Free speech does not protect you from opposing religion

[Ele]

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

The Vulcan's gave up emotions because they are too dangerous :/

Did they now?

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

[Tarathiel]

fuck organized religion

[Pico]

i oppose free speech in most cases on p99 boards because the ppl here are offensively stupid

[Triangle]

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

So I read this article and it discussed how many government officials including Obama are saying that free speech " has become less defined and less dependable for those espousing controversial social, political or religious views." This nonsense is being spewed in light of recent events revolving around that stupid YouTube video that caused mass riots in several Muslim nations.

First, I am pretty sure we have enough intelligence to say that the riots were planned by Muslim extremists and terrorists as an anniversary for 9/11 who then used the year old film as a scapegoat and justification for killing a U.S ambassador. Second, why is it only focused on Religion? Why can any religious nut bash homosexuals or anyone else not of their religion, but if you bash their religion all of a sudden you are in the wrong? None of this shit makes sense. Heck, I might even be committing treason for posting such outrage at this ludicrous.

'U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon warned that “when some people use this freedom of expression to provoke or humiliate some others’ values and beliefs, then this cannot be protected.”' Okay so then we definitely need to start tearing pages out of the bible right? Most of Leviticus definitely needs to go as well as many parts of the Koran that spout hatred and anger towards "infidels." But now we are faced with the catch 22 where then we are not being tolerant of their intolerance.

The entire point of freedom of speech is so we can address each other and speak our minds and differing stances on subject matters that might be . This inevitably will piss someone off. Cartoons world wide can not depict the prophet Muhammed in any way, shape or form because that is offensive. What is even worse is that we are being tolerant to the death threats that extremists respond with to said depiction of Muhammed. Which of these incite more fear and illustrate the most hatred? Seriously, fuck this PC bullshit.

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.

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.

These laws won't change because the constitution is not vague on this point, hell its the first amendment.

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.

[Orruar]

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

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

Don't be so quick to dismiss the UN. Article 6 of the Constitution says all treaties made are also the supreme law of the land. It is this article that is perhaps the most destructive of our rights. It's right up there with the commerce and general welfare clauses.

[Triangle]

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

Don't be so quick to dismiss the UN. Article 6 of the Constitution says all treaties made are also the supreme law of the land. It is this article that is perhaps the most destructive of our rights. It's right up there with the commerce and general welfare clauses.

Generally it is true that treaties trump laws both state and federal, but a treaty that is in conflict with the constitution is invalid.

Basically in order for our freedom of speech to be eroded, the Supreme Court would have to rule on case law to overwrite their precedent. However no statutory law / treaties can be made to erode it as any conflict with be held in favor of the Constitution.

[Orruar]

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

Generally it is true that treaties trump laws both state and federal, but a treaty that is in conflict with the constitution is invalid.

Basically in order for our freedom of speech to be eroded, the Supreme Court would have to rule on case law to overwrite their precedent. However no statutory law / treaties can be made to erode it as any conflict with be held in favor of the Constitution.

If only the Supreme Court was an infallible institution that always upheld the Constitution...

[Raavak]

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

If only the Supreme Court was an infallible institution that always upheld the Constitution...

[Visual]

i believe in the greek gods. specially the hot blonde one from the hercules tv series

[Raavak]

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

Generally it is true that treaties trump laws both state and federal, but a treaty that is in conflict with the constitution is invalid.

Part of the problem is that if you have an executive branch that ignores the Constitution and enforces only the laws it wants to, etc, does it really matter?