The right to break Islamic law

[Quantum Windbag]

Wrong. The correct answer, under current constitutional law, is 'yes':

Brandenburg test

in constitutional law


Standard established in Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 US 444 (1969), to determine when inflammatory speech intending to advocate illegal action can be restricted. The standard developed determined that speech advocating the use of force or crime could only be proscribed where two conditions were satisfied: (1) the advocacy is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action,” and (2) the advocacy is also “likely to incite or produce such action.”

Brandenburg test | LII / Legal Information Institute

...and..

The fighting words doctrine, in United States constitutional law, is a limitation to freedom of speech as protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

In 1942, the U.S. Supreme Court established the doctrine by a 9-0 decision in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire. It held that "insulting or 'fighting words,' those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" are among the "well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech the prevention and punishment of [which] ... have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem."

Fighting words - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My advice to you,

learn your Constitution, or at least learn how to research constitutional questions, before you go around trying to convince people how much more about the document you know than they do.

The correct answer is no because, even under the Brandenburg foul up, unless your intent is to urge me to commit a specific illegal act, you are not responsible. You even posted the explanation, yet failed to read it.

You said the answer was 'no'. Period. Since I've proven the answer can be 'yes' in some cases,

'no' is the wrong answer.

No, I asked if I am inflamed by something you say can I blame my violent reaction on you. The answer to that is always no.

 

[Avatar4321]

Laws should be put in place all over the world making defaming the Prophet of Islam a punishable crime.

And I will be at the forefront breaking that law. Because God has given us the right to free speech and established us as a free people here.

It's perfectly within my right to say that Mohammad is not a prophet, because I dont believe he is.

 

[Polk]

I consider the Center for American-Islamic Relations to be serious. Not sure what you define as a constituency, but they are registered as lobbyists.

Do you have anything from CAIR? I've seen the link you posted to some statement from a NJ imam, but nothing about CAIR calling for it. Also didn't find anything in a search.

Did you try looking for hate speech? They have a solid reputation on college campuses of opposing any speech they deem Islamaphibic, yet oppose giving the same protections to Jews they demand for themselves.

I thought you were referring to something in reference to the recent events. Speech codes at universities are a bit of a separate issue (public universities probably cannot have them, but it's likely okay for private institutions). I'm opposed to them, but it's a bit different from trying to outlaw certain speech.

 

[sfcalifornia]

Laws should be put in place all over the world making defaming the Prophet of Islam a punishable crime.

And I will be at the forefront breaking that law. Because God has given us the right to free speech and established us as a free people here.

It's perfectly within my right to say that Mohammad is not a prophet, because I dont believe he is.

God just hasn't gotten around to giving oppressed countries the right to free speech yet but when she clears her calendar, she'll get around to it eventually.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Do you have anything from CAIR? I've seen the link you posted to some statement from a NJ imam, but nothing about CAIR calling for it. Also didn't find anything in a search.

Did you try looking for hate speech? They have a solid reputation on college campuses of opposing any speech they deem Islamaphibic, yet oppose giving the same protections to Jews they demand for themselves.

I thought you were referring to something in reference to the recent events. Speech codes at universities are a bit of a separate issue (public universities probably cannot have them, but it's likely okay for private institutions). I'm opposed to them, but it's a bit different from trying to outlaw certain speech.

Your question was about people that want to restrict free speech. CAIR has repeatedly worked to restrict speech that is "inflammatory" against Islam. They were one of the groups that tried to stop the anti jihad adds that are currently displayed in NYC subways even though they had no problem with ads anti Israel ads that directly led to them.

CAIR - New York

 

[PaulS1950]

Islamic law only pertains to those who are members of Islam.
It is a religion and has no place setting forth civil laws to those who are not among its members.
That is exactly the reason for the separation of church and state in the USA.

When you say "members of islam", you mean all people under islamic regimes?

No, I mean members of islam. People who practice that faith.
It may be good manners not to talk about matters that are strongly held by others but it cannot be illegal unless you actually intend to incite lawlessness.
A religious law only binds those of that religion. A state's laws only bind the citizens of that state. (state in larger form - as in country)
Why would an Islamic law of faith bind a Christian, Zoastrian, Budhist or Jew?
If that was true then we would all have to use the name "Allah" when we speak of G-d. I doubt the Roman Catholics will go for that.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Islamic law only pertains to those who are members of Islam.
It is a religion and has no place setting forth civil laws to those who are not among its members.
That is exactly the reason for the separation of church and state in the USA.

When you say "members of islam", you mean all people under islamic regimes?

No, I mean members of islam. People who practice that faith.
It may be good manners not to talk about matters that are strongly held by others but it cannot be illegal unless you actually intend to incite lawlessness.
A religious law only binds those of that religion. A state's laws only bind the citizens of that state. (state in larger form - as in country)
Why would an Islamic law of faith bind a Christian, Zoastrian, Budhist or Jew?
If that was true then we would all have to use the name "Allah" when we speak of G-d. I doubt the Roman Catholics will go for that.

Because, in Islam, religious and civil law are identical?

 

[Unkotare]

[
A religious law only binds those of that religion. .

You need to study the theory and history of this subject a lot more.

 

[PaulS1950]

So all the Christians can say that because their religious law says that Jesus is G-d the Muslims can't call G-d Allah anymore - the Christian religion predates Islam -
Oh no, that won't work because the jewish religion predates Christianity so the name of G-o is El or Yahweh. That doesn't work because there are religions that predate Judaism so we have to go back to the earliest recorded religion where the called the Creator Anki or Nammu.
No one can make fun of Nammu from this day forward.
You know, that really won't work either because they (the people of Sumer) accepted that others had different names for the same creator and accepted that it was the same Creator called by a different name.

I know this has little to do with defaming the name of a prophet but the name of the Creator is much more important than a prophet - isn't it?
If I need to study the theory and history more then maybe the religious zealots should be less sensitive to those who are ignorant of the tabus in a religion that is foreign to the ofenders. We will never be able to "get along" with each other until people (all people) learn to be a bit more accepting and gracious. (just look at the other forums on this site.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So all the Christians can say that because their religious law says that Jesus is G-d the Muslims can't call G-d Allah anymore - the Christian religion predates Islam -
Oh no, that won't work because the jewish religion predates Christianity so the name of G-o is El or Yahweh. That doesn't work because there are religions that predate Judaism so we have to go back to the earliest recorded religion where the called the Creator Anki or Nammu.
No one can make fun of Nammu from this day forward.
You know, that really won't work either because they (the people of Sumer) accepted that others had different names for the same creator and accepted that it was the same Creator called by a different name.

I know this has little to do with defaming the name of a prophet but the name of the Creator is much more important than a prophet - isn't it?
If I need to study the theory and history more then maybe the religious zealots should be less sensitive to those who are ignorant of the tabus in a religion that is foreign to the ofenders. We will never be able to "get along" with each other until people (all people) learn to be a bit more accepting and gracious. (just look at the other forums on this site.

I thought you were ignorant, it turns out you are simply stupid with access to a logical fallacy generator.

 

[syrenn]

Laws should be put in place all over the world making defaming the Prophet of Islam a punishable crime.

LMAO...

it already is against the law and a punishable crime in muslim countries.....


fuck them if they dont like what goes on in other countries that are not muslim.

 

[PaulS1950]

All you can answer to a post is an attack on my intelligence?
Oh, well