General Discussion

WinkyDink

(51,311 posts)

21. I don't care what her motive was, as long as it was legal.

Reply to Tommy_Carcetti (Reply #3)

Tue May 5, 2015, 07:26 AM

May 2015

Click here to purchase valentine hearts!

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

61 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Pamela Geller and the First Amendment [View all] NaturalHigh May 2015 OP

You are absolutely correct. The first amendment even protects calls for violent jihad. Vattel May 2015 #1

Don't think so. That would be incitement. Yorktown May 2015 #14

That is incorrect. Vattel May 2015 #16

I'll trust you, but I have a question Yorktown May 2015 #20

Sorry, that was pretty sloppy on my part. Let me be more precise: Vattel May 2015 #25

Well then, please clarify the SCOTUS ruling for me, please Yorktown May 2015 #29

Except that if I merely recommend violent jihad, that needn't create an imminent threat. Vattel May 2015 #42

Gotcha. Then the amendment might need to be amended Yorktown May 2015 #45

I like the amendment the way it is, erring on the side of freedom from govt. interference. Vattel May 2015 #46

Yup. Grey areas are interesting subjects. Yorktown May 2015 #47

Not at all yeoman6987 May 2015 #31

Not sure Jesus groupies are incapable of murder threats Yorktown May 2015 #36

Was it in the United States? yeoman6987 May 2015 #38

Yes. In the US Luminous Animal May 2015 #44

Oh, the government can't arrest her over this stunt Warpy May 2015 #2

I was wondering… do you think the venue could be help liable in civil court KittyWampus May 2015 #24

How was this not secured adequately? GGJohn May 2015 #33

They did secure it adequately Warpy May 2015 #58

Why do you call this "hateful grandstanding"? Yorktown May 2015 #30

I would refer you to equivalent displays in this country Warpy May 2015 #59

Some free speech is not worth dying over??? Yorktown May 2015 #60

The question shouldn't be whether her little contest was 1st Amendment protected, because it was. Tommy_Carcetti May 2015 #3

No, I don't think the First Amendment was her motivation. NaturalHigh May 2015 #4

So, do you think that one should only be protected by it if they were motivated by it? PeaceNikki May 2015 #5

No. Tommy_Carcetti May 2015 #7

Oh, hooray! PeaceNikki May 2015 #9

Then call them out. NCTraveler May 2015 #10

Doesn't matter what her motivations are Bonx May 2015 #6

Precisely. Lizzie Poppet May 2015 #12

"the threat of violence from murderous fanatics will never, ever trump free speech." NaturalHigh May 2015 #13

True, but her hypocrisy is hilarious. JaneyVee May 2015 #18

It does, morally. KittyWampus May 2015 #26

I have yet to see people on du claiming her motivations to be the 1 A. NCTraveler May 2015 #8

Did you stuff that straw man all by yourself, or was it pre-stuffed? X_Digger May 2015 #15

Are you freaking kidding me? Tommy_Carcetti May 2015 #50

"After the incident" .. did you forget that you were saying that the 1st was the motivation? X_Digger May 2015 #54

Yeah. *snort* Tommy_Carcetti May 2015 #56

I do agree, but it doesn't matter one damned bit. X_Digger May 2015 #61

I don't care what her motive was, as long as it was legal. WinkyDink May 2015 #21

Yep. Everyone should have learned this from any sufrommich May 2015 #11

BUT GELLER DOESN'T STAND FOR THE 1st Amendment. JaneyVee May 2015 #17

The First Amendment stands for us, not the other way around. She can say whatever the hell she wants WinkyDink May 2015 #19

That's actually a limit to free speech gollygee May 2015 #22

Sue me for telling the truth? JaneyVee May 2015 #23

I'm sorry, but why? Blue_Adept May 2015 #27

Because of my religious beliefs. NaturalHigh May 2015 #37

But why take offense? Blue_Adept May 2015 #39

My religious beliefs ARE personal. NaturalHigh May 2015 #41

It's the hypocricy vi5 May 2015 #28

The "hypocrisy" is your argument that 1A speech must be equal-opportunity. Psephos May 2015 #49

Never said it "must" be equal opportunity. vi5 May 2015 #53

The 1st Protects Speech deathrind May 2015 #32

This is not shouting fire in a theater. NuclearDem May 2015 #40

I disagree. deathrind May 2015 #52

These were all the same issues raised by people when the KKK marched in Skokie chelsea0011 May 2015 #34

She did nothing illegal. Distasteful and provocative, attention seeking, 'terrorist baiting", HELL underahedgerow May 2015 #35

Do you find images of Bush modified to make him look like a chimp to be distasteful and provocative? oberliner May 2015 #43

I did, yes. I found it childish and silly and failed to see the humor in making bush look like underahedgerow May 2015 #48

And water is wet. Erich Bloodaxe BSN May 2015 #51

My OP was directed to the few people... NaturalHigh May 2015 #57

"Think what you want about Pamela Geller" - and I will. n/t UTUSN May 2015 #55