Free speech does not protect you from opposing religion

[Frieza_Prexus]

Originally Posted by Safon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I'm a judge irl, but I won't dignify requests for proof of my credentials to these trolls either. Stay strong brother

I suppose it's a good thing I haven't made any claims concerning myself then. Though, if you want me to, I suppose I could try to dig up my sixth grade report card.

[Orruar]

Originally Posted by Triangle [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Generally it is true that treaties trump laws both state and federal, but a treaty that is in conflict with the constitution is invalid.

Basically in order for our freedom of speech to be eroded, the Supreme Court would have to rule on case law to overwrite their precedent. However no statutory law / treaties can be made to erode it as any conflict with be held in favor of the Constitution.

If only the Supreme Court was an infallible institution that always upheld the Constitution...

[Raavak]

Originally Posted by Orruar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

If only the Supreme Court was an infallible institution that always upheld the Constitution...

[Tasslehofp99]

Freedom of Speech hasn't existed in this country for years. and......


I hate all religious people, they're all so nuts. IMO only solution to the world's problems is to ban religion of any form totally, cause gods fake.

Protection or sympathy from the UN or Obama or any other US government official for that matter towards the people who raided/killed a US ambassador is where I draw the line though. I'm going to start putting videos on youtube every week where I talk shit about every religion and wipe my ass with pages of their religious texts in every one until they try to infringe upon my constitutional rights so I can have my name in a supreme court case.

[Tasslehofp99]

Photoshopped pics of mohammed the thief giving blowjobs and taking money shots to the face from jesus all day. sup

[stonez138]

Freedom of Speech hasn't existed in this country for years.

People who make ignorant statements like this obviously have no concept of what life is like outside of America and don't realised how blessed they are to have been born here.

Ask the 14 year old girl was shot in the head for speaking her mind if we have free speech. I'd like to see you even joke about wiping your ass with the Quaran in the Afghanastan. I bet you'd be begging for your American freedoms.

[Orruar]

Originally Posted by stonez138 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

People who make ignorant statements like this obviously have no concept of what life is like outside of America and don't realised how blessed they are to have been born here.

Ask the 14 year old girl was shot in the head for speaking her mind if we have free speech. I'd like to see you even joke about wiping your ass with the Quaran in the Afghanastan. I bet you'd be begging for your American freedoms.

This kind of relativistic argument reminds me of when the Federal Reserve claims our paper money isn't losing value because you can still trade it for as much of the other countries' paper money as you could before.

We should aspire for more than being one step better than Afghanistan.

[stonez138]

America is far from perfect but to suggest we are one step better then Afghanistan is nearly as asinine as Tasslehofs post.

[Visual]

i believe in the greek gods. specially the hot blonde one from the hercules tv series

[Lexical]

Originally Posted by Frieza_Prexus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I've always been nauseous of "incitement to violence" limitation. I just don't see a reasonable cutoff. Even Brandenburg's "imminence" limitation is twistable and suspect. Individuals are responsible for their actions, and it never sat well with me that we spread the culpability around.

Thank you for your rhetoric. I 100% agree.

Originally Posted by Triangle [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You are confusing a lot of what is actually law with what some people are arguing.

First forget about what the UN dude says because that is not applicable to the law of the US.

The U.N. is our international theater and many of our stances/treaties there affect our laws here. It is a way the SOPA nuts are trying to squeeze their legislation into trade agreements between USA and Canada. Though I do agree that the U.N. does not have an overall say in our domestic policy, they can definitely affect it.

Originally Posted by Triangle [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Secondly cartoons can depict muhammed if they are created in the US period. I don't know about other countries laws but that sentence you wrote about not being able to do it is incorrect. You might not hear this often because people don't want others to make such cartoons, but it is entirely legal in the US which is why the dude who created that film cannot be prosecuted for it, but instead he was arrested for not paying his taxes or parole violation or whatever he was arrested for.

Yes our cartoons can depict Muhammed legally, but if extremists can get any episode of a cartoon pulled from the air, then what is even the point of having the law?

Originally Posted by Triangle [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Finally I looked up that quote you attributed to Obama and he simply did not say that, it was someone else lol... Even if some UN thing is passed it will not trump the US Constitution.

I never meant to quote Obama, but I can see the confusion. I was ranting so I wasn't at my best in terms of coherently writing down what I was thinking. The quote in question is actually from the article which is what I meant to quote. My apologies.

The Obama administration has actually pushed for many laws that would weaken free speech. For example, in the UN we have this http://geneva.usmission.gov/2012/03/...g-intolerance/ And his speech he gave to the U.N. was far more apologetic than it needed to be as in at all. There was no reason to apologize for that lunatic, but I can at least find solace with that Obama has stated we will hunt the extremists responsible for the murder (and some say assassination) of the US ambassador and other Americans. I understand being tactful in international relations, but the first amendment is one of the most sacred amendments in the bill of rights and we should never budge when it comes to it.