• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Actual First Amendment Contest or Racist Invitation for Violence

Keith&Co. said:
Jimmy Higgins said:
you need a Cop if you are doing construction work at an Intersection in some cities.
Click to expand...
Around here, that's because every driver seems to think that they have a constitutional right to never be inconvenienced by piddling things like obstructed lanes, human beings, oncoming traffic...
Click to expand...
I remember closing an on-ramp in the most dangerous place to work on the road in Ohio, and some asshole actually stopped his car, moved the large closed sign, and proceeded to drive down the ramp to get to the Interstate. Our workers had not started yet, which is probably the only reason why that guy didn't suffer massive brain trauma from me.

That aside, this is about danger. Holding a "let's insult a religion in front of their faces contest" is one thing, saying that you should come armed starts lifting it to another. In the real world there is this thing called risk. And they up'd the ante on the risk by saying this should be an armed "free speech" gathering. There is little risk in trouble if they show up and insult Islam. When they show up armed and insult Islam, there is certainly a higher risk of something happening. That is simply being pragmatic. Seeing they are the source of that risk, they should be billed for any methods used to help mitigate it.

From another perspective, I understand some people seem to think that the Constitution provides people with an unlimited ability to proclaim free speech, but the people at the Community Center also have rights. And some people might actually feel a little intimidated by an armed mob gathered just outside their place of worship and gathering. Some people are just like that.

So a police presence to "ease" that tension isn't uncalled for.
 
It sounds like you all are profiling Muslims as being violent and short tempered. Just so you know, not all Muslims are like that. Islam is the Religion of Peace. Please refrain from the stereotypes people!
 
So, if some muslims attend prayers with t-shirts emblazened with "A dead marine raises the average IQ", do you think this jackoff will remain calm?
 
thebeave said:
It sounds like you all are profiling Muslims as being violent and short tempered. Just so you know, not all Muslims are like that. Islam is the Religion of Peace. Please refrain from the stereotypes people!
Click to expand...
Who are you responding to?
 
Jimmy Higgins said:
thebeave said:
It sounds like you all are profiling Muslims as being violent and short tempered. Just so you know, not all Muslims are like that. Islam is the Religion of Peace. Please refrain from the stereotypes people!
Click to expand...
Who are you responding to?
Click to expand...

Anyone and everyone who is suggesting that drawing the Prophet Mohammed is inciting Muslims to get violent.
 
thebeave said:
Tom Sawyer said:
Which isn't really related to drawing pictures.
Click to expand...

Huh? The prevailing assumption, among both the left and the right, is that its the drawings that will incite the Muslims to react violently. Or am I missing something here?
Click to expand...
It isn't quite in your face enough in the OP, but they were referring to the 'come to the free speech protest armed' part of the drawing contest.
 
Tom Sawyer said:
It's no worse than when the Westboro folks go and protest funerals to say that the dead guy is in Hell because of teh ghey.

They're small-minded, idiotic dipshits, but they have a right to express whatever opinion they want.
Click to expand...

^^ This.

- - - Updated - - -

Tom Sawyer said:
Nice Squirrel said:
But it's the "let's all come armed looking for a violent confrontation" that I question.
Click to expand...

Iffy. It's like saying that because the Westboro guys would love it if someone whacked them in the face so that they could sue them and get more free airtime because of the court case, their protests should be barred.

If there is a gunfight, their provocation should be taken into account when determining charges. Until then, bringing a gun to a protest isn't an illegal act.
Click to expand...

In what state? It very well might be.
 
thebeave said:
It sounds like you all are profiling Muslims as being violent and short tempered. Just so you know, not all Muslims are like that. Islam is the Religion of Peace. Please refrain from the stereotypes people!
Click to expand...

Islam is the "religion of peace" just like Christianity is the worship of the "one true god".
They all have their slogans, trademarks, etc..
 
Jimmy Higgins said:
Regardless, saying they should bring guns should get the cops out there to watch, and they should be sent the bill.
Click to expand...

Should Ferguson and Baltimore protesters also be sent the bill for the police presence or does this apply only for groups who you disagree with?
 
Nice Squirrel said:
I wrote a sensationalist title, but we are aware that there are nutbags on both sides:
http://www.kare11.com/story/news/cr...ack-on-a-muslim-couple-a-hate-crime/28128775/
BROOKLYN PARK, Minn. - According to Brooklyn Park Police, there is a rather simple reason the alleged attack on a Muslim couple by a woman wielding a gun was not charged as a hate crime; because neither the victims or the accused attacker said anything about race, prejudice or bias.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
You know what is interesting here? That KARE11 didn't care to mention that the gun in question was a pellet gun, and not a firearm. Why?
After all, what we have learned from John Crawford and Tamir Rice cases is that those are no threat at all and should be easily distinguished from firearms immediately. :rolleyes:
 
Nice Squirrel said:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/29/us/mohammed-cartoon-contest/index.html

Jon Ritzheimer is a former Marine and he has no middle ground when it comes to Islam.

A T-shirt he wears pretty much says it all: "F--- Islam."

Ritzheimer is the organizer of Friday's "Freedom of Speech Rally" outside the Islamic Community Center in Phoenix.
Click to expand...
Is this shouting fire in a crowded theatre? They are going to hold it at a community center and are encouraging everyone to come armed.
Click to expand...

The accurate statement, and I paraphrase, is to falsely shout fire in a crowded theater. Explain to me how, exactly, your suggestion the conduct/or speech isn't protected by the 1st Amendment Free Speech Clause?
 
Nice Squirrel said:
I think this is a very fine line and find it a fascinating discussion.
Click to expand...

It's really not a very fine line and this is really not anywhere close to it. The government has a very high burden it must meet to prosecute people for speech that incites violence and it contains tests like "intent" "likelihood" and "imminence". There are no tests for "I don't like these guys" and "I don't like what they are saying".

This, for example, did not cross that line:

Clarence Brandenburg, a Ku Klux Klan (KKK) leader in rural Ohio, contacted a reporter at a Cincinnati television station and invited him to cover a KKK rally that would take place in Hamilton County in the summer of 1964.[6] Portions of the rally were filmed, showing several men in robes and hoods, some carrying firearms, first burning a cross and then making speeches. One of the speeches made reference to the possibility of "revengeance" [sic] against "niggers", "Jews", and those who supported them. One of the speeches also claimed that "our President, our Congress, our Supreme Court, continues to suppress the white, Caucasian race", and announced plans for a march on Washington to take place on the Fourth of July. Brandenburg was charged with advocating violence under Ohio's criminal syndicalism statute for his participation in the rally and for the speech he made.

...

The U.S. Supreme Court reversed Brandenburg's conviction, holding that government cannot constitutionally punish abstract advocacy of force or law violation
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio
 
Derec said:
Nice Squirrel said:
I wrote a sensationalist title, but we are aware that there are nutbags on both sides:
http://www.kare11.com/story/news/cr...ack-on-a-muslim-couple-a-hate-crime/28128775/
Click to expand...
You know what is interesting here? That KARE11 didn't care to mention that the gun in question was a pellet gun, and not a firearm. Why?
After all, what we have learned from John Crawford and Tamir Rice cases is that those are no threat at all and should be easily distinguished from firearms immediately. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Can you give a rational explanation as how the type of gun would affect whethery were charged with a hate crime?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom