[atlaw]

I see you're unfamiliar with the phrase, "An armed society is a polite society."

Fatwas here! Hot fatwas on a stick! Get your fatwas here!

On a serious note, you're coming dangerously close to the barbarism of islamic fundamentalism. I trust that you aren't advocating forcible and violent silencing of comedians (or others who express opinions you deem personally offensive), and I trust that you aren't advocating repeal of the first amendment.

[BeHoldAPaleHorse]

"On a serious note, you're coming dangerously close to the barbarism of islamic fundamentalism. I trust that you aren't advocating forcible and violent silencing of comedians (or others who express opinions you deem personally offensive), and I trust that you aren't advocating repeal of the first amendment."

I'm sure he'd just say that it was a miracle of Jesus if Leary's house got firebombed.

[neocon]

The law recognizes that some speech constitutes "fighting words", and mitigates the punishment for those who react violently to them. Only a damned fool goes around insulting people when the possibility of his meeting with an immediate physical response is quite real. This delightful "chilling effect" has preserved social civility throughout the ages, and is essential to the preservation of civilization. It is both idiotic and hysterical to attempt to equate this with barbarism.

Nor does the First Amendment protect speech which is slanderous, libelous, seditious, incites violence, or endangers others (e.g., "shouting 'Fire' in a crowded theatre" if there is in fact no fire). Moreover the right to regulate speech, such as that in question here, has historically been exercised by the states.

And, I would remind you, the First Amendment also guarantees the free expression of religion in the public square. So, if we are to apply absolutism with regard to speech, why not to religious expression as well? In that case, we have a conflict of "rights": Leary's speech "chills" Catholic religious expression. Which is more fundamental to our system of government? Try as I might, I can find no right to boorish behavior in the Constitution. Nor is that venerable document a cultural-suicide pact. Perhaps, then, you might consider that absolutism is the wrong standard.

Finally, I have cited numerous examples of this behavior directed at Catholics in particular. Taken together, and supplemented by so many other such incidents, they constitute a pattern of persecution. I will not apologize for taking what steps I can to secure the Constitutional right of Catholics to religious expression. Nor will I be content to live in a culture which has become a cesspool of vulgarity and pornography.