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.
The First Amendment and Freedom of Speech only constrains what government can do to citizens to limit free speech. In this case the town of Garland and its police were in support of the event. So, no "governmental action" was impeding the alleged free speech, and therefore the First Amendment is not relevant at all.
If your gay son comes out of the closet and you start having an argument with him to express your views on homosexuality, do you think the First Amendment would protect your rights to express your views to your son? The answer is NO. You are perfectly entitled to express whatever opinion, but it's not about free speech. First year law students would know this.
Mick
I do not think that is what you mean because if the Garland government and police force supported the event that could be a violation of free speech.
It was a stupid event, with the sole purpose being to antagonize a group of people. The een organizer needs to get a freaking life and evaluate what is really important.
I have a sincere question for you. What is your opinion on tax funded exhibits of a crucifix submerged in urine? What about other offensive art exhibits? Do those artists need to get a freaking life and evaluate what's really important?
There is freedom of speech and then there is being foolhardy and stupid. Here is an example: Yes, a person could walk into a KKK meeting and start saying nice things about blacks, but it probably wouldn't be prudent nor would it end well. That is what these "artists" did when they held an event for the sole purpose of featuring drawings that were disrespectful of someone very important to Muslims.
People should realize that this is a whole new world when it comes to how people in other countries handle things they do not like or agree with. The event organizers knew that they were putting salt on the wounds of Muslims, that is why they had to have so many security people on hand.
I am not saying they deserved whatever happened, but they should not be surprised, either. Not a very smart idea, especially when you consider who they were antagonizing.
Don
I think the event itself was probably not my type of evening out, but I'd say that the two dead terrorists were pretty stupid, considering the state they drove to to commit their "act of terror."
The First Amendment and Freedom of Speech only constrains what government can do to citizens to limit free speech. In this case the town of Garland and its police were in support of the event. So, no "governmental action" was impeding the alleged free speech, and therefore the First Amendment is not relevant at all.
Mick
Quote:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
The first amendment is what empowers the people of the United States to make and enforce laws protecting freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom to assemble, and processes in which to petition the government when they feel that government has overstepped it's boundaries.
It's not simply about whether or not the government impeded any free speech that night. It's about the right of the people to expect the government to protect our right to free speech.
Fox News takes up for the bad guys too. Don't forget, Saudi Arabia's prince Alwaleed owns slight less than 20% of Fox News. Radical Islam wants us silenced...and CNN and Fox agree.
Pay attention and fight!
I stand behind somebody's right to say stupid things that offend other people. So should every American. If you think there should be a line drawn, please don't insist that radical Islam should be given the chalk and allowed to decide what Americans should and shouldn't say about their prophet.
I do not think that is what you mean because if the Garland government and police force supported the event that could be a violation of free speech.
You are right. To be more precise, Garland and the police did not try to interfere with the cartoon contest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KathrynAragon
The first amendment is what empowers the people of the United States to make and enforce laws protecting freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom to assemble, and processes in which to petition the government when they feel that government has overstepped it's boundaries.
It's not simply about whether or not the government impeded any free speech that night. It's about the right of the people to expect the government to protect our right to free speech.
I am afraid that is not correct.
Quote:
State Action Requirement
The state action requirement stems from the fact that the constitutional amendments which protect individual rights (especially the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment) are mostly phrased as prohibitions against government action. For example, the First Amendment states that “[c]ongress shall make no law” infringing upon the freedoms of speech and religion. Because of this requirement, it is impossible for private parties (citizens or corporations) to violate these amendments, and all lawsuits alleging constitutional violations of this type must show how the government (state or federal) was responsible for the violation of their rights. This is referred to as the state action requirement.
There is freedom of speech and then there is being foolhardy and stupid. Here is an example: Yes, a person could walk into a KKK meeting and start saying nice things about blacks, but it probably wouldn't be prudent nor would it end well. That is what these "artists" did when they held an event for the sole purpose of featuring drawings that were disrespectful of someone very important to Muslims.
People should realize that this is a whole new world when it comes to how people in other countries handle things they do not like or agree with. The event organizers knew that they were putting salt on the wounds of Muslims, that is why they had to have so many security people on hand.
I am not saying they deserved whatever happened, but they should not be surprised, either. Not a very smart idea, especially when you consider who they were antagonizing.
Don
Yet artists hold events for the sole purpose of disrespecting Christianity a lot, yet they are NEVER blamed by the left of antagonizing Christians, they are NEVER fired upon by Christians, and they are OFTEN funded in part by tax payer money.
Why is it only Muslims that are defended in these situations?
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.
