JimmyD8681
Regular Member
imported post
Mike wrote:
Mike wrote:
I would have thought Barak Obama was having a family reunion...
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Racist Editorial Says Open Carry Is Not "Responsible"
- Thread starter Mike
- Start date
David.Car
Regular Member
imported post
JimmyD8681 wrote:
JimmyD8681 wrote:
cccook
Founder's Club Member
imported post
ianto94 wrote:
ianto94 wrote:
Rest assured that shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre is not protected free speech.
cccook
Founder's Club Member
imported post
Since bomb vests covered by burqas or other loose fitting clothing are the preferred weapon of Islamofascist terrorists, the actors and their actions must be considered in totality when determining a probable threat. So while their words alone may be protected speech, when combined with their actions/demeanor they become a threat. Thus not protected speech.
Since bomb vests covered by burqas or other loose fitting clothing are the preferred weapon of Islamofascist terrorists, the actors and their actions must be considered in totality when determining a probable threat. So while their words alone may be protected speech, when combined with their actions/demeanor they become a threat. Thus not protected speech.
imported post
cccook wrote:
cccook wrote:
I agree the totality of the circumstances would be required to evaluate the situation but I disagree that the cloths turn protected speech into unprotected speech. I could burn a cross on my own land wear a white sheet, opening carry and say vile racist hateful things including advocating the violent overthrow of the government, but unless there is a clear and present danger of imminent harm, the speech is protected. See Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 US 444 (1969) (burning cross, carrying firearms, advocating violence, speech protected).
No NAU
Regular Member
imported post
"What if five Middle Eastern-looking men and two women wearing burqas were within a block of a joint outdoor appearance of Republican presidential and vice presidential nominees John McCain and Sarah Palin? What if the men were wearing holstered handguns, waving the Quran and chanting “Death to America”?"
Although I would not find this behavior pleasing I cannot see anything that would make it illegal if they are US citizens. All I see is first amendment and second amendment activity.
Under this logic shouldn't the author call for the arresting of illegal immigrants who march in our streets waving flags from their country of origin and shouting "Death to America"?
Now if they had holstered Qurans and were waving guns I could see a disorderly conduct charge...
"What if five Middle Eastern-looking men and two women wearing burqas were within a block of a joint outdoor appearance of Republican presidential and vice presidential nominees John McCain and Sarah Palin? What if the men were wearing holstered handguns, waving the Quran and chanting “Death to America”?"
Although I would not find this behavior pleasing I cannot see anything that would make it illegal if they are US citizens. All I see is first amendment and second amendment activity.
Under this logic shouldn't the author call for the arresting of illegal immigrants who march in our streets waving flags from their country of origin and shouting "Death to America"?
Now if they had holstered Qurans and were waving guns I could see a disorderly conduct charge...
cccook
Founder's Club Member
imported post
ianto94 wrote:
ianto94 wrote:
Your analogy of cross burning on private property is a red herring. The issue here is speech/actions in public places. Both the theoretical middle eastern looking group and the very real Mr. Noble incidents occurred in public.
mvpel
Regular Member
imported post
I take it that we're going ahead and diving down the rathole of the Times' irrelevant red herring example.
Personally, I've smelled the tear gas police used to defend the lives and safety of a bunch of inbred sheet-wearing Ku Klux Klanners giving their rally speeches and Nazi salutes from atop city hall - if that's not a quintessential First Amendment moment, I don't know what is.
class="sqq"“The First Amendment was designed to protect offensive speech, because nobody ever tries to ban the other kind.” - Mike Goodwin
It's a shame that the Times doesn't seem to understand this.
I take it that we're going ahead and diving down the rathole of the Times' irrelevant red herring example.
Personally, I've smelled the tear gas police used to defend the lives and safety of a bunch of inbred sheet-wearing Ku Klux Klanners giving their rally speeches and Nazi salutes from atop city hall - if that's not a quintessential First Amendment moment, I don't know what is.
class="sqq"“The First Amendment was designed to protect offensive speech, because nobody ever tries to ban the other kind.” - Mike Goodwin
It's a shame that the Times doesn't seem to understand this.
imported post
cccook wrote:
cccook wrote:
You have a right to speak in public. Wearing a holstered gun does nothing to limit your speech. Noble's conduct was not speech action, it was speech and he will win the criminal case. Wearing a burka does not transform protected speech into unprotected speech. I defy you to find me a case where clothing mattered. In fact the supreme court has found wearing a t-shirt that says "**** the draft" protected in court. In any event the rule is clear and present danger of imminent harm it applies everywhere you are entitled to speak. Where is the clear and present danger of imminent harm in either Noble's case or your case. Answer, no where.
mvpel
Regular Member
imported post
If wearing a black armband can be considered "protected symbolic speech" (Tinker v. Des Moines) then certainly wearing a lawful holstered firearm as a rebuttal to Obama's elitist anti-gun comment can be as well.
Fighting Words, Hate Speech and Symbolic Speech - link to details of various cases on this issue.
I would posit here that wearing a holstered gun was, in fact, expressive conduct, in light of Obama's "clinging to their guns and their bibles" comment and Noble's possession of a bible and political campaign signs.
If wearing a black armband can be considered "protected symbolic speech" (Tinker v. Des Moines) then certainly wearing a lawful holstered firearm as a rebuttal to Obama's elitist anti-gun comment can be as well.
Fighting Words, Hate Speech and Symbolic Speech - link to details of various cases on this issue.
cccook
Founder's Club Member
imported post
ianto94 wrote:
To begin with it is not my case. The scenario was introduced in the offending editorial. The point is that the actions in the two examples are different.
MTN Jack was calmly handing out pamphlets to individuals, one on one.The theoretical middle eastern group were chanting inflammatory rhetoric, intending to get noticed by the crowd.
If they got noticed by police I would not be surprised. What action by Jack drew the attention of police?
ianto94 wrote:
To begin with it is not my case. The scenario was introduced in the offending editorial. The point is that the actions in the two examples are different.
MTN Jack was calmly handing out pamphlets to individuals, one on one.The theoretical middle eastern group were chanting inflammatory rhetoric, intending to get noticed by the crowd.
If they got noticed by police I would not be surprised. What action by Jack drew the attention of police?
imported post
cccook wrote:
cccook wrote:
I must have misunderstood your point. It looks like we agree Mountain Jack's conduct was completely legal. As would be the theoretical middle eastern group in my view, whether they get noticed by the police or not.
cccook
Founder's Club Member
imported post
cccook wrote:
cccook wrote:
I stand by my original post to this thread, since as an American I would consider their chants of "Death to America" to include the meaning "Death to cccook."
cccook
Founder's Club Member
imported post
ianto94 wrote:
ianto94 wrote:
Brother, we have an accord. Being a Texican I may CC legally, which I do. Hopefully soon I will join you all in legal OC. Peace.
deepdiver
Campaign Veteran
imported post
cccook wrote:
cccook wrote:
I agree. As I touched on above, I would consider "death to America" to be a threat and include me as an American in the "death" part.
Shotgun
Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
imported post
Nothing prevented the crowd from their peaceful assembly.
If neither constitutional right trumps the other, why did the police decide that one right did trump the other? Maybe Obama should be sued for violating Mtn Jack's right to bear arms.
Nothing prevented the crowd from their peaceful assembly.
If neither constitutional right trumps the other, why did the police decide that one right did trump the other? Maybe Obama should be sued for violating Mtn Jack's right to bear arms.