|
|
| Posted: 09 Sep 2007 01:42 |
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
Here's one reporter's opinion. Taken From:
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/152746/freedom_of_speech ...
I've heard and read people complaining that when a public figure gets slammed, fired, or criticized for saying something offensive that their freedom of speech was infringed upon. To explain how freedom of speech really works, let's visit the following example.
This week, former National Basketball Association (NBA) star Tim Hardaway expressed his feelings about gay people in sports. Mr. Hardaway didn't simply say he disagreed with gays in sports; he went out of his way to say "I hate gay people. Let it be known" when it was revealed that a former player had come out of the closet. Mr. Hardaway was supposed to be representing the "NBA Cares" program this weekend at the All-Star game. This program, according to the website, is "the league's social responsibility initiative that builds on the NBA's long tradition of addressing important social issues in the United States and around the world."
Naturally, Mr. Hardaway was removed from his position. He even apologized for the way he worded his views. Isn't he allowed, like every other American, the freedom to say what he wants? Was this an infringement of his right to freedom of speech? The answers are yes to the first question, and no to the second.
The Constitutional article states that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. The common interpretation is that you won't go to jail if you say you hate your job, screw my President, and goats are attractive. You could say this sitting next to an off-duty cop in a bar and you won't get arrested. You could announce to the world that one day you envision a universe full of cats and death metal, you won't go to jail based on those statements whether the government agrees with you or not.
The only time it gets hairy is when you threaten yourself or others around you with your words. If what you say presents a "clear and present danger" to others, you could find yourself arrested or detained. Basically, freedom of speech means the government can't arrest you for saying something unpopular unless you threaten other people.
Notice it is the Constitution and not the NBA that sets the guidelines for this law. The NBA can't have Mr. Hardaway arrested, but it can relieve him of duties as a representative for a program that addresses social issues, such as diversity. Even if he felt wrongly terminated and decided to sue the NBA, he still was not arrested and his comments were still printed. There was no government order to have his words stricken from the press. Therefore, Mr. Hardaway exercised his right to freedom of speech without interruption, yet it cost him a job.
Just as with the rest of your life, everything comes with a price. As a member of the military, there are certain things that I cannot say or do that every other American can say and do because of what common misinterpretations could cause. For example, let's say I disagree with a Senator's stance on a bill and they are having a rally in front of the building where he works. I could attend the rally, but not in uniform, because it may look like the military is against his views when it is just me. I am not allowed to join a hate group as an active member. I am not allowed to tell a lower-ranking individual who to vote for. I can be in favor of a political party or person, but I cannot blatantly have "Vote Republican" all over my work area. There are even limits as to how big of a bumper sticker I can put on my vehicle when it comes to politics.
It isn't an infringement on my freedom of speech because I chose to take these limitations in order to better serve my country. Even if I violated them, I wouldn't get arrested. I'd probably get court-martialed, discharged, or face serious non judicial punishment. But even as I and many others represent the freedoms you all have, it comes with a price. So be sure you know what you are talking about when you think someone is losing their freedom of speech; we are out there defending it every day.
Published February 23, 2007 by Paul Bright.
__________________But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
|
| Posted: 09 Sep 2007 01:50 |
|
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
Excerpt from Wikipedia on Restrictions of Free Speech
Ever since the first consideration of the idea of 'free speech' it has been argued that the right to free speech is subject to restrictions and exceptions. A well-known example is typified by the statement that free speech does not allow falsely "shouting fire in a crowded theatre" (Schenck v. United States - a case relating to the distribution of anti-draft fliers during the World War I). Other limiting doctrines, including those of libel and obscenity, can also restrict freedom of speech. The case Brandenburg v. Ohio found that the US government could restrict free speech only if it was "likely to incite imminent lawless action". To the extent speech may be regulated, it ordinarily must be regulated in a viewpoint-neutral manner. In the United States, when a government proscribes certain speech based on the content, the regulation is presumptively unconstitutional.[1]
Freedom is defined as 'without limits'. Therefore, free speech is without limits. A nation's first Freedom of Speech law is usually without limitations. Limits are often added in new legislation as time passes. According to the ancient Greeks, democracy can only exist in a nation if Freedom of Speech and Freedom of assembly exist there[citation needed].
Various governing, controlling, or otherwise powerful bodies, in many places around the world have attempted to change the opinion of the public or others by taking action that allegedly disadvantages one side of the argument. This attempt to assert some form of control through control of discourse has a long history and has been theorized extensively by philosophers like Michel Foucault. Many consider these attempts at controlling debate to be attacks on free speech, even if no direct government censorship of ideas is involved. Alleged examples include the following:
Defamation/Slander/Libel
Obscenity
Lying in court (perjury) [citation needed]
Talking out of turn during a trial, or talk that causes contempt of court
Speaking about a trial outside the court room after the judge forbids it (subjudicy).
speaking publicly without a permit
speaking publicly outside of a Free Speech Zone
Limits on the size of public demonstrations
Foul language on regular TV (not cable/satellite TV) - Some foul language is allowed.
Names of companies on TV (such as in talk shows)
Names of other channels on TV (such as in talk shows)
Hate speech that is defamatory or causes incitement to violence.
Noise pollution
The content of the speech is a copyright infringement.
Company secrets: how a product is made or company strategy (Example: Seven Herbs and Spices of KFC chicken)
Political secrets: campaign strategies, dirty past/deeds of a politician, etc.
Classified information: sensitive or secret to protect the national interest .[2]
Lies that cause a crowd to panic or causes Clear and present danger or Imminent lawless action, such as Shouting fire in a crowded theater
Fighting words doctrine U.S. 1942) "insulting or 'fighting words', those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace"
Sedition: speech or organization (vs Freedom of Assembly) that is deemed as tending toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent (or resistance) to lawful authority. Sedition may include any commotion, though not aimed at direct and open violence against the laws.
Treason: to talk publicly of the death of all countrymen or the overthrow of the government
Blasphemy is illegal in several Western countries. Defense of freedom of religion is cited.
The first clause of UK's Terrorism Act 2006 punishes "Encouragement of terrorism" with up to seven years in jail.
Some countries still have censorship laws that are rarely used. British law technically still prohibits blasphemy, displays of erect penises and promotion of suicide.
In Sweden a law called "Hets mot folkgrupp" ("Agitation against an ethnic group"), usually translated to hate speech, denies promotion of racism and homophobia.
In Finland, a new copyright law was enacted in October 2005, which prohibited "services making possible or facilitating the circumvention of effective technical [copy prevention] measures". (See 2005 amendment to the Finnish Copyright Act and Penal Code)
There is often a fine line defining what speech may or may not be censored. Members of Westboro Baptist Church frequently challenge this line and have been specifically banned from entering Canada for hate speech.Gunns Limited, a Timber and woodchip product company in Australia (Gunns Website) is suing 17 individual activists, including Federal Greens Senator Bob Brown, as well as three non-profit environmental groups, for over 7.8 million dollars. Gunns claims that the defendants have sullied their reputation and caused them to lose profits, the defendants claim that they are simply protecting the environment. The defendants have become collectively known as the Gunns 20 (Friends of the Gunns 20). Although this example involves a private law suit, not government censorship, some claim that it is an abuse of defamation law, since it ties up the environmental activists in court proceedings, during which time Gunns may build a pulp mill in northern Tasmania. According to this view, the plaintiffs are not genuinely seeking to vindicate their reputations and they are seeking to scare off other activists with the prospect of ruinous legal expense. Such cases raise interesting questions about the extent to which powerful corporate interests should have access to defamation law.
In the UK Parliament passed the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act in 2005 banning protest without permit within 1km of Parliament. The first conviction under the Act was in December 2005, when Maya Evans was convicted for reading the names of British soldiers and Iraqi civilians killed in the Iraq War, under the Cenotaph in October, without police permission.[3]
In Italy, media Tycoon Silvio Berlusconi censored the satirical Raiot series by Sabina Guzzanti after the first broadcast on RAI (the state TV), arguing that it was plain vulgarity and disrespectful to the government. As his company Mediaset threatened a lawsuit for €21,000,000, the RAI board of directors, appointed by Berlusconi's political majority, closed the series effective immediately, claiming that such a lawsuit was an economic liability for the company. Ms. Guzzanti went to court and won the case, but the Italian government and RAI refused to follow the court order and the show never went on air again. Berlusconi had previously had two highly esteemed journalists (Michele Santoro and Enzo Biagi) and a comedy actor (Daniele Luttazzi) removed from RAI by saying explicitly, in a press conference in Bulgaria, that the new board of directors, which his majority had just appointed, should not allow their "criminal usage" of television.[4]
In some European countries, Holocaust denial is a criminal offence. A prominent proponent of this view, David Irving, was sentenced for 3 years in Austria for denying the Holocaust in February, 2006.
In many countries, public school teachers have limited freedom of speech, both on and off the job, regarding certain issues (e.g., homosexuality). Canadian Chris Kempling was suspended without pay for writing letters, on his own time, to a local newspaper to object to LGBT-related material being introduced into public schools. Kempling pursued the freedom of speech issue all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada without success.
Some consider the deportation of a foreign peace activist Scott Parkin from Australia in September 2005 to have been an attack on free speech, claimed by the federal government to be a risk to national security.
Prominent South African journalist and media personality, Jani Allan, has lambasted freedom of speech in South Africa, she herself found her top-rated radio-show and a popular column axed due to her outspoken nature.
__________________But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
|
| Posted: 09 Sep 2007 01:56 |
|
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
From the Constitutional Rights Foundation;
After the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, Americans pulled together. But Americans still speak out voicing many different opinions. The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees freedom of speech. And most Americans support the idea of free speech. But since the First Amendment became part of the Constitution in 1791, American citizens have sometimes gotten into trouble with the government for speaking out. This has happened when a speaker was considered "too unpatriotic," "too radical," or "too dangerous."
Who should have freedom of speech? Should it apply only to those who voice opinions most people agree with? Or, should it be for everyone, even for those who hold opinions that most Americans hate?
Also, what does freedom of speech really mean? Does it mean that someone should be able to say whatever he or she wants at any time or place? Or, should speech sometimes be limited by the law?
Sedition Act of 1798
Just a few years after the First Amendment was added to the Constitution, the federal government passed a law restricting freedom of speech. In 1798, Congress passed the Sedition Act. War seemed likely between the United States and its former ally France. Members of Congress were convinced that people sympathetic to France would try to stir up trouble for the new nation.
Congress and President John Adams believed that the Sedition Act would help control pro-French troublemakers by forbidding criticism of the federal government. "Sedition" generally means the incitement of violent revolution against the government. The Sedition Act of 1798, however, went far beyond this. It required criminal penalties for persons who said or published anything "false, scandalous, or malicious" against the federal government, Congress or the president.
Twenty-five American citizens were arrested under the Sedition Act. Among them was a Congressman who was convicted and imprisoned for calling President Adams a man who had "a continual grasp for power." Another citizen was convicted for painting a sign that read, "Downfall To The Tyrants of America." Still another man was found guilty of sedition for saying that he wished that the wadding of a cannon fired in a salute to President Adams would hit him in the seat of the pants.
Despite the arrests and convictions, many people spoke out against the Sedition Act. The state of Virginia even threatened to secede from the United States over this issue. The act was never legally challenged before the Supreme Court. Instead, it simply expired in 1801. By that time Thomas Jefferson, a bitter political opponent of President Adams and the Sedition Act, had been elected President. He pardoned all those convicted under this law.
"Clear and Present Danger"
Another major attempt to regulate freedom of speech occurred during World War I. In 1917, Congress passed the Federal Espionage Act. This law prohibited all false statements intending to interfere with the military forces of the country or to promote the success of its enemies. In addition, penalties of up to $10,000 and/or 20 years in prison were established for anyone attempting to obstruct the recruitment of men into the military. In 1918, another law was passed by Congress forbidding any statements expressing disrespect for the U.S. government, the Constitution, the flag, or army and navy uniforms.
Almost immediately, Charles Schenck, general secretary of the American Socialist Party, violated these laws. He was arrested and convicted for sending 15,000 anti-draft circulars through the mail to men scheduled to enter the military service. The circular called the draft law a violation of the 13th Amendment's prohibition of slavery. It went on to urge draftees not to "submit to intimidation," but to "petition for repeal" of the draft law.
The government accused Schenck of illegally interfering with military recruitment under the espionage act. Schenck admitted that he had sent the circulars, but argued that he had a right to do so under the First Amendment and was merely exercising his freedom of speech.
The issue found its way to the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919). It was the court's first important decision in the area of free speech. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote the opinion of the unanimous Court, which sided with the government. Justice Holmes held that Mr. Schenck was not covered by the First Amendment since freedom of speech was not an absolute right. There were times, Holmes wrote, when the government could legally restrict speech.
According to Justice Holmes, that test is "whether the words...are used in such circumstances as to create a clear and present danger." Holmes said that in Charles Schenck's case the government was justified in arresting him because, "When a nation is at war, many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right."
In the Schenck case, the highest court in the nation ruled that freedom of speech could be limited by the government. But Justice Holmes was careful to say that the government could only do this when there was a "clear and present danger" such as during wartime. While settling one legal issue, however, the Supreme Court created others. For example, what does a "clear and present danger" specifically mean, and when should it justify stopping people from speaking?
The Angry Crowd
Another important free-speech case took place after World War II. It was only a few years after thousands of American soldiers had given their lives to defeat Adolf Hitler and the German Nazis. Arthur Terminiello was speaking before an audience in Chicago. His message was hate. He said that Hitler was right in what he did. He claimed that Democrats, Jews, and communists were all trying to destroy America.
An angry crowd gathered outside the hall where Terminiello was speaking. Bricks and bottles soon rained through the windows as his oratory continued.
Arthur Terminiello was later arrested, tried, and convicted for disturbing the peace with his provocative harangue. Like Charles Schenck 30 years earlier, Terminiello appealed his case to the U.S. Supreme Court (Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1). He claimed that he should not have been arrested since his speech was protected by the First Amendment. The city of Chicago, however, argued that the things Terminiello raved about in his speech so angered people that a "clear and present danger" to the safety of the community had occurred.
In 1949 the Supreme Court reversed Terminiello's conviction. (Four of the nine justices dissented.) In the majority opinion, Justice William O. Douglas wrote that "it is only through debate and free exchange of ideas that government remains responsive to the will of the people...." Justice Douglas stated that in a democracy free speech must occur even if it causes disputes, unrest, or "stirs people to anger."
Thus, according to Justice Douglas, "freedom of speech, though not absolute, is protected against censorship or punishment unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of serious substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience, annoyance or unrest."
For Discussion and Writing
Do you think the Sedition Act of 1798 was constitutional? Why or why not?
Do you think the right to free speech should be absolute? Explain.
What circumstances, if any, in peacetime might justify the government in placing limits on freedom of press or speech?
A C T I V I T Y
When is Speech a "Clear and Present Danger"?
In this activity, students decide four free-speech cases decided by the Supreme Court following World War I.
Divide the class into four groups for cases A, B, C, and D. Each group should then be further divided to represent the pro and con sides of one of the free speech cases.
The members of each pro and con group should now prepare arguments for their side. Pro groups should review the material on the Schenck case presented in this article. Con groups should review the information given on the Terminiello case.
Following a debate format, the pro and con sides of Case A should present their arguments to the rest of the class. At the conclusion of the debate, the class should vote to determine which side presented the best arguments. This same procedure should be followed for Cases B, C, and D.
Debrief the activity by discussing:
What were the most important differences in the circumstances of these four cases?
How would you define "clear and present danger"? Do you think this is a good standard for setting the limits of free speech? Why or why not?
Free Speech Cases
CASE A: Debs v. United States, (1919)
Eugene V. Debs, a leader of the American Socialist Party, addressed an anti-war rally in 1918. At this rally, Debs praised other Socialist leaders who had previously been arrested for opposing the draft law. Debs told his audience (which included draft-age men): "You have your lives to lose.... You need to know that you are fit for something better than slavery and cannon fodder." Debs was arrested, tried, and convicted for violating the 1918 Amendment to the Espionage Act. This law prohibited any speech that interfered with the drafting of men into the armed forces.
DEBATE RESOLUTION: Eugene V. Debs' speech at the anti-war rally was a "clear and present danger" to the laws of the United States.
CASE B: Frohwerk v. United States, (1919)
Jacob Frohwerk was the publisher of a pro-German newspaper in Missouri. Shortly after the United States entered World War I, Frohwerk printed a series of 12 articles opposing this action. He was then arrested, tried, and convicted for violating the Espionage Act of 1917.
DEBATE RESOLUTION: Jacob Frohwerk's 12 articles were a "clear and present danger" to the laws of the United States.
CASE C: Gitlow v. New York, (1925)
Benjamin Gitlow was a leader of the American Communist Party. After World War I, Gitlow published and distributed 16,000 copies of a Communist Party document called the "Left Wing Manifesto." This document argued for a communist revolution in the United States and urged labor strikes and "class action...having as its objective the conquest of the power of the state." Gitlow was arrested by New York authorities for violating that state's "criminal anarchy" law. This law made it a felony to advocate overthrowing the established government by force or violence.
DEBATE RESOLUTION: Benjamin Gitlow's "Left Wing Manifesto" was a "clear and present danger" to the laws of the United States.
CASE D: Abrams v. United States, (1919)
An immigrant from Russia, Jacob Abrams was accused of printing and distributing leaflets that insulted the United States and interfered with the nation's war effort against Germany. The defendants were charged under provisions of the Espionage Acts of 1917 and 1918. The leaflets had been thrown out of a window on August 22, 1918 protesting the U.S. invasion into Russia during World War I. The Russian Communist Revolution of 1917 had ended Russia's participation in the war against Germany. The United States had opposed Russia's withdrawal and sent troops into parts of Russia. One article in the leaflet denounced President Wilson as a hypocrite and a coward for sending American troops into Russia. The article went on to appeal to American workers to unite and revolt against the government. Another article called for a general strike in the United States "to create so great a disturbance...America shall be compelled to keep their armies at home, and not be able to spare any for Russia."
DEBATE RESOLUTION: Jacob Abrams' leaflets were a "clear and present danger" to the laws of the United States
__________________But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
|
| Posted: 09 Sep 2007 02:01 |
|
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
On our little valedictorian;
Religious speech cut from graduation ceremony
By The Associated Press
06.19.06
LAS VEGAS — The Clark County School District and free-speech advocates are defending school officials' decision to cut short a high school valedictorian's commencement speech, saying the speech would have amounted to school-sponsored proselytizing.
Officials and a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union said on June 16 that administrators followed federal law when they cut the microphone on Foothill High School valedictorian Brittany McComb as she began deviating from a preapproved speech and reading from a version that mentioned God and contained biblical references.
"There should be no controversy here," ACLU lawyer Allen Lichtenstein said. "It's important for people to understand that a student was given a school-sponsored forum by a school and therefore, in essence, it was a school-sponsored speech."
Administrators who vetted an early draft of McComb's speech cut six references to God or Christ, and omitted two biblical references. They also deleted a detailed reference to the crucifixion of Christ.
McComb said she defied school authorities because she believed it was free-speech issue.
"I went through four years of school at Foothill and they taught me logic and they taught me freedom of speech," McComb told the Las Vegas Review-Journal. "God's the biggest part of my life. Just like other valedictorians thank their parents, I wanted to thank my Lord and savior."
Administrators' decision drew jeers from the nearly 400 graduates and their families gathered for the June 15 ceremony at a Las Vegas casino.
Lichtenstein said 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decisions in 2000 and 2003 support the school's position.
The Clark County School District speech regulations prohibit district officials from organizing a prayer at graduation or selecting speakers for such events in a manner that favors religious speech or a prayer.
The policy does allow for religious expression at school ceremonies and says speakers chosen "on the basis of genuinely neutral, evenhanded criteria" are responsible for the content of their expression and "it may not be restricted because of its religious (or anti-religious) content."
District lawyer Bill Hoffman said the regulation allows students to talk about religion, but speeches can't cross the line into the realm of preaching.
"We encourage people to talk about religion and the impact on their lives. But when that discussion crosses over to become proselytizing, then we to tell students they can't do that," Hoffman said.
McComb, who said she plans to study journalism at Biola University, a private Christian school in La Mirada, Calif., doesn't believe she was preaching.
"People aren't stupid and they know we have freedom of speech and the district wasn't advocating my ideas," McComb said. "Those are my opinions. It's what I believe."
__________________But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
|
| Posted: 10 Sep 2007 15:05 |
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
On the first part, an employer does have a right to fire somebody if the speech is conflicting with the job's mission. However, whether or not Tim Hardaway should have been fired is another matter. I didn't hear what he had to say, and despite what the articles says, most of the time all you have to say is you hate the gay agenda or lifestyle and you are branded as hating gays blah, blah blah. So I'd have to hear what he said with my own two ears before I made any judgements. Also some libs aren't satisfied with somebody getting fired they want hate speech to be grounds for imprisonment.
I think free speech should never be outlawed by the government. Only a few times can I see speech being a threat. One such time might be if someone tells a crowd specific plans for killing someone something like that. Then it shouldn't be the speech that gets the person arrested, but the admitting to a crime. Planning murder after all is illegal.
Quote:
In some European countries, Holocaust denial is a criminal offence. Don't get me wrong somebody denying the holocaust makes me angry, but putting them in jail is overkill. Maybe a slug in the jaw, but jail only gives them more contacts.
Quote:
By that time Thomas Jefferson, a bitter political opponent of President Adams and the Sedition Act, had been elected President. He pardoned all those convicted under this law. The Sedition act sounded unconstitutional for sure.
Quote:
Arthur Terminiello was speaking before an audience in Chicago. His message was hate. He said that Hitler was right in what he did. He claimed that Democrats, Jews, and communists were all trying to destroy America.
An angry crowd gathered outside the hall where Terminiello was speaking. Bricks and bottles soon rained through the windows as his oratory continued. The bum deserved to go to jail. Probably saved his life. After all the lives lost in WW2 somebody would have definitely murdered the bum.
Quote:
McComb, who said she plans to study journalism at Biola University, a private Christian school in La Mirada, Calif., doesn't believe she was preaching. She wasn't unless talking about swimming and going through school with God's help is a sermon. Stupid ACLU needs to go to jail.
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
| Posted: 10 Sep 2007 20:04 |
|
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
|
Quote:
they want hate speech to be grounds for imprisonment.
He can't be jailed for speech. That's what the constitution protects us from.
Quote:
She wasn't unless talking about swimming and going through school with God's help is a sermon
She didn't just say thank you to either God or Jesus. She wasn't talking about swimming or just going through school with either one's help. She started saying an exact portion of the speech she was told to leave out about 'God giving us his only son as a sacrifice'. That was preaching, or better, that 50 cent word I see being thrown around-proselytizing. She can believe she was saving the world and it doesn't change the events one bit.
Quote:
ACLU needs to go to jail.
Why is that?
__________________But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
|
| Posted: 10 Sep 2007 20:34 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
Man you are biased. Are you against Christmas trees too. Beat up Santa Clause lately?
ACLU is filled with a bunch of commie, fascist dictators.
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
| Posted: 10 Sep 2007 20:52 |
|
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
You saying they should be jailed without an actual argument or trial makes you the fascist.
On what crimes should they be tried and then jailed?
__________________But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
|
| Posted: 11 Sep 2007 16:36 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
|
Quote:
On what crimes should they be tried and then jailed? Let me rephrase, they deserve to be in jail not necessarily by legal standards.
ACLU is filled with a bunch of commie, fascist dictators.
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
| Posted: 11 Sep 2007 18:42 |
|
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
|
Quote:
ACLU is filled with a bunch of commie, fascist dictators.
Some might say the same about Capitol Hill.
Quote:
they deserve to be in jail not necessarily by legal standards
__________________But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
|
|
