Tax dollars being spent to condemn free speech

That is all nonsense. By your logic there is no such thing as state's rights, because as the term is used,

those rights belong to state governments. If, as you claim, governments cannot have rights,

then state's rights can't exist.

Damn, you caught me, I don't believe in states having rights. They do, however, have constitutionally defined areas of responsibility that the federal government has usurped.

So maybe you should go back in time and tell the founders that the tenth amendment doesn't belong in the Bill of RIGHTS.

This one?

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Don't see anything about rights there, do you?
 
As I have already explained, the government does not have rights.

Second, the 1st Amendment specifically forbids the government from taking a position in religious discussions.

No it doesn't. If what you say were true, then the President has done what? commit an impeachable offense?

The 1st Amendment allows the government to favor one religion over another? Since when? have you told the supreme court they got it wrong?

You didn't say what violation the President committed, nor who has jurisdiction/standing to take legal action against him.
 
No it doesn't. If what you say were true, then the President has done what? commit an impeachable offense?

The 1st Amendment allows the government to favor one religion over another? Since when? have you told the supreme court they got it wrong?

That's not the case here.

It isn't?

The government funded an art show where an artist photographed a crucifix in a jar of urine.

serrano-andres-piss-christ-1987.jpg


Then someone, who got no government funds, made a video that upset a bunch of people who never saw it, and the government condemned it.

Care to explain how that is not favoring one religion over another?

:popcorn:
 
No it doesn't. If what you say were true, then the President has done what? commit an impeachable offense?

The 1st Amendment allows the government to favor one religion over another? Since when? have you told the supreme court they got it wrong?

You didn't say what violation the President committed, nor who has jurisdiction/standing to take legal action against him.

Can you point out where I mentioned the president at all? I have consistently argued that the government cannot do this, you need to stop pretending I am talking about a person and focus on the fact that I am talking about the government.
 
Is calling binge drinking an abuse of alcohol a condemnation of alcohol?

Does the constitution specifically forbid the government from taking a position on binge drinking?

Didn't think so.

It was a yes or no question. Do you need help? The answer is 'no'.

And similarly, to express the opinion that a film is an abuse of free speech is not a condemnation of free speech.

Correct, this line of ‘reasoning’ is partisan, a pathetic and failed attempt on the part of the right to portray the Administration as somehow being ‘hostile’ to free expression rights.
 
Tax dollars being spent to condemn free speech

The State Department is merely informing the Islamic world that the US Government is in no way associated with the film "Innocence of Moslims" in an effort to prevent future attacks on its embassies and consulates.

If it wasn't taking this measure, our same conservative "friends" would now be posting alternative threads condemning the Obama Administration for not disassociiating itself from this anti-Islamic propoganda.
 
Last edited:
Tax dollars being spent to condemn free speech

The State Department is meerly informing the Islamic world that the US Government is in no way associated with "Innocence of Moslems"


That is nonsense...

I can associate the US gov't with the movie clip... The 1st amendment of the US allows for free speech. The fed gov't supports the first amendment. The US gov't is in favor of allowing peoples to make video's in bad taste.

It is the responsibity of the President to protect our right of Free Speech. It IS an oath he is sworn to...

The Islamic world needs to accept that we have freedom to express ideas that may not be popular muslims. They need to deal with it!!! --- and that should be the message coming out of the White House.
 
Tax dollars being spent to condemn free speech

The State Department is merely informing the Islamic world that the US Government is in no way associated with the film "Innocence of Moslims" in an effort to prevent future attacks on its embassies and consulates.

If it wasn't taking this measure, our same conservative "friends" would now be posting alternative threads condemning the Obama Administration for not disassociiating itself from this anti-Islamic propoganda.

Bull --- We should NEVER disassociate ourselves with our right to free speech. Just like me as a Christian doesn't denouce Obama for not trying to stop that, so called artist, for his cross in urine exhibit. I may despise the "artist" and his work, but I believe in his rights.

If we stop artists and anti-muslim film makers --- the nest step will be to stop Christians from making their own art and movies...

I sure wish liberals had the capacity to see where there errors in judgement will lead!!!
 
Does the constitution specifically forbid the government from taking a position on binge drinking?

Didn't think so.

It was a yes or no question. Do you need help? The answer is 'no'.

And similarly, to express the opinion that a film is an abuse of free speech is not a condemnation of free speech.

Correct, this line of ‘reasoning’ is partisan, a pathetic and failed attempt on the part of the right to portray the Administration as somehow being ‘hostile’ to free expression rights.

I love how people keep positioning me politically on the basis of their beliefs. I also love how they keep making this about The One when I am talking about government in general. Both Republicans and Democrats in office are condemning this as part of their official positions as our representatives, and they are all wrong.
 
Tax dollars being spent to condemn free speech

The State Department is merely informing the Islamic world that the US Government is in no way associated with the film "Innocence of Moslims" in an effort to prevent future attacks on its embassies and consulates.

If it wasn't taking this measure, our same conservative "friends" would now be posting alternative threads condemning the Obama Administration for not disassociiating itself from this anti-Islamic propoganda.

Believe it or not, the Muslim world is not half as stupid as you are, which means they already know that. You really should get over your bigotry, it makes you look really stupid when you comment on a subject that involves real people.
 
Tax dollars being spent to condemn free speech

The State Department is merely informing the Islamic world that the US Government is in no way associated with the film "Innocence of Moslims" in an effort to prevent future attacks on its embassies and consulates.

If it wasn't taking this measure, our same conservative "friends" would now be posting alternative threads condemning the Obama Administration for not disassociiating itself from this anti-Islamic propoganda.

Believe it or not, the Muslim world is not half as stupid as you are, which means they already know that. You really should get over your bigotry, it makes you look really stupid when you comment on a subject that involves real people.
Considering they don't have freedom of the press... I'm not sure how you can make that assumption.
 
Bull --- We should NEVER disassociate ourselves with our right to free speech. Just like me as a Christian doesn't denouce Obama for not trying to stop that, so called artist, for his cross in urine exhibit. I may despise the "artist" and his work, but I believe in his rights.

If we stop artists and anti-muslim film makers --- the nest step will be to stop Christians from making their own art and movies...

I sure wish liberals had the capacity to see where there errors in judgement will lead!!!
*****************************************************************
Nakoula Basseley Nakoula (responsible for creating "Innocence of Muslims")

- the California State Board of Equalization filed a $191,000 tax lien against Nakoula in 1997 for owed taxes, interest and penalties dating from 1989 to 1992

- arrested by the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department for possession of ephedrine, hydroiodic acid, and $45,000 in cash in 1997

- pleaded guilty to intent to manufacture methamphetamine and was sentenced in 1997 to one year in Los Angeles County Jail and three years probation

- declared bankruptcy in 2000

- violated probation in 2002, and was re-sentenced to another year in county jail

- in 2010, pleaded no contest to federal charges of bank fraud in California and was ordered to pay $794,701 in restitution

- also sentenced to 21 months in federal prison

- released from prison in June 2011 and ordered not to use computers or the Internet for five years without approval from his probation officer

- Nakoula was released from a halfway house a few weeks before he filmed "Innocence of Muslims"

Nakoula Basseley Nakoula - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Obamanation" and the OP now accuses liberals of "censoring" the rights of a convicted drug dealer and bank fraudster on probation, to create a film whose only redeeming value was to make a "fast buck."

Nakoula Basseley Nakoula's "constitutional rights" have already cost the lives of 4 innocent Americans, 10 innocent Lybian security guards, jeporadized the lives of countless others and created turmoil throughout the Middle East - constituting another example of "falsely shouting fire in a crowded theatre."
 
Last edited:
Gotta love a government that stands up for principles.

Marked by the U.S. Embassy seal, advertisements condemning an anti-Islam video appeared on Pakistani television on Thursday in an apparent attempt to undercut anger against the United States, where the film was produced. Hundreds of youths, however, clashed with security officials as they tried in vain to reach the embassy in Islamabad amid anger in many countries over the film's vulgar depiction of the Prophet Muhammad.The advertisements appear to be an effort by the U.S. government to dampen chaos surrounding the film and undo some of the damage to America's image in the Muslim world. Violence linked to the movie has left at least 30 people in seven countries dead, including the American ambassador to Libya. Two people have died in protests in Pakistan.
In recent days, the decision by a French satirical magazine to release cartoons crudely depicting the prophet has added to the tension, as may the upcoming issue of the German satirical magazine Titanic. The magazine's co-editor Martin Sonneborn said it was up to readers to decide whether the cover of an Arab wielding a sword actually depicts the Prophet Muhammad.

Pakistan: anti-film ads feature Obama, Clinton - Yahoo! News


It is no violation of the principle of free speech to condemn speech that is hateful.

In fact the whole point of free speech is to allow hateful speech to be exposed, such that it CAN be evaluated and condemned or condoned according to the attitude of the commenters.

Nothing our government has done regarding this is in ANY WAY a violtation of the principles of our way of life.
 
Shouting fire in a crowded theater

"The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent."
(Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.)

..... People have indeed falsely shouted "Fire!" in crowded public venues and caused panics on numerous occasions, such as at the Royal Surrey Gardens Music Hall (London) in 1856, in Harlem in 1884, and in the Italian Hall disaster of 1913, which left 73 dead.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater
Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., a US Supreme Court Justice, cites the "falsely shouting fire in a theater" as a metaphor to show that free speech has its limitations.

Falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre, just as making the film "Innocence of Muslims" may be considered free speech, but the words in both cases "create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent."

In both cases "the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent" are that they jeporadize the lives of innocent citizens unnecessarily, where the freedom of speech that certain individuals may wish to exercise are far outwerghed by the negative consequences.
 
Last edited:
Tax dollars being spent to condemn free speech

The State Department is merely informing the Islamic world that the US Government is in no way associated with the film "Innocence of Moslims" in an effort to prevent future attacks on its embassies and consulates.

If it wasn't taking this measure, our same conservative "friends" would now be posting alternative threads condemning the Obama Administration for not disassociiating itself from this anti-Islamic propoganda.

Believe it or not, the Muslim world is not half as stupid as you are, which means they already know that. You really should get over your bigotry, it makes you look really stupid when you comment on a subject that involves real people.
Considering they don't have freedom of the press... I'm not sure how you can make that assumption.

Can you tell me how the fact that Muslim countries do not have freedom of the press proves that Muslims are unaware that the US government had nothing to do with the video?
 
Bull --- We should NEVER disassociate ourselves with our right to free speech. Just like me as a Christian doesn't denouce Obama for not trying to stop that, so called artist, for his cross in urine exhibit. I may despise the "artist" and his work, but I believe in his rights.

If we stop artists and anti-muslim film makers --- the nest step will be to stop Christians from making their own art and movies...

I sure wish liberals had the capacity to see where there errors in judgement will lead!!!
*****************************************************************
Nakoula Basseley Nakoula (responsible for creating "Innocence of Muslims")

- the California State Board of Equalization filed a $191,000 tax lien against Nakoula in 1997 for owed taxes, interest and penalties dating from 1989 to 1992

- arrested by the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department for possession of ephedrine, hydroiodic acid, and $45,000 in cash in 1997

- pleaded guilty to intent to manufacture methamphetamine and was sentenced in 1997 to one year in Los Angeles County Jail and three years probation

- declared bankruptcy in 2000

- violated probation in 2002, and was re-sentenced to another year in county jail

- in 2010, pleaded no contest to federal charges of bank fraud in California and was ordered to pay $794,701 in restitution

- also sentenced to 21 months in federal prison

- released from prison in June 2011 and ordered not to use computers or the Internet for five years without approval from his probation officer

- Nakoula was released from a halfway house a few weeks before he filmed "Innocence of Muslims"

Nakoula Basseley Nakoula - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Obamanation" and the OP now accuses liberals of "censoring" the rights of a convicted drug dealer and bank fraudster on probation, to create a film whose only redeeming value was to make a "fast buck."

Nakoula Basseley Nakoula's "constitutional rights" have already cost the lives of 4 innocent Americans, 10 innocent Lybian security guards, jeporadized the lives of countless others and created turmoil throughout the Middle East - constituting another example of "falsely shouting fire in a crowded theatre."

That's the weird things about rights. Since they do not come from the government they don't go away simply because you are a convicted felon.
 
Last edited:
Gotta love a government that stands up for principles.

Marked by the U.S. Embassy seal, advertisements condemning an anti-Islam video appeared on Pakistani television on Thursday in an apparent attempt to undercut anger against the United States, where the film was produced. Hundreds of youths, however, clashed with security officials as they tried in vain to reach the embassy in Islamabad amid anger in many countries over the film's vulgar depiction of the Prophet Muhammad.The advertisements appear to be an effort by the U.S. government to dampen chaos surrounding the film and undo some of the damage to America's image in the Muslim world. Violence linked to the movie has left at least 30 people in seven countries dead, including the American ambassador to Libya. Two people have died in protests in Pakistan.
In recent days, the decision by a French satirical magazine to release cartoons crudely depicting the prophet has added to the tension, as may the upcoming issue of the German satirical magazine Titanic. The magazine's co-editor Martin Sonneborn said it was up to readers to decide whether the cover of an Arab wielding a sword actually depicts the Prophet Muhammad.
Pakistan: anti-film ads feature Obama, Clinton - Yahoo! News


It is no violation of the principle of free speech to condemn speech that is hateful.

In fact the whole point of free speech is to allow hateful speech to be exposed, such that it CAN be evaluated and condemned or condoned according to the attitude of the commenters.

Nothing our government has done regarding this is in ANY WAY a violtation of the principles of our way of life.

Funny, I don't recall saying that it violated free speech to condemn something another person says. What I clearly said is that it is not the government's job to take a stance on the content of speech, and that them condemning the words of any individual is wrong. I don't understand why that is so hard for some people to grasp.
 
Bull --- We should NEVER disassociate ourselves with our right to free speech. Just like me as a Christian doesn't denouce Obama for not trying to stop that, so called artist, for his cross in urine exhibit. I may despise the "artist" and his work, but I believe in his rights.

If we stop artists and anti-muslim film makers --- the nest step will be to stop Christians from making their own art and movies...

I sure wish liberals had the capacity to see where there errors in judgement will lead!!!
*****************************************************************
Nakoula Basseley Nakoula (responsible for creating "Innocence of Muslims")

- the California State Board of Equalization filed a $191,000 tax lien against Nakoula in 1997 for owed taxes, interest and penalties dating from 1989 to 1992

- arrested by the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department for possession of ephedrine, hydroiodic acid, and $45,000 in cash in 1997

- pleaded guilty to intent to manufacture methamphetamine and was sentenced in 1997 to one year in Los Angeles County Jail and three years probation

- declared bankruptcy in 2000

- violated probation in 2002, and was re-sentenced to another year in county jail

- in 2010, pleaded no contest to federal charges of bank fraud in California and was ordered to pay $794,701 in restitution

- also sentenced to 21 months in federal prison

- released from prison in June 2011 and ordered not to use computers or the Internet for five years without approval from his probation officer

- Nakoula was released from a halfway house a few weeks before he filmed "Innocence of Muslims"

Nakoula Basseley Nakoula - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Obamanation" and the OP now accuses liberals of "censoring" the rights of a convicted drug dealer and bank fraudster on probation, to create a film whose only redeeming value was to make a "fast buck."

Nakoula Basseley Nakoula's "constitutional rights" have already cost the lives of 4 innocent Americans, 10 innocent Lybian security guards, jeporadized the lives of countless others and created turmoil throughout the Middle East - constituting another example of "falsely shouting fire in a crowded theatre."

That's the weird things about rights. Since they do not come from the government they don't go away simply because you are a convicted felon.
Why are Conservatives only capable of viewing "freedom of speech" in the most simplistic terms, completely ignoring the fact that the 1st Amendment doesn't provide one citizen "a blank check" to imperil the lives of others and the security of the nation!

Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, a Coptic Christian from Egypt was certainly far more aware than most that the release of his film "Innocence of Muslims," was tantamount to falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre.

Apparently "Quantum Windbag" is only prepared to defend the constitutional rights of Nakoula and ignore those of the 4 innocent American citizens who were killed, the lives of 10 Lybian security guards who gave their lives defending the consulate and film employees claiming that they were deliberately deceived and are living in fear for their lives.
 
Last edited:
*****************************************************************
"Obamanation" and the OP now accuses liberals of "censoring" the rights of a convicted drug dealer and bank fraudster on probation, to create a film whose only redeeming value was to make a "fast buck."

Nakoula Basseley Nakoula's "constitutional rights" have already cost the lives of 4 innocent Americans, 10 innocent Lybian security guards, jeporadized the lives of countless others and created turmoil throughout the Middle East - constituting another example of "falsely shouting fire in a crowded theatre."

That's the weird things about rights. Since they do not come from the government they don't go away simply because you are a convicted felon.
Why are Conservatives only capable of viewing "freedom of speech" in the most simplistic terms, completely ignoring the fact that the 1st Amendment doesn't provide one citizen "a blank check" to imperil the lives of others and the security of the nation!

Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, a Coptic Christian from Egypt was certainly far more aware than most that the release of his film "Innocence of Muslims," was tantamount to falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre.

Apparently "Quantum Windbag" is only prepared to defend the constitutional rights of Nakoula and ignore those of the 4 innocent American citizens who were killed, the lives of 10 Lybian security guards who gave their lives defending the consulate and film employees claiming that they were deliberately deceived and are living in fear for their lives.

Why do idiots use bold print and categorize people without understanding them? Please point out how making a really bad movie imperils anyone or anything other than the brain cells of the people that see the video.

How, exactly, does "Innocence of Muslims" put anyone in danger of being trampled by a panicked mob?

Since Nakoula did not kill those people I fail to see how me defending his rights in any way proves that I do not appreciate the rights of the people who died. Does the fact that I also support the rights of Muslims who want to call Nakoula a shameless bigot who should die a painful and lingering death mean that I also have no respect for Nakoula's rights? How does that work if I only champion his rights?
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top