Okay the gun I could see. But if he left the gun to home?
Still the embuggerance factor and the problem of gathering a lot of people while trying to incite a riot.
Well I have to play devils advocate here. Let’s start with the first. Where does Free Speech define it’s self as subject to being bared by “embuggerance”?
Now we’re back to free speech, Fred Phelps and funerals. If the people take a show hands of who is willing to riot does Fred still have his beloved free speech?
You realize, folks, that what y’all are talking about is a person who refused to pay a $1 bond that he would not cause a breach of the peace?
It comes down to finding a balance between conflicting rights, so don’t expect consistency between different fact scenarios.
I’ve argued conceptually for clarification of the line between freedom of speech and disturbing the peace. the concept of freedom of speech certainly originated from the idea that people had the right to assemble and exchange ideas. Somehow it has morphed into the idea that people must listen to it whether they want to or not.
Well said.
Maybe you think it is quite amusing to promulgate your little exercise in the exploration for greater understanding of the concept of freedom of speech, but
If you actually believe this statement can be even remotely associated with what jones and phelps does you are seriously delusional. :rolleyes:
That is why we have courts, judges and laws to delineate the issues for people with problems of muddling comprehension.
Were you to stop rolling your eyes and sneering long enough to read the rest of what he wrote, you might have found he was making a point not particularly contradictory to yours.
Granted, it takes a bit longer and isn’t as much fun as sneering at everything…
Then it’s best that you toddle off to court now.
That’s a very good point. And succinct as well, so double bonus points and triple word score to you.
I said I was disappointed that Dearborn pursued the case instead of letting Jones have his protest. I think the city’s only really legitimate argument against it was the traffic problems it would cause.
I also don’t think Phelps should be thrown in jail. Shunned and mocked, but not thrown in jail for protesting. I also think Democratic protesters shouldn’t have been thrown in jail for wearing anti-Bush t-shirts at public rallies. I’m fairly sure that this is a demonstrably (no pun intended) consistent personal conviction of mine. Why shouldn’t Phelps, Jones and others be thrown in jail for protesting? Because it violates the constitutional right to free speech. End of story, IMHO.
I think you have me mistaken for someone who posted something ENTIRELY different than the post of mine you replied to.
So the threat of violence which has been promised through several sources, is not a legitimate reason to stop him?
Jones bail was 1 dollar. They were not abusing him. They just want him to go away.
Think about that for a minute. If you’re saying that should be the standard for the government to preemptively keep people from speaking publicly, then that will become the standard method for people to shut up people they don’t wanna hear. Don’t like the Tea Party? Threaten violence and the government will hold a trial and keep them from speaking. Don’t like the union supporters? Threaten violence and let the government refuse to allow that protest. Doesn’t even matter if you have any intention of actually committing violence, if the threat of it is enough reason to stop a protest.
That is not and should not be the government’s job. The government should be arresting the people making the death threats, not the people attempting to exercise constitutional rights.
In my opinion, if he wants to spout highly unpopular opinions and then go out there without paying for his own security and risk someone following through on their death threats, the government should allow him to do that.
They’ve banned him from the mosque’s grounds for three years to keep him from speaking there. I don’t see a whole lot of difference between that and Bush’s Free Speech Zones conveniently placed to keep protesters away from what they were protesting. And the whole “wanting him to go away” thing didn’t work now, did it, if that was their goal; he’s coming back next week. If they’d let him protest, he’d be gone already.
Here’s a hypothetical scenario for you.
A group of activists proposes to hold a march in support of gay marriage, and they make clear their intention to march past a conservative church that has campaigned against gay rights.
A bunch of anonymous homophobes send threats that any such march will be met with violence.
Should the authorities use the threat of violence to stop the march?
I think if Jones is only speaking against the radical muslims as he claims, then he should go find a radical madrassa in front of which to speak.
Strap a parachute on him and push him out the back of a C-130 over that town in Afghanistan where the people got killed after his last little “demonstration.”
So your town decides it doesn’t like: fill in the blank ______________ and arrests them for unhappy thoughts with an agreement to let them go at the city line for $1.
What a brave new world you live in.
On one hand, we have the right to free speech. What right is on the other?