[Lexical]

Originally Posted by Frieza_Prexus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I've always been nauseous of "incitement to violence" limitation. I just don't see a reasonable cutoff. Even Brandenburg's "imminence" limitation is twistable and suspect. Individuals are responsible for their actions, and it never sat well with me that we spread the culpability around.

Thank you for your rhetoric. I 100% agree.

Originally Posted by Triangle [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You are confusing a lot of what is actually law with what some people are arguing.

First forget about what the UN dude says because that is not applicable to the law of the US.

The U.N. is our international theater and many of our stances/treaties there affect our laws here. It is a way the SOPA nuts are trying to squeeze their legislation into trade agreements between USA and Canada. Though I do agree that the U.N. does not have an overall say in our domestic policy, they can definitely affect it.

Originally Posted by Triangle [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Secondly cartoons can depict muhammed if they are created in the US period. I don't know about other countries laws but that sentence you wrote about not being able to do it is incorrect. You might not hear this often because people don't want others to make such cartoons, but it is entirely legal in the US which is why the dude who created that film cannot be prosecuted for it, but instead he was arrested for not paying his taxes or parole violation or whatever he was arrested for.

Yes our cartoons can depict Muhammed legally, but if extremists can get any episode of a cartoon pulled from the air, then what is even the point of having the law?

Originally Posted by Triangle [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Finally I looked up that quote you attributed to Obama and he simply did not say that, it was someone else lol... Even if some UN thing is passed it will not trump the US Constitution.

I never meant to quote Obama, but I can see the confusion. I was ranting so I wasn't at my best in terms of coherently writing down what I was thinking. The quote in question is actually from the article which is what I meant to quote. My apologies.

The Obama administration has actually pushed for many laws that would weaken free speech. For example, in the UN we have this http://geneva.usmission.gov/2012/03/...g-intolerance/ And his speech he gave to the U.N. was far more apologetic than it needed to be as in at all. There was no reason to apologize for that lunatic, but I can at least find solace with that Obama has stated we will hunt the extremists responsible for the murder (and some say assassination) of the US ambassador and other Americans. I understand being tactful in international relations, but the first amendment is one of the most sacred amendments in the bill of rights and we should never budge when it comes to it.