The right to break Islamic law

[NYcarbineer]

The argument is a fear tactic to bring the unsuspecting into compliance.

If you intentionally say things or as in this case make a movie that you can confidently assume will incite violence,

even if the violence is criminal and unjustified,

are you blameless?

If you say something that causes me to become violent are you responsible?

I will give you a hint, the right answer is no.

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.

 

[Polk]

If you intentionally say things or as in this case make a movie that you can confidently assume will incite violence,

even if the violence is criminal and unjustified,

are you blameless?

If you say something that causes me to become violent are you responsible?

I will give you a hint, the right answer is no.

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.

Actually, you're both off (though QW is closer to the correct answer). The key word is "imminent". If you do something that vaguely encourages violence, that's not going to cross the threshold.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If you intentionally say things or as in this case make a movie that you can confidently assume will incite violence,

even if the violence is criminal and unjustified,

are you blameless?

If you say something that causes me to become violent are you responsible?

I will give you a hint, the right answer is no.

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.

 

[Polk]

I meant it to seem that way because people in the United States are saying that, what's your point?

Imam Mohammad Qatanani Tells TheBlaze That Free Speech Mocking Islam Should Be Pursued by Dept. of Homeland Security | TheBlaze.com

You really need to make up your mind. I respond to your comment talking about the United States, you shift the focus to Arab governments. And now you're back here. Yes, you've found a guy who wants to limit the speech of the creators of this film. I don't agree with him, and I doubt you'll find many people that do. There were also people calling to suppress the guy that made Piss Christ.

I wrote the OP, the only reason it references the US is because I live here. People all over the world are saying that.

I don't really care what people living in tenements in Cairo or Baghdad think about my freedoms as an American, because, you know, they don't have a voice in our government.

 

[Polk]

If you say something that causes me to become violent are you responsible?

I will give you a hint, the right answer is no.

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.

Yes and no. Brandenburg doesn't require encouragement of a specific illegal act, but it typically will in practice because of the imminence and likelihood requirements.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You really need to make up your mind. I respond to your comment talking about the United States, you shift the focus to Arab governments. And now you're back here. Yes, you've found a guy who wants to limit the speech of the creators of this film. I don't agree with him, and I doubt you'll find many people that do. There were also people calling to suppress the guy that made Piss Christ.

I wrote the OP, the only reason it references the US is because I live here. People all over the world are saying that.

I don't really care what people living in tenements in Cairo or Baghdad think about my freedoms as an American, because, you know, they don't have a voice in our government.

They do when people start worrying about their reaction to what we say. That is the whole point of the thread.

 

[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.

Yes and no. Brandenburg doesn't require encouragement of a specific illegal act, but it typically will in practice because of the imminence and likelihood requirements.

Point taken, I did oversimplify.

 

[Polk]

I wrote the OP, the only reason it references the US is because I live here. People all over the world are saying that.

I don't really care what people living in tenements in Cairo or Baghdad think about my freedoms as an American, because, you know, they don't have a voice in our government.

They do when people start worrying about their reaction to what we say. That is the whole point of the thread.

But there isn't a serious constituency that believes we should limit the freedom of speech of the douchebag filmmaker in order to appease the crowds in Cairo.

 

[007]

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

Laws should be put in place all over the world making practicing islam a punishable crime.

 

[Polk]

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

Laws should be put in place all over the world making practicing islam a punishable crime.

Neither of you are right, but I wouldn't weep too much over a law placing you two in a box together.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I don't really care what people living in tenements in Cairo or Baghdad think about my freedoms as an American, because, you know, they don't have a voice in our government.

They do when people start worrying about their reaction to what we say. That is the whole point of the thread.

But there isn't a serious constituency that believes we should limit the freedom of speech of the douchebag filmmaker in order to appease the crowds in Cairo.

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.

 

[sfcalifornia]

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

Laws should be put in place all over the world making practicing islam a punishable crime.

Not in the CDZ. Newby

 

[Polk]

They do when people start worrying about their reaction to what we say. That is the whole point of the thread.

But there isn't a serious constituency that believes we should limit the freedom of speech of the douchebag filmmaker in order to appease the crowds in Cairo.

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.

 

[High_Gravity]

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

Would you like Sharia law to take effect against a US citizen if someone,anyone
offends the Muslim people?

Yes, the punishment is to make them eat 10 chicken shawarmas within 20 minutes or a 100 $ fine

I'm down with that.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If you say something that causes me to become violent are you responsible?

I will give you a hint, the right answer is no.

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.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Yes and no. Brandenburg doesn't require encouragement of a specific illegal act, but it typically will in practice because of the imminence and likelihood requirements.

Point taken, I did oversimplify.

No, you were wrong. The way to say you were wrong is to say 'I was wrong', not, 'I did oversimplify.'

Now go back to the original question.

 

[Polk]

Yes and no. Brandenburg doesn't require encouragement of a specific illegal act, but it typically will in practice because of the imminence and likelihood requirements.

Point taken, I did oversimplify.

No, you were wrong. The way to say you were wrong is to say 'I was wrong', not, 'I did oversimplify.'

Now go back to the original question.

He's wrong as a technical matter, but you're massively over-relying on that point. As a practical matter, he was absolutely correct. So yes, it's completely fair for his to categorize his statement as an oversimplification.

 

[Katzndogz]

If you intentionally say things or as in this case make a movie that you can confidently assume will incite violence,

even if the violence is criminal and unjustified,

are you blameless?

If you say something that causes me to become violent are you responsible?

I will give you a hint, the right answer is no.

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 operative word is IMMINENT.

A movie made two years ago is not imminent. A you tube video put on the internet three months ago is not imminent. Immediate breach of the peace actually means something.

 

[007]

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

Laws should be put in place all over the world making practicing islam a punishable crime.

Not in the CDZ. Newby

 

[Quantum Windbag]

But there isn't a serious constituency that believes we should limit the freedom of speech of the douchebag filmmaker in order to appease the crowds in Cairo.

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.