Clinton told father of slain soldierin Benghaz the WH was going to prosecute filmaker

[Katzndogz]

There need be no call for charges against obama. There should be an investigation. Whatever charges that come out of that investigation be pressed.

 

[spectrumc01]

Don't you think there should be laws against provoking violence? I understand freedom of speech, but you must take the freedom of consequences along with the freedom of speech.

Example situation -

A Christian pastor in Florida wants to go to Dearborn Michigan to the largest Muslim community in the US and protest in front of the Mosque. This same Pastor wanted to burn a Quaran on the internet. Does he have the right to do this? Yes he does under the first amendment.

The consequences : Overseas, Muslims in response for the Koran burning kill American boys and girls in the US military.

The Outcome : As a parent of the slain soldier, what can I tell this pastor? He knew these people are extremeists, and he knew how to provoke them into committing violence. How can his right to free speech not come with the consequences of his speech? It was his thought out, intentional provokation that resulted in the deaths of military personell, someones son or daughter.

How can we let this film maker go with out making him responsible for his actions? I don't feel this is a free speech issue.

 

[Katzndogz]

In order to provoke violence, the provocation must immediately precede the violence. Like yelling fire in a crowded theater. There is no provocation if you yelled fire in an empty theater, then two years later it's discovered that you once yelled fire and there is a stampede for the exit.

To find anyone responsible for muslim violence rewards the tantrum. Are pretty girls responsible for muslim violence that killed over 100 people? We can't be controlled by muslim violence, placating them only makes it grow. It means we have free speech but that freedom is subject to muslim capricious violence.

 

[spectrumc01]

It takes time for the voice to reach the ear, so the time lapse satisfies your assessment of " the provocation must immediately precede the violence", because it basically is.

For example : I'll tell my big brother and he'll beat you up.

 

[Katzndogz]

It takes time for the voice to reach the ear, so the time lapse satisfies your assessment of " the provocation must immediately precede the violence", because it basically is.

For example : I'll tell my big brother and he'll beat you up.

That's why brothers are prosecuted for assault.

Like it or not, there is a very long line of cases that say the violence must be immediately preceded by the provocation.

It's more like, you are assaulted. Two years later you beat the guy up. You can't claim self defense.

You might want it to be different, but it's not. We cannot allow ourselves to be controlled by violence or threats of violence.

 

[logical4u]

The Democratic electorate wanted Bush and Cheney brought up on charges after they left office. The Elected Democratic officials declined. When Romney is elected the Republican electorate will call for charges on Obama. The elected Republican officials will also decline. This is the way of politics. It has been going on for a long time now. Why didn't the Republican leadership go after Clinton when he left office as the their electorate demanded?

Here is your answer...They are all in it together. Republicans and Democrats are the same. The rich and powerful vs the not so rich and powerful.

Yeah, ask them how you can charge a congressman for fraud for lying to the American people... they will laugh at you. Almost every one a criminal, and those that are not, are afraid to tell the truth....