First amendment should not protect hate speech.

[Sallow]

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.

Well being that the Constitution is a liberal document..meant to give rights to all people..which is a liberal thing to do..I sense I have a better understanding of it..then someone like you..who is a conservative..and who's only interest is in preserving power for people like yourself. One country. One people. One ethnicity. One religion. One race.

That's what you folks want.

 

[Freewill]

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?

Obama told her. Maybe the film was made because the guy had a gripe against Muslims. Maybe it was made to incite those who are not Muslim. Lots of possibilities but when the incompetence of the President's administration needs defended anything will work.

 

[Freewill]

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.

Well being that the Constitution is a liberal document..meant to give rights to all people..which is a liberal thing to do..I sense I have a better understanding of it..then someone like you..who is a conservative..and who's only interest is in preserving power for people like yourself. One country. One people. One ethnicity. One religion. One race.

That's what you folks want.

I threw up in my mouth when I read this, lucky for my key board. Do you actually laugh when you post this crap?

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

We have a US Constitution which protects speech.. It doesn't say some.. It doesn't say if you're offended, that speech isn't protected.. I'm so sick of the anti-liberty assholes.. Honest to God, get the fuck out of this country and go live in Iran.. You can spew hatred toward America all day long and be protected but they will chop your fucking head off if you're a woman and dare to educate yourself, choose the religion of your choice.. etc.. WTF is hate if not that?

 

[blackhawk]

So what would the guidelines of determining what qualifies as hate speech and who would set them? If I said I was angry about the number of illegal aliens in the country or the Muslims burning the flag and attacking and killing our diplomats made me furious would those be considered hate speech? One persons hate speech is another persons strong opinion I have said this before trying to regulate or censor free speech is the first step to losing it.

 

[Sallow]

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.

Sure it is..

Try talking about bombs on planes.

You'll find the "whim" of legislators will put your ass into jail.

And unless you can convince them otherwise..you will stay there as long as that "whim" keeps you there.

The Constitution is not some religious tome put in place by a god.

It's a document constructed by men meant to act as a template from which laws are derived.

 

[Sallow]

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

Well being that the Constitution is a liberal document..meant to give rights to all people..which is a liberal thing to do..I sense I have a better understanding of it..then someone like you..who is a conservative..and who's only interest is in preserving power for people like yourself. One country. One people. One ethnicity. One religion. One race.

That's what you folks want.

I threw up in my mouth when I read this, lucky for my key board. Do you actually laugh when you post this crap?

Threw up why?

Truth hurts?

 

[Sallow]

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?

Obama told her. Maybe the film was made because the guy had a gripe against Muslims. Maybe it was made to incite those who are not Muslim. Lots of possibilities but when the incompetence of the President's administration needs defended anything will work.

You have a problem telling the difference between boys and girls?

Hmm..why is that?

 

[Freewill]

So what would the guidelines of determining what qualifies as hate speech and who would set them? If I said I was angry about the number of illegal aliens in the country or the Muslims burning the flag and attacking and killing our diplomats made me furious would those be considered hate speech? One persons hate speech is another persons strong opinion I have said this before trying to regulate or censor free speech is the first step to losing it.

Decide between these two.

A Crucifix of Jesus put in a jar of urine, paid for with public funding. (answer this as if the Crucifix were the Koran)

A movie/video expressing a person's view on a man who may or may not have lived centuries ago paid for by private money. (answer this considering the many anti-Christian videos available on the WWW)

 

[Katzndogz]

We actually have people in this country, today, who will argue against the First Amendment. Losing it won't be very far behind.

 

[Freewill]

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

Obama told her. Maybe the film was made because the guy had a gripe against Muslims. Maybe it was made to incite those who are not Muslim. Lots of possibilities but when the incompetence of the President's administration needs defended anything will work.

You have a problem telling the difference between boys and girls?

Hmm..why is that?

My bad.

 

[chikenwing]

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.

Well being that the Constitution is a liberal document..meant to give rights to all people..which is a liberal thing to do..I sense I have a better understanding of it..then someone like you..who is a conservative..and who's only interest is in preserving power for people like yourself. One country. One people. One ethnicity. One religion. One race.

That's what you folks want.

You don't know any real conservatives and you have no idea what you speak of.

It a gas how these peole try and tell others how to think,what they are thinking and want in life.

Keep drinking the cool aid you got it all figured out.

 

[dblack]

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.

Sure it is..

Try talking about bombs on planes.

You'll find the "whim" of legislators will put your ass into jail.

And unless you can convince them otherwise..you will stay there as long as that "whim" keeps you there.

The Constitution is not some religious tome put in place by a god.

It's a document constructed by men meant to act as a template from which laws are derived.

Right, and this is why I've always maintained that so-called 'liberals' such as yourself have more in common with neo-cons than with any real liberal tradition. To you, the Constitution is just 'a goddamned piece of paper'. You're authoritarian to the core, respecting the brute force of government above all other power.

 

[Freewill]

We actually have people in this country, today, who will argue against the First Amendment. Losing it won't be very far behind.

That has to be the tact they are taking cause by every account, other then Obama, the killing of our people was not because of some movie.

 

[Full-Auto]

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.

So you want freedom of speech for the things you like to hear. But Oppose that speech because you want to reserve the right to be offended.

You can be offended now. Who determines what is offensive????

 

[Sallow]

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

Well being that the Constitution is a liberal document..meant to give rights to all people..which is a liberal thing to do..I sense I have a better understanding of it..then someone like you..who is a conservative..and who's only interest is in preserving power for people like yourself. One country. One people. One ethnicity. One religion. One race.

That's what you folks want.

You don't know any real conservatives and you have no idea what you speak of.

It a gas how these peole try and tell others how to think,what they are thinking and want in life.

Keep drinking the cool aid you got it all figured out.

I know plenty of people that call themselves conservatives.

And I am pretty well versed in English.

con·serv·a·tive
   [kuhn-sur-vuh-tiv] Show IPA

adjective
1.
disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.

2.
cautiously moderate or purposefully low: a conservative estimate.

3.
traditional in style or manner; avoiding novelty or showiness: conservative suit.

4.
( often initial capital letter ) of or pertaining to the Conservative party.

5.
( initial capital letter ) of, pertaining to, or characteristic of Conservative Jews or Conservative Judaism.

You have a different definition?

 

[GuyPinestra]

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"?

Actually, I don't think the 'film', if you can call it that, has been released ANYWHERE. It seems only the 13 minute trailer is available on Youtube. Your assumption that this 'film' was released in Muslim countries is in error.

The trailer has been available online for many months, and yet the uproar is very recent. It is also very manufactured, by people who count on the Islamists to react with bloodlust over ANYTHING that tweaks their 7th Century sense of honor.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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?

Are all Muslim's Children? Why should we treat them as such?

 

[Freewill]

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".

There is no reason for an apologizing for America over the actions of very small group of people, THAT is the point. What Obama should apologize for is the failure of his administration to stop the attack or protect US citizens. Not that it is precisely the Presidents fault but we pay people to know these things. So it either happened because of incompetence or because of design. Who can know what will set off Muslims if a little seen film or video causes this type of organized attacks on 9/11? The president may not be directly responsible for the deaths of Americans but he is certainly responsible for his reaction. He is not telling us the truth everyone should know that.

 

[hortysir]

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.

So you wish to curtail free speech by shackling freedom of religion to it???

LOL, you picked a very appropriate anagram