Posting Something Mean About Muslims on Social Media Might Be...Criminal..

[Gracie]

Does this mean Westboro can be imprisoned and sued?

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

I'm with you. Calm down. No one here is losing their freedom of speech. There is probably more to the story that hasn't come out yet. - Jeri

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

Does this mean Westboro can be imprisoned and sued?

According to our constitution they cannot be imprisoned but they sure as heck can be sued and I'm amazed they haven't been already. I would think there would be lawsuits out the door by now, Gracie! - Jeri

 

[PredFan]

Does this mean Westboro can be imprisoned and sued?

I dobt they will be touched. They have been doing this so long and have been fighting in courts so long that they probably already have a battery of lawyers with the battle plan drawn up.

 

[Connery]

This attorney sounds like a idiot. “Some of the finest people I’ve met are Muslims,” Killian said. This is tantamount to saying some of my best friends are black/white, gay etc. Killian brings a new level of stupid to the "roulette wheel " of intolerance.

 

[Kondor3]

Freedom of speech is ok but not when you insult Muslims.

Is it still okay to insult Jews and Christians?

Of course, because they are Infidel and Dhimmi...

 

[The Rabbi]

Killian referred to a Facebook posting made by Coffee County Commissioner Barry West that showed a picture of a man pointing a double-barreled shotgun at a camera lens with the caption saying, “How to Wink at a Muslim.”

Tullahoma News - Motlow, George Dickel, Manchester, Bonnaroo, Coffee County, Winchester, Monteagle, Tims Ford, Beechcraft, Lynchburg, Exchange, A.E.D.C.

if the purpose of a communication is to incite violence, it is not constitutionally protected. You can look up Brandenburg v. Ohio and RAV v. St. Paul for yourselves.

I knew a cock sucking fascist like you would get around to defending what is patently indefensible. No, it was not an incitement to violence. It was a constitutionally protected expression of free speech, something you left wing motherfuckers used to care about.

 

[Rozman]

Freedom of speech is ok but not when you insult Muslims.

Is it still okay to insult Jews and Christians?

It's encouraged...

 

[jon_berzerk]

The Obama fluffers can't deny it now. They are officially nothing but a gang of fascist thugs.

US Attorney Bill Killian: Posting Something Mean About Muslims on Social Media Might Be...Criminal..
Breitbart ^ | 31 May 2013 | ACE OF SPADES

Posted on Friday, May 31, 2013 254 PM by barmag25

The First Amendment served us well for a time, but now it's outdated. Remember reading that England had arrested a guy for anti-Muslim Twitter postings in the aftermath of the Woolrich slaughter? And remember thinking, "Well, this is America, that can't happen here"?

Oh yes it can. Obama's Attorney for the Eastern district of Tennessee wants you to know that if you say something untoward about Muslims, the Federal government may imprison you.

Killian and Moore will provide input on how civil rights can be violated by those who post inflammatory documents targeted at Muslims on social media. “This is an educational effort with civil rights laws as they play into freedom of religion and exercising freedom of religion,” Killian told The News Monday. “This is also to inform the public what federal laws are in effect and what the consequences are.” ... Killian said Internet postings that violate civil rights are subject to federal jurisdiction.​

(Excerpt) Read more at www.breitbart.com

starting this thread maybe a violation of this new policy

 

[jon_berzerk]

Freedom of speech is ok but not when you insult Muslims.

it is ok as long is the bashing is confined to

conservatives

christians

tea party folks

and the "jews"

in fact it recently has become government policy

to aggressively squelch the speech of the

same list mentioned above

 

[jon_berzerk]

Does this mean Westboro can be imprisoned and sued?

besides being a wacko group

they are all lawyers

they would love the attention

 

[Clementine]

Killian referred to a Facebook posting made by Coffee County Commissioner Barry West that showed a picture of a man pointing a double-barreled shotgun at a camera lens with the caption saying, “How to Wink at a Muslim.”

Tullahoma News - Motlow, George Dickel, Manchester, Bonnaroo, Coffee County, Winchester, Monteagle, Tims Ford, Beechcraft, Lynchburg, Exchange, A.E.D.C.

if the purpose of a communication is to incite violence, it is not constitutionally protected. You can look up Brandenburg v. Ohio and RAV v. St. Paul for yourselves.

Merely insulting Muslims or making a joke about Allah is all it takes to incite Muslims into a violent rage. Death threats have been made to cartoon artists. Remember the death threats to the writers of South Park?

So because of their inhuman behavior and completely irrational reaction to virtually any insult, they've become a protected group. The so-called "inciters" get more flak from liberals than the murderers. They act like Muslims just can't help themselves. They must be violent by nature so teasing them in even the mildest fashion is the same as teasing a wild dog.

 

[bripat9643]

 

[Freewill]

Oh damn, does that mean Obama is now off limits?

 

[skye]

Obama is turning into Stalin before our very eyes!

Sad times for America....opps Amerika.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The Obama fluffers can't deny it now. They are officially nothing but a gang of fascist thugs.

US Attorney Bill Killian: Posting Something Mean About Muslims on Social Media Might Be...Criminal..
Breitbart ^ | 31 May 2013 | ACE OF SPADES

Posted on Friday, May 31, 2013 254 PM by barmag25

The First Amendment served us well for a time, but now it's outdated. Remember reading that England had arrested a guy for anti-Muslim Twitter postings in the aftermath of the Woolrich slaughter? And remember thinking, "Well, this is America, that can't happen here"?

Oh yes it can. Obama's Attorney for the Eastern district of Tennessee wants you to know that if you say something untoward about Muslims, the Federal government may imprison you.

Killian and Moore will provide input on how civil rights can be violated by those who post inflammatory documents targeted at Muslims on social media. “This is an educational effort with civil rights laws as they play into freedom of religion and exercising freedom of religion,” Killian told The News Monday. “This is also to inform the public what federal laws are in effect and what the consequences are.” ... Killian said Internet postings that violate civil rights are subject to federal jurisdiction.​

(Excerpt) Read more at www.breitbart.com

No right is absolute, including the rights enshrined in the First Amendment. There are legitimate limits on speech where the Constitution authorizes government to exact punitive measures against those who advocate violence against Muslims.

Examples include but are not limited to:

Advocacy of the use of force that might result in imminent lawless action against Muslims is not protected speech. See Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969).

So-called ‘fighting words’ are not subject to First Amendment protection, where statements are made to incite a breach of the peace resulting in violence against Muslims, or the use of personal, insulting language clearly intended to be offensive to Muslims and likely to provoke a violent response. See: Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942).

There are also punitive measures authorized in civil law concerning false statements made about Muslims that do not enjoy First Amendment protection. See: Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974).

The OP thus succeeds in only exhibiting his ignorance, as the above Constitutional limits on speech have existed long before the advent of the current Administration. It is therefore quite possible, appropriate, and Constitutional that one might find himself subject to a criminal investigation as a consequence of public statements made about Muslims – or any other person or groups of persons – advocating violence or lawless actions against Islam.

It has nothing to do with ‘fascism’ or being ‘thugs,’ it’s settled, accepted, and acknowledged First Amendment jurisprudence.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Can't yell 'fire' in a theatre, can't yell 'kill Muslims because . . . well, just because."

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Killian referred to a Facebook posting made by Coffee County Commissioner Barry West that showed a picture of a man pointing a double-barreled shotgun at a camera lens with the caption saying, “How to Wink at a Muslim.”

Tullahoma News - Motlow, George Dickel, Manchester, Bonnaroo, Coffee County, Winchester, Monteagle, Tims Ford, Beechcraft, Lynchburg, Exchange, A.E.D.C.

if the purpose of a communication is to incite violence, it is not constitutionally protected. You can look up Brandenburg v. Ohio and RAV v. St. Paul for yourselves.

Does this incite you to violence?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Killian referred to a Facebook posting made by Coffee County Commissioner Barry West that showed a picture of a man pointing a double-barreled shotgun at a camera lens with the caption saying, “How to Wink at a Muslim.”

Tullahoma News - Motlow, George Dickel, Manchester, Bonnaroo, Coffee County, Winchester, Monteagle, Tims Ford, Beechcraft, Lynchburg, Exchange, A.E.D.C.

if the purpose of a communication is to incite violence, it is not constitutionally protected. You can look up Brandenburg v. Ohio and RAV v. St. Paul for yourselves.

Well hello!! That is incitement to murder! Of course he was arrested. It would have been the same for a Jew or a Christian I'm sure.

yes. But the pt is there is nothing to actually support the RW outrage of the thread. Further, if you follow the link to the origianal story - which the RW media cites including the one in the first post - spun, you'll find the DOJ is attempting to clear up any confusion of american muslims on the role of religion and govt in American society. We've avoided much of the EU domestic terror problem. Bushii actually was pretty proactive too in making clear that america has not hatred of Islam and we will protect the rights of american muslims even if its unpopular.

If that is what they are doing why do they have to lie? There is absolutely no precedent in US law that any post that offends any religion is a violation of anyone's civil rights. Wouldn't it be better to reassure them by not misinforming them about what the laws in this country actually are? Unless, that is, you can actually show me a case where someone was successfully prosecuted fro an inflammatory comment.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Well hello!! That is incitement to murder! Of course he was arrested. It would have been the same for a Jew or a Christian I'm sure.

yes. But the pt is there is nothing to actually support the RW outrage of the thread. Further, if you follow the link to the origianal story - which the RW media cites including the one in the first post - spun, you'll find the DOJ is attempting to clear up any confusion of american muslims on the role of religion and govt in American society. We've avoided much of the EU domestic terror problem. Bushii actually was pretty proactive too in making clear that america has not hatred of Islam and we will protect the rights of american muslims even if its unpopular.

Muslims have no right not to be offended.

No group has a right not to be inflamed.