of our Republic, in this case, attacking the First Amendment. In sane societies, subversives are executed.

You do realize what the punishment for treason is, right?

Being gay is treason? What on earth are you smoking man? Not even I hold that view! And what the hell are you talking about? Who is this "foreigner" you speak of?

Pay attention. You missed his point. Try again.

I don't care what his points are. The fact he's even suggesting summary execution of anyone should invalidate his entire point.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Straight up question, TK: do you agree with what Phil said about blacks and gays.

Yeah, if you read what he said, he isn't one to judge, whatever failing a person has, it is between them and god. His job is to spread the gospel. Second, he tilled the fields with blacks, he never once slandered them.

So yes, I agree, simply because unlike the lot of you, I did read the GQ interview.

He also said gays are "full of murder". I trust that you don't agree with that.

No, of course not, [MENTION=28109]Amelia[/MENTION]. His comments were tactless, but that is beside the point.

 

[Amelia]

Yeah, if you read what he said, he isn't one to judge, whatever failing a person has, it is between them and god. His job is to spread the gospel. Second, he tilled the fields with blacks, he never once slandered them.

So yes, I agree, simply because unlike the lot of you, I did read the GQ interview.

He also said gays are "full of murder". I trust that you don't agree with that.

No, of course not, [MENTION=28109]Amelia[/MENTION]. His comments were tactless, but that is beside the point.

I'm not sure what the "point" is at this moment.

I just know that if I were to join in any boycott, I'd most likely join the boycott against the Robertsons because what he said was so offensive to me. But no matter what, there's not a first amendment issue here. Robertson has the right to talk. A&E has the right to react. Fans and activists all over have the right to respond to the various words and reactions. Government isn't involved in this. Just us rabble.

 

[koshergrl]

That was all he said.

Afraid it is not



If he had kept his objections purely religious, there would be no story. Instead he had to get his bestiality comparison in and his distasteful anal sex analysis. There is also his tirade of a sermon in Pennsylvania that was released today. It is obvious the man hates gays



What were his religious reasons for endorsing Jim Crow?

Plus he implied black people aren't happy and are lazy now .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"Implied" is not the same as "said". He said that the black people he grew up with did not complain and piss and moan.

That is not the same as saying all blacks complain, piss and moan now...but a racist puke like you wouldn't know that, because you can't think of them as individuals. Because you think of them as a group and a group only, you assume that when anyone says anything, they are referring to the group. You assign your own prejudice to others, then call them racists.

What a puke you are.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Yeah, if you read what he said, he isn't one to judge, whatever failing a person has, it is between them and god. His job is to spread the gospel. Second, he tilled the fields with blacks, he never once slandered them.

So yes, I agree, simply because unlike the lot of you, I did read the GQ interview.

He also said gays are "full of murder". I trust that you don't agree with that.

No, of course not, [MENTION=28109]Amelia[/MENTION]. His comments were tactless, but that is beside the point.

No.

That is ENTIRELY the point. What he said was "tactless". Some people brought this to the attention of his boss(es). His bosses then decided to suspend him FOR BEING TACTLESS.

That is exactly the point.

 

[koshergrl]

What do the writers write? If, in fact, the show was scripted wouldn't the writers just write out all those references to God, Jesus and guns rather than tell the family to stop mentioning the subject?

No, not if it $ells.
Some of y'all keep imagining the Producer acts out of some kind of ideology. They don't. They sell what $ells.

If you really think that family spends time memorizing lines you never saw the show.

So you're saying they're stupid rednecks? Or just stupid?
Well, there you have it. "Rednecks" and "Hillbillies" are the last group it is politically correct to ridicule.
Run with that.

Well, there you have it. "Rednecks" and "Hillbillies" are the last group it is politically correct to ridicule.

Along with Christians, and women who dare to refuse to kill their babies, if the babies aren't perfect.

 

[LoneLaugher]

And they get ridiculed because they say stupid shit.

 

[TemplarKormac]

He also said gays are "full of murder". I trust that you don't agree with that.

No, of course not, [MENTION=28109]Amelia[/MENTION]. His comments were tactless, but that is beside the point.

No.

That is ENTIRELY the point. What he said was "tactless". Some people brought this to the attention of his boss(es). His bosses then decided to suspend him FOR BEING TACTLESS.

That is exactly the point.

You're too naive to think outside of the liberal box, LL. He was cut down for expressing himself. A&E knew full well what they were getting when they signed him. They even went to a sermon of his in 2010. From then on out they have tried to whittle the man down into keeping religious expression out of the show. When that failed they suspended him. While they had the right to do what they did, it was a public show of intolerance to religious opinion.

 

[TemplarKormac]

And they get ridiculed because they say stupid shit.

And gay people don't?

 

[Katzndogz]

The public could end the pcbs any time it chooses to do so. The only reason why political correctness got so strong is because it was permitted to do so. Stop giving that permission. Overwhelm with political incorrectness. The only reason Christians get slapped down is because we won't stand up and let athiests define Christianity.

We should all be Phil Robertsons and Paula Deens and bakers, photographers and whoever has displeased the thought masters.

 

[LoneLaugher]

No, of course not, [MENTION=28109]Amelia[/MENTION]. His comments were tactless, but that is beside the point.

No.

That is ENTIRELY the point. What he said was "tactless". Some people brought this to the attention of his boss(es). His bosses then decided to suspend him FOR BEING TACTLESS.

That is exactly the point.

You're too naive to think outside of the liberal box, LL. He was cut down for expressing himself. A&E knew full well what they were getting when they signed him. They even went to a sermon of his in 2010. From then on out they have tried to whittle the man down into keeping religious expression out of the show. When that failed they suspended him. While they had the right to do what they did, it was a public show of intolerance to religious opinion.

Bullshit.

Had he said "Jeebus is lord....pray unto him", would he have been suspended?

American television networks are tolerant of religious opinion and expression. Period.

You calling me naive is funny. Don't you think?

 

[Iceman]

You should leave. An opinion that suggests genocide is not an opinion. Nobody has the freedom to slaughter someone because they are gay. The thought of it turns my stomach.

Executing a subversive isn't genocide you moron. I never brought up executing gays, that is absurd.This foreigner is trying to subvert the laws of our Republic, in this case, attacking the First Amendment. In sane societies, subversives are executed.

You do realize what the punishment for treason is, right?

Being gay is treason? What on earth are you smoking man? Not even I hold that view! And what the hell are you talking about? Who is this "foreigner" you speak of?

No you fat troll, supporting getting rid of the First Amendment is amount to treason. The first amendment is one of the core values America was founded on, just like the Second Amendment. Both of which Piers Morgan, the foreign subversive, wants to get rid of.

Did you bother to even look at what I was replying to? I never said anything about executing gays, or calling homosexuality a treasonable offense.

 

[Mac1958]

The public could end the pcbs any time it chooses to do so. The only reason why political correctness got so strong is because it was permitted to do so. Stop giving that permission. Overwhelm with political incorrectness.

Yep, this has been incremental, and now we have a group of people who are literally telling us what we're no longer allowed to say.

The good news: The backlash has begun, let's keep it going.

.

 

[Amelia]

The public could end the pcbs any time it chooses to do so. The only reason why political correctness got so strong is because it was permitted to do so. Stop giving that permission. Overwhelm with political incorrectness. The only reason Christians get slapped down is because we won't stand up and let athiests define Christianity.

We should all be Phil Robertsons and Paula Deens and bakers, photographers and whoever has displeased the thought masters.

It is not Christian to say that gays are "full of murder".

No amount of blame of others or "taking back" the definition of Christianity will turn that into a Christian sentiment.

 

[LoneLaugher]

And they get ridiculed because they say stupid shit.

And gay people don't?

I am sure they do. And they will be ridiculed for it. Just like you are ridiculed.

Hey.....using your logic...that makes you.........GAY!