|
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend Bookmark this thread |
This topic is archived. |
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) |
Evasporque (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Sep-08-10 01:55 PM Original message |
Quran Burning is not protected speech. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
HiFructosePronSyrup (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Sep-08-10 01:57 PM Response to Original message |
1. At worst he'll be in violation of a burn ban, and pay a minor fine. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Evasporque (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Sep-08-10 01:59 PM Response to Reply #1 |
3. If one person of Muslim faith is present then it is intimidation... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
CBGLuthier (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Sep-08-10 02:06 PM Response to Reply #3 |
5. Nope. You are wrong about this. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Evasporque (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Sep-08-10 02:13 PM Response to Reply #5 |
12. What about intent...what is the churches intent? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
HiFructosePronSyrup (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Sep-08-10 02:18 PM Response to Reply #12 |
14. There's a difference between saying "I hate you and everything you stand for." |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Evasporque (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Sep-08-10 02:23 PM Response to Reply #14 |
21. I see where you are dragging this. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Name removed (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Sep-08-10 02:25 PM Response to Reply #21 |
23. Deleted message |
Name removed (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Sep-08-10 02:26 PM Response to Reply #23 |
25. Deleted message |
HiFructosePronSyrup (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Sep-08-10 02:06 PM Response to Reply #3 |
6. Nope. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
woo me with science (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Sep-08-10 02:08 PM Response to Reply #3 |
7. Nonsense. nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ProgressiveProfessor (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Sep-08-10 06:05 PM Response to Reply #3 |
69. Its not for intimidation, its for incitement, and they may well be successful |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
rpannier (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Sep-08-10 06:41 PM Response to Reply #3 |
78. Disagree |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
sabrina 1 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Sep-08-10 02:09 PM Response to Reply #1 |
9. Your denial that this is not a threat is, to put it mildly, |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
HiFructosePronSyrup (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Sep-08-10 02:12 PM Response to Reply #9 |
11. Wanting it to be a threat does not make it so. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Evasporque (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Sep-08-10 02:20 PM Response to Reply #11 |
17. how does the injured party know that it is not harming them? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
HiFructosePronSyrup (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Sep-08-10 02:22 PM Response to Reply #17 |
19. lol, wut? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Evasporque (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Sep-08-10 02:32 PM Response to Reply #19 |
27. Ask a Muslim person if they are intimdated by this act... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
HiFructosePronSyrup (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Sep-08-10 02:36 PM Response to Reply #27 |
28. No. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
sabrina 1 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Sep-08-10 07:15 PM Response to Reply #28 |
87. Not irrelevant at all according to the courts. Your ignorance is showing |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
PavePusher (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-09-10 11:23 AM Response to Reply #87 |
122. Please state what the threat is... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Rebubula (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-09-10 12:46 PM Response to Reply #28 |
140. Wow.. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
AngryAmish (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Sep-08-10 04:07 PM Response to Reply #27 |
56. I have. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Phil The Cat (211 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-09-10 11:53 AM Response to Reply #27 |
128. They are OFFENDED, even OUTRAGED by this |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
sabrina 1 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Sep-08-10 02:55 PM Response to Reply #11 |
31. You don't get to decide what is a threat or is not. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
HiFructosePronSyrup (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Sep-08-10 03:39 PM Response to Reply #31 |
48. "It's their call" No, it's not. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
sabrina 1 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Sep-08-10 03:59 PM Response to Reply #48 |
54. No it's not subjective, certainly not to your opinion. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Saboburns (690 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Sep-08-10 03:50 PM Response to Reply #9 |
50. er, um |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Codeine (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Sep-08-10 03:54 PM Response to Reply #50 |
51. Welcome to Bizarro DU! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
SidDithers (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Sep-08-10 04:05 PM Response to Reply #51 |
55. Some days you just have to shake your head... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
nadinbrzezinski (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Sep-08-10 01:58 PM Response to Original message |
2. The intent is to stop them |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
TexasObserver (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Sep-08-10 04:30 PM Response to Reply #2 |
60. There is no basis for an injunction, which is why there is none. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Codeine (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Sep-08-10 02:05 PM Response to Original message |
4. Their church property and their Qurans. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Evasporque (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Sep-08-10 02:11 PM Response to Reply #4 |
10. The burning specific of the object is not against the law... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Codeine (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Sep-08-10 03:12 PM Response to Reply #10 |
42. Your misinterpretation of these cases is breathtaking. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
msanthrope (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Sep-08-10 03:58 PM Response to Reply #42 |
52. You nailed it. n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
COLGATE4 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-09-10 10:56 AM Response to Reply #10 |
118. No, it's not. Your legal analysis is incorrect. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
outerSanctum (154 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Sep-08-10 03:20 PM Response to Reply #4 |
45. I was going to respond to the OP |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
slackmaster (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Sep-08-10 02:09 PM Response to Original message |
8. Not protected per se, but in absence of a law specifically banning burning them |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
TheKentuckian (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Sep-08-10 02:16 PM Response to Original message |
13. I think you are misinterpreting your research due to personal distaste |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Evasporque (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Sep-08-10 02:18 PM Response to Reply #13 |
15. I think it goes a little deeper...now that the Administraion has chimed in on this... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Cid_B (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Sep-08-10 02:22 PM Response to Reply #15 |
18. If we can take Fred f'ing Phelps... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ProgressiveProfessor (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Sep-08-10 06:22 PM Response to Reply #15 |
73. Shame on them for doing it vaguely...they should have taken it to court or done nothing |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
WinkyDink (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Sep-08-10 02:20 PM Response to Original message |
16. Will not fly. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Saboburns (690 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Sep-08-10 02:23 PM Response to Original message |
20. They indeed DO have the Right to burn Qurans |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Toucano (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Sep-08-10 03:07 PM Response to Reply #20 |
39. Do you believe all speech is constitutionally protected? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
sabrina 1 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Sep-08-10 04:57 PM Response to Reply #20 |
63. Then you disagree with the civil laws against libel, slander and |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
tritsofme (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Sep-08-10 06:47 PM Response to Reply #63 |
79. Non sequitur. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
sabrina 1 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-09-10 01:51 AM Response to Reply #79 |
108. You need to look up the other forms of speech that are not |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
COLGATE4 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-09-10 10:59 AM Response to Reply #108 |
119. You don't understand the law. Just trying to cite to some cases |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Brickbat (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Sep-08-10 02:24 PM Response to Original message |
22. I do not think these laws and statutes mean what you think they mean. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Common Sense Party (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Sep-08-10 03:05 PM Response to Reply #22 |
36. +1,000,000 for the win |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Brickbat (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Sep-08-10 03:09 PM Response to Reply #36 |
40. Stop it now, I mean it! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Common Sense Party (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Sep-08-10 03:11 PM Response to Reply #40 |
41. Anybody want a peanut? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Obamanaut (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Sep-08-10 02:25 PM Response to Original message |
24. Re the Fla statute - if these books are in someone's garage, or delivered |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Dappleganger (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Sep-08-10 02:27 PM Response to Original message |
26. The only law he'll be breaking is a denied burn permit. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
proteus_lives (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Sep-08-10 02:41 PM Response to Original message |
29. Sorry, you're wrong. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Toucano (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Sep-08-10 03:05 PM Response to Reply #29 |
37. You are mistaken. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ProgressiveProfessor (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-09-10 11:51 AM Response to Reply #37 |
127. The case law cited is not applicable |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
CPMaz (246 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Sep-08-10 02:43 PM Response to Original message |
30. The First Amendment protects speech that is merely obnoxious |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
sabrina 1 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Sep-08-10 03:04 PM Response to Reply #30 |
35. The First Amendment does not protect speech that threatens |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Common Sense Party (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Sep-08-10 03:06 PM Response to Reply #35 |
38. "many are afraid to leave their homes." |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
sabrina 1 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Sep-08-10 03:48 PM Response to Reply #38 |
49. It's really sad that you reduce their fears to being about this |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Common Sense Party (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Sep-08-10 03:58 PM Response to Reply #49 |
53. "many are fearful, many have been attacked" |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
sabrina 1 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Sep-08-10 04:18 PM Response to Reply #53 |
58. One is all it would take. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Common Sense Party (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Sep-08-10 06:03 PM Response to Reply #58 |
68. I'm interested in facts, yes. Not feelings and anecdotes. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Saboburns (690 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Sep-08-10 03:30 PM Response to Reply #35 |
47. No one here is 'abusing' the First Amendment |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
sabrina 1 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Sep-08-10 04:51 PM Response to Reply #47 |
62. Personal beliefs are what gave us the Constitution. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
WinkyDink (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Sep-08-10 07:19 PM Response to Reply #35 |
88. You are being hyperbolic. This is just some dude in a rinky-dink place. Should not even be a story. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
sabrina 1 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-09-10 02:03 AM Response to Reply #88 |
109. No, it shouldn't be a story. But since he fully intended to disturb |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Phil The Cat (211 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-09-10 12:05 PM Response to Reply #35 |
130. Should Muhammed carttons be illegal too? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ProgressiveProfessor (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-09-10 01:13 PM Response to Reply #130 |
150. There is no right not to be offended in the US |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
alc (649 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Sep-08-10 02:56 PM Response to Original message |
32. I think they're idiots |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Ruby the Liberal (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Sep-08-10 03:02 PM Response to Original message |
33. I'm not buying that this is a legit application |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Toucano (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Sep-08-10 03:03 PM Response to Original message |
34. Thank you for challenging the conventional wisdom and knee-jerk reactive thinking. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Evasporque (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Sep-08-10 03:14 PM Response to Reply #34 |
43. Thanks - just trying spur some thoughtful discussion... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Toucano (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Sep-08-10 04:16 PM Response to Reply #43 |
57. Boundaries already exist, as you've cited. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
sabrina 1 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Sep-08-10 05:08 PM Response to Reply #57 |
65. Thank you. The sudden amnesia regarding our civil laws |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
tritsofme (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Sep-08-10 10:26 PM Response to Reply #34 |
101. I think the knee-jerk is in the other direction, in searching for creative ways to flout |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
woo me with science (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-09-10 12:28 PM Response to Reply #101 |
134. "looking for loopholes in the 1st Amendment to ban speech you don't approve of is the really scary |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Codeine (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-09-10 02:05 PM Response to Reply #101 |
161. Excellently said. nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
deaniac21 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Sep-08-10 03:18 PM Response to Original message |
44. stretch |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
CanonRay (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Sep-08-10 03:22 PM Response to Original message |
46. If these fools go through with this |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
TexasObserver (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Sep-08-10 04:29 PM Response to Original message |
59. Yes, it is protected speech. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
BlueCheese (897 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Sep-08-10 04:31 PM Response to Original message |
61. I'd be pretty upset... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
sabrina 1 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Sep-08-10 05:29 PM Response to Reply #61 |
67. Not all speech is protected. It's disturbing to see that so many |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ProgressiveProfessor (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Sep-08-10 06:20 PM Response to Reply #67 |
72. If there was a shred of opportunity to stop this in the courts, someone would have tried by now |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
sabrina 1 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Sep-08-10 06:50 PM Response to Reply #72 |
81. This is the first instance of this being done so publicly. That is |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ProgressiveProfessor (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Sep-08-10 06:58 PM Response to Reply #81 |
83. Harm in which jurisdiction? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
sabrina 1 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Sep-08-10 07:43 PM Response to Reply #83 |
90. You are being willfully blind. Harm has come to Muslims |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ProgressiveProfessor (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Sep-08-10 08:19 PM Response to Reply #90 |
92. Again, if your legal theory had value, it would have been in court by now |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
BlueCheese (897 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Sep-08-10 06:25 PM Response to Reply #67 |
74. No, not all speech is protected. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
sabrina 1 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Sep-08-10 06:57 PM Response to Reply #74 |
82. There is no chance it will ever be illegal, nor should it be. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Green_Lantern (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Sep-08-10 05:06 PM Response to Original message |
64. I wonder if it'd be protected speech if these people advocated |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
sabrina 1 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Sep-08-10 05:23 PM Response to Reply #64 |
66. No, it is not always protected, although court rulings |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ProgressiveProfessor (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Sep-08-10 06:15 PM Response to Reply #66 |
71. The analogy to flag burning is going to be hard to get past |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
sabrina 1 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Sep-08-10 06:39 PM Response to Reply #71 |
77. Not in the least. The 1st Amendment was written with |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ProgressiveProfessor (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Sep-08-10 06:48 PM Response to Reply #77 |
80. Not at all |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
sabrina 1 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Sep-08-10 07:06 PM Response to Reply #80 |
84. Again, here you are attempting to speak for Muslims. If they |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ProgressiveProfessor (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Sep-08-10 09:50 PM Response to Reply #84 |
98. You need to completely read and understand your citation, since you misapplication is massive |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
sabrina 1 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-09-10 01:40 AM Response to Reply #98 |
107. First of all, I have not said anything about banning the burning of |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ProgressiveProfessor (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-09-10 11:44 AM Response to Reply #107 |
124. You continue to attempt to confuse the constitutional issues with things that are not relevant |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
COLGATE4 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-09-10 12:18 PM Response to Reply #98 |
131. You can't win. No point in discussing legal issues with a non-lawyer. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ProgressiveProfessor (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-09-10 01:08 PM Response to Reply #131 |
147. I took this to some of my law school colleagues...they were amused |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
sabrina 1 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Sep-11-10 01:43 PM Response to Reply #131 |
169. People file suits, lawyers are hired to deal with them. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
BlueCheese (897 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Sep-08-10 06:34 PM Response to Reply #64 |
75. Frankly... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ProgressiveProfessor (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Sep-08-10 06:12 PM Response to Original message |
70. You would need to establish that Koran burning has historically lead to persecution |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Drale (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Sep-08-10 06:37 PM Response to Original message |
76. I think |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
AnArmyVeteran (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Sep-08-10 07:13 PM Response to Original message |
85. It's worse than yelling fire in a theater!!! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
SnakeEyes (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-09-10 12:22 AM Response to Reply #85 |
105. This is bullshit |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
AnArmyVeteran (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-09-10 03:57 PM Response to Reply #105 |
168. I understand your point, but both are using free speech & both can lead to violence & death. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Jeff In Milwaukee (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Sep-08-10 07:14 PM Response to Original message |
86. Nope. Nothing here.... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Bragi (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Sep-08-10 07:35 PM Response to Original message |
89. Not a strong case made here |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Green_Lantern (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-09-10 10:09 AM Response to Reply #89 |
111. you do realize we put restrictions on free speech to protect women... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ProgressiveProfessor (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-09-10 10:49 AM Response to Reply #111 |
116. The law is gender neutral |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Green_Lantern (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-09-10 11:16 AM Response to Reply #116 |
121. even if there's no case agaist the church they can be sued.. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ProgressiveProfessor (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-09-10 11:48 AM Response to Reply #121 |
126. So you support SLAPP suits then? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Green_Lantern (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-09-10 01:05 PM Response to Reply #126 |
145. I'm not sure about it honestly... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ProgressiveProfessor (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-09-10 01:11 PM Response to Reply #145 |
148. It about inciting muslims, not hatred against them |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Green_Lantern (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-09-10 01:17 PM Response to Reply #148 |
151. It's probably both to incite Muslims and incite hatred of them.. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ProgressiveProfessor (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-09-10 01:24 PM Response to Reply #151 |
154. I really do not believe it will change this domesitically |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Puregonzo1188 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Sep-08-10 07:54 PM Response to Original message |
91. Are you aware that in the case in question the Supreme Court |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Saboburns (690 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Sep-08-10 08:23 PM Response to Original message |
93. This is a cut and dry Free Speech case. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Green_Lantern (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-09-10 10:19 AM Response to Reply #93 |
112. it's disappointing to me that people seem to believe that this |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
McCamy Taylor (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Sep-08-10 08:25 PM Response to Original message |
94. Actually, it is. And when US troops die because of this, blame cast upon the "church" will also be |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ProgressiveProfessor (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Sep-08-10 09:28 PM Response to Reply #94 |
97. Be and interesting case...the foreseeable consequences link would be very political |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
sabrina 1 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-09-10 03:56 AM Response to Reply #97 |
110. Again, there is just as much likelihood that Muslims will |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Green_Lantern (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-09-10 10:33 AM Response to Reply #110 |
114. that's not true.. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
sabrina 1 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-09-10 11:27 AM Response to Reply #114 |
123. A very few soldiers have been convicted but only when there |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Green_Lantern (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-09-10 12:28 PM Response to Reply #123 |
135. I wasn't comparing Iraq to WW2.... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
sabrina 1 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-09-10 12:48 PM Response to Reply #135 |
141. The judge in the Benderman case dismissed all charges |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Green_Lantern (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-09-10 12:58 PM Response to Reply #141 |
143. I agreed with your basic point.... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
sabrina 1 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-09-10 01:38 PM Response to Reply #143 |
156. Yes, I couldn't agree more. In fact I have been trying to make that |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Green_Lantern (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-09-10 02:03 PM Response to Reply #156 |
160. I read that as well.. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ProgressiveProfessor (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-09-10 10:53 AM Response to Reply #110 |
117. You continue to attempt to confuse the constitutional issues with things that are not relevant |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Green_Lantern (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-09-10 10:26 AM Response to Reply #97 |
113. even if a lawsuit is thrown out it costs money to hire lawyers.. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ProgressiveProfessor (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-09-10 11:46 AM Response to Reply #113 |
125. So you support SLAPP suits? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Green_Lantern (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-09-10 12:31 PM Response to Reply #125 |
136. 1st amendment doesn't shield people from being sued if their |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ProgressiveProfessor (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-09-10 01:05 PM Response to Reply #136 |
146. Are you aware of what a SLAPP suit is and why some states have laws against it? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Green_Lantern (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-09-10 01:13 PM Response to Reply #146 |
149. I'm not a lawyer...I'm just hoping Jones faces some negative |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ProgressiveProfessor (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-09-10 01:22 PM Response to Reply #149 |
152. I don't expect he will, zealots of any strip never really do |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Green_Lantern (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-09-10 01:35 PM Response to Reply #152 |
155. it'd be ironic and funny if they accidentally burn the church down... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ProgressiveProfessor (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-09-10 01:40 PM Response to Reply #155 |
158. I would settle for a heavy rain |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Green_Lantern (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-09-10 02:05 PM Response to Reply #158 |
162. I wish the media would stop paying attention to right wing |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ProgressiveProfessor (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-09-10 02:45 PM Response to Reply #162 |
166. Saw in another thread that AP will not publish pictures of the event |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Zanzobar (276 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Sep-08-10 08:39 PM Response to Original message |
95. Here is my opinion |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
TexasObserver (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-09-10 12:24 AM Response to Reply #95 |
106. Accurate point by point rebuttal to the OP. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
totodeinhere (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Sep-08-10 08:40 PM Response to Original message |
96. I still don't understand how this is different than flag burning. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ProgressiveProfessor (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Sep-08-10 09:56 PM Response to Reply #96 |
99. Its not |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
depakid (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Sep-08-10 10:02 PM Response to Reply #99 |
100. It's applicable alright- but would require evidence beyond the mere act of burning |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ProgressiveProfessor (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Sep-08-10 11:27 PM Response to Reply #100 |
102. I do not see how it could be without an ordinance....which does not exist at this time |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Green_Lantern (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-09-10 10:40 AM Response to Reply #96 |
115. my issue is and difference between this and flagburning.... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ProgressiveProfessor (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-09-10 11:53 AM Response to Reply #115 |
129. Its not about engendering hate, its about deliberately committing sacrilege against islam |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Green_Lantern (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-09-10 12:43 PM Response to Reply #129 |
139. no Nazi book burning wasn't done by the state.... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
totodeinhere (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-09-10 12:42 PM Response to Reply #115 |
138. And the burning of the American flag was intended to provoke hate against America. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Green_Lantern (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-09-10 12:53 PM Response to Reply #138 |
142. the burning of the American flag by Americans was not about |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Confusious (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Sep-08-10 11:59 PM Response to Original message |
103. As someone said above, nonsense. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
sabrina 1 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-09-10 12:21 AM Response to Reply #103 |
104. The Fire Dept has already said they cannot. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
COLGATE4 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-09-10 12:21 PM Response to Reply #104 |
132. That's fine, but it's not a Constitutional issue. They can't burn |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ProgressiveProfessor (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-09-10 01:51 PM Response to Reply #132 |
159. There is a CAIR rep on CNN video declaring that the city has assured them there will be no bonfire |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Bragi (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-09-10 11:01 AM Response to Original message |
120. This isn't about combustion |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Realityhack (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-09-10 12:25 PM Response to Original message |
133. I see that you are not a lawyer. n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
woo me with science (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-09-10 12:33 PM Response to Original message |
137. Most ignorant post on DU. nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Rage for Order (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-09-10 12:59 PM Response to Original message |
144. You've got a serious hard-on at the prospect of undermining the First Amendment |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Codeine (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-09-10 01:23 PM Response to Reply #144 |
153. Now, now -- I'm sure our DU Commissariat will only censor |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ProgressiveProfessor (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-09-10 01:39 PM Response to Reply #153 |
157. The mods have been good about letting this continue |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Evasporque (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-09-10 02:18 PM Response to Reply #157 |
163. I think people have been pretty civil...when discussion ensues... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ProgressiveProfessor (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-09-10 02:37 PM Response to Reply #163 |
165. There is always opportunity for legal action, but FL has some stiff SLAPP penalties |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Evasporque (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-09-10 02:32 PM Response to Original message |
164. Burning religious objects...with the intent to intimidate |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Codeine (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-09-10 03:13 PM Response to Reply #164 |
167. Yes, that really is free speech. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) | Thu May 02nd 2024, 05:49 PM Response to Original message |
Advertisements [?] |
Top |
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) |
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.
Home | Discussion Forums | Journals | Store | Donate
About DU | Contact Us | Privacy Policy
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.
© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC