PrisonPlanet Forum
May 18, 2013, 09:13:54 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: CNN DEBATE: IS US TOO TOLERANT OF HATE MONGERS?  (Read 302 times)
thefreedomwriter
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 134



WWW
« on: June 11, 2009, 09:54:43 AM »

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/06/11/museum.shooting/index.html?eref=rss_mostpopular#cnnSTCVideo

Summary...
Civil rights lawyer says, "give me liberty or give me death."
1st amendment hater says, "infiltrate hate groups and watch and wait till they try to kill someone."

Very dangerous suggestion by the protagonist.  He essential promotes precrime and guilty until proven innocent.
Logged

CarolinaWildcat
Guest
« Reply #1 on: June 11, 2009, 10:00:00 AM »

The first ammendment protects speech that isn't popular.If this were not true, why have a first ammendment in the first place?It was put there because the framers of the contitution were practicing unpopular(some might have even called it hate) speech.
Not defending Von Brunn here but this whole episode is too cut and dried,tailor made for these*debates* from the newspeakers.
Logged
blackturtle.us
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 734



WWW
« Reply #2 on: June 11, 2009, 10:33:03 AM »

Conspiring to commit a crime is not protected speech. Expressing an opinion is protected free speech. Clearly even those who express racist or homophobic ideas have a right to do so. However, the moment they recommend that criminal acts be committed upon members of certain racial groups or against someone with a sexual orientation that they disapprove of, then they have crossed the line and are no longer protected by the first amendment. I find it hard to believe that anyone would seriously dispute this.
Logged

thefreedomwriter
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 134



WWW
« Reply #3 on: June 11, 2009, 10:46:38 AM »

Conspiring to commit a crime is not protected speech. Expressing an opinion is protected free speech. Clearly even those who express racist or homophobic ideas have a right to do so. However, the moment they recommend that criminal acts be committed upon members of certain racial groups or against someone with a sexual orientation that they disapprove of, then they have crossed the line and are no longer protected by the first amendment. I find it hard to believe that anyone would seriously dispute this.

You'd be suprised what people would dispute, however I do agree with you.  However infiltrating groups considered hate groups is a very dangerous proposition, not that it doesn't already happen, but 9/11 truth, Ron Paul, Libertarians, Veterans, etc., would most likely be considered a hate group and therefore subject to infiltration. 

Not to sound crass, but you know what people?  Sh*t happens, crazy people exist and I'm about as safe as I need to be. Pre-crime seems to be a real debate in washington and it's disgusting.  Stop shipping drugs in, shut down the borders, stop the SSRIs and we'd all be safer...let's try that first.
Logged

America2
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,191

Romans 10:9-10 King James Version


« Reply #4 on: June 11, 2009, 10:51:17 AM »

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/06/11/museum.shooting/index.html?eref=rss_mostpopular#cnnSTCVideo

Summary...
Civil rights lawyer says, "give me liberty or give me death."
1st amendment hater says, "infiltrate hate groups and watch and wait till they try to kill someone."

Very dangerous suggestion by the protagonist.  He essential promotes precrime and guilty until proven innocent.

FYI - my Business Law professor is a trial lawyer - it's not so much she's far to the left, but she was EXTREMELY PC and anti-Constitutional.

It's no surprise what this civil rights lawyer said.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.17 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!