Yurt
Gold Member
- Thread starter
- #221
Not to distract from O's deception, which frankly to me is not a big deal in that it didn't get people killed, and seeing Mitt make a political football over terrorism is not something I'd like to see, but I just don't view the Allah films as 1st amendment issues. There's not dispute the films did lead to riots ... elsewhere. The 1st does not protect speech designed to inflame violence. The filmmaker needs to see a cell. jmo.
so because a few wackos get violent, you throw out the 1st amendment.
seems cowardly to me. it was not an incitement to violence under the law. you need to learn the difference between psychos and regular people.
In my view, any speech that is intended to inflame passions on issues that could be expected to cause violence should not be protected speech. That includes urine on crosses, Klan marches in Skokie, flag burnings, videos mocking Islam, and the whacko Kan church protests.
But have a nice day.
fair enough. but imo, you are severely limiting speech by your standard. the reasonable person would not be incited to violence over that speech. we should not limit our speech based on zealots.