Unfortunately, a simple statement such as "I think Islam is a false religion" is enough to incite violence among the muzzies.
“Will bullies get upset?” is not a valid 1st Amendment litmus test.
Catering to psychotics, madmen and genocidal killers has nothing to do with a crowded theater.
Get the animals out of the theater. Or put them down.
I’m offended that she even asks the question. Yes, I am offended! The LA Slimes mocks my beliefs! Death to the LA Slimes! Their speech must be stopped or I will riot!
More proof - Progressivism = Tyranny
Here is what these “jour-o-list” idiots lose sight of...the 1st Amendment is protected IN THE US NOT THE REST OF THE WORLD!
Yelling “FIRE!” in a packed theater in Tehran, Iran is neither protected or infringed by the US Congress or the US Courts.
These folks are IDIOTS!
I don’t think the MSM meets that test
I actually like this argument. It presupposes that some segment of Muslims are prone to bursting into violence at the slightest provocation and so speech against Muslims should be restricted.
Of course that also means that speech against the Yankees or the Cowboys or Christians or Gays or guns or Mondays or whatever should also be restricted because, dog gone it, it just might incite someone to violence.
Where do morons like this get their education and does anyone check before they are given a pencil to write this garbage?
Get it, Sarah? Not that you'd be at risk, ya dhimmi.
EVEN this article “meets the free speech test”.
Does the L.A. Times meet the free-speech test?
Once these muzzies start letting in another religion other than their devil and demon worshipping cult, then we can talk. Until then they can go pound sand! Childish mentality and throwing fits and murdering every time someone offends them is a bunch of CRAP!
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.
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.