They would use it against us.
Posted on 08/09/2005 11:16:54 AM PDT by JZelle
The United States should follow the instruction of Great Britain in punishing speech likely to motivate terrorism. President George W. Bush should propose legislation making criminal the condoning or glorifying of terrorism against the United States whether uttered domestically or abroad, for example, Bobby Fisher's notorious glee at the September 11, 2001 abominations. Reasonable suspicion of sympathy with terrorism should justify excluding or deporting aliens. And naturalization should require the applicant's oath or affirmation to cooperate with law enforcement and national security authorities in the investigation or foiling of terrorist crimes. The proposals would be no witch hunt. Witches were figments. Terrorists are the real thing. Just ask their victims, whether in New York City, London, Jerusalem, Madrid, Bali, Casablanca, Nairobi, Baghdad or elsewhere. The alarm over terrorism is unlike the hysterical and racist relocations of Japanese Americans during World War II. The latter were herded into concentration camps without a crumb of evidence of disloyalty. The vile ambitions of Muslim terrorists are open and notorious. (Non-Muslim terrorists like Timothy McVeigh or Eden Natan Zada, a Jewish deserter from the Israeli Army guilty of slaying four Israeli Arabs, are but a tiny fraction of the whole). The harms inflicted by terrorists coiled to strike at any time or place are staggering. Travel is confounded and prolonged. Privacy bows to legitimate worries over security. Suspicions grow. Trust recedes. Split-second decisions required of law enforcement when lives are at stake occasion tragedies like the Brazilian shot by the London police. Terrorism must be crushed with an iron fist.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
They would use it against us.
The basic point is well taken, but it does open a door that will be very hard to shut. We need to draw very clear lines and build very high walls to protect the right to free speech even as we shut down terrroist promotion. Otherwise, a corrupt, power-mad pol liek Hitlery will use this provision, define terrorism as loosely as possible, and use it to shut down you and me. Then we have tyranny.
I think the Brits want to make the distinction: citizens get a jail term, non-citizens get deported, asylum or no asylum.
Hillary "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" Rodham doesn't need no stinking law to project the idea that conservatism is illegitimate. That is exactly what she thinks, and exactly how she exercises any authority she has at any given time.
I really don't think, that the average American citizen is exposed to speeches promoting terrorism. I live a normal life, get up, watch Fox, go to work, come home work in the yard, eat supper, watch some tv and go to bed. I wouldn't know where to even find anyone promoting terrorism, if I wanted to.
what the difference between rallying for terrorism and screaming "FIRE!" in a crowded theater?
Screaming "FIRE!" has inevitable consequences directly related to that speech - the panic that would ensue. It is far more likely that someone would be injured in a mad dash for the exits than by someone hearing a call to terror. There is no other action required to cause harm in the theater, and the same cannot be said for terror-talk.
This is a terrible idea. We punish actions in this country, not words. When words become actions, then we punish.
Make no mistake, if we criminalize speaking against our government, FR will fit that definition in somebody's eyes.
In the early days of the Republic, the kind of hate speeches the Islamofacists engage in was called, sedition.
The Founding Fathers did not allow for seditious, treasonous speech to be protected under the Constitution.
Well, you don't go to Mosque, now do you?
Every week, young muslim men are given speeches in mosques across this great land of ours promoting terrorism and the violent overthrow of the USA.
That my fine feathered friend is sedition and treason.
Let them speak and we will spy.
I don't think you grasp the heart of the problem. This isn't about speech that is critical of our government, this is about speech that incites sedition and treason in the form of terrorism and the violent overthrow of this nation.
The Constitution already condemns that speech as treasonous, punishable by hanging.
No I don't, although I have visited many and not heard any terrorist speeches. As I said, the average American citizen probably doesn't visit mosques regularly either.
Why then, do we need new laws weakening the First Amendment?
Try them under conspiracy statutes. Seems simple enough to me.
Plenty of so called "conservatives" who would abuse such a law just as much as the liberals would. Liberals aren't the only type that would love to shut up their opposition.
Just look at how certain members of this site react when someone disagrees with them. They scream "traitor" at anyone who doesn't hold the same ideology.
Actually, no, it doesn't.
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.