Originally Posted by Guest

1. No, I do not agree that ISIS is trying to wage war by curbing free speech. In countries they control, free speech is curbed but in some of our ally countries, it is also curbed such as Saudi Arabia.

2. I was specifically asking about if you agree it is a First Amendment right for the American Nazi Party to hold a mass rally in front of B'nai Brith headquarters or the KKK to hold a cross burning ceremony in the middle of Baltimore's inner city or The Communist Party USA to burn dozens of American flags at the American Legion HQ?

3. All of these events would have trouble at them. Is a a First Amendment right for those groups to hold their ceremonies or rallies as I described - and would it be allowed?

1. You should ask yourself “what is the common thread in the examples I just cited where free speech is curtailed?” The answer is Islam. Or, stated differently, any place where Sharia law is practiced western style freedom of speech is not. That’s why we want to oppsed it here at home

2. Yes, in each of the instances you cite, each group has a 1st amendment protection to exercise free speech. It may be obnoxious, but it’s protected. All of the groups you cite also don’t pose a serious threat to the American future whereas Islam, if not resisted, does. Thus, it’s particularly important NOT to self-censor and why the Garland event was positive.

3. Yes, obnoxious speech would cause trouble in some cases, and make some people angry. But, there’s a reason the 1st amendment is the very first one the Founders added to the Constitution. Free speech is foundational to all of our political freedoms. Think about it … controversial speech is, by definition the very type of speech the 1st amendment was intended to protect. Why would anyone even worry about protecting non-controversial speech

Originally Posted by Guest

1. You should ask yourself “what is the common thread in the examples I just cited where free speech is curtailed?” The answer is Islam. Or, stated differently, any place where Sharia law is practiced western style freedom of speech is not. That’s why we want to oppsed it here at home

2. Yes, in each of the instances you cite, each group has a 1st amendment protection to exercise free speech. It may be obnoxious, but it’s protected. All of the groups you cite also don’t pose a serious threat to the American future whereas Islam, if not resisted, does. Thus, it’s particularly important NOT to self-censor and why the Garland event was positive.

3. Yes, obnoxious speech would cause trouble in some cases, and make some people angry. But, there’s a reason the 1st amendment is the very first one the Founders added to the Constitution. Free speech is foundational to all of our political freedoms. Think about it … controversial speech is, by definition the very type of speech the 1st amendment was intended to protect. Why would anyone even worry about protecting non-controversial speech

You are 100 percent WRONG.

Get your money back from your Constitional Law class - even though yours sounds it might have been taught in either Florida, Texas, or Arizona. Those are the stupidest states in the Union.

Originally Posted by Guest

You are 100 percent WRONG.

Get your money back from your Constitional Law class - even though yours sounds it might have been taught in either Florida, Texas, or Arizona. Those are the stupidest states in the Union.

Thanks for your thoughtful, insightful reply which has greatly added to the discussion. I'm guessing your mentor is Jim Carrey?

Two crazies from Arizona crossed the border into Texas to commit a crime. They were crazy enough to believe their actions would be meaningful but the event they attacked was ridiculous.

An anti-Islam group was holding a cartoon rally? It was asking for trouble and it is hogwash. If any of you readers believe this hogwash, just go visit you he Islamic Center on Hwy 27 near Clermont to hear what they preach. You will not hear them preaching hatred like the fool was doing in Garland.

This widely publicized event was designed to provoke. It is within their rights to do that but the right also comes with responsibility.

As far as ISIS attacking in Texas - no. ISIS takes credit naturally as it makes them look powerful.

These were two Arizona crazies who took their legal guns and legal ammo from Arizona to Texas to kill the Texas crazies who were dissing their religion.

Moral of the story: Never argue with anyone crazier than yourself.

Go to Fox News and listen to the video of Greta Von Sustern about the event. She says it was wrong to put the police in danger by allowing such a provacative event to occur. I agree with her, as usual.

Originally Posted by Guest

Two crazies from Arizona crossed the border into Texas to commit a crime. They were crazy enough to believe their actions would be meaningful but the event they attacked was ridiculous.

An anti-Islam group was holding a cartoon rally? It was asking for trouble and it is hogwash. If any of you readers believe this hogwash, just go visit you he Islamic Center on Hwy 27 near Clermont to hear what they preach. You will not hear them preaching hatred like the fool was doing in Garland.

Some people like you, in reaction to the Garland event, agree with the assertion that, since the Muslims “forbid” cartoons or other graphic characterizations of Mohammed, Americans should not engage in that activity. In other words, refrain and self-censor. People need to understand that, over time, this inhibits free speech -- which is something Islam is not comfortable with, sometimes trying to kill people who exercise it.

You also need to understand that the source of the prohibition against making images of Muhammad stems from the Koran and other Muslim sources , and is one (of many) aspects of Sharia law. In a nutshell, instituting Sharia law is what Islam is all about, and why CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood are helping to expand mosques across the country, including the one in Clermont.

I can cite many examples but will keep it simple and stick with three other key features of Sharia law:
- Stoning homosexuals to death for the crime of … being homosexual
- Stoning women to death who commit adultery
- Requiring a woman to have four (i.e. 4) witnesses in order for her to prove a rape case against her assailant.

Out of respect for Muslim sensitivities, which of the above features of Sharia law do your recommend we adopt in the USA, in addition to self-censoring free speech??

Originally Posted by Guest

Go to Fox News and listen to the video of Greta Von Sustern about the event. She says it was wrong to put the police in danger by allowing such a provacative event to occur. I agree with her, as usual.

The aspect of this story not yet fully reported pertains to the cop who killed the two would-be jihadis:

- The two Islamic attackers got out of their car, with body armor and armed with assault rifles (AK-47s I think) and start firing away.

- The cop gets out of his car, and uses his service handgun (Glock 40?), fires a couple of shots, and kills both of them. Very impressive to say the least.

- Anyone who knows anything about shooting knows that going up against multiple semi-automatic weapons with only a handgun is never a good idea.

This cop is a) an EXPERT marksman b) was cool under fire and c) should be given a medal and/or promoted.

Originally Posted by Guest

Some people like you, in reaction to the Garland event, agree with the assertion that, since the Muslims “forbid” cartoons or other graphic characterizations of Mohammed, Americans should not engage in that activity. In other words, refrain and self-censor. People need to understand that, over time, this inhibits free speech -- which is something Islam is not comfortable with, sometimes trying to kill people who exercise it.

You also need to understand that the source of the prohibition against making images of Muhammad stems from the Koran and other Muslim sources , and is one (of many) aspects of Sharia law. In a nutshell, instituting Sharia law is what Islam is all about, and why CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood are helping to expand mosques across the country, including the one in Clermont.

I can cite many examples but will keep it simple and stick with three other key features of Sharia law:
- Stoning homosexuals to death for the crime of … being homosexual
- Stoning women to death who commit adultery
- Requiring a woman to have four (i.e. 4) witnesses in order for her to prove a rape case against her assailant.

Out of respect for Muslim sensitivities, which of the above features of Sharia law do your recommend we adopt in the USA, in addition to self-censoring free speech??

Why don't you organize an anti Muslim rally with your fellow Tea
Party extremists - but do it only after you publicize it on all social media - and hold it at your house?

Originally Posted by Guest

Why don't you organize an anti Muslim rally with your fellow Tea
Party extremists - but do it only after you publicize it on all social media - and hold it at your house?

As per usual, you cannot answer reasonable questions and revert to indulging in your Jim Carrey antics ... and it looks like the truce on name calling lasted about a day.

Originally Posted by Guest

As per usual, you cannot answer reasonable questions and revert to indulging in your Jim Carrey antics ... and it looks like the truce on name calling lasted about a day.

Just listen to Greta von Sustern's viewpoint on Fox regarding free speech that has to be tempered with common sense. The event in Texas put the lives of police in jeopardy. An inflammatory event is not a demonstration of free speech but rather is dangerous and foolish.

My question now: Would you attend a KKK cross burning in inner city Baltimore because it was advertised as a message of free speech?

Originally Posted by Guest

Why don't you organize an anti Muslim rally with your fellow Tea
Party extremists - but do it only after you publicize it on all social media - and hold it at your house?

Playing (?) the fool in the face of seriousness must be a sign of something.

Originally Posted by Guest

Just listen to Greta von Sustern's viewpoint on Fox regarding free speech that has to be tempered with common sense. The event in Texas put the lives of police in jeopardy. An inflammatory event is not a demonstration of free speech but rather is dangerous and foolish.

My question now: Would you attend a KKK cross burning in inner city Baltimore because it was advertised as a message of free speech?

Attending an event is not the same as acknowledging and supporting a controversial group's right to exercise their 1st amendment rights. I usually agree with Greta, and Bill O'Reilly for that matter, but in this case don't.

Some questions now for you please ...

Do you think any group, religious or otherwise, should be allowed to intimidate other groups into maintaining silence? ie self-censoring?

Do you think that Islam, in general, supports free speech?

Do you remember any Christians killing, or attempting to kill, artists who some years ago put the crucifix in urine or depicted Mary in an unflattering way?

Good luck.