End The First Amendment???

[JakeStarkey]

I don't think anyone in America wants to shut off your right to criticize Islam, Peach, except those who hate the 1st Amendment, like Sunni Man.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I don't think that is what he said or was his intent, now was it?

And he has the right to his free speech as well.

You attack free speech when you write that, Peach.

What if I say the Future can not belong to those who slander the Far Right? Would you like that?

When we have a President that says this in his U.N. speech-
"The Future can not belong to those who slander Islam".
This is an attack on our 1st amendment.

That is the point Jake.
Our Freedom of speech gives us the right to slander the far right as well as far right has to slander the far left.
What the President said at the U.N. is no one has the right to slander Islam.

 

[Katzndogz]

When we have a President that says this in his U.N. speech-
"The Future can not belong to those who slander Islam".
This is an attack on our 1st amendment.

Slandering islam is a basic right and worthy of the best of our fights. Like slandering Christianity is a basic right that people use every day. Slandering Judaism is a right exercised by people around the world.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

When we have a President that says this in his U.N. speech-
"The Future can not belong to those who slander Islam".
This is an attack on our 1st amendment.

Ignorant partisan nonsense.

The president is not advocating a law be passed to arrest, prosecute, and punish those who engage in hate speech against Muslims – that would constitute an attack on the First Amendment.

Needless to say such a measure wound never pass Constitutional muster.

The president merely states a truism: that the future must not belong to those who hate.

 

[thanatos144]

When we have a President that says this in his U.N. speech-
"The Future can not belong to those who slander Islam".
This is an attack on our 1st amendment.

Ignorant partisan nonsense.

The president is not advocating a law be passed to arrest, prosecute, and punish those who engage in hate speech against Muslims – that would constitute an attack on the First Amendment.

Needless to say such a measure wound never pass Constitutional muster.

The president merely states a truism: that the future must not belong to those who hate.

no one arrested?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

When we have a President that says this in his U.N. speech-
"The Future can not belong to those who slander Islam".
This is an attack on our 1st amendment.

Ignorant partisan nonsense.

The president is not advocating a law be passed to arrest, prosecute, and punish those who engage in hate speech against Muslims – that would constitute an attack on the First Amendment.

Needless to say such a measure wound never pass Constitutional muster.

The president merely states a truism: that the future must not belong to those who hate.

no one arrested?

You’re kidding, right – no one can be this blind, partisan, and stupid.

 

[thanatos144]

Ignorant partisan nonsense.

The president is not advocating a law be passed to arrest, prosecute, and punish those who engage in hate speech against Muslims – that would constitute an attack on the First Amendment.

Needless to say such a measure wound never pass Constitutional muster.

The president merely states a truism: that the future must not belong to those who hate.

no one arrested?

You’re kidding, right – no one can be this blind, partisan, and stupid.

Apparently you can be..... Tell me how does it feel to support fascism?

 

[peach174]

To be able to speak against the violence of some that are Muslims is our 1st amendment right.
We are not slandering all Muslims.
The ones who are for Jihad are not all Muslims.
We have the right to speak up about those who support the slaughter of Innocent people.

People can discern the differences between Italians that were not mobsters, we speak against those crime Lords and can differentiate between the two, but we can's speak out against those who are for jihad.

To speak against Jihad is not condeming all Muslims and that is what they are trying to do.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Ok, Peach, slow down. Tell us who is "they".

 

[peach174]

Ok, Peach, slow down. Tell us who is "they".

Come on Jake you are not stupid.
Anyone who is trying to the lump the two together.

 

[rightwinger]

To be able to speak against the violence of some that are Muslims is our 1st amendment right.
We are not slandering all Muslims.
The ones who are for Jihad are not all Muslims.
We have the right to speak up about those who support the slaughter of Innocent people.

People can discern the differences between Italians that were not mobsters, we speak against those crime Lords and can differentiate between the two, but we can's speak out against those who are for jihad.

To speak against Jihad is not condeming all Muslims and that is what they are trying to do.

Nobody said it was

The issue has nothing to do with Jihad or violence from radical Muslims. It has to do with someone who posted an offensive video against Mohammad. He was condemned as he should have been

 

[Zoom-boing]

To be able to speak against the violence of some that are Muslims is our 1st amendment right.
We are not slandering all Muslims.
The ones who are for Jihad are not all Muslims.
We have the right to speak up about those who support the slaughter of Innocent people.

People can discern the differences between Italians that were not mobsters, we speak against those crime Lords and can differentiate between the two, but we can's speak out against those who are for jihad.

To speak against Jihad is not condeming all Muslims and that is what they are trying to do.

Apparently not.

On Friday, TheBlaze spoke with a spokesperson who confirmed some of the details surrounding the case, while clarifying the new changes that passed on Thursday. As noted, one of the emergent provisions that was added into the public company’s advertising standards in the wake of the Geller debate allows the MTA to deny ads it believes could incite violence (this was not mentioned in the press release the agency put out about the changes).

As previously noted, a document, reflecting yesterday’s changes, was provided by the MTA to TheBlaze this morning. It highlights the transit authority’s advertising standards and reads, in part, “The licensee (‘advertising contractor’) shall not display or maintain any advertisement that falls within one or more of the following categories.” One of the category sections reads:

The advertisement, or any information contained in it, is directly adverse to the commercial or administrative interests of the MTA or is harmful to the morale of MTA employees or contains material the display of which the MTA reasonably foresees would incite or provoke violence or other immediate breach of the peace, and so harm, disrupt, or interfere with safe, efficient, and orderly transit operations.

Conservative’s Anti-Jihad Subway Ad Leads to New MTA Policies: NYC Authority Can Now Ban Ads That Could ‘Incite or Provoke Violence’ | TheBlaze.com

 

[daveman]

When we have a President that says this in his U.N. speech-
"The Future can not belong to those who slander Islam".
This is an attack on our 1st amendment.

No it's not....condemning hate speech does not infringe on the first amendment

The concept of hate speech itself infringes on the First Amendment.

...unless you really DO believe there is a right to not be offended.

 

[rightwinger]

When we have a President that says this in his U.N. speech-
"The Future can not belong to those who slander Islam".
This is an attack on our 1st amendment.

No it's not....condemning hate speech does not infringe on the first amendment

The concept of hate speech itself infringes on the First Amendment.

...unless you really DO believe there is a right to not be offended.

No it doesn't at all......since the first amendment allows hate speech

 

[daveman]

Because only the Far Right can use hate speech with impunity, so they believe.

Unsurprisingly, Fakey supports the leftist idea of Thought Control via hate speech laws.

 

[daveman]

No it's not....condemning hate speech does not infringe on the first amendment

The concept of hate speech itself infringes on the First Amendment.

...unless you really DO believe there is a right to not be offended.

No it doesn't at all......since the first amendment allows hate speech

Indeed it does. And always will, hopefully.

But the left has ever sought to criminalize ideas with which they disagree.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Related:

Muslim Leaders Make Case for Global Blasphemy Ban at U.N.
By Patrick Goodenough
September 26, 2012
CNNNews.com

Muslim Leaders Make Case for Global Blasphemy Ban at U.N. | CNSNews.com

Interesting that representatives of Islam tell us that "blasphemy", as so narrowly defined by their proponents, incites violence. But exactly who perpetrates that violence? And just how does violent and murderous suppression of any other religious group, particularly Christians, escape the Muslim demand that religion be universally respected and protected?

 

[Katzndogz]

When we have a President that says this in his U.N. speech-
"The Future can not belong to those who slander Islam".
This is an attack on our 1st amendment.

Ignorant partisan nonsense.

The president is not advocating a law be passed to arrest, prosecute, and punish those who engage in hate speech against Muslims – that would constitute an attack on the First Amendment.

Needless to say such a measure wound never pass Constitutional muster.

The president merely states a truism: that the future must not belong to those who hate.

no one arrested?

Not the time depicted by the picture. No one was arrested.

 

[Katzndogz]

islam intends to hold us hostage until we give up our rights. We give up the First Amendment or they will keep killing people until we do. Of course if we did give up the First Amendment, that's only one step, more will follow after that.

 

[gallantwarrior]

In Islamic countries free speach is an alien concept, it just doesn't exist. You are not free to say what you want in those countries, talking bad about a countries leader or dictator would get you picked up by the secret police, nevermind if you talked bad about Islam. Just the idea that someone would mock Islam and talk bad about it is just not fathomable to them and of course they want to end it.

When I am in one of their countries, I will remain aware of their laws in that regard and will be respectful of those laws.
This is our country, my country, and the laws governing this country should be respectfully observed by them when they are here. That means if they find our laws offensive, they should stay in their countries.