Those forgiving Christians...

AssHatZombie said:
But yet jihadis saying americans should be beheaded is protected religious speech.
Click to expand...
The legal difference is that Jihadists advocating the beheading of an amorphous group of "Americans" is different from advocating the killing of a specific person. I know this makes you mad cause you probably want to kill abortion providers yourself, or maybe even bomb the whole clinic, but there is a subtle difference. And that may be where I lose you.
 
Socrtease said:
The legal difference is that Jihadists advocating the beheading of an amorphous group of "Americans" is different from advocating the killing of a specific person. I know this makes you mad cause you probably want to kill abortion providers yourself, or maybe even bomb the whole clinic, but there is a subtle difference. And that may be where I lose you.
Click to expand...

What law says it's ok to threaten to kill an amorphous group versus a specific individual?

care to provide a link of me wanting to bomb abortion providers? I suggest you keep unsubstantiated lies like that to yourself.
 
AssHatZombie said:
What law says it's ok to threaten to kill an amorphous group versus a specific individual?

care to provide a link of me wanting to bomb abortion providers? I suggest you keep unsubstantiated lies like that to yourself.
Click to expand...
Notice I said "probably" I don't know what, if any, sociopathic tendencies you might have. As for the law, I would suggest you read Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), where that lib-rul Supreme Court said that you can't prosecute someone for advocating violence unless it is directed to inciting and likely to incite imminent lawless action. So I guess arguably the murderous pro-lifers could fall under that as well.
 
Socrtease said:
Notice I said "probably" I don't know what, if any, sociopathic tendencies you might have. As for the law, I would suggest you read Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), where that lib-rul Supreme Court said that you can't prosecute someone for advocating violence unless it is directed to inciting and likely to incite imminent lawless action. So I guess arguably the murderous pro-lifers could fall under that as well.
Click to expand...

And i guess the murderous jihadis could as well. You wear your political correctness like a dunce cap.

isn't decaptitating non-muslims lawless activity? Your reference doesn't seem to address the "amorphous group" versus "specific individuals" theory.
 
AssHatZombie said:
And i guess the murderous jihadis could as well. You wear your political correctness like a dunce cap.

isn't decaptitating non-muslims lawless activity? Your reference doesn't seem to address the "amorphous group" versus "specific individuals" theory.
Click to expand...
Well see basically, if you advocate or threaten to kill person A, that is a threat directed at a particular individual, providing name, picture and address, as is the case here, is more likely to bring about imminent lawless action. Advocating the killing of a Group of faceless nameless people does not trigger the imminent lawless action test.
 
Such as death to all neocons!

vs go put a bullet thru XXXXXX's head.

Disclaimer:
This was for example purposes only and is in no way to be construed as a genuine threat.

warning do not try this at home.
 
Last edited:
uscitizen said:
Such as death to all neocons!

vs go put a bullet thru XXXXXX's head.

Disclaimer:
This was for example purposes only and is in no way to be construed as a genuine threat.

warning do not try this at home.
Click to expand...
Hey! all my friends call me XXXXXX or 6X. Are you threatening me? :))
 
Socrtease said:
Well see basically, if you advocate or threaten to kill person A, that is a threat directed at a particular individual, providing name, picture and address, as is the case here, is more likely to bring about imminent lawless action. Advocating the killing of a Group of faceless nameless people does not trigger the imminent lawless action test.
Click to expand...

Is that quoted from the judges opinion, or is that what you wish it said? All non muslims have faces too.
 
According to sucrtease it's permissible to advocate imminent violence as long as it's random imminent violence. Good thinking.
 
Umm like the pres talking about attacking iran, the axis of evil, etc....
then the nuke me all and let god sort em out talk about Islamic folks....

Were coming to get you Sadam.
 
Last edited:
uscitizen said:
Umm like the prpes talking about attacking iran, the axis of evil, etc....
then the nuke me all and let god sort em out talk about Islamic folks....

Were coming to get you Sadam.
Click to expand...


Hey, there's a new strategy for the deranged dems to focus on.... Inciting violence... hands down. Run this up the flag pole at the next strategy meeting.
 
AssHatZombie said:
According to sucrtease it's permissible to advocate imminent violence as long as it's random imminent violence. Good thinking.
Click to expand...
wow you can't comprehend can you? Nope pretty clear you can't.
What I said was:

Well see basically, if you advocate or threaten to kill person A, that is a threat directed at a particular individual, providing name, picture and address, as is the case here, is more likely to bring about imminent lawless action. Advocating the killing of a Group of faceless nameless people does not trigger the imminent lawless action test.

The more specific the threat the more likely it is to actually be considered imminent. The more vague or abstract the less likely it is, which was the case in Brandenburg. In Brandenburg. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed Brandenburg's conviction, holding that government cannot constitutionally punish abstract advocacy of force or law violation.(emphasis is mine).

The Court said in it's per curiam opinion.

"Measured by this test, Ohio's Criminal Syndicalism Act cannot be sustained. The Act punishes persons who "advocate or teach the duty, necessity, or propriety" of violence "as a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform"; or who publish or circulate or display any book or paper containing such advocacy; or who "justify" the commission of violent acts "with intent to exemplify, spread or advocate the propriety of the doctrines of criminal syndicalism"; or who "voluntarily assemble" with a group formed "to teach or advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism." Neither the indictment nor the trial judge's instructions to the jury in any way refined the statute's bald definition of the crime [449] in terms of mere advocacy not distinguished from incitement to imminent lawless action.
Click to expand...
 
Socrtease said:
wow you can't comprehend can you? Nope pretty clear you can't.
What I said was:

Well see basically, if you advocate or threaten to kill person A, that is a threat directed at a particular individual, providing name, picture and address, as is the case here, is more likely to bring about imminent lawless action. Advocating the killing of a Group of faceless nameless people does not trigger the imminent lawless action test.

The more specific the threat the more likely it is to actually be considered imminent. The more vague or abstract the less likely it is, which was the case in Brandenburg. In Brandenburg. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed Brandenburg's conviction, holding that government cannot constitutionally punish abstract advocacy of force or law violation.(emphasis is mine).

The Court said in it's per curiam opinion.
Click to expand...

I doubt it. Post a link.

Attacks on members of a specified group can be just as imminent. That's whacked bad logic.

According to this, terrorist violence against the nation as a whole can never be addressed. I say a phone book found in a terrorists apartment is a victim list.
 
AssHatZombie said:
I doubt it. Post a link.

Attacks on members of a specified group can be just as imminent. That's whacked bad logic.

According to this, terrorist violence against the nation as a whole can never be addressed. I say a phone book found in a terrorists apartment is a victim list.
Click to expand...
I believe that Socrtease is talking about the legality, not the actual immenence of danger. Basically they are saying, "This is how the law interprets it."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top