Replies

Jimmy,

I have read your responses, and realize that you were reacting to those who wished to ban a worldwide religion. Many people would tend to agree with you. However, would you not agree that those who protested against Pat Robertson mischaracterized his views and slandered his opinions?

Let’s examine your views. You also take an absolutist position regarding viewpoints. Based on your criteria we should not ban groups that advocate killing Jews, the extermination of Christians, the murder of homosexuals, the enslavement of blacks (or whites) or the ritual slaughter of newborn girl children. These are only viewpoints and society should not act against them until action is taken to implement these views.

It so happens that an example of this approach to one problem is the recent attack by a convert to Islam in Kuwait when he rolled two grenades into tents occupied by the commanding officers of his battalion, shooting at least one of them in the back as he tried to flee. Until he committed this act, there is not reason to have restrained him.

By a curious coincidence, the same applies to the highjackers of the jets that took 3,000 lives on 9/11. Prior to this act, by your rules, there is nothing that we could, as a society, have done to restrain them.

The Moslem schools in the Middle East are teaching their young that Jews are pigs and monkeys, to be killed wherever they are found. By your rules, they are simply exercising the free expression of their religion. And if the rising generation of Arabs are indoctrinated with a faith that makes it a holy goal to go to paradise by exploding next to a Jew or Christian, taking them to their deaths, we are required to repeat the mantra that the free exercise of speech and religion is the ultimate good.

Is there any reason, in your universe, where prior restraint should be exercised on the free expression of speech or religion?

Is there any reason, in your universe, where prior restraint should be exercised on the free expression of speech or religion?

Strawman.

Fact remains that these people are protected by the constitution. If they are conspiring, as opposed to expressing a belief then they are protected.

I mean, I personally think pedophiles should be lined up and shot.

Should I be "restrained" from presenting my point of view? Is it a crime to speak my mind?

Or does it only become a crime when I say: 'Okay bob, let's get the gun and go kill some chickenhawks' ?

Your criteria would have half of FR excluded from First Amendment protections.