Posted on 09/20/2012 11:02:33 AM PDT by TurboZamboni
The current standard for restricting speech — or punishing it after it has in fact caused violence — was laid out in the 1969 case Brandenburg vs. Ohio. Under the narrower guidelines, only speech that has the intent and the likelihood of inciting imminent violence or lawbreaking can be limited.
Likelihood is the easiest test. In Afghanistan, where I have lived for most of the past decade, frustrations at an abusive government and at the apparent role of international forces in propping it up have been growing for years. But those frustrations are often vented in religious, not political, terms, because religion is a more socially acceptable, and safer, rationale for public outcry.
In the summer of 2010, Jones announced his intent to publicly burn a copy of the Muslim holy scripture, the Koran, that Sept. 11. He was eventually dissuaded by a number of religious and government officials, including Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who called him to say his actions would put the lives of U.S. soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan at risk. On the Joint Chiefs of Staff, where I worked at the time, consensus was that the likelihood of violence was high.
When Jones did in fact stage a public Koran burning on March 20, 2011, riots broke out in Afghanistan, killing nearly a dozen people and injuring 90 in the beautiful, cosmopolitan northern city of Mazar-i-Sharif. Seven of the dead were United Nations employees; the rest were Afghans.
(Excerpt) Read more at articles.latimes.com ...
Different standards.
St. Yasser Arafat got his start lighting a fire in a crowded theater...
keyboard spew alert
Notice how the liberal thinks:
The First Amendment should be restricted because of unpopular speech, because that speech might hurt somebody’s feelings.
The whole entire fricking point of the First Amendment was to protect unpopular speech, to protect those with unpopular and offensive ideas.
Funny how liberals love the First Amendment when it comes to protecting liberals insulting Christianity, even when tax dollars are subsidizing anti-Christian and pornographic art, but a YouTube video should be banished and the people who make the videos should be arrested to prevent Muslims from rioting in a foreign country.
However the US Army buring 15,000 Bibles in Afghanistan a couple years ago is AOK.
I have faith that the lower pit of Hell, filled with superheated pig fat will be the final repose of subject libtards and other Whores of the Devil.
OK, I am going to pick this nit. The 1st Amendment says absolutely NOTHING about separation of church and state. All it says is that the US government can not elevate one religion over another; i.e. creation of a state sanctioned government.
It's been gone over and over on FR and elsewhere. "Separation of church and state" is a creation of liberals with the intent of removing God from the public forum. Just the fact that someone (you) who is arguing (rightly) that the US government IS promoting one religion over others uses the phrase shows exactly how far the liberals have suceeded in their attack on American mores and values.
As Conservatives, we must fight back, at the very root of the problem. Words have meanings, history can not be re-written, and liberals do not get ot make up the rules as we go along.
Now, I'll get down off my soap box, thank you for your time.
She forgets that the standard includes a reasonableness component. Shouting "fire" would send reasonable people rushing to the exits. This 12 minute amateur video would not incite any reasonable person to violence. Just muslim nutcases.
Only those who’s ultimate goal is the elimination of the restrictions the Constitution places on government are OK with ANY limits on free speech.
Now for those who pull out the old Fire in a theater if there is no fire, Free Speech does not mean freedom from responsibility for your actions. If you yell fire in a theater and people are hurt trying to leave, you should be held accountable for your action but not your speech.
We are guaranteed the right to free speech given to us by our creator and our government MUST NOT be allowed to restrict that freedom.
We also must be willing to accept the responsibility for OUR actions not the actions of a mentally unstable group of moon god believers.
Under this insidious president we could very well lose both the First and Second Amendments. We are well on that path.
Swallow a camel, but strain at a gnat.
A middle school girl is free to get an abortion without parental consent, but if she puts a lemonade stand on her lawn she’ll be fined.
thanks, long lost cousin, Pig.
yeah, I get it. that whole letter from TJ to the Danbury Baptists.
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.