Religious tolerance trumps freedom of speech. The death of the 1st Amendment.

Originally posted by stargatetravels

Originally posted by EvilSadamClone

Except for obama because he must say what I want him to say and if he doesn't I'll just make stuff up about him that isn't true and make a big deal about to score points with my conservative brethren.

Exacrtly, the op's skewed, bigoted, Obama-hating world view is clear for all to see.

Gosh. My having freedom of speech must really irk you folks.

Originally posted by icepack
reply to post by beezzer

 

Freedom of speech does not end. Insults, discriminations are interpretive.

every extreme has its toll. there is a saying: The freedom of the individual ceases to be where the freedom of the other begins. (sorry, google translation)

Just because one is free to spout insults, does not mean that another has any obligation to listen.

reply to post by beezzer

Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and by many state constitutions and state and federal laws. The freedom is not absolute; the Supreme Court of the United States has recognized several categories of speech that are excluded from the freedom of speech, and it has recognized that governments may enact reasonable time, place, or manner restrictions on speech.

en.wikipedia.org...

Everything else is irrelevant.

You're just trying to take an opportunity to bash Obama to score points, and your questions are just deflections.

reply to post by EvilSadamClone


From YOUR source

Criticism of the government and advocacy of unpopular ideas that people may find distasteful or against public policy are almost always permitted.

The limits are here. Again, from YOUR source

There are exceptions to these general protections, including the Miller test for obscenity, child pornography laws, speech that incites imminent lawless action, and regulation of commercial speech such as advertising.

reply to post by Pinke

Actually, America is one of the few countries that protects hate speech as a civil right.

you sure ? some other member just posted this:

"Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and by many state constitutions and state and federal laws. The freedom is not absolute; the Supreme Court of the United States has recognized several categories of speech that are excluded from the freedom of speech, and it has recognized that governments may enact reasonable time, place, or manner restrictions on speech."

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by kaylaluv
There's not a damn thing wrong with what Hillary and Obama said. Let's pretend the Ku Klux Klan put out a video talking about the inferiority of black people, saying that black people were stupid animals, making fun of black people,calling them names and presenting stereotypes. Now let's say this makes some black people very mad, so they protest the video, and the protests get violent. And because the KKK used an American flag in the video, Obama speaks out that this video does not represent the U.S. government's views, but regardless, the violent protests of the blacks are uncalled for. Do you see anything wrong with that? Obama never said that a new law will stop this type of video from being made. But, he has every right to denounce it as prejudiced, small-minded and trouble-making.

It was especially important for Obama and Hillary to make very clear that the views in the video were not the views of the U.S. government. It was also important for them to denounce the violence. They did both, and I'm glad they did. They couldn't have handled it better IMHO.

Sickening.
They are apologizing to people who commit murder over a cartoonish video
and not defending freedom of speech which does not exist in Islam.
Islam is a contagious Rage Virus mental meme.

Memes of Islam

8. It is a punishable offense to criticize Islam. You can see why this one is a good supporting meme for the memeplex. It helps curb any memes that would reduce the authority of Islamic memes. This one, like many of the others, is good for the memeplex, but bad for people. This one limits freedom of speech.

9. You can't leave Islam once you're in. This is an interesting one. It is actually illegal in Islamic states to convert out of Islam. This is a critical part of Shari'a law. Someone who has rejected Islam who was once a Muslim is an "apostate." This is a crime and a sin, and the punishment for it is death (and eternal damnation in hell thereafter).

Obviously, you can see why this meme has been included in the memeplex, but this one has actually caused Islam a problem because those who are following Islam to the letter consider more "moderate" Muslims (those who want to ignore or alter the more violent passages of the Koran) to be apostates. Since the punishment for apostates is death, fundamentalist Muslims are fighting modernizing Muslims all over the world, and keeping many rebellious, modernizing Muslims from speaking up for fear of death.

Every time a group of Muslims decides that maybe Islam should be updated for the 21st century and maybe women should have some rights or maybe the government should be more democratic, the devout Muslims call them apostates and try to kill them.

The memeplex is protecting its own fidelity (the original memeplex cannot be altered). This is not good for the organisms (the Muslim human beings), but it's great for the memeplex.

Another meme in Shari'a law says it's against the law for anyone to try to convert a Muslim to another religion. Again, this is a meme to help protect the fidelity of the memeplex.

10. Islam must be your first allegiance. This is a great meme to add if the goal is world domination. You are a Muslim first, before any allegiance you give to your family, your tribe, or your country.

This does two things: It causes a unity of people across borders, and it allows the group to grow bigger than any other entity. In other words, the "Nation of Islam" can grow bigger than any country, no matter how large (which gives the group a massive numerical advantage).t

Originally posted by beezzer
But our political "leaders" (in my humble opinion) should be defending the Constitution, The Bill of Rights. Not whining about someones usage of the freedoms that America provides.

Yes...If the film was about the constitution then yes they should be defending the film....but I am unclear as to why they should be defending a film about the Muslim equivelant of Jesus molesting children?

Secondly..most folks in the middle east have over several generations lived in a society where media has to be approved by government...thus an ingrained thinking that if Media originates from the US, then the US Gov. must have approved it. There is value to a PR campaign letting the average rural Muslim know that the US gov did not approve the message of the film.

And doing so IS NOT "the death of the 1st Amendment"...no more than condemning racism is...or condemning bigotry...

What dull thinking...binary fallacy...false choice ...We must either defend a film casting Mohamed as a child Molester? or burn the constitution?.....how about we simply excercize our 1st Amend. rights and let the middle east know that we also thought the film was disgusting?

reply to post by Indigo5


I can agree that we can dismiss the film. But when there ISN'T a caveat to hold dear, the 1st Amendment, then I worry about it.

I use OWS and Westboro as examples.

Nail hit on the head!
They are eroding our freedoms, apologizing for ALL AMERICANS
for something we did not even do>?
It wouldn't surprise me if or when they hijack the American constitution
for a UN resolution that states WE can't say bad things about a
murdering rapist


S AND F OP

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Indigo5

 

I can agree that we can dismiss the film. But when there ISN'T a caveat to hold dear, the 1st Amendment, then I worry about it.

I use OWS and Westboro as examples.

Bad examples as those were US issues...not Middle East. Why the ef, amidst riots, should we appeal to the rioters appreciation of the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution.....that is some ignorance. You want us to talk to rural Yemen and Pakistan about the 1st Amendment of the US constitution???

Why don't we just let them know we thought the film was trash too? And save the civics lessons for a time when they are not rioting???

DUMB Rhetoric these days...you are sharper than this beez..

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Indigo5

 

I can agree that we can dismiss the film. But when there ISN'T a caveat to hold dear, the 1st Amendment, then I worry about it.

I use OWS and Westboro as examples.

Bad examples as those were US issues...not Middle East. Why the ef, amidst riots, should we appeal to the rioters appreciation of the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution.....that is some ignorance. You want us to talk to rural Yemen and Pakistan about the 1st Amendment of the US constitution???

Why don't we just let them know we thought the film was trash too? And save the civics lessons for a time when they are not rioting???

DUMB Rhetoric these days...you are sharper than this beez..

Why should we give a damn WHAT another country says or does? To have another country dictate to us our own freedoms is appaling!

Originally posted by Indigo5


Why don't we just let them know we thought the film was trash too? And save the civics lessons for a time when they are not rioting???

DUMB Rhetoric these days...you are sharper than this

How about they stop talking for ALL AMERICANS.?!?
Some Would say the movie IS NOT trash, one of the BEST pieces OF ART in recent time.
Rhetoric is RIGHT! Listening to POTUS, telling us to pucker up them BIG lips,
kiss their assess and ENJOY it.

THAT IS the dumbest rhetoric morons are attaching to.

TOUCHE indi>?

reply to post by BritofTexas


but there is justification for random drone strikes that kill an entire wedding party, or blow up an intersection full of civilians.

those were "accidents".

so was the killing of the ambassador, some say.

i have it from reliable sources that the embassy burned down because some thoughtless protester accidentally threw his cigarette on the front lawn, where it caught fire on a discarded wall street journal and blew up a bbq propane tank that had sprung a leak.

and the rpg, well that was also an accident. the protester was about to fire in the air, in celebration of the good ol' us of a and freedom, when he was accidentally bumped sending the rocket propelled grenade right at the embassy.

it was 1 in million shot according to my source.

Originally posted by beezzer
Linky

The above link (yeah, it's Breitbart, get over it) shows a 30 second commercial currently being shown in Pakistan.

It is Hillary Clinton and Obama decrying the violence and damning the video.

Now there is nothing illegal with what they are doing. But our political "leaders" (in my humble opinion) should be defending the Constitution, The Bill of Rights. Not whining about someones usage of the freedoms that America provides.

It sends a poor message to the world when our political representatives complain about the freedoms that they represent.

It gives me concern abou the future of our freedoms.

Again, just my opinion.

I imagine you (ATS) have your own.

Surprised?

Color me "Appalled"

Justice Ginsburg: “I Would Not Look to the U.S. Constitution”

Conservatives are often ridiculed for criticizing activist judges who fail to respect the Constitution. We are told that it is not conservative originalists (labeled ignorant and extremist) but rather enlightened liberal judges—with their nuanced understanding of constitutional penumbras—who truly respect the spirit of the Constitution.

Conservatives, however, have good reason to be skeptical of the left’s “respect’’ for the Constitution. Just last week, for example, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg told an Egyptian TV station that she would not recommend the U.S. Constitution as model for Egypt’s new government.

blog.heritage.org...

The sooner we can sweep out this liberal trash the better( and I know justices are in for life...)! But Barack Bub-bye!

Originally posted by Pinke

Originally posted by icepack
reply to post by ManBehindTheMask

 

the freedom of speech ends, if you insult or discriminate. this freedom of speech is limited like all other freedoms are.

Actually, America is one of the few countries that protects hate speech as a civil right.

Technically you can say whatever you want regardless of how hateful or stupid it is. Only exceptions is under fighting words, inciting riot/violence and defamation.

The incite to riot part is a lot more wide open that you would think as well.

edit on 21-9-2012 by Pinke because: I forgot to finish my post? *drools*

problem is...what if yur dealing with unreasonable people who riot for trivial reasons? If I say 'I don't like men wearing pink blouses' and Beezzer is offended because he wears pink blouses (just as an example, I'm sure Beez doesn't do pink blouses), and attacks me...did my comment justify his attack?
humanity has to wonder if it can co-exist with Islam. Muslims refuse to play nice, refuse to compromise their faith, refuse to tolerate other cultures, and practice violence routinely. (yes, yes, I know, only a handful, but we don't see similar handfuls in other cultures/religions/societies being so violent.)
look at all the trouble spots in this world today. how many do NOT involve Islam? what group of people on earth would react with violence over a stupid movie?
imagine a serious documentarian doing an expose on Islamic violence thru history. would we shut him down because he might cause riots? are we going to determine free speach rights based on reactions, no matter how unreasonable?

Originally posted by beezzer
Here it is.
The 1st amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

en.wikipedia.org...

Just 45 words. No caveats. No "special circumstances", no falsly yelling fire in a theatre clause, no religious exemptions. No interpretations. No butthurt clauses.

It must drive some peopl crazy, this little amendment.

So, you're saying it's ok for someone to break into your home in the middle of the night to have their free speech. It's ok for any individual or group to take over a tv station at any time to use it for their free speech. It's ok to interrupt a business meeting in an office building to recite your free speech. It's ok to carjack someone so you can recite your free speech to them. It's ok for anybody and everybody to do these things all day, every day. With millions of people who want their chance at free speech, can you imagine the chaos if we let them all do these things?

There ARE caveats to free speech. You can't break any other existing laws to have your free speech. That's not taking anything away from free speech. It's allowing free speech within the parameters of other laws.

They are allowed denounce the film, how is that a violation of the 1st amendment?
The film sucks I denounce it too and by doing so I excessive my first amendment right.

You got me nervous with the thread title ats is often the bearer of bad news for me.

I dont understand. Where in the video does it show Obama or Clinton apologizing for the video? Oh that is right, it doesn't. In fact, Obama is referring that there is no justification for the violence that has occurred at US embassies in response to the video. What Obama and Clinton merely are saying is that they reject the message of the video. Meaning this was not a government sponsored film portraying a message from the US government. The US government is not obligated to praise and defend its citizens to the world.

reply to post by kaylaluv

I think if Muslim representatives demanded that Obama pass a law that prohibits Americans from making videos, he would defend the Americans' rights to make those videos. Have you heard him say that these types of videos won't be allowed any longer???

Google "It Gets Better" the anti-bullying action, because that's a nail in the coffin of free speech. Hillary Clinton loves supporting Dan Savage and Barry Soeterro was supposed to have thrown him a fundraiser at the whitehouse. You know, the Dan Savage who is the anti-bullying bully who picked on christian teens at a california highschool swearing at them till they decided to walk out on the bastard and his child abuse.