Im going to take a contreversial stand

[actsnoblemartin]

I oppose speech to advocates or teaches how to carry out violence.

For example, britain deported imams who preached violent jihad, I support that. I dont think we should re-active to crime, we should be pro-active.

Teaching how to make bombs to blow up abortion clinic, buildings/animal testing research facilities, raping young boys and getting away with it, raping with women, making drugs, shold not be allowed.

We have to draw a firm line in the sand and say, if you advocate violence against someone, whether its financially, or helping plan it, or carrying it out, that is a crime, and we should worry about saving potential victims from sometimes irreparable harm.

 

[Annie]

I oppose speech to advocates or teaches how to carry out violence.

For example, britain deported imams who preached violent jihad, I support that. I dont think we should re-active to crime, we should be pro-active.

Teaching how to make bombs to blow up abortion clinic, buildings/animal testing research facilities, raping young boys and getting away with it, raping with women, making drugs, shold not be allowed.

We have to draw a firm line in the sand and say, if you advocate violence against someone, whether its financially, or helping plan it, or carrying it out, that is a crime, and we should worry about saving potential victims from sometimes irreparable harm.

I think Britain has laws making this easier, however, there are laws in the US against insurrection, much the same thing. Our problem, not so easy to get around the first amendment regarding mosques and monitoring.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

I truly think, we must monitor every mosque in america, to weed out moderate muslims from bad muslims, and every moderate muslims in the world, who helps, can either come to america, or be rewarded for their material help, in stopping radicals.

I do not believe the first amendment meant, nor did the founding fathers, you can say anything you want, even if it promotes genocide, crimes against humanity, teaches how to commit domestic and international terrorist acts, and cause chaos, and victimize innocent people.

I think Britain has laws making this easier, however, there are laws in the US against insurrection, much the same thing. Our problem, not so easy to get around the first amendment regarding mosques and monitoring.

 

[Vintij]

I truly think, we must monitor every mosque in america, to weed out moderate muslims from bad muslims, and every moderate muslims in the world, who helps, can either come to america, or be rewarded for their material help, in stopping radicals.

I do not believe the first amendment meant, nor did the founding fathers, you can say anything you want, even if it promotes genocide, crimes against humanity, teaches how to commit domestic and international terrorist acts, and cause chaos, and victimize innocent people.

That ideology was a real event in England before the 17th century. Its why the few radical thinkers known as the founding fathers, broke ties to england.

In other words, church's were being monitored in England, free speach was non existent. Why would you want to go back in time by monitoring places of worship? That is a terrible idea.

Also, freespeach is exactly what the founding fathers were talking about. No matter who it is. If that individual commits a crime related to violence or any demeaning behavior that can harm another individual, then that is not considered free speach it is considered a felony.

 

[manu1959]

That ideology was a real event in England before the 17th century. Its why the few radical thinkers known as the founding fathers, broke ties to england.

In other words, church's were being monitored in England, free speach was non existent. Why would you want to go back in time by monitoring places of worship? That is a terrible idea.

Also, freespeach is exactly what the founding fathers were talking about. No matter who it is. If that individual commits a crime related to violent behavior that can harm another individual, then that is not considered free speach it is considered a felony.

so if i teach everyone to kill you and preach to them that you should be killed....you just need to sit tight and wait till i actually kill you...then you can have me arrested?

 

[Vintij]

so if i teach everyone to kill you and preach to them that you should be killed....you just need to sit tight and wait till i actually kill you...then you can have me arrested?

That is a threat of VIOLENCE, it is not free speach. I just said anything related to violent or demeaning behavior. If you threaten to kill someone, anyone on this planet can pick up a phone and stop that threatening by pressing charges on Threats of personal violence.

 

[manu1959]

That is a threat of VIOLENCE, it is not free speach. I just said anything related to violent or demeaning behavior. If you threaten to kill someone, anyone on this planet can pick up a phone and stop that threatening by pressing charges on Threats of personal violence.

what if a call it a religion and hide behinde that and free speach laws....


or .....should those that preach violence against american citizens and our government be........arrested?....deported?.....

 

[actsnoblemartin]

Absolutely Brilliant, and that is my point, prevent crime, save victims. Stop worrying so much about the rights of criminals, and worry more about the rights of the victims, and make sure, we prevent as much terorrism and crime as possible.

so if i teach everyone to kill you and preach to them that you should be killed....you just need to sit tight and wait till i actually kill you...then you can have me arrested?

 

[Nevadamedic]

I oppose speech to advocates or teaches how to carry out violence.

For example, britain deported imams who preached violent jihad, I support that. I dont think we should re-active to crime, we should be pro-active.

Teaching how to make bombs to blow up abortion clinic, buildings/animal testing research facilities, raping young boys and getting away with it, raping with women, making drugs, shold not be allowed.

We have to draw a firm line in the sand and say, if you advocate violence against someone, whether its financially, or helping plan it, or carrying it out, that is a crime, and we should worry about saving potential victims from sometimes irreparable harm.

You conterversial?

 

[Mr.Conley]

I oppose speech to advocates or teaches how to carry out violence.

For example, britain deported imams who preached violent jihad, I support that. I dont think we should re-active to crime, we should be pro-active.

Teaching how to make bombs to blow up abortion clinic, buildings/animal testing research facilities, raping young boys and getting away with it, raping with women, making drugs, shold not be allowed.

We have to draw a firm line in the sand and say, if you advocate violence against someone, whether its financially, or helping plan it, or carrying it out, that is a crime, and we should worry about saving potential victims from sometimes irreparable harm.

You do realize the power this would give to the government?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

So let me see if I have this right.... If an Iman preaches murder and death, we can arrest him, BUT we can not monitor his place of worship to catch him preaching these things.

Good plan.

 

[William Joyce]

I oppose speech to advocates or teaches how to carry out violence.

For example, britain deported imams who preached violent jihad, I support that. I dont think we should re-active to crime, we should be pro-active.

Teaching how to make bombs to blow up abortion clinic, buildings/animal testing research facilities, raping young boys and getting away with it, raping with women, making drugs, shold not be allowed.

We have to draw a firm line in the sand and say, if you advocate violence against someone, whether its financially, or helping plan it, or carrying it out, that is a crime, and we should worry about saving potential victims from sometimes irreparable harm.

For me, it depends on who's making the threat. If our military or President threatens an enemy of our country with violence, well, that's fine. If enemies of OUR country make threats against us, I say go against them. I support free speech, but in the context of nationalism. I think if pressed, and if I had the power, I would shut some people up. I might lock up Abraham Foxman for trashing Christians or Al Sharpton for trashing whites. I say I might. But I wouldn't say I was trying to censor them. I'd say I was trying to protect MY people.

The truth is that speech is power. If you're serious about stopping your enemy, you will not let notions of free speech get in the way.

 

[Vintij]

So let me see if I have this right.... If an Iman preaches murder and death, we can arrest him, BUT we can not monitor his place of worship to catch him preaching these things.

Good plan.

Exactly, and that is the way its going right now. Seems to be working fine. If someone has an issue with a preacher, you dont need to monitor the entire mosque. Did we catch hundreds of catholic child molesters by monitoring the church? No we caught them by monitoring THEM. Why the double standard when there are so many different white supremists out there preaching white power in the southern states?! Do we monitor them? No! And if you ever find a mosque in the entire nation that preaches violent behavior toward another human being, please do show the link in your next post.


As for william

"The truth is that speech is power. If you're serious about stopping your enemy, you will not let notions of free speech get in the way"

another terrible idea. It makes you wonder what our soldiers ever fought for? Half freedom of speach? A little freedom of speach? Right, our soldiers died to protect our amendment to speak as long as the goverment approves of what we are saying. Nice plan.

you talk like "notions of free speach" is a trend. You act like its not in the constitution. You act like its not one of the reason's we became an independant nation in the first place. Its not a notion, its a RIGHT.

 

[trobinett]

I oppose speech to advocates or teaches how to carry out violence.

For example, britain deported imams who preached violent jihad, I support that. I dont think we should re-active to crime, we should be pro-active.

Teaching how to make bombs to blow up abortion clinic, buildings/animal testing research facilities, raping young boys and getting away with it, raping with women, making drugs, shold not be allowed.

We have to draw a firm line in the sand and say, if you advocate violence against someone, whether its financially, or helping plan it, or carrying it out, that is a crime, and we should worry about saving potential victims from sometimes irreparable harm.

Nothing controversial here actsnoblemartin, just plain, common sense, and some good talking points.

Good for ya...........