Posted on 04/20/2011 2:14:18 PM PDT by OldDeckHand
But...But, Thats different! I think that a pile of Korans should be burned in every single city in the US and the ashes poured up the A** of every single sniveling Liberal in the US!!!
One would expect that the USSC case regarding the Westboro Baptist Church’s right to their “protests” would more than cover what this preacher is doing.
He’s one gutsy SOB.
He is doing a Niphong or however that Jacka** atty’s name from the Duke U’s Circus is spelled..
I guess when people burned the American flag we should have shot them, beheaded them, and murdered innocent people, then they wouldn’t dare do it again as we would have government protection...just like the insane mooselimbs do.
One in the same.
Can you say “Prior Restraint?”
I knew you could.
In U.S. law, prior restraint is a form of censorship in which one is prevented, in advance, from communicating certain material, rather than made answerable afterwards. Prior restraint is particularly restrictive because it prevents the forbidden material from being heard or distributed at all. Other restrictions on expression provide sanctions only after the offending material has been communicated, such as suits for slander or libel.
Prior restraint often takes the form of an injunction or other governmental order prohibiting the publication of a specific document or subject. Sometimes, the government becomes aware of a forthcoming publication on a particular subject and seeks to prevent it. In other cases, the government attempts to halt ongoing publication and prevent its resumption. These injunctions are considered prior restraint because potential future publications are stopped in advance.
Anglo-American legal tradition
[edit] Blackstone and early views
In William Blackstone’s Commentaries “Freedom of the Press” is defined as the right to be free from prior restraints. In addition, he held that a person should not be punished for speaking or writing the truth, with good motives and for justifiable ends. Truth alone, however, was not considered a sufficient justification, if published with bad motives.
The liberty of the press is indeed essential to the nature of a free state; but this consists in laying no previous restraints upon publications, and not in freedom from censure for criminal matter when published. Every freeman has an undoubted right to lay what sentiments he pleases before the public; to forbid this, is to destroy the freedom of the press; but if he publishes what is improper, mischievous or illegal, he must take the consequence of his own temerity. (4 Bl. Com. 151, 152.)
This view was the common legal understanding at the time the US constitution was adopted. Only later have the concepts of freedom of speech and the press been extended (in the United States, the United Kingdom, and other countries sharing their legal tradition) to protect honest error, or truth even if published for questionable reasons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_restraint
Did you forget your sarcasm tag?
Then arrest the rioters and sue them for any damages.
According to the Prosecutor, we may not speak the truth about Islam because offended Islamists will riot.
Someone needs to get busy arresting Islamists rather than burning the First Amendment.
She's either incredibly stupid for asking for such a payment, or she feels incredibly entitled.
Do these people ever realize for a moment that by playing fearful of the Islamic threats your just empowering theses terrorist?
Islamic Terrorist are like maltreated children, they pout and scream thinking it will get you to behave the way they want. If you follow thru with their demands you find yourself becoming their puppet before long. meanwhile they get the positive reinforcement to their pouting and screaming.
Only the thing we are positively reinforcing is their terrorist activities. I say burn Korans and burn them openly. Let the Muslims complain but at the end of the day they burn our bibles and kill our people with near impunity.
Whoa! Kim is one of Holder’s “untouchable” people.
I can tell by her light reflectivity index that she is beyond questioning.
More can be read below...
http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/04/20/2177741/pastor-denied-permit-ahead-of.html
Yes. Sadly. The First Amendment particularly protects offensive speech.
We should shame both the “baptist bastards” and the Pastor in this case for their uncivil behavior.
But the Islamists who commit violence after someone’s uncivil behavior; that is law-breaking. Lock ‘em up!
The equivalent would be you taking offense at the Baptists, and choosing therefore to go break store windows, burn Baptist churches, and beat people up.
People get to say stuff, sometimes ugly stuff. Get used to it. The Constitution particularly protects them, and I agree with that protection.
People don’t get to go break people and things.
Come on..........that exactly why they are doing it, to encourage these terrorists.
"Oh no you dint jus say that! My people gonna club you."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.