First amendment should not protect hate speech.

[Freewill]

now americans are against freedom of speech?

i will be damned...first people are calling for deportation of americans based on their religion and now free speech should be limited?

I find it interesting that the very same folks that so passionately protect the right of some idiot to denigrate the muslim religion get all nuts over flag burners and ows protesters..

I find it interesting that the very same folks that so passionately protect the right of some idiot to denigrate the Christian religion get all nuts over some movie no one saw because it might denigrate some man who may or may have not lived centuries ago..

 

[zeke]

now americans are against freedom of speech?

i will be damned...first people are calling for deportation of americans based on their religion and now free speech should be limited?

I find it interesting that the very same folks that so passionately protect the right of some idiot to denigrate the muslim religion get all nuts over flag burners and ows protesters..

Ain't that the truth.

 

[Seawytch]

See if some rightwing whack job can explain this for me.

It seems to be ok to make a film that causes millions of Muslims to go apeshit, killing each other and killing our people and that is aok protected free speech.

But you can't yell fire in a crowded theater.

Why is that?

Both exercises in free speech are designed to cause people to get hurt. But one is ok the other not.

Could it be because one "excercise" in free speech motivates? Muslims to show their worst behaviour, thereby fulfilling the opinion that most rethug Americans have that muslims are low life, camel humping goat herders.

Fail post.
The movie is just a movie. It doesn't excuse the actions of the muslinms. It isn't the fault of the movie or the filmmaker, it's the fault of the perps.

And yet if people rampage when I yell fire in a theater its not their fault?

Seems like this is a discussion that can be had. The film was intentionally made to anger Muslims and then released in Muslim countries.

Are there no similarities between that and yelling "fire"?

 

[Seawytch]

Now, regarding the movie...I don't think that the makers should be jailed or anything for making it. Sound condemnation of the movie is sufficient in my opinion...

Of course, if we soundly and roundly condemn it as we should, the President gets accused of "apologizing for America".

 

[bigrebnc1775]

See if some rightwing whack job can explain this for me.

It seems to be ok to make a film that causes millions of Muslims to go apeshit, killing each other and killing our people and that is aok protected free speech.

But you can't yell fire in a crowded theater.

Why is that?

Both exercises in free speech are designed to cause people to get hurt. But one is ok the other not.

Could it be because one "excercise" in free speech motivates? Muslims to show their worst behaviour, thereby fulfilling the opinion that most rethug Americans have that muslims are low life, camel humping goat herders.

Fail post.
The movie is just a movie. It doesn't excuse the actions of the muslinms. It isn't the fault of the movie or the filmmaker, it's the fault of the perps.

And yet if people rampage when I yell fire in a theater its not their fault?

Seems like this is a discussion that can be had. The film was intentionally made to anger Muslims and then released in Muslim countries.

Are there no similarities between that and yelling "fire"?

how old is the oldest Muslim? 10 12?

 

[dblack]

See if some rightwing whack job can explain this for me.

It seems to be ok to make a film that causes millions of Muslims to go apeshit, killing each other and killing our people and that is aok protected free speech.

But you can't yell fire in a crowded theater.

Why is that?

Both exercises in free speech are designed to cause people to get hurt. But one is ok the other not.

Could it be because one "excercise" in free speech motivates? Muslims to show their worst behaviour, thereby fulfilling the opinion that most rethug Americans have that muslims are low life, camel humping goat herders.

Fail post.
The movie is just a movie. It doesn't excuse the actions of the muslinms. It isn't the fault of the movie or the filmmaker, it's the fault of the perps.

And yet if people rampage when I yell fire in a theater its not their fault?

Seems like this is a discussion that can be had. The film was intentionally made to anger Muslims and then released in Muslim countries.

Are there no similarities between that and yelling "fire"?

No. The 'fire in a crowded theater' involves an immediate, perceived threat. It's similar to the concept that using the threat of violence to coerce someone makes one just as culpable as actually carrying out the violence. Yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater isn't wrong because it makes people angry or scared. It's wrong because it's presenting a believable threat to life and limb.

An offensive, insulting comment is nothing of the kind. This movie is more comparable to yelling "this movie sucks!" in a crowded theater. Which, I'd wager, would amount to Constitutionally protected free speech (though it might get you kicked out of the theater).

 

[dblack]

Now, regarding the movie...I don't think that the makers should be jailed or anything for making it. Sound condemnation of the movie is sufficient in my opinion...

Of course, if we soundly and roundly condemn it as we should, the President gets accused of "apologizing for America".

Agreed. Republican demagoguery on this issue is inexcusable.

 

[Seawytch]

Fail post.
The movie is just a movie. It doesn't excuse the actions of the muslinms. It isn't the fault of the movie or the filmmaker, it's the fault of the perps.

And yet if people rampage when I yell fire in a theater its not their fault?

Seems like this is a discussion that can be had. The film was intentionally made to anger Muslims and then released in Muslim countries.

Are there no similarities between that and yelling "fire"?

No. The 'fire in a crowded theater' involves an immediate, perceived threat. It's similar to the concept that using the threat of violence to coerce someone makes one just as culpable as actually carrying out the violence. Yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater isn't wrong because it makes people angry or scared. It's wrong because it's presenting a believable threat to life and limb.

An offensive, insulting comment is nothing of the kind. This movie is more comparable to yelling "this movie sucks!" in a crowded theater. Which, I'd wager, would amount to Constitutionally protected free speech (though it might get you kicked out of the theater).

In other words...you can poke with a sharp stick, just don't break the skin.

 

[Sallow]

See if some rightwing whack job can explain this for me.

It seems to be ok to make a film that causes millions of Muslims to go apeshit, killing each other and killing our people and that is aok protected free speech.

But you can't yell fire in a crowded theater.

Why is that?

Both exercises in free speech are designed to cause people to get hurt. But one is ok the other not.

Could it be because one "excercise" in free speech motivates? Muslims to show their worst behaviour, thereby fulfilling the opinion that most rethug Americans have that muslims are low life, camel humping goat herders.

Fail post.
The movie is just a movie. It doesn't excuse the actions of the muslinms. It isn't the fault of the movie or the filmmaker, it's the fault of the perps.

And yet if people rampage when I yell fire in a theater its not their fault?

Seems like this is a discussion that can be had. The film was intentionally made to anger Muslims and then released in Muslim countries.

Are there no similarities between that and yelling "fire"?

Of course there are.

And yelling fire in a crowded theater is protected speech as well..so is talking about bombs on planes. Nothing in the Constitution prohibits it.

We've just decided, through legislation, that these are dangerous and stupid things to do.

 

[dblack]

And yet if people rampage when I yell fire in a theater its not their fault?

Seems like this is a discussion that can be had. The film was intentionally made to anger Muslims and then released in Muslim countries.

Are there no similarities between that and yelling "fire"?

No. The 'fire in a crowded theater' involves an immediate, perceived threat. It's similar to the concept that using the threat of violence to coerce someone makes one just as culpable as actually carrying out the violence. Yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater isn't wrong because it makes people angry or scared. It's wrong because it's presenting a believable threat to life and limb.

An offensive, insulting comment is nothing of the kind. This movie is more comparable to yelling "this movie sucks!" in a crowded theater. Which, I'd wager, would amount to Constitutionally protected free speech (though it might get you kicked out of the theater).

In other words...you can poke with a sharp stick, just don't break the skin.

Not really, no.

 

[dblack]

Fail post.
The movie is just a movie. It doesn't excuse the actions of the muslinms. It isn't the fault of the movie or the filmmaker, it's the fault of the perps.

And yet if people rampage when I yell fire in a theater its not their fault?

Seems like this is a discussion that can be had. The film was intentionally made to anger Muslims and then released in Muslim countries.

Are there no similarities between that and yelling "fire"?

Of course their are.

And yelling fire in a crowded theater is protected speech as well..so is talking about bombs on planes. Nothing in the Constitution prohibits it.

We've just decided, through legislation, that these are dangerous and stupid things to do.

Wow... you realize that doesn't make any sense at all, right? The Constitution doesn't prohibit rights, it protects them. In particular, it does this by prohibiting legislation that violates those rights.

So..., if the Court's interpretation is that laws against yelling fire in a crowded theater are permissible, than yelling fire in a crowded theater is not 'protected speech'.

Seriously, did you just mis-type, or do you really have no conception of how the Constitution works?

 

[PredFan]

See if some rightwing whack job can explain this for me.

It seems to be ok to make a film that causes millions of Muslims to go apeshit, killing each other and killing our people and that is aok protected free speech.

But you can't yell fire in a crowded theater.

Why is that?

Both exercises in free speech are designed to cause people to get hurt. But one is ok the other not.

Could it be because one "excercise" in free speech motivates? Muslims to show their worst behaviour, thereby fulfilling the opinion that most rethug Americans have that muslims are low life, camel humping goat herders.

Fail post.
The movie is just a movie. It doesn't excuse the actions of the muslinms. It isn't the fault of the movie or the filmmaker, it's the fault of the perps.

And yet if people rampage when I yell fire in a theater its not their fault?

Seems like this is a discussion that can be had. The film was intentionally made to anger Muslims and then released in Muslim countries.

Are there no similarities between that and yelling "fire"?

No one rampages when "fire" is yelled. people might get hurt acidentally, but what the muslims did want an accident.

The movie was made to expose the religion, and there are no similarities at all with yelling fire an a movie theater.

 

[Freewill]

There is something fundamentally wrong with this discussion. To equate the yelling of Fire in a crowded Movie theater to what happened in the ME is ridiculous. The riot was not over the movie or video, get that thought completely out of your head. There are lots of anti-Muslim things found on the WWW which could have been used as an excuse this is just the soup de jour. What possible motive could the Libyan government have for telling us that this was a planned organized attack? None. Only the US is using the excuse it was spontaneous.

Secondly what determines hate speech, results? If a person were to do something bad to the piss ant that has the tax paid for piece of "art" who would be responsible? The "artist" or the person doing what they think defends their beliefs? Everyone raise their hand who thinks that the left would defend anyone other then the artists. Seeing no one with a raised hand we all agree.

This attack killing our fellow countryman was coordinated with 9/11 that is really to apparent even for Obama to miss, but not ignore. He has to blame it on a spontaneous result of a video or movie that no one saw, to believe anything else is to believe that once again the Obama administration failed. Which by all accounts, other then Obama, is in fact what happened.

That said, I am sure there are multitudes of warnings everyday it would be hard to determine the real threats. The government has a whole organization whose sole purpose is to weed them out. Thus I find it real hard to blame the President unless this is what the Administration wanted to try and limit free speech. This although Obama was skipping Intel meetings, nothing really qualifies him as an expert in outside threats. We will not know why he is taking the tact he is taking other then that is the tact being taken even though we all know it is the wrong tact. When I say all I limit all to those who are at least a little bit open minded.

 

[usmcstinger]

FIRST AMENDMENT SHOULD NOT PROTECT HATE SPEECH.

British law offered no protection to those who dissented against the government, so the king could have anyone arrested or imprisoned at his personal whim.
Recognizing this to be a form of tyranny, the framers added the First Amendment to the Constitution — not to allow one ranting group of citizens the right to harass a group of grieving citizens, but to protect the citizenry as a whole from abuses of power that tend to come from government.
The Huckabees of this country worship the constitution instead of their GOD and that is because GOD is who they want him to be depending on what they need at the moment. The Christian GOD say;
James 1;26.…If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person's religion is worthless.
Matt 13;2.…It is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth; this defiles a person.” Radical Islam has never spoke ill or made fun of Jesus. “Allah” was the original name of the God in the Christian bible according to Hebrew and Aramaic sources. Muhammad the prophet is the founder of the Islamic religion just as Joseph Smith a prophet the founder of the Mormon religion. Self righteous radical right would learn from Islam.
The sub-human’s video is “hate speech” and should not be protected by the First Amendment. Framers of the First Amendment did not intend for it to protect against bashing but to be protected from the Government. Threatening the president is not protected by the First Amendment.
Hate speech that is designed to incite violence or criminal actions against someone or a group because of their race, religion, or sexual identity, is not protected free speech and can result in legal action and civil action.

Threats to government officials is not protected free speech.

Inciting a riot such as yelling fire in a movie theater is not protected free speech.

Self righteous Americans are not so different from radical Muslims as we claim to be. We don’t get to tell other races and religions how to react with offended. How to practice their religion. To simple say to Muslims to just simple ignore the video just as we would if Jesus was defamed is talking out both side of our mouths. Why don’t see Muslims denouncing he violence reaction? Because if they spoke they would have their heads cut off. And we don’t see masses of Americans denouncing the video but masses protecting it as freedom of speech when it reality it is hate speech and it causes violence and death and should not be protected by the Constitution.

This county has a long history of offending and abusing others because of the color of their skin or how the practice their religion. In some places in the country use of the “N” word and foul language is illegal. I have seen someone get their ass kicked for use of he “N” word. People have been hung for exercising their freedom of speech that was not near hate speech. We are so full of it when we claim freedom of speech. When are we going to get it? 19 Muslims brought down the twin towers killing 3,000 Americans and we reacted by killing thousands of Muslims by avenging them. What happen to GOD saying; “Vengeance is mine, I repay evil” “Do into others as you would have then do into you“ “Repay evil or evil to no one?” I am appalled at the way we protect hate speech that incite violence and death and excuse it as freedom of speech. But that is what we do best in this so called civilized society.

We still have thousands of people in this country that will kill you because you are different and the they are called White Hate Groups. Not so long ago a 15 year old Black teen was hung and body mutilated because he was exercising his freedom of speech. Not hate speech. Mary Turner was hung, her baby cut from her body to fall to the ground and her body set on fire. In Texas a few years ago a Black man was dragged by a truck until he died because of the color of his skin. We are not so different than we claim to be from radical Muslims.[/QUOTE

Then every Democrat, Socialist and Marxist would be guilty of hate speech.

You are a complete idiot!

 

[PredFan]

And yet if people rampage when I yell fire in a theater its not their fault?

Seems like this is a discussion that can be had. The film was intentionally made to anger Muslims and then released in Muslim countries.

Are there no similarities between that and yelling "fire"?

Of course their are.

And yelling fire in a crowded theater is protected speech as well..so is talking about bombs on planes. Nothing in the Constitution prohibits it.

We've just decided, through legislation, that these are dangerous and stupid things to do.

Wow... you realize that doesn't make any sense at all, right? The Constitution doesn't prohibit rights, it protects them. In particular, it does this by prohibiting legislation that violates those rights.

So..., if the Court's interpretation is that laws against yelling fire in a crowded theater are permissible, than yelling fire in a crowded theater is not 'protected speech'.

Seriously, did you just mis-type, or do you really have no conception of how the Constitution works?

No, Sallow is a liberal. What makes sense is whatever he wants to make sense. It's how they live with being a liberal.

 

[WillowTree]

So when some asshole in the ME yells "Death to America" "Death to Israel" that is hate speech? Got it. I bet more of them would go to jail than us. What to you think little old hatefilled lady?

 

[Sallow]

And yet if people rampage when I yell fire in a theater its not their fault?

Seems like this is a discussion that can be had. The film was intentionally made to anger Muslims and then released in Muslim countries.

Are there no similarities between that and yelling "fire"?

Of course their are.

And yelling fire in a crowded theater is protected speech as well..so is talking about bombs on planes. Nothing in the Constitution prohibits it.

We've just decided, through legislation, that these are dangerous and stupid things to do.

Wow... you realize that doesn't make any sense at all, right? The Constitution doesn't prohibit rights, it protects them. In particular, it does this by prohibiting legislation that violates those rights.

So..., if the Court's interpretation is that laws against yelling fire in a crowded theater are permissible, than yelling fire in a crowded theater is not 'protected speech'.

Seriously, did you just mis-type, or do you really have no conception of how the Constitution works?

First you say that my post doesn't make any sense at all..then you agree with it..



I didn't "mistype" anything.

When folks start yammering on and on about what's protected speech and not..it really isn't something that left entirely up to the Constitution.

It's left up to legislators.

 

[Sallow]

Fail post.
The movie is just a movie. It doesn't excuse the actions of the muslinms. It isn't the fault of the movie or the filmmaker, it's the fault of the perps.

And yet if people rampage when I yell fire in a theater its not their fault?

Seems like this is a discussion that can be had. The film was intentionally made to anger Muslims and then released in Muslim countries.

Are there no similarities between that and yelling "fire"?

No one rampages when "fire" is yelled. people might get hurt acidentally, but what the muslims did want an accident.

The movie was made to expose the religion, and there are no similarities at all with yelling fire an a movie theater.

Sure there are..

The film is meant to incite violence.

And that's just what it did.

 

[WillowTree]

And yet if people rampage when I yell fire in a theater its not their fault?

Seems like this is a discussion that can be had. The film was intentionally made to anger Muslims and then released in Muslim countries.

Are there no similarities between that and yelling "fire"?

No one rampages when "fire" is yelled. people might get hurt acidentally, but what the muslims did want an accident.

The movie was made to expose the religion, and there are no similarities at all with yelling fire an a movie theater.

Sure there are..

The film is meant to incite violence.

And that's just what it did.

How do you know what his intent was? Did you ask him?

 

[dblack]

Of course their are.

And yelling fire in a crowded theater is protected speech as well..so is talking about bombs on planes. Nothing in the Constitution prohibits it.

We've just decided, through legislation, that these are dangerous and stupid things to do.

Wow... you realize that doesn't make any sense at all, right? The Constitution doesn't prohibit rights, it protects them. In particular, it does this by prohibiting legislation that violates those rights.

So..., if the Court's interpretation is that laws against yelling fire in a crowded theater are permissible, than yelling fire in a crowded theater is not 'protected speech'.

Seriously, did you just mis-type, or do you really have no conception of how the Constitution works?

First you say that my post doesn't make any sense at all..then you agree with it..



I didn't "mistype" anything.

When folks start yammering on and on about what's protected speech and not..it really isn't something that left entirely up to the Constitution.

It's left up to legislators.

No, it's not. That's what you're not getting. The whole point of Constitutionally protected rights is that they are NOT left to the whim of legislators. It's the fact that you fail go grasp this fundamental principle, and that so many other idiots out there share your misconception, that I find so disturbing.