Blue State Logic, Court sides with violent mob to silence free speech!

[BrownArmy]

You need to read the first amendment. It does state an individual has the right to protest. Apples and oranges.

Let's turn this one around...

It's a Christian rally, with some activist Muslim protesters.

They have a 'bread and circus' style puppet show (ten-foot tall paper mache characters, etc.), showing Jesus dry-humping the Virgin-Mary.

(Yes, strange idea, but the pigs' head is equally offensive to Muslims...and maybe to the Jewish as well; I'm not sure that pig was Kosher)

Anyway, the local authorities allow the dry-humping Jesus puppet-show to continue, for about an hour, until it's clear that the Christians are about to lose their nut.

So said authorities remove the Muslims, to restrict mob-violence (from the side of the rightfully enraged Christians), and 'let's all just call it a day', etc.

Same thing, right?

Would you come to the same conclusion?

You need to read the first amendment. It does state an individual has the right to protest. Apples and oranges.

 

[wkmac]

Police had to break up another confrontation between fanatics.

Funny how the 2 groups above and the 2 groups discussed earlier in this thread really are so much alike!

 

[soberups]

This case has nothing to do with freedom of speech, and everything to do with the time, place and manner in which that freedom is excercised.

I have the right to freely practice my religion, but that does not give me the right to perform human sacrifices in my basement or to burn women whom I believe to be witches at the stake.

I have the right to keep and bear arms, but that does not give me the right to discharge a firearm within city limits or in an unsafe manner.

I have the right to peaceably assemble with others for political or religious purposes...but that does not give me and my fellow protesters the right to deliberately block traffic on a major street or freeway, or to march in a manner that endangers the general public.

I have the right to freedom of expression, but that does not give me the right to "express" myself by performing live sex acts in public....or screaming "fire" in a crowded theater....or deliberately inciting a riot.

Time, place and manner.

 

[bottomups]

I'm wondering if those who support this judge will also support the revocation of all female drivers licenses and suffrage when a similar mob appears before your state legislators demanding sharia law be implemented or unfettered violence will commence. At what point will the threat of violence no longer cause us to give way to these Islamic extremists.

Our constitution as originally written did not allow a woman to vote. The constitution must change and evolve as our society does.

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

Our constitution as originally written did not allow a woman to vote. The constitution must change and evolve as our society does.

Would this include the 2nd Amendment?

 

[bottomups]

Would this include the 2nd Amendment?

Certainly. I have the right to bear arms but cannot own a Stinger missle or an Uzi. We must have reasonable limits on what is protected under the constitution.

 

[soberups]

Certainly. I have the right to bear arms but cannot own a Stinger missle or an Uzi. We must have reasonable limits on what is protected under the constitution.

The difference here is that, over time, various amendments and Supreme Court rulings have broadened the scope of Constitutional rights and protections in regards to issues such as suffrage, equal representation and free speech. Blacks and women have been included, not excluded, for the purpose of voting rights. The "freedom of speech and of the press" clause in the Constitution has been expanded over time to include forms of electronic media such as TV, radio and Internet that did not yet exist when the Constitution was written.

The people who talk about a "changing" or "evolving" Constitution in regards to the Second Amendment are almost always people who want to restrict our rights under the Second rather than expanding them as has been done with the First, Fourteenth, Fifteenth and Nineteenth.

 

[bbsam]

Maybe evolving is not synonymous with expanding.

 

[brett636]

Let's turn this one around...

It's a Christian rally, with some activist Muslim protesters.

They have a 'bread and circus' style puppet show (ten-foot tall paper mache characters, etc.), showing Jesus dry-humping the Virgin-Mary.

(Yes, strange idea, but the pigs' head is equally offensive to Muslims...and maybe to the Jewish as well; I'm not sure that pig was Kosher)

Anyway, the local authorities allow the dry-humping Jesus puppet-show to continue, for about an hour, until it's clear that the Christians are about to lose their nut.

So said authorities remove the Muslims, to restrict mob-violence (from the side of the rightfully enraged Christians), and 'let's all just call it a day', etc.

Same thing, right?

Would you come to the same conclusion?

Yes I would come to the same conclusion, but I maintain that if the roles were reversed the Police would have never stepped in and allowed the Muslim's to protest for as long as they pleased. You are failing to recognize that Islam is a blood thirsty and violent religion so its safe to assume that violence will persist anywhere a group of Muslims find adversity. Conversely a group of Christians will be much more civil and will probably never respond to a like Muslim protest despite how obnoxious they may try to be.

My point is the Chrisitians were well within their right to protest for as long as they pleased, and the only role for the police is to arrest any muslim who attempts to react in a violent manner. They can act like barbarians in their own societies in the middle east, but here they will honor our civil society and suffer the consequences when they cross that line. Unfortunately the courts have sent a message to the Muslim community and that is threaten violence and we will heed your cause. I can't say how much I disagree with that sentiment enough because it only invites more violent behavior.

 

[roadrunner2012]

Yes I would come to the same conclusion, but I maintain that if the roles were reversed the Police would have never stepped in and allowed the Muslim's to protest for as long as they pleased. You are failing to recognize that Islam is a blood thirsty and violent religion so its safe to assume that violence will persist anywhere a group of Muslims find adversity. Conversely a group of Christians will be much more civil and will probably never respond to a like Muslim protest despite how obnoxious they may try to be.

My point is the Chrisitians were well within their right to protest for as long as they pleased, and the only role for the police is to arrest any muslim who attempts to react in a violent manner. They can act like barbarians in their own societies in the middle east, but here they will honor our civil society and suffer the consequences when they cross that line. Unfortunately the courts have sent a message to the Muslim community and that is threaten violence and we will heed your cause. I can't say how much I disagree with that sentiment enough because it only invites more violent behavior.

Brett, you do realize that what you just wrote is crazy talk, right?

On another note, the festival has been cancelled this year, so keep that pig's head in your closet until at least 2014.

 

[wkmac]

After looking at the video, these "so-called" christians are the ones who come off looking bad.

I wonder how Jesus would have handled this situation? I think these so-called christians and "their apologists" should give that very strong thought.

 

[wkmac]

Let's turn this one around...

It's a Christian rally, with some activist Muslim protesters.

They have a 'bread and circus' style puppet show (ten-foot tall paper mache characters, etc.), showing Jesus dry-humping the Virgin-Mary.

(Yes, strange idea, but the pigs' head is equally offensive to Muslims...and maybe to the Jewish as well; I'm not sure that pig was Kosher)

Anyway, the local authorities allow the dry-humping Jesus puppet-show to continue, for about an hour, until it's clear that the Christians are about to lose their nut.

So said authorities remove the Muslims, to restrict mob-violence (from the side of the rightfully enraged Christians), and 'let's all just call it a day', etc.

Same thing, right?

Would you come to the same conclusion?

Muslims would likely never use figures showing Jesus and Mary (dry humping) in such a situation because the Quran itself holds Jesus and Mary up as very special and to be honored. But I know the point was an example.

 

[Upsmule]

After looking at the video, these "so-called" christians are the ones who come off looking bad.

I wonder how Jesus would have handled this situation? I think these so-called christians and "their apologists" should give that very strong thought.

Again, it doesn't matter that those on one side of this subject where in the wrong. What matters is that a sitting judge that swore to uphold the Constitutional right to freedom of speech - ruled in favor of those who broke the law via violence.

No surprise - and no change here either.

 

[bbsam]

Again, it doesn't matter that those on one side of this subject where in the wrong. What matters is that a sitting judge that swore to uphold the Constitutional right to freedom of speech - ruled in favor of those who broke the law via violence.

No surprise - and no change here either.

part of upholding the Constitution includes applying the law within what the Supreme Court has ruled.absent personal bias. There is always the appeals process for those who disagree.

 

[wkmac]

Again, it doesn't matter that those on one side of this subject where in the wrong. What matters is that a sitting judge that swore to uphold the Constitutional right to freedom of speech - ruled in favor of those who broke the law via violence.

No surprise - and no change here either.

Oh, there was never any doubt in my mind that this issue had anything to do with right or wrong, it was purely about re-enforcing a bias.

Had it been about right and wrong, those christians would have asked the question, WWJD but instead ignored that and went out under the color of his name and are now mad because the outcome wasn't what they wanted.

No wait, scratch that. The outcome for those here in this forum was not what was wanted, thus why they are mad. But in the case of the actual protestors and the organization involved, the outcome was literally manna from heaven.

 

[brett636]

Brett, you do realize that what you just wrote is crazy talk, right?

On another note, the festival has been cancelled this year, so keep that pig's head in your closet until at least 2014.

You call it crazy talk because you would like it to be, but I wouldn't say it if it weren't true.

 

[Upsmule]

part of upholding the Constitution includes applying the law within what the Supreme Court has ruled.absent personal bias. There is always the appeals process for those who disagree.

They have appealed....and we shall see won't we.
​