If we're not supposed to condemn the jerks that made the anti-islam movie

[nadinbrzezinski]

171. The code was first used against organized labor by the by

and it is dated. It fails to take into account social media.

It does indeed require YOUR PRESENCE as the one inciting the riot, at the site where it is happening. Why I said that as we have more and more riots happen who can be traced to social media, that will lead to some revisions on it.

And nobody is disagreeing with you that here is no 1st Amendment prohibition against offending people, pissing them off, blaspheming against their religion, or the rest, as badly as some people may wish there was.

You are seeing what you want to see.

What I have written here, repeatedly, is that the limits lie in INCITEMENT TO A RIOT, SLANDER and SCREAMING FIRE IN A THEATER. Exactly where did I say PROSECUTE the film makers? UNDER CURRENT US LAW it cannot be done, PERIOD... and there are far more complications on this than you can point to, including the VIENA CONVENTION and whether we recognize customary international law. Nor is there any PRECEDENT that would allow the prosecution of an individual under this code, for incitement of a riot over social media.

What I have argued, which you are UNABLE or UNWILLING TO COMPREHEND, is that freedom of speech, per the first amendment, IS NOT ABSOLUTE, even if you think so. There is more, it has not been absolute since early in the life of the Republic, slander laws go back a LONG TIME.

If you cannot comprehend this, it is not my fault, except in not being able to explain this to you, and at this point I have to conclude that you are incapable, like second amendment absolutists, of accepting that indeed there are some limits.

Have a good long day.