Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by appleguy123, Apr 23, 2011.
This pastor really can't stay out of trouble.
Pastor Jones told me to tell you that he is upset that you're not giving him any attention.
This is an issue of free speech. It'll be overturned by the Supreme Court (if it gets that high).
The constitution is the law of the land and supersedes all other laws. The First Amendment protects free speech, unless it's likely to result in death, for instance shouting "fire!" in a crowded theatre which would result in mass panic and probably death and injury.
Protesting peacefully outside of a mosque is highly unlikely to result in injury, unless the peaceful muslims go on a rampage, perhaps goaded by their imams.
I hope he wins. The overriding issue is the protection of freedom of speech and expression.
Actually I heard just the opposite:
pastor out of jail after paying $1 bond for mosque protest
I've got five dollars for anybody who'll put him back in.
These freedom of speech rulings are so difficult. Whether or not you agree with what they are saying, I do believe they have the right to say it. However, should there be some allowances for proactively avoiding a potentially dangerous situation?
And who should pay for this protection? The taxpayers? Now, I don't agree with the guy, and part of me thinks if he wants to protest in this way he should have to deal with the consequences...But I think he would invite getting his a** kicked, as it would only further his cause.
And knowing what Pastor Jones has done in the past, I can see why the court ruled the protest was likely to breach the peace.
But the ruling implies that Muslims as a group are unable to control themselves, unlike, say, gays or soldiers who don't riot and attack the Westboro Baptist Church.
I agree with you too, the public should be protected, but free speech should be protected more. If someone says something that offends, but they say it in an inoffensive way and it's merely the ideas expressed that causes the offence rather than the way it is said, that's a good thing and should be encouraged. If I'm "offended" by something I'll think about what was said, I won't rampage.
Unfortunately, the only thing that offends me these days is idiocy and hypocrisy.
The ads on this thread are priceless. Look at this one. I can't say I've ever heard of a backwards cap tan.
I think the Onion has the right way to deal with this.
You make a very valid point. And I do believe that if the ruling was appealed it would be overturned. The ACLU was correct in their stance: The ruling is just giving this wacko more publicity than he deserves.