There wrong, you can say anything you want provided you dont promote hatred/violence such as saying to kill X group/person
And what exactly do you think Ruben Israel and his group were doing?
They sure weren't asking the Muslims to hold hands and sing for world peace.
I think I'm just going to report everything you post from now on, the logical fallacies you post are so over the top you need to post them elsewhere.
I implore everyone else to do the same.
I dont agree with what the Christians did BUT I STILL UNDERSTAND THAT THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH, THE REAL ISSUE WAS THE ARABS COULDNT TOLERATE ANY CRITICISM DID YOU WATCH THE VIDEO?
IF THE MUSLIMS DID THIS TO THE CHRISTIANS THEN THEY WOULDNT BE ARRESTED, EVERYONE WOULD BE ALRIGHT WITH IT BUT BECAUSE CHRISITIANS SPEAK OUT THEY ARE CONSIDERED THE BAD GUYS
1. There are limits to free speech. You can't yell "Fire!" in a theater, and you can't use it to incite a riot.
2. Posting stupid things in a bigger font size (with bold) doesn't make them less stupid.
3. Do us all a favor and go play in some traffic.
1. I agree with you on that, this is different because there opinions are different, So should people only be allowed to praise religions now?
2. You refuse to listen
3. You first, nice personal insult
Indeed :thumbsup:Why the hell are a group of Christians protesting an Arab festival? Simply because they don't like Muslims? Sounds like they were looking for trouble, and they found it.
There wrong, you can say anything you want provided you dont promote hatred/violence such as saying to kill X group/person
No, anyone can say hurtful, nasty things about anyone's religion, that is free speech.
The big difference is that if you are going to organize a group to go say hurtful, nasty thing about someone's religion to their faces, one knows that they are going to get a very negative reaction.
A reaction that is likely to be violent, no matter what religion is being insulted.
Doing so is attempting to incite a riot, and not free speech.
Since you have shown a moment of clarity, I'll leave it at that for the time being.
I agree completely on the first point and thats unpopular speech.
On the second point as long as the group doesn't actually physically attack the others then its ok, they can organize a group and say nasty things provided they dont use force. I dont believe its inciting a riot, because there only saying things, the real issue is the other people disagree and resort to violence which is wrong.
No, anyone can say hurtful, nasty things about anyone's religion, that is free speech.
The big difference is that if you are going to organize a group to go say hurtful, nasty thing about someone's religion to their faces, one knows that they are going to get a very negative reaction.
A reaction that is likely to be violent, no matter what religion is being insulted.
Doing so is attempting to incite a riot, and not free speech.
Since you have shown a moment of clarity, I'll leave it at that for the time being.
And you just about lost it... :\
It doesn't take violence on the part of the inciters to start a riot, words are quite often enough.
While I can agree that violence isn't the answer; you, yourself, said that if a similar act was performed in front of a group of Christians a something similar might occur.
Why should anyone judge a group of Muslims being provoked by hateful people differently than a group of Christians being provoked by hateful people or anyone being provoked by anyone else.
Let's put it another way, I've thrown plenty of insults your way in this thread (and others). Hooray, free speech!
If I was sitting across from you screaming those same things at you, would you be a big enough man to simply sit and take it? Or would you give me a fat lip and a bloody nose because I made you mad?
So you have free speech, but if a large group of people do not like what you are saying, you lose it?
*sigh* He's saying if you assemble to verbally assault another group's beliefs than that is grounds for enciting a riot. This is especially true if you do disgusting things like put a pig's head on a pike and carry it to the verbal assault with you. That is some middle ages bullshit right there.
Just trying to flesh out where people feel the line is.
Had they assembled without the pig head (which was intended to be horribly offensive), would you still consider them to be inciting a riot?
http://www.lawyers.com/ask_a_lawyer/q_and_a_archive/view_archive/index.php?QID=12-MAY-03&A. Under federal law, a riot is a public disturbance involving an act of violence by one or more persons who are assembled in a group of at least three people. The act of violence must be one that presents a clear and present danger of injury to another person or damage to another person\\\'s property. Threatening to commit a violent act in such a group situation that could injure another person or damage property is also considered a riot if one of the persons in the group has the ability at the time to carry out the threatened violence.
Inciting a riot applies to a person who organizes, encourages, or participates in a riot. It can apply to one who urges or instigates others to riot. It does not apply to someone who merely advocates ideas or expresses beliefs, if those ideas and beliefs do not involve advocating violence. The federal crime of inciting a riot carries a possible penalty of up to five years in prison a fine.
18 USC § 2102 - Definitions
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2102(a)As used in this chapter, the term “riot” means a public disturbance involving
- snipped -
(b)As used in this chapter, the term “to incite a riot”, or “to organize, promote, encourage, participate in, or carry on a riot”, includes, but is not limited to, urging or instigating other persons to riot, but shall not be deemed to mean the mere oral or written (1) advocacy of ideas or (2) expression of belief, not involving advocacy of any act or acts of violence or assertion of the rightness of, or the right to commit, any such act or acts.
And you just about lost it... :\
It doesn't take violence on the part of the inciters to start a riot, words are quite often enough.
While I can agree that violence isn't the answer; you, yourself, said that if a similar act was performed in front of a group of Christians a something similar might occur.
But the Christians would still be wrong for attacking them and should face charges, it seems you have some some kind of relation to islam
Why should anyone judge a group of Muslims being provoked by hateful people differently than a group of Christians being provoked by hateful people or anyone being provoked by anyone else.
because they broke the law and attacked people as well as violating there rights. Violence isn't right
Let's put it another way, I've thrown plenty of insults your way in this thread (and others). Hooray, free speech!
If I was sitting across from you screaming those same things at you, would you be a big enough man to simply sit and take it? Or would you give me a fat lip and a bloody nose because I made you mad?
None of what I wrote means I agree they should have done what they did. They are losers who deserve to be attacked. The attackers then deserve to be jailed for attacking them.
]According to federal law, they did not incite a riot.
So what you are trying to say is that an assembly of persons verbally and visually attacking another assembly's religion is not an assault unless there is a specific threat of violence. Do you know there was no threat of violence? Were you there?
Even if there weren't, the ass kicking those "Christians" took was well deserved. I'm really tired of people using religion as a device to discriminate against others.
“[T]he Sixth Circuit ruled that the County and the two Deputy Chief defendants were liable for violating the Christians’ First Amendment rights to free speech and the free exercise of religion and for depriving the Christians of the equal protection of the law.”