extremist muslims get lit up in texas

[GradnerLives]

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

That doesn't really scream active oppression to me...

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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

The same outcome cannot be guaranteed every time.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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

Nobody has said it was. But we can be responsible in the future and not allow people to try to copy her rally with the intent on drawing more fire.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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

Terrorists? Is this describing Pamela Geller, the extremists that attacked at the Garland rally, or someone else? Seems ambiguous.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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

We also have the responsibility to protect civilians from senseless violence.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Samoht]

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

Speech != violence

if ever speech and violence are equated, the elements equating them are what needs removed. not the speech.

Our Constitution guarantees this.

No it doesn't. The analogy of screaming fire in a crowded theater comes to mind. If you create violence, chaos, panic from your words, you are not protected under free speech.

[Big_Japan]

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

No it doesn't. The analogy of screaming fire in a crowded theater comes to mind. If you create violence, chaos, panic from your words, you are not protected under free speech.

Except that it's an absolutely awful analogy.

Expressing an unpopular opinion is not an incitement to violence or panic, and never will be.

Read this repeated-into-cliche Voltaire quote, similar by Ben Franklin, or any number of other Enlightenment-era authors and really think about what you're saying when you talk about suppressing the freedom of expression for fear of violence (not even from the expressers or their allies being incited by inflammatory speech, but from their opposition). This sentiment is one of the few that can be described as truly anti-American. Shameful shit.

Do you smile broadly at Janet's monologuing face on the closed circuit TV every time TSA forces you to take off your shoes and step into the nude body scanner?

[Samoht]

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

Except that it's an absolutely awful analogy.

That's too bad, but it's true, and there is nothing you or I can do about it.

[Samoht]

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

Expressing an unpopular opinion is not an incitement to violence or panic, and never will be.

That's also not true, by the way. While they have not yet had the perfect example, the Supreme Court in their rulings on hate speech has been alluding to the fact that saying something you know will cause imminent danger will not be protected speech.

[Ezalor]

Originally Posted by armyveteran248 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The SPLC is a politically motivated entity, and has little credibility. Hell, they listed Dr. Ben Carson, a neuro-surgeon who literally saved the lives of dying children, a "monger of hate speech" for his positions on gay marriage. Dr. Carson is wrong about gay marriage, but I seriously doubt that he is full of hate or has hate in his heart toward homosexuals

“Obamacare is really I think the worst thing that has happened in this nation since slavery” - Ben Carson

clearly the words of an apolitical baby-rescuing intellectual oozing with credibility [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Big_Japan]

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

That's also not true, by the way. While they have not yet had the perfect example, the Supreme Court in their rulings on hate speech has been alluding to the fact that saying something you know will cause imminent danger will not be protected speech.

The fact that you have to allude to SC rulings designed to curb dissent that are so new to our hellish, collapsing dystopia of a "free world" that they haven't even been tested demonstrates even further your lack of dedication to the American Constitution.

[Ravager]

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

Nobody has said it was. But we can be responsible in the future and not allow people to try to copy her rally with the intent on drawing more fire.

This seems to be your focal point, so here are my thoughts on it:

Unless you have a way to divine the intent of a person's heart, I don't think there's benefit in limiting the rights of others just because you're afraid of what someone else might do. You cannot take away someone's rights without taking away everyone's.

[Samoht]

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

The fact that you have to allude to SC rulings designed to curb dissent that are so new to our hellish, collapsing dystopia of a "free world" that they haven't even been tested demonstrates even further your lack of dedication to the American Constitution.

The rulings are actually from 1942 and 1969. They just have not had any qualifying appeals reach the SCOTUS level yet.

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

I don't think there's benefit in limiting the rights of others just because you're afraid of what someone else might do. You cannot take away someone's rights without taking away everyone's.

Isn't that the entire premise behind incarceration?

[Ezalor]

Originally Posted by armyveteran248 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

What was being said is that he doesn't hate homosexuals or harbor ill will toward them, even if he is against gay marriage.

you mean like when Ben Carson compared gay people to pedophiles? or when he warned that gay marriage was part of a plot by “neo-Marxists” who plan to “bring America down"” or when he said that being gay was a choice because of prison sex? or when he argued that gay marriage threatens free speech?

you, sir, are fucking retarded