You don't really need to read beyond this point. The premise is so flawed it isn't even in the same universe as reality.
Whatever this guy's goals were, his efforts WERE NOT tailored to put lives and property at immediate risk.
They were tailored to spread what this guy thought was truth regarding Islam.
This idiot writer is doing nothing more than making the case that the First Amendment needs to be carved up nearly as badly as the Second Amendment already is.
Lets see, the Fourth Amendment means nothing anymore. The Second Amendment is under attack daily. The first Amendment is now fair game. Our President doesn't bother to defend the Constitution, and he refuses to do his duty under Article IV Section 4. This bitch is simply one more person who doesn't give a fig about our God given rights.
U.S. 1st Amendment rights distinguish between speech that is simply offensive and speech deliberately tailored to put lives and property at immediate risk.
You don’t really need to read beyond this point. The premise is so flawed it isn’t even in the same universe as reality.
Whatever this guy’s goals were, his efforts WERE NOT tailored to put lives and property at immediate risk.
They were tailored to spread what this guy thought was truth regarding Islam.
///
my question is... WHY does liberal controlled Google,
REFUSE to pull the video?
they certainly have pulled MANY less offensive videos...
-
i certainly agree, that we must not give ONE INCH,
on defending our Freedom of Speech!
but, i disagree, about the producer of the video.
is there ANY evidence, that this criminal ON PROBATION,
this government snitch, cares about the truth or Islam?
THERE ISN’T EVEN A MOVIE. it’s a hoax!
there is only 2 clips.
AND,
the clumsy dubbing, shows a lazy attempt to “insult muslims”.
instead of a REAL movie showing how evil Mohammad was.
many Freepers, could have done better, in 1 week.
-
this guy, shows no evidence of being being brave like Pam Geller, Robert Spencer, Bostom, or many others.
the guy is a criminal fraud. turned government snitch.
on probation!
seriously?
...if Obama wanted to put pressure on this guy,
to pull the video, he’d fold like tissue paper.
...if Obama REALLY wanted the video pulled,
LIBERAL CONTROLLED GOOGLE,
would pull it in a heartbeat.
( they certainly could, within their terms of service. )
-
so, WHY isn’t the video being pulled?
because, it’s a “reichstag fire”.
( remember all the fake doctors, and fake Republicans, etc.,
that the Liberals have tried to pass off on stage?
a pattern...)
-
there are MANY better videos, and more insulting to Islam.
(like Korans stuffed with bacon and burned.)
-
but they need a video, that WON’T be pulled.
-
this allows them, to publish articles like this,
and eventually make Islam “protected”.
(and can be used for cover, to release the Blind Sheikh, etc. as a “gesture of good will”.)
-
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2932600/posts
The Blind Sheikh May be Released to Egypt
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2932565/posts
Obama’s DOJ Can’t Say Criticizing Religion Will Remain Legal (Video at Link)
NRO ^ | September 17, 2012 5:48 P.M.
Posted on Monday, September 17, 2012 9:05:16 PM by Perdogg
The exchange below, between Representative Trent Franks and Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez, occurred in late July, but is particularly relevant today. Representatvie Franks tries to extract an assurance from Perez that the Obama administration will not push a proposal to criminalize speech “against any religion.” He has a tough time doing so.
///
especially read comments #18 and #20.
Well actually that's a correct reading of Brandenburg v. Ohio. But La Times misinterprets what it means
However, the "clear and present danger" criterion of the Schenck decision was replaced in 1969 by Brandenburg v. Ohio,[27] and the test refined to determining whether the speech would provoke an "imminent lawless action".It's the test J S MILL used in On Liberty (1857)...
For two decades after the Dennis decision, free speech issues related to advocacy of violence were decided using balancing tests such as the one initially articulated in Dennis.[30] In 1969, the court established stronger protections for speech in the landmark case Brandenburg v. Ohio which held that "the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action".[31][32] Brandenburg is now the standard applied by the Court to free speech issues related to advocacy of violence.[33](wiki)
An opinion that corn-dealers are starvers of the poor, or that private property is robbery, ought to be unmolested when simply circulated through the press, but may justly incur punishment when delivered orally to an excited mob assembled before the house of a corn-dealer, or when handed about among the same mob in the form of a placard.
If there's no excited mob already assembled, and you don[t assemble one, it's free speech, and the recipients are obliged to behave like gentlemen.