Soldier's Uniform Hangs From Noose In Front Of Home

[CSM]

Screw the debating, these people need a good kick in the ass! wanna express your right's to speech is fine, taking the steps they did is total disrespect to every man and woman who served the country, it's a disgrace!

I wonder if a case could be made for something regarding "hate speech"? I bet they think it's funny and are really just seeking their 15 minutes of fame.

 

[5stringJeff]

Actually, what I would do is hang these people in effigy in the lawn across the street. Free speech baby!

 

[OCA]

Okey Dokley. Aside from the proclamation that you are the "Proud member of the master race" Here are some other direct quotes from some of your posts:






This, coupled with the master race comments, certainly could cause one to think "racist". But I realized this was incorrect when I found a few comments like this:




Obviously (the Jew comments aside, which may have been misinterpreted due to context), you're not a racist - you are, however, something of a conundrum.

For that misinterpretation and mischaracterization, I do apologize.

The term "bigot" still holds however as that term does not relate to race, and the other term that I should have used would be "homocontemno". (Actually, homophobe is incorrect in many cases as it means fear - but what I get from you is hate).

I applaud your support for "nurture" rather than genetics relating to opportunity in the context of race. Yet I also find it fascinating your hatred and vitriol toward homosexuals.

Working in the entertainment industry I know many many persons with alternative lifestyles. I can only categorize your hatred as baseless and prejudiced.


I have edited my post to correct the error. Again, my apologies.



Best Regards,


Andy

So anyone opposed to homosexuality is a bigot to you? You forget that one is born the color they are and one chooses their lot in life, I see no relation at all between the two. I guess you just choose to ignore the voluminous factual information directly pointing to homosexuality being a detrimental lifestyle and its untold cost to society, and you think you are an intellectual. Also homophobe or homocontemno or whatever psychobabble you can come up with is pure bullshit, it helps you to try and label your opponent because you're argument is weak, i'm beginning to understand you.

The comments you quoted above from me were taken way out of context and it is pointless to try and explain to newbies as only people who were around during that time know what i'm talking about. Notice how nobody else here has jumped on your racist and bigot bandwagon towards me, they know the truth.

Apology accepted, don't let it happen again.

 

[OCA]

Screw the debating, these people need a good kick in the ass! wanna express your right's to speech is fine, taking the steps they did is total disrespect to every man and woman who served the country, it's a disgrace!

Evil I know bro but we will be the ones ending up in the can and believe me Sac County Jail isn't a hospitable place.

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

http://www.thekcrachannel.com/news/4180042/detail.html

This is disgusting. It burns me up to see people show such a lack of respect, then hide behind the freedoms they have because of the people that wore (and wear) that uniform. Yes, people have freedom of speech, but why does exercising that freedom seem to make people lose a simple sense of tact?

 

[dilloduck]

Actually, what I would do is hang these people in effigy in the lawn across the street. Free speech baby!

someone tore it down last night anyway----put out an APB

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

someone tore it down last night anyway----put out an APB

Gee, what a shame. You'd think they had a manger scene on display or something.

 

[Yurt]

Yurt, your points are well taken, however "commercial" speech is afforded only "minimal" protections. Political speech, on the other hand, is afforded the highest protection.

That display is on private property, and it is clearly political in nature, and it is not remotely in the class of "prohibited" speech which is "speech creating an immediate threat to public safety", further defined as "fighting words", "Inciting a riot", and yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. Or as "obscene" meaning of purely prurient interest.

There is also the issue of "time/place/manner", but such laws must be content neutral.

This is not the issue. What *is* the issue is the willingness by some to perform a "covert op" against the residents of the private property. And I was making certain direct comparisons between "acts" and "speech". To simplify the argument I avoided the minutia that you pointed out.

I will comment on this statement though:


No, speech is a fundamental right of man. the constitution does not GRANT us this right, it PROHIBITS the government from TAKING AWAY this right.

A "right" is not something "granted". It simply exists. The *amendments* to our constitution does not grant us rights, it limits the government's powers


Regards,

Andy

That display is on private property, and it is clearly political in nature, and it is not remotely in the class of "prohibited" speech which is "speech creating an immediate threat to public safety", further defined as "fighting words", "Inciting a riot", and yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. Or as "obscene" meaning of purely prurient interest.

A,


It is not "clearly" political speech. There are undertones of taxes, which, as you will read, may be "political," however, there is no standing for it. Therefore, one has to wonder, if one disputes the tax spent, how far does one have to go to "voice" their speech? What is the limit? What are the boundaries?

With that said...


You are correct when this speech will most likely be deemed political, as it is not for profit, though it reaches a mass audience.

However, you are fundamentally wrong about "free speech" being a fundamental right. Review any court case and you will find that your understanding of "fundamental" is wrong.

I think, though, that I understand where you come from. You might (notice the might, hence I pronounce no certainty) believe that because speech is "guaranteed" under the first amendment that is fundamental.

Here is where the difference lies. Fundamental does not need an amendment, it is simply, fundamental. The amendments were approved because the founders recognized the inherent problems in the Constitution. Yes, the Constitution is not perfect, that is why there are amendments.

Here is the important part...

The first "amendment" granted "NOT" the freedom of speech, rather, it "prohibits" Congress from adopting laws that abridge this CONSTITUTIONAL right. Hence, the amendment.

This very type of symbolic speech could easily be deemed to incite violence. Look at various posts here. Btw, just because someone "thinks" it is "political" speech does not political speech it make.

For instance, this person is complaining about their "tax" dollars. And we are then lead to believe by the disgusting display of "speech" that they do not agree that the Iraq military action is good use of their tax dollars. Simply put, Andy, a taxpayer has NO standing to "challenge government expenditures."

So, if you want to get down to the real issue, what are these people talking "speech" about? Well, at first blush it seems about taxes, Andy.

If you read into this protest that is a protest against the military action in Iraq, then you are certainly getting the picture of "free" speech. What are these people saying?

They have zero standing as taxpayers.

Yet, they can voice their dislike about political decisions, such as the Iraq military action. However, they must abide by the first "amendment" and realize that their speech must adhere to those values.