Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

joeglow3

(6,228 posts)

21. The fact that you had to go back over 100 years proves my point.

Reply to egduj (Reply #19)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 12:38 AM

Sep 2012

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

38 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Incitement to Riot is not protected "free speech" [View all] bhikkhu Sep 2012 OP

"Incitement to riot" has specific elements not met here jberryhill Sep 2012 #1

That is true... Jeff In Milwaukee Sep 2012 #8

+1 onenote Sep 2012 #9

Then we must change the standards of what it means to incite a riot. Zalatix Sep 2012 #31

Your failure to use a sarcasm tag.... jberryhill Sep 2012 #33

Your response incited me to spew Pepsi at my monitor. Pay up! Zalatix Sep 2012 #34

Lots of constitutional lawyers posting today. Nye Bevan Sep 2012 #2

How was this incitement to riot? NT Llewlladdwr Sep 2012 #3

Having watched the Innocence of Muslims video - bhikkhu Sep 2012 #5

But you ARE condoning the violent response. Llewlladdwr Sep 2012 #10

Someone murdered Stevens, and that's murder bhikkhu Sep 2012 #12

Just like the rape victim is partially to blame for dressing the way she dressed. egduj Sep 2012 #17

The difference is in the status of victimhood bhikkhu Sep 2012 #20

So if I put up a pro-Obama movie and 1,000 Teabaggers go on a murderous rampage.......... Zalatix Sep 2012 #32

And that's why this isn't incitement. Llewlladdwr Sep 2012 #23

As I understand it, there is some question as to whether the murder of Stevens and the JDPriestly Sep 2012 #27

Quite true. However, the incitement took place on Egyptian television... arcane1 Sep 2012 #4

Romney invoked the constitution several times in his speech about it bhikkhu Sep 2012 #6

It's not an incitement to riot, it's an excuse to riot. eom yawnmaster Sep 2012 #7

exactly, by people who are insecure in their belief system nt msongs Sep 2012 #11

And we have no idea whether the killing of Stevens had to do with the riot and the movie JDPriestly Sep 2012 #28

Only incitement to riot was on Egyptian TV and by Egyptian religious leaders; probably same in Libya nlof Sep 2012 #13

Perhaps true. But I am very curious as to who made the video and why bhikkhu Sep 2012 #14

I also don't think our constitutional rights are guaranteed in a foreign land... rustydog Sep 2012 #15

True, and I'll drop it now anyway - but Romney was the main point bhikkhu Sep 2012 #22

What if I, as a Catholic, killed an artist... joeglow3 Sep 2012 #16

Or a christian killing some woman because he thought she practiced withcraft... egduj Sep 2012 #19

The fact that you had to go back over 100 years proves my point. joeglow3 Sep 2012 #21

Correct SickOfTheOnePct Sep 2012 #18

I'm glad Obama is avoiding this topic - it deprives Repugs of the wedge issue they'd love to have. reformist2 Sep 2012 #24

The 1st Amendment is irrelevant when we're not talking about the US. HOWEVER: Warren DeMontague Sep 2012 #25

I completely agree, my friend. LAGC Sep 2012 #29

Right. You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater. JDPriestly Sep 2012 #26

The related concepts of "incitement" & "Fighting Words" have been significantly narrowed since 1917 Warren DeMontague Sep 2012 #30

Thanks. R.A.V. is the strongest decision on this in my opinion. JDPriestly Sep 2012 #38

i find your lack of logic... ProdigalJunkMail Sep 2012 #35

There's a lot more to say. cali Sep 2012 #36

This was protected speech Yo_Mama Sep 2012 #37