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

[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.

While it certainly toes the line, I'm not sure it qualifies as "incitement to murder." If I made a pic that showed someone pointing a gun at someone's head with a caption that says "here's how you kill a Republican," would that be incitement to murder? I don't think so. You would have to say something like "here's how we solve the unemployment problem."

Incitement to murder would be something like "We need to kill Jimmy Bob so that little Susie can get some sleep." It has to be a direct invitation to commit a crime, not a vague comment.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No, of course it isn't. The law isn't written to be exclusive to Muslims but to anyone who feels they were libeled on a political forum - usually requires monetary damages I believe, I'm not sure. If it were only for Muslims that would be Sharia. No question about it.

Insulting a Muslim isn't libel. You have to make a claim that is derogatory and that isn't true. Simply saying stuff like "Muslims suck" or "Muslims are stupid" isn't libel.

Excuse me, I said laws on the books! Hello, Bripat! These laws are already on the books. You cannot be arrested for stating your opinion or feelings of a person or a group as that is against freedom of speech in the United States. It still is last time I checked!

STILL. While we are on this subject do you think it helps your arguement to make statements such as those while discussing Islam terrorist organizations infiltrating USA or would it be better to state the case as clearly and concisely as possible sans the insults and submitting that for a read. What say you? Which way is more effective? Because if not using the insults is more effective then I would have to question why not be more effective? Where is the payoff in losing your audience? Agreed? - Jeri

Anyone who is insulted is too childish for me to take seriously. You can chose to be a pretentious asshole and pretend that you are better than everyone else, or you can be an adult and address the issues.

Your choice.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Does this mean Westboro can be imprisoned and sued?

Of course not, which is what makes it absurd for a government official to say it.

 

[bodecea]

Muslims smell bad and dress funny!


I'll let you know when I get the knock on the door.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

Here is the problem, asswipes like this actually want to make this the new norm, which should insult everyone who can think. I chose to take the offensive when this comes up to head off the potential compromise from ignorant idiots, like you.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

Be sued for what?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

They are lawyers.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

You keep saying that like it means something.

It doesn't.

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.

If the OP is ignorant you should be able to point to numerous court cases where people were prosecuted for violating people's civil rights after engaging in inflammatory speech.

I, on the other hand, am willing to bet you can't find a single example because, like always, you are so full of shit you think bullshit smells like roses.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

Does that mean you support the government being able to prosecute people for disagreeing with elected officials? If it doesn't, why do you keep quoting from a decision that used that to rationalize the government being able to do so?

 

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,


1. Islam will destroy everything America stands for, you watch.
2. Just a matter of time, they will wait.
3. Its just too hard to figure out what to do, isn't it?
4. Go ahead and buy your rug while they are cheap.


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

 

[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

Be sued for what?

Picketing at a funeral? They should sue the pants off of them! That is what I think. The nerve! Picketing soldiers? No.. and that is just the tip of the iceberg for those folks.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

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.

They are lawyers.

Well they are very mean spirited people. ( westboro gang )

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

Be sued for what?

Picketing at a funeral? They should sue the pants off of them! That is what I think. The nerve! Picketing soldiers? No.. and that is just the tip of the iceberg for those folks.

Every single time they have been sued for that the case has been thrown out.

Sued for what?

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

Be sued for what?

Picketing at a funeral? They should sue the pants off of them! That is what I think. The nerve! Picketing soldiers? No.. and that is just the tip of the iceberg for those folks.

Every single time they have been sued for that the case has been thrown out.

Sued for what?

.

For whatever they could be sued for. That's what. Keep trying! Something is bound to stick.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Picketing at a funeral? They should sue the pants off of them! That is what I think. The nerve! Picketing soldiers? No.. and that is just the tip of the iceberg for those folks.

Every single time they have been sued for that the case has been thrown out.

Sued for what?

.

For whatever they could be sued for. That's what. Keep trying! Something is bound to stick.

Your contempt for the Constitution is duly noted.

In a sweeping 8-1 victory for Westboro and First Amendment fundamentalists, the Supreme Court on March 2 upheld Westboro's right to picket a military funeral. The case, Snyder v. Phelps, was among the most charged on the Supreme Court docket last year, as Snyder sought to recover the $5 million in damages awarded to him by a lower court jury but overturned on appeal. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals: in this case, the First Amendment shields Westboro from torts of intentional infliction of emotional distress and intrusion upon seclusion.

Snyder v. Phelps: Why the Supreme Court Ruled for Westboro - TIME

 

[Pete7469]

I'll continue to post the truth and waive my first amendment right in your face.

You'll "continue" to post the truth?

Don't you have post some truth at least once in your life in order to say you'll "continue" to do so?

All you do is regurgitate moonbat talking points. Everyone with their synapses not retarded by THC or genetic deficiencies knows you're full of shit.

 

[Pete7469]

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.

They are lawyers.

Well they are very mean spirited people. ( westboro gang )

Leftist asshole lawyers generally are.

Just because their cult leader doesn't like queers doesn't mean they're not bed wetting democrooks.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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?

Actually, corporations, rich people, and white folks do. On top of the right to bear arms. For a liberal that is.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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

Be sued for what?

Defamation. Who the heck in their right mind pickets a dead soldier's funeral? I know for a fact God would not condone that kind of behavior. However, free speech is free speech; that includes the right to say stupid shit.

 

[American_Jihad]

sue me...

​