Posted on 11/04/2025 8:51:19 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Bkmk
Exception: you cannot criticize Islam or muslims any such comments will be censored or never published; you could also will receive dearth threats.
No one on cable shows mentions Mamdani’s radical Iranian Islamic sect.
Who do you expect to air or publish criticisms of Islam or Muslims? News organizations are not Government, and their choice of what to censor isn’t generally a matter of law.
. . . and so cannot even define "church."
In zoning and land-use ordinance meetings in our county, we have brought this up and we have brought up the Indiana State Constitution, and have asked the question . . . .
When "church" or "churches," or "houses of worship," or such is restricted, or exempted, in zoning and land-use ordinances, is a county allowed to define "church," or "house of worship," or "worship" itself ?????
Myth: Private businesses are bound by the U.S. Bill of Rights.
Fact: They are not.
IMO hate crimes are unconstitutional.
They should be; but we’ve had them since 1968.
I recall hearing a lecture by Justice John Paul Stevens, who served on the Supreme Court from 1975 to 2010. He said the litigants in free speech and obscenity cases were always the most unsympathetic and sometimes even detestable. Think of Lincoln Rockwell, for those who remember. Yet, the Court had to hold its nose tightly in order to protect the 1st Amendment.
Didnt they call it, extreme prejudice?
///Myth: Private businesses are bound by the U.S. Bill of Rights.
Fact: They are not.///
But that doesn’t mean they, or their owners, can’t be legally obliged to respect people’s rights.
Yes, you can tell fire in a crowded theater IF there is a fire.
Problem is, who would decide what a hate crime is? There are people who think anything good you say about President Trump is a hate crime.
Here are ten things you are not allowed to say:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Make sure you never say these things.
Myth: the government can restrict your right to speak in certain cases.
No, it can’t - this is called prior restraint. It CAN punish you AFTER THE FACT if you (for example) yell fire in a crowded theater when, in fact, there was no fire and your statement caused a panic which, in turn, caused injuries and/or damage to the theater. Likewise, you can be punished for revealing national security secrets (including up to the death penalty), but cannot be prevented from doing so in the first place by law or regulation, because that would be prior restraint.
“Yes, you can tell fire in a crowded theater IF there is a fire.”
——————
Wrong, that is still prior restraint.
You can yell it even if there is no fire, even if you know it will be the cause of a panic that you reasonably expect will cause injuries and even death. However, you can be appropriately punished for doing so.
The fact that you commit a crime has nothing to do with what your opinion is or what you say. Outside of self-defense for murder/assault charge it is irrelevant if you said believe/something “hurtful” while doing it. Unlike BS tv shows like Law and Order (which always wants a reason) motive is not an element of the crime.
You assault someone. Doesn’t matter what you called them.
You steal something. Doesn’t matter what you believe about people.
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.