Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ok this is where yes i draw the line, i am not a inmature person. I don't like Obama based on his policies, and his handling of this economy, and the way he conducts business in general. Has an attitude to boot. That being said, he is my President, whether i agree or disagree with him. Yes free speech, but I don't want to see any of our President's being threatened, because of not agreeing with them or their policies.
In this day and age, we have to take any threat seriously, look at Giffords, and what has happened to her, and God bless her. There are inmature people out there, who can't handle when things don't go as they think they should. And some are so ignorant, that they weill make due on their threat.
I don't like Obama the President, but i don't wish any ill come to him either. I can seperate my political views that Obama has, to him just being a Father and a Husband.
And this I have to totally agree with.
One cannot threaten the life of the POTUS without expecting dire consequences, people seem to dehumanize him, one can only suppose that makes their hate seem somehow not so extreme?
That being said, it will not shock me at all to see some idiot troll show up here to disagree with me.
And this I have to totally agree with.
One cannot threaten the life of the POTUS without expecting dire consequences, people seem to dehumanize him, one can only suppose that makes their hate seem somehow not so extreme?
That being said, it will not shock me at all to see some idiot troll show up here to disagree with me.
Should threatening anyones life be acceptable? Is the POTUS the only citizen of our country who is beyond the constitutional rights of our citizenry?
In college I often saw chalk writing on the sidewalk saying "assasinate Bush please". The police tried to find the culprit, but to no avail. I wonder if they found him/her, would there have been a double standard (not because of race, creed or ideology, but because of the anti-terror climate)
Really? Looks like a pretty straight-forward 1st Amendment case to me. The 9th Circut is a notoriously liberal court, though, so no surprise they'd come down on the side of free speech.
Since when is free speech exclusively a "liberal" idea?
If you had the right idea about it at all, you'd realize it is both a liberal and conservative concept.
I couldn't help but notice that the one judge who couldn't come to a solid opinion one way or another was appointed by the very President who couldn't form a solid position one way or another either. Perhaps the judge needed a poll to help him decide...much like his appointer, WJ Clinton, who governed by polls, not principle.
Apparently you haven't read enough appellate decisions to understand that:
*Judicial rulings often involve not one point of law but many, and it's hardly "indecisive" for a judge to agree with some elements of another opinion but not all
*All judges occasionally write opinions that concur and dissent in part
Examples:
Justice Scalia, concurring in part and dissenting in part in McConnell v. FEC (2003) MCCONNELL V. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N
Justice Thomas, concurring in part and dissenting in part in Citizens United v. FEC (2010) CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N
*The other two judges (about which you declined to whine) concurred in part and dissented in part with the opinion of Judge Wardlaw
Of course, you'd only realize these things if you had any clue as to how the appellate process routinely plays out...
And this I have to totally agree with.
One cannot threaten the life of the POTUS without expecting dire consequences, people seem to dehumanize him, one can only suppose that makes their hate seem somehow not so extreme? That being said, it will not shock me at all to see some idiot troll show up here to disagree with me.
Anyone who disagrees with kshe95girl = "idiot troll"?
I'd tamp down on the narcissism just a wee bit if I were you...
For all those "free speechers here" I assume you have no problem with a Muslim doing the same here in the USA. Fact is there are limits to free speech, when you insight violence, be against the government or a person you are breaking laws, yell out Fire in a packed concert or theatre and see what the police and courst do to you.
Casper
I disagree. It's about freedom of speech. It's good to see that it's being protected. The fact that there have been many free speech decisions recently that leave people outraged is a good thing, in my opinion.
And it has nothing to do with whether or not someone supports Obama.
I am in complete agreement. Had Mr. Bagdasarian made threats against the President, then he should be convicted. However, that is not what he did. He was predicting and hoping others would assassinate the President, which is not the same thing.
However, I do not consider it to be a "good thing" when people are outraged by free speech decisions. That indicates to me that they have forgotten that our First Amendment right to free speech exists to protect the speech when most people may disagree with that speech.
If we only allowed speech that we agree with, there would be no need for the First Amendment.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
