• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

US Police arrest Florida pastor

Since incest is forbidden in Islam, you would do well to emulate them...America seems to have more than it's share of "profound ignorance".

actually first cousin marriages is a pretty big problem in the middle east and larger islamic world. From what I recall, it is largely influence due to clan , tribal, and family affiliations being fortified through arranged marriages. A quick google search should turn up numerous amounts of data
 
Can a snowflake cause an avalanche?

I'm not sure that is a proper analogy here. Because in yours I assume that the snowflake is having a direct causal relationship to the avalanche. While with the guy burning Korans does not have such in relation to the church burnings. A separate individual chose to do such under his own volition and was fully capable in not behaving in such a manner
 
No, Bob would be 100% wrong. John would be burning books that he owned (if it was owned by someone else, he is violating their property and should face charges). If the muslims own the churches and decided to burn their own property down, that is their decision, but I'm willing to bet they do not own the churches.

See, that's not so hard is it?

And no, burning your own property isn't curtailing religious freedom. That is just bat **** crazy.

If John knew that his actions would lead to violence, then he is responsible for his actions.


Pastor Jone's burning of the Quran doesn't pass the Brandenburg test....because it was intended to and did result in violence.....


"The constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."

Clear-and-present danger test legal definition of Clear-and-present danger test. Clear-and-present danger test synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

Advocacy of Unlawful Action
 
Pastor Jone's burning of the Quran doesn't pass the Brandenburg test....because it was intended to and did result in violence.....

Did you even read the examples in your second link? I honestly don't think you understand what that standard is
 
If John knew that his actions would lead to violence, then he is responsible for his actions.


Pastor Jone's burning of the Quran doesn't pass the Brandenburg test....because it was intended to and did result in violence.....


"The constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."

Clear-and-present danger test legal definition of Clear-and-present danger test. Clear-and-present danger test synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

Advocacy of Unlawful Action

Good, then you did finally answer my original question: Bob tells John that if he continues to eat pork, he will kill somebody. If John eats that pork, knowing that Bob made that threat, then John should be hauled off to jail.

There isn't a freedom loving bone in your body, is there? Personal responsibility is a completely lost concept on you.

Now, I'm going to make a threat: If you keep posting this nonsense, I'm going to punch a midget. Now remember, if you post again, you will be responsible for what happens to that poor little bastard.

Did you even read the examples in your second link? I honestly don't think you understand what that standard is

She's made it very obvious again that she doesn't even read her own links.
 
actually first cousin marriages is a pretty big problem in the middle east and larger islamic world. From what I recall, it is largely influence due to clan , tribal, and family affiliations being fortified through arranged marriages. A quick google search should turn up numerous amounts of data

Incest is a big problem in the US, too. If you don't like the links I provided then a quick google search should turn up numerous amounts of data as well.
 
Did you even read the examples in your second link? I honestly don't think you understand what that standard is

I don't think you read any of the links I provided.
 
Good, then you did finally answer my original question: Bob tells John that if he continues to eat pork, he will kill somebody. If John eats that pork, knowing that Bob made that threat, then John should be hauled off to jail.

There isn't a freedom loving bone in your body, is there? Personal responsibility is a completely lost concept on you.

Now, I'm going to make a threat: If you keep posting this nonsense, I'm going to punch a midget. Now remember, if you post again, you will be responsible for what happens to that poor little bastard[COLOR].
More fallacious personal attacks.


She's made it very obvious again that she doesn't even read her own links.

If you had read the links that I posted, then you would be discussing what they said, instead of discussing me with other posters. So I'm going to make a threat, too: if you keep making personal attacks or try to make me the topic, I will report you.
 
More fallacious personal attacks.




If you had read the links that I posted, then you would be discussing what they said, instead of discussing me with other posters. So I'm going to make a threat, too: if you keep making personal attacks or try to make me the topic, I will report you.

I never made any personal attacks.

But you did ignore my threat and exercised your freedom as an American, so I guess you don't hold yourself to your own standards.
 
I never made any personal attacks.

Actually you did .....


.... you would throw your liberties at them in an attempt to save your neck.

....You're just a big ball of hyperbole aren't you?

...I'm not moot, I don't think we should give up rights because the muslims will throw temper tantrums.

....Curtailing your freedom based on threats is the true sign of a coward.

Holy ****, did I say that was all they burned? Moot compared wanted to speak in a religious context, so I did.

Is that really what you're bringing to this conversation? More perpetuation of moot's idiotic nazi comparison?....

...Well, since I've known her she's been a very passionate anti-freedom advocate. I'd say this is pretty much par for her. Let's all appease the muslims.

....There isn't a freedom loving bone in your body, is there? Personal responsibility is a completely lost concept on you......

She's made it very obvious again that she doesn't even read her own links.

But you did ignore my threat and exercised your freedom as an American, so I guess you don't hold yourself to your own standards.

You've misrepresented and lied enough about me to prove you don't have any standards at all.
 
Actually you did .....


















You've misrepresented and lied enough about me to prove you don't have any standards at all.

Really? Because all of those sound like statements of fact to me. If your positions sound insulting, they probably are.

You believe that anyone who is threatened must comply or face legal action. I don't even need to insult you to make that position look ridiculous.
 
It is a comparison made even more ironic by the fact she supports the Islamist position when it comes to her hatred of the liberal notion of free speech. Yes, by all means, let's all support heavy handed totalitarianism to show how much we are against it.

Yes, by all means lie and misrepresent what I said. Thats what fascists would do.
 
Really? Because all of those sound like statements of fact to me. If your positions sound insulting, they probably are.

You believe that anyone who is threatened must comply or face legal action. I don't even need to insult you to make that position look ridiculous.

I don't tell you what you believe or what you think or misrepresent your argument or insult you personally. But that is all you do, so I really don't see the point in continuing this discussion with you.
 
I don't tell you what you believe or what you think or misrepresent your argument or insult you personally. But that is all you do, so I really don't see the point in continuing this discussion with you.

No, you said that when someone is threatened with violence, but they decide to do something legal anyway, they should be held accountable for the actions of the people who made the threat.

You personally said this guy should be jailed because islamists might kill someone.

Jesus christ, own up to your own statements like an adult.
 
No, you said that when someone is threatened with violence, but they decide to do something legal anyway, they should be held accountable for the actions of the people who made the threat.

You personally said this guy should be jailed because islamists might kill someone.

Jesus christ, own up to your own statements like an adult.



:liar2

I never said any such thing.
 
:liar2

I never said any such thing.

Sure you did.

If John knew that his actions would lead to violence, then he is responsible for his actions.

If someone knows their actions will lead to violence (because someone else threatened they would commit violent acts if he did it), then he is responsible.

Therefore, I should be able to make threats to you in order to coerce you into doing what I want. If you refuse, I will hurt someone and YOU will be responsible.

Ridiculous. Burning your own property does not make you responsible for deaths by islamists. Now stop backpeddling and just own it.
 
Sure you did.
:liar

If someone knows their actions will lead to violence (because someone else threatened they would commit violent acts if he did it), then he is responsible.
Thats what the Brandenburg test says.....

Brandenburg test | LII / Legal Information Institute

Standard established in Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 US 444 (1969), to determine when inflammatory speech intending to advocate illegal action can be restricted. The standard developed determined that speech advocating the use of force or crime could only be proscribed where two conditions were satisfied: (1) the advocacy is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action,” and (2) the advocacy is also “likely to incite or produce such action.”


1) Pastor Jones directed the burning of the Koran knowing it would incite imminent lawless action among Muslims.

2) Pastor Jones advocacy is highly "likely to incite or produce such action" because it has.



Therefore, I should be able to make threats to you in order to coerce you into doing what I want. If you refuse, I will hurt someone and YOU will be responsible.
It's not a hypothetical...it's a documented fact that the actions of Pastor Jones has incited violence. Pastor Jones has even admitted as much.

Ridiculous. Burning your own property does not make you responsible for deaths by islamists. Now stop backpeddling and just own it.
This issue is about free speech, not property rights. You might own a Quran but you don't have the right to burn it in a public place without a permit or burn it to incite "mimminent lawless action".
 
:liar

Thats what the Brandenburg test says.....

Brandenburg test | LII / Legal Information Institute

Standard established in Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 US 444 (1969), to determine when inflammatory speech intending to advocate illegal action can be restricted. The standard developed determined that speech advocating the use of force or crime could only be proscribed where two conditions were satisfied: (1) the advocacy is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action,” and (2) the advocacy is also “likely to incite or produce such action.”


1) Pastor Jones directed the burning of the Koran knowing it would incite imminent lawless action among Muslims.

2) Pastor Jones advocacy is highly "likely to incite or produce such action" because it has.



It's not a hypothetical...it's a documented fact that the actions of Pastor Jones has incited violence. Pastor Jones has even admitted as much.

This issue is about free speech, not property rights. You might own a Quran but you don't have the right to burn it in a public place without a permit or burn it to incite "mimminent lawless action".

Incorrect. Burning books is not advocating the use of force or crime. Nor is it using force or committing a crime. The Brandenburg test is for things like Charles Manson, where he encouraged people to go out and do harm. It does not apply to 3rd parties getting offended and deciding to do harm.

Your analysis is extremely lacking.
 
Incorrect. Burning books is not advocating the use of force or crime. Nor is it using force or committing a crime. The Brandenburg test is for things like Charles Manson, where he encouraged people to go out and do harm. It does not apply to 3rd parties getting offended and deciding to do harm.

Your analysis is extremely lacking.

I doubt it will make it to the SCOTUS, so we'll probably never really know who is right. But he'll try it again next year and then we can have this discussion all over again. Until then.....maybe he'll find a new calling.
 
I doubt it will make it to the SCOTUS, so we'll probably never really know who is right. But he'll try it again next year and then we can have this discussion all over again. Until then.....maybe he'll find a new calling.

or you could just cite similar cases
 
Every first amendment case is unique. But perhaps the closet would be Brandenburg v Ohio


Sooner or later Pastor Jone's actions and/or words will come back to bite him.

every case is unique, but that doesn't change the fact you should be able to cite actual case law if it's clearly applied like you claim. Unfortunately for you the "immanent harm standard" is applied with a very restricted scope. One such case I recall concerned a guy who was the leader of a Neo-nazi organization who advocated the killing of minorities to his armed followers
 
every case is unique, but that doesn't change the fact you should be able to cite actual case law if it's clearly applied like you claim. Unfortunately for you the "immanent harm standard" is applied with a very restricted scope. One such case I recall concerned a guy who was the leader of a Neo-nazi organization who advocated the killing of minorities to his armed followers

Can you cite the name of the "one such case" you are referring to?
 
Back
Top Bottom