The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: CC27 on May 04, 2015, 11:47:49 AM
-
nadinbrzezinski (136,316 posts)
First Ammendment
Here it comes again. We have folks who believe it is absolute, (no, it is not), and those who believe what happened in Texas was incitement by "line the usual suspects" (in this case Geller). Incitement is actually one of the judicial tests used by the courts to limit free speech. It is also used as part of hate crime investigations, where speech is gathered and added to the evidence list. Why? Well incitement.
There is a whole slew of supreme court cases where speech has been limited in certain, very narrow circumstances. It is indeed an area of specialty in the law, and one where there is a lot of disagreement as well. Your test, for all of you on the incitement side, is not convincing people on a website, but convincing the courts. Two people are dead. There was an attempt to attack a show. Those are the facts. Whether you can pass the incitement test that a third person not part of that particular conspiracy is part of this, good luck with that one.
Here you will have many people going yup, yup, yup, and others going, you either believe in \or not.
Suffice it to say it is always entertaining, but you still cannot scream fire in a crowded theater. (unless, as legend has it, after a kid asked the justices about that... the Justice acknowledged that it was ok to scream fire in a crowed theater that was actually on fire.)
Now back to work with me. I just read the threads and shook my head.
She has a new word. Yup. :whatever:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026617788
-
(http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff68/kayaktn/0_zpsu6ga8zqk.jpg)
"yup yup yup yup"
-
:rotf: :lmao: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :cheersmate:
Leave it to the foreign born, foreign raised, foreign " educated", crazy, bald, rotund, dwarf, to interpret our Constitution for us.
Suffice it to say, shut yer pie hole, gNads.
-
She has a new word. Yup. :whatever:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026617788
Actually "yup" is fairly common in the nadinese, but I do believe this is the first time it's ever been used in triplicate.
-
Ummmmmm ... yeah. [Sarcasm] Back in the bad old days of Reagan I took a Business Law class at a local JC. The prof was a practicing attorney and a judge pro-tem (basically like a substitute teacher, only for judges). IOW, not an idiot. The saying he taught was that, "Mere words do not justify an assault."
Whether Gellar's gathering is protected free speech is one matter. The wrong-headed idea that it is a provocation that justified assaulting a security guard is quite another. It doesn't.
But let's play with nads' "legal theory" a bit. That moron who put a crucifix in a bottle of urine was clearly "inciting" Catholics, if not Christians generally. Would that "incitement" have justified a bunch of Catholics shooting up the museum that displayed it? No. And they didn't.
The movie, "The Last Temptation of the Christ" was clearly intended as an "incitement" of Christians. Would Christians, therefore, have been justified in shooting up theaters that showed it? Again, no. And again, they didn't.
Nads' is the kind of "reasoning" that comes out of blinding hatred. "Reasoning" that can't withstand 30 seconds of thought by very ordinary people.
-
nadinbrzezinski (136,329 posts)
And please do not put words into my mouth and tell me what I think, I think it is so illegal that I ran Charlie Hebdo cartoons on a very local paper.
When did it go to print?
-
Mon May 4, 2015, 12:39 PM
nadinbrzezinski (136,329 posts)
I am making a legal argument, one that you actually missed I think.
Once again, nadin's wisdom went right over their heads.
-
According to the DUmmie theory of incitement to violence, every cop would be kind of justified in shooting or at least beating the crap out of someone wearing one of these.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v675/thundley4/ftp_zpsyimr36z9.jpg)
-
Once again, nadin's wisdom went right over their heads.
She wishes she didn't know all this shit.
-
According to the DUmmie theory of incitement to violence, every cop would be kind of justified in shooting or at least beating the crap out of someone wearing one of these.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v675/thundley4/ftp_zpsyimr36z9.jpg)
(http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff68/kayaktn/ftp_zpsjzybwiov.jpg)
"Reach out and touch someone."
Or
"Let your fingers do the talking."
-
Progs need watering every now and then.
(http://www.877calllaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Police-Brutality-Brooklyn.jpg)
-
Nadin has no idea what she's talking about.
The incitement would have to be on the part of the speaker, which means Pam Geller would have to incite people at her free speech event to attack Muslims.
The best counter to "bad" free speech is more speech.
Classical liberals believed that paragon. Modern liberals hate it.
-
Yup yup yup is just shorthand for cousin nadin convincing herself.