Head of DOJ Civil Rights Division refuses to answer simple question

[Quantum Windbag]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wwv9l6W8yc]High Ranking DOJ Official Refuses to Affirm 1st Amendment Rights - YouTube[/ame]

 

[koshergrl]

Told you.

This is all about removing our rights.

 

[Murf76]

Not surprised. This administration has been actively seeking "hate speech" laws at the U.N.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/247840-obama-administration-undermining-free-speech.html

 

[Sinjorri]

wow if anyone backs this doj please please please can you let me know why?

 

[koshergrl]

They won't. That's the leftist policy...they aren't going to admit they have an agenda to remove the liberty of the American people.

But their agenda is just that.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

All the "liberals" on this board, and not one of them are saying how bad it is that the DOJ refuses to take a stance against a law that would restrict free speech.

I wonder why.

 

[Salt Jones]

wow if anyone backs this doj please please please can you let me know why?

Me.

 

[g5000]

Does anyone have a link to the full exchange between these two men? Because the clip is clearly being taken out of context.

.

 

[g5000]

DOJ Official Won

Progressives, Islamists huddle at Justice Department | The Daily Caller

Those two articles provide some context.

The Congressman, Republican Trent Franks, began his exchange with DOJ official Tom Perez by referring to the Daily Caller article I linked above.

The Daily Caller is a right wing publication with an obvious right wing bias.

From that article:

Top Justice Department officials convened a meeting Wednesday where invited Islamist advocates lobbied them for cutbacks in anti-terror funding, changes in agents’ training manuals, additional curbs on investigators and a legal declaration that U.S. citizens’ criticism of Islam constitutes racial discrimination.

The department’s “civil rights lawyers are top of the line — I say this with utter honesty — I know they can come up with a way” to redefine criticism as discrimination, said Sahar Aziz, a female, Egyptian-American lawyer.

“I’d be willing to give a shot at it,” said Aziz, who is a fellow at the Michigan-based Muslim advocacy group, the Institute for Social Policy & Understanding.

The audience of Islamist advocates and department officials included Tom Perez, who heads the department’s division of civil rights.

“We must continue to have the open and honest and critical dialogue that you saw in the robust debate,” Perez responded in an enthusiastic closing speech a few minutes after Aziz made her demands at the event.

“I sat here the entire time, taking notes,” Perez said. “I have some very concrete thoughts … in the aftermath of this.”

The meeting at George Washington University showcased the expanding alliance between American progressives and Islamists, said Andrew McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor in New York.

You can detect the neocon flavor in that article.

So when Franks began grilling Perez about the article, Perez told Franks he had not seen the article.

This is when the video clip in the OP starts. Franks is working on the assumption that Perez entertained the idea of outlawing criticism of Islam, even though Perez referred to the event as a debate. There is absolutely no evidence for Franks' assumption, but Franks thinks by repeating something it becomes true.

Perez is wisely choosing not to respond to something, the context of which he is completely unfamiliar. Remember, he has not seen the Daily Caller that is the context of Franks' remarks.

The aim of this clip is to get you to leap to the conclusion that Franks' assumption is true without telling you Franks is working off a biased article from a conservative web site which only he, and not Perez, has seen. He does not give Perez an opportunity to review the article and testify to its veracity or what his comments meant.

You should be better than to fall for these cheap stunts.


.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Does anyone have a link to the full exchange between these two men? Because the clip is clearly being taken out of context.

.

I love it when people claim that. Franks makes it clear that the question is entirely separate from anything that came before it. Feel free to did up the video that somehow justifies the refusal to take a stance for the Constitution of the United States. The interview occurred on 28 Jul 2012 and was between Trent Franks and Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez.

I won't hold my breath for you to come back and say he is wrong though.

 

[g5000]

Aha! Here is the entire hearing. The full context.

http://judiciary.edgeboss.net/wmedia/judiciary/constitution/const07262012.wvx

Now listen to what is said at around the 49 minute mark between Congressman Nadler and Perez:

Nadler: I assume the department would make a commitment that you’re not going to offer a proposal to criminalize protected speech, to criminalize criticism of religion or of anybody else, other than in the context of a direct threat.

Perez: Right. We will do this work, as we always have, in a way that is consistent with the Constitution.

Nadler: Which means you cannot criminalize…

Perez: Hate speech.

Nadler: Hate speech.

Perez: Correct.

Once again, you've all been had by liars of omission.


.

 

[g5000]

Does anyone have a link to the full exchange between these two men? Because the clip is clearly being taken out of context.

.

I love it when people claim that. Franks makes it clear that the question is entirely separate from anything that came before it. Feel free to did up the video that somehow justifies the refusal to take a stance for the Constitution of the United States. The interview occurred on 28 Jul 2012 and was between Trent Franks and Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez.

I won't hold my breath for you to come back and say he is wrong though.

I just dug up the whole hearing, son. See my last post. Enjoy. I won't hold my breath and wait for you to admit you got suckered, though.

.

 

[g5000]

Critical thinking. Learn it. Live it.

.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Aha! Here is the entire hearing. The full context.

http://judiciary.edgeboss.net/wmedia/judiciary/constitution/const07262012.wvx

Now listen to what is said at around the 49 minute mark between Congressman Nadler and Perez:

Nadler: I assume the department would make a commitment that you’re not going to offer a proposal to criminalize protected speech, to criminalize criticism of religion or of anybody else, other than in the context of a direct threat.

Perez: Right. We will do this work, as we always have, in a way that is consistent with the Constitution.

Nadler: Which means you cannot criminalize…

Perez: Hate speech.

Nadler: Hate speech.

Perez: Correct.

Once again, you've all been had by liars of omission.


.

Liars by omission?

The portion of the testimony you decided to focus on was about criminalizing protected speech, and the guy still weaseled about threats. Since everyone, except you, already understands that threats are not protected speech, he didn't actually answer the question there, did he. That is why Franks decided to specifically pin him down to answer the question later, and wouldn't let him get away with pretending that threats somehow fall into criticizing religion.

Nice try though, it shows you have access to the lefty blogs that back up your idiocy. Unless, that is, you want me to believe you actually watched 40+ minutes of video in 8 minutes.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Does anyone have a link to the full exchange between these two men? Because the clip is clearly being taken out of context.

.

I love it when people claim that. Franks makes it clear that the question is entirely separate from anything that came before it. Feel free to did up the video that somehow justifies the refusal to take a stance for the Constitution of the United States. The interview occurred on 28 Jul 2012 and was between Trent Franks and Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez.

I won't hold my breath for you to come back and say he is wrong though.

I just dug up the whole hearing, son. See my last post. Enjoy. I won't hold my breath and wait for you to admit you got suckered, though.

.

And I just proved you didn't actually dig it up, you got help from someone who is trying to cover for him.

Critical thinking, learn it, use it.

 

[g5000]

Sorry to make your butts hurt. Perez plainly answered he would not criminalize hate speech against a religion. None of your whining and smoke will obscure that. Facts are facts. He answered the question when it was asked without booby traps or word games or references to an article he had not seen.

I found an unaltered, unadulterated, unabridged video. This cannot be denied no matter how hard you try. Who gives a shit who is hosting it? The truth is the truth, and the truth is in the full video.

Perez did answer the question. The OP is a lie of omission, and that is a fact.

You guys just keeping falling for the same stupid shit over and over and over. When will you learn?

If your ears were open you would have heard Perez mention that Franks had brought up an article. Did you even bother to look into that?

No. Who did?

That's right. I did.

Then I dug further until the WHOLE TRUTH was shown.


Like I said, I won't hold my breath waiting for you to admit you've been had.

Critical thinking. Learn it. Live it. Or just keep embarrassing yourselves. Your choice, it's a free country.





.

 

[g5000]

Aha! Here is the entire hearing. The full context.

http://judiciary.edgeboss.net/wmedia/judiciary/constitution/const07262012.wvx

Now listen to what is said at around the 49 minute mark between Congressman Nadler and Perez:

Nadler: I assume the department would make a commitment that you’re not going to offer a proposal to criminalize protected speech, to criminalize criticism of religion or of anybody else, other than in the context of a direct threat.

Perez: Right. We will do this work, as we always have, in a way that is consistent with the Constitution.

Nadler: Which means you cannot criminalize…

Perez: Hate speech.

Nadler: Hate speech.

Perez: Correct.

Once again, you've all been had by liars of omission.


.

Liars by omission?

The portion of the testimony you decided to focus on was about criminalizing protected speech, and the guy still weaseled about threats. Since everyone, except you, already understands that threats are not protected speech, he didn't actually answer the question there, did he. That is why Franks decided to specifically pin him down to answer the question later, and wouldn't let him get away with pretending that threats somehow fall into criticizing religion.

Nice try though, it shows you have access to the lefty blogs that back up your idiocy. Unless, that is, you want me to believe you actually watched 40+ minutes of video in 8 minutes.

Here is where I got the video link: An Update and a Correction | World Affairs Journal

The guy had the integrity to admit he had been had, unlike you:

Perez did later clarify his position, however, so I’m sorry that I wrote about this at all. I wouldn’t have had I known what Perez said later. But I’m happy to correct the record. And this is one of those cases where I’d rather be wrong than right anyway.

Not a "lefty blog".

Nice try, but failed anyway.
.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Sorry to make your butts hurt. Perez plainly answered he would not criminalize hate speech against a religion. None of your whining and smoke will obscure that. Facts are facts. He answered the question when it was asked without booby traps or word games or references to an article he had not seen.

I found an unaltered, unadulterated, unabridged video. This cannot be denied no matter how hard you try. Who gives a shit who is hosting it? The truth is the truth, and the truth is in the full video.

Perez did answer the question. The OP is a lie of omission, and that is a fact.

You guys just keeping falling for the same stupid shit over and over and over. When will you learn?

If your ears were open you would have heard Perez mention that Franks had brought up an article. Did you even bother to look into that?

No. Who did?

That's right. I did.

Then I dug further until the WHOLE TRUTH was shown.


Like I said, I won't hold my breath waiting for you to admit you've been had.

Critical thinking. Learn it. Live it. Or just keep embarrassing yourselves. Your choice, it's a free country.





.

That is not what he plainly said, what he said is that the administration wants to make it illegal to blasphemy against religion, which is why they are pushing for the UN to define a blasphemy exemption to free speech. Unfortunately, they are constrained by the constitution, which is something else he said, so they have to figure out a way to work around that restraint.

 

[g5000]

Sorry to make your butts hurt. Perez plainly answered he would not criminalize hate speech against a religion. None of your whining and smoke will obscure that. Facts are facts. He answered the question when it was asked without booby traps or word games or references to an article he had not seen.

I found an unaltered, unadulterated, unabridged video. This cannot be denied no matter how hard you try. Who gives a shit who is hosting it? The truth is the truth, and the truth is in the full video.

Perez did answer the question. The OP is a lie of omission, and that is a fact.

You guys just keeping falling for the same stupid shit over and over and over. When will you learn?

If your ears were open you would have heard Perez mention that Franks had brought up an article. Did you even bother to look into that?

No. Who did?

That's right. I did.

Then I dug further until the WHOLE TRUTH was shown.


Like I said, I won't hold my breath waiting for you to admit you've been had.

Critical thinking. Learn it. Live it. Or just keep embarrassing yourselves. Your choice, it's a free country.





.

That is not what he plainly said, what he said is that the administration wants to make it illegal to blasphemy against religion, which is why they are pushing for the UN to define a blasphemy exemption to free speech. Unfortunately, they are constrained by the constitution, which is something else he said, so they have to figure out a way to work around that restraint.

Wow. You have some strange voices in your head.

Care to provide the time mark and quote the part where he said all this?

That is some wild imagination you have!

.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Sorry to make your butts hurt. Perez plainly answered he would not criminalize hate speech against a religion. None of your whining and smoke will obscure that. Facts are facts. He answered the question when it was asked without booby traps or word games or references to an article he had not seen.

I found an unaltered, unadulterated, unabridged video. This cannot be denied no matter how hard you try. Who gives a shit who is hosting it? The truth is the truth, and the truth is in the full video.

Perez did answer the question. The OP is a lie of omission, and that is a fact.

You guys just keeping falling for the same stupid shit over and over and over. When will you learn?

If your ears were open you would have heard Perez mention that Franks had brought up an article. Did you even bother to look into that?

No. Who did?

That's right. I did.

Then I dug further until the WHOLE TRUTH was shown.


Like I said, I won't hold my breath waiting for you to admit you've been had.

Critical thinking. Learn it. Live it. Or just keep embarrassing yourselves. Your choice, it's a free country.





.

That is not what he plainly said, what he said is that the administration wants to make it illegal to blasphemy against religion, which is why they are pushing for the UN to define a blasphemy exemption to free speech. Unfortunately, they are constrained by the constitution, which is something else he said, so they have to figure out a way to work around that restraint.

Wow. You have some strange voices in your head.

Care to provide the time mark and quote the part where he said all this?

That is some wild imagination you have!

.

I have strange voices in my head? Apparently you don't read the LA Times. Guess what a former assistant to the Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff wrote today.

In one of the most famous 1st Amendment cases in U.S. history, Schenck vs. United States, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. established that the right to free speech in the United States is not unlimited. "The most stringent protection," he wrote on behalf of a unanimous court, "would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic."
Holmes' test — that words are not protected if their nature and circumstances create a "clear and present danger" of harm — has since been tightened. But even under the more restrictive current standard, "Innocence of Muslims," the film whose video trailer indirectly led to the death of U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens among others, is not, arguably, free speech protected under the U.S. Constitution and the values it enshrines.
According to initial media investigations, the clip whose most egregious lines were apparently dubbed in after it was shot, was first posted to YouTube in July by someone with the user name "Sam Bacile." The Associated Press reported tracing a cellphone number given as Bacile's to the address of a Californian of Egyptian Coptic origin named Nakoula Basseley Nakoula. Nakoula has identified himself as coordinating logistics on the production but denies being Bacile.

'Innocence of Muslims' doesn't meet free-speech test - latimes.com

There is obviously an effort to expand the exemptions to free speech to include speech that causes violence. Why is it absurd to ask the DOJ about their stance on the issue?