Post Reply
Page 6 of 11  •  Prev 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 ... 11 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Citing Quran-Burning Threat, Islamic Body Wants U.N. to Outlaw ‘Offenses Against Religion’
4 years ago  ::  Sep 27, 2010 - 1:01AM #51
Ebon
Posts: 10,132

Sep 25, 2010 -- 6:44PM, Weepingangelofthetrees wrote:

He and his inbred crew of haters, (most of the Phelps church CONgregants are his family members) , arrived in my State a few years ago spit-screaming their hate. A little old man, veteran with ribbons galore adorning his chest, toddled between the State troopers guarding their right to verbally assault the widow and family of one of our local fallen soldiers, and just as Phelps started screaming his hateful rhetoric in the little old mans face, the senior fellow pulled back and right hooked Phelps into lala land! Then made a sharp about face and slowly walked back between the two State cops, who remained still, and went back across the street and rejoined the crowd of counter protesters.


The Phelps bunch are notorious for baiting assaults, so they can sue and acquire more money to take their hateful monkeys parade on the road to other soldiers funerals, but on that day it's the oddest thing. There were no credible witnesses to old man Phelps being knocked cold on the blacktop.



Only just noticed this post. Any chance we can pin a medal on that guy?

He who oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors God. ~ Proverbs 14:31

Fiat justitia, ruat caelum

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Sep 27, 2010 - 11:51AM #52
teilhard
Posts: 50,086

It all comes down to "Cases," doesn't it ... ???


Sep 26, 2010 -- 9:29AM, Guessses wrote:


Sep 26, 2010 -- 8:13AM, teilhard wrote:


Yes and No ... It is already LONG well-established in both Statute and Case Law that "Free Speech" is NOT Absolute ...


Sep 25, 2010 -- 1:02PM, Guessses wrote:


Sep 25, 2010 -- 12:54PM, Ken wrote:


Sep 25, 2010 -- 12:04PM, teilhard wrote:


SOME People will continue-to-continue of course to assert that "Free Speech" does and MUST include The RIGHT to OFFEND, The Right to Insult, the Righ to Inflame ...



Because it does. Being offended and insulted are trivial injuries; they merely sting the ego. We do not seek recourse to the law to prevent trivial injuries nor abridge our rights to protect our egos. A freedom of speech that isn't the freedom to offend and insult isn't a freedom at all. As to being inflamed, that's entirely up to the person who has been offended, not to the person who offends him. Mature adults are responsible for their own reactions. It is up to them to ensure that they react in a seemly manner.  


 




I'd have to agree. The Actions of the "Offended" must be the responsibility of the "Offended".








I don't see why there is a question about "who's responsible for their actions or reactions"? If someone called my Dad (my personal Hero) a "traitor", while that is a "provoke" should I have the right to shoot that person? I'd want want too, but the "provoker" is just an ignorant person and unfortunately, that can't be outlawed.





Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Sep 27, 2010 - 11:54AM #53
Guessses
Posts: 2,233

Sep 27, 2010 -- 11:51AM, teilhard wrote:


It all comes down to "Cases," doesn't it ... ???


Sep 26, 2010 -- 9:29AM, Guessses wrote:


Sep 26, 2010 -- 8:13AM, teilhard wrote:


Yes and No ... It is already LONG well-established in both Statute and Case Law that "Free Speech" is NOT Absolute ...


Sep 25, 2010 -- 1:02PM, Guessses wrote:


Sep 25, 2010 -- 12:54PM, Ken wrote:


Sep 25, 2010 -- 12:04PM, teilhard wrote:


SOME People will continue-to-continue of course to assert that "Free Speech" does and MUST include The RIGHT to OFFEND, The Right to Insult, the Righ to Inflame ...



Because it does. Being offended and insulted are trivial injuries; they merely sting the ego. We do not seek recourse to the law to prevent trivial injuries nor abridge our rights to protect our egos. A freedom of speech that isn't the freedom to offend and insult isn't a freedom at all. As to being inflamed, that's entirely up to the person who has been offended, not to the person who offends him. Mature adults are responsible for their own reactions. It is up to them to ensure that they react in a seemly manner.  


 




I'd have to agree. The Actions of the "Offended" must be the responsibility of the "Offended".








I don't see why there is a question about "who's responsible for their actions or reactions"? If someone called my Dad (my personal Hero) a "traitor", while that is a "provoke" should I have the right to shoot that person? I'd want want too, but the "provoker" is just an ignorant person and unfortunately, that can't be outlawed.








Not really. It comes down to personal responsibility for actions or even inactions. So, that's not actually separating the cases. 

Infinite Blessings
Mike/NAFOD
"Lord, please, protect me from Your followers!"
"WWBD? Buddha- Does it matter? If you are enlightened it does not. If you are not enlightened it still doesn't matter."
"If you go looking to place blame, eventually you'll wind up blaming the Gods"
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Sep 27, 2010 - 11:57AM #54
teilhard
Posts: 50,086

On the Contrary, it IS ( ALWAYS ) ALL about "Cases" ... ALWAYS ...


Statute and Case Law CLEARLY are AGAINST "defamation," and "slander," and "libel," and "incitement" ...


Sep 27, 2010 -- 11:54AM, Guessses wrote:


Sep 27, 2010 -- 11:51AM, teilhard wrote:


It all comes down to "Cases," doesn't it ... ???


Sep 26, 2010 -- 9:29AM, Guessses wrote:


Sep 26, 2010 -- 8:13AM, teilhard wrote:


Yes and No ... It is already LONG well-established in both Statute and Case Law that "Free Speech" is NOT Absolute ...


Sep 25, 2010 -- 1:02PM, Guessses wrote:


Sep 25, 2010 -- 12:54PM, Ken wrote:


Sep 25, 2010 -- 12:04PM, teilhard wrote:


SOME People will continue-to-continue of course to assert that "Free Speech" does and MUST include The RIGHT to OFFEND, The Right to Insult, the Righ to Inflame ...



Because it does. Being offended and insulted are trivial injuries; they merely sting the ego. We do not seek recourse to the law to prevent trivial injuries nor abridge our rights to protect our egos. A freedom of speech that isn't the freedom to offend and insult isn't a freedom at all. As to being inflamed, that's entirely up to the person who has been offended, not to the person who offends him. Mature adults are responsible for their own reactions. It is up to them to ensure that they react in a seemly manner.  


 




I'd have to agree. The Actions of the "Offended" must be the responsibility of the "Offended".








I don't see why there is a question about "who's responsible for their actions or reactions"? If someone called my Dad (my personal Hero) a "traitor", while that is a "provoke" should I have the right to shoot that person? I'd want want too, but the "provoker" is just an ignorant person and unfortunately, that can't be outlawed.








Not really. It comes down to personal responsibility for actions or even inactions. So, that's not actually separating the cases. 





Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Sep 27, 2010 - 12:03PM #55
Guessses
Posts: 2,233

Sep 27, 2010 -- 11:57AM, teilhard wrote:


On the Contrary, it IS ( ALWAYS ) ALL about "Cases" ... ALWAYS ...


Statute and Case Law CLEARLY are AGAINST "defamation," and "slander," and "libel," and "incitement" ...


Sep 27, 2010 -- 11:54AM, Guessses wrote:


Sep 27, 2010 -- 11:51AM, teilhard wrote:


It all comes down to "Cases," doesn't it ... ???


Sep 26, 2010 -- 9:29AM, Guessses wrote:


Sep 26, 2010 -- 8:13AM, teilhard wrote:


Yes and No ... It is already LONG well-established in both Statute and Case Law that "Free Speech" is NOT Absolute ...


Sep 25, 2010 -- 1:02PM, Guessses wrote:


Sep 25, 2010 -- 12:54PM, Ken wrote:


Sep 25, 2010 -- 12:04PM, teilhard wrote:


SOME People will continue-to-continue of course to assert that "Free Speech" does and MUST include The RIGHT to OFFEND, The Right to Insult, the Righ to Inflame ...



Because it does. Being offended and insulted are trivial injuries; they merely sting the ego. We do not seek recourse to the law to prevent trivial injuries nor abridge our rights to protect our egos. A freedom of speech that isn't the freedom to offend and insult isn't a freedom at all. As to being inflamed, that's entirely up to the person who has been offended, not to the person who offends him. Mature adults are responsible for their own reactions. It is up to them to ensure that they react in a seemly manner.  


 




I'd have to agree. The Actions of the "Offended" must be the responsibility of the "Offended".








I don't see why there is a question about "who's responsible for their actions or reactions"? If someone called my Dad (my personal Hero) a "traitor", while that is a "provoke" should I have the right to shoot that person? I'd want want too, but the "provoker" is just an ignorant person and unfortunately, that can't be outlawed.








Not really. It comes down to personal responsibility for actions or even inactions. So, that's not actually separating the cases. 








The terms you used are "Civil Law" not "Criminal Law", in the US, we have both.

Infinite Blessings
Mike/NAFOD
"Lord, please, protect me from Your followers!"
"WWBD? Buddha- Does it matter? If you are enlightened it does not. If you are not enlightened it still doesn't matter."
"If you go looking to place blame, eventually you'll wind up blaming the Gods"
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Sep 27, 2010 - 12:14PM #56
teilhard
Posts: 50,086

Nope ... "Incitement" -- to Riot, to committ a Felony, etc. -- is a CRIMINAL Offense ...


Sep 27, 2010 -- 12:03PM, Guessses wrote:


Sep 27, 2010 -- 11:57AM, teilhard wrote:


On the Contrary, it IS ( ALWAYS ) ALL about "Cases" ... ALWAYS ...


Statute and Case Law CLEARLY are AGAINST "defamation," and "slander," and "libel," and "incitement" ...


Sep 27, 2010 -- 11:54AM, Guessses wrote:


Sep 27, 2010 -- 11:51AM, teilhard wrote:


It all comes down to "Cases," doesn't it ... ???


Sep 26, 2010 -- 9:29AM, Guessses wrote:


Sep 26, 2010 -- 8:13AM, teilhard wrote:


Yes and No ... It is already LONG well-established in both Statute and Case Law that "Free Speech" is NOT Absolute ...


Sep 25, 2010 -- 1:02PM, Guessses wrote:


Sep 25, 2010 -- 12:54PM, Ken wrote:


Sep 25, 2010 -- 12:04PM, teilhard wrote:


SOME People will continue-to-continue of course to assert that "Free Speech" does and MUST include The RIGHT to OFFEND, The Right to Insult, the Righ to Inflame ...



Because it does. Being offended and insulted are trivial injuries; they merely sting the ego. We do not seek recourse to the law to prevent trivial injuries nor abridge our rights to protect our egos. A freedom of speech that isn't the freedom to offend and insult isn't a freedom at all. As to being inflamed, that's entirely up to the person who has been offended, not to the person who offends him. Mature adults are responsible for their own reactions. It is up to them to ensure that they react in a seemly manner.  


 




I'd have to agree. The Actions of the "Offended" must be the responsibility of the "Offended".








I don't see why there is a question about "who's responsible for their actions or reactions"? If someone called my Dad (my personal Hero) a "traitor", while that is a "provoke" should I have the right to shoot that person? I'd want want too, but the "provoker" is just an ignorant person and unfortunately, that can't be outlawed.








Not really. It comes down to personal responsibility for actions or even inactions. So, that's not actually separating the cases. 








The terms you used are "Civil Law" not "Criminal Law", in the US, we have both.





Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Sep 27, 2010 - 12:22PM #57
Guessses
Posts: 2,233

Sep 27, 2010 -- 12:14PM, teilhard wrote:


Nope ... "Incitement" -- to Riot, to committ a Felony, etc. -- is a CRIMINAL Offense ...


Sep 27, 2010 -- 12:03PM, Guessses wrote:


Sep 27, 2010 -- 11:57AM, teilhard wrote:


On the Contrary, it IS ( ALWAYS ) ALL about "Cases" ... ALWAYS ...


Statute and Case Law CLEARLY are AGAINST "defamation," and "slander," and "libel," and "incitement" ...


Sep 27, 2010 -- 11:54AM, Guessses wrote:


Sep 27, 2010 -- 11:51AM, teilhard wrote:


It all comes down to "Cases," doesn't it ... ???


Sep 26, 2010 -- 9:29AM, Guessses wrote:


Sep 26, 2010 -- 8:13AM, teilhard wrote:


Yes and No ... It is already LONG well-established in both Statute and Case Law that "Free Speech" is NOT Absolute ...


Sep 25, 2010 -- 1:02PM, Guessses wrote:


Sep 25, 2010 -- 12:54PM, Ken wrote:


Sep 25, 2010 -- 12:04PM, teilhard wrote:


SOME People will continue-to-continue of course to assert that "Free Speech" does and MUST include The RIGHT to OFFEND, The Right to Insult, the Righ to Inflame ...



Because it does. Being offended and insulted are trivial injuries; they merely sting the ego. We do not seek recourse to the law to prevent trivial injuries nor abridge our rights to protect our egos. A freedom of speech that isn't the freedom to offend and insult isn't a freedom at all. As to being inflamed, that's entirely up to the person who has been offended, not to the person who offends him. Mature adults are responsible for their own reactions. It is up to them to ensure that they react in a seemly manner.  


 




I'd have to agree. The Actions of the "Offended" must be the responsibility of the "Offended".








I don't see why there is a question about "who's responsible for their actions or reactions"? If someone called my Dad (my personal Hero) a "traitor", while that is a "provoke" should I have the right to shoot that person? I'd want want too, but the "provoker" is just an ignorant person and unfortunately, that can't be outlawed.








Not really. It comes down to personal responsibility for actions or even inactions. So, that's not actually separating the cases. 








The terms you used are "Civil Law" not "Criminal Law", in the US, we have both.








hmmm, Phelps gets away with it all the time.

Infinite Blessings
Mike/NAFOD
"Lord, please, protect me from Your followers!"
"WWBD? Buddha- Does it matter? If you are enlightened it does not. If you are not enlightened it still doesn't matter."
"If you go looking to place blame, eventually you'll wind up blaming the Gods"
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Sep 27, 2010 - 12:27PM #58
teilhard
Posts: 50,086

He does ... ???


Sep 27, 2010 -- 12:22PM, Guessses wrote:


Sep 27, 2010 -- 12:14PM, teilhard wrote:


Nope ... "Incitement" -- to Riot, to committ a Felony, etc. -- is a CRIMINAL Offense ...


Sep 27, 2010 -- 12:03PM, Guessses wrote:


Sep 27, 2010 -- 11:57AM, teilhard wrote:


On the Contrary, it IS ( ALWAYS ) ALL about "Cases" ... ALWAYS ...


Statute and Case Law CLEARLY are AGAINST "defamation," and "slander," and "libel," and "incitement" ...


Sep 27, 2010 -- 11:54AM, Guessses wrote:


Sep 27, 2010 -- 11:51AM, teilhard wrote:


It all comes down to "Cases," doesn't it ... ???


Sep 26, 2010 -- 9:29AM, Guessses wrote:


Sep 26, 2010 -- 8:13AM, teilhard wrote:


Yes and No ... It is already LONG well-established in both Statute and Case Law that "Free Speech" is NOT Absolute ...


Sep 25, 2010 -- 1:02PM, Guessses wrote:


Sep 25, 2010 -- 12:54PM, Ken wrote:


Sep 25, 2010 -- 12:04PM, teilhard wrote:


SOME People will continue-to-continue of course to assert that "Free Speech" does and MUST include The RIGHT to OFFEND, The Right to Insult, the Righ to Inflame ...



Because it does. Being offended and insulted are trivial injuries; they merely sting the ego. We do not seek recourse to the law to prevent trivial injuries nor abridge our rights to protect our egos. A freedom of speech that isn't the freedom to offend and insult isn't a freedom at all. As to being inflamed, that's entirely up to the person who has been offended, not to the person who offends him. Mature adults are responsible for their own reactions. It is up to them to ensure that they react in a seemly manner.  


 




I'd have to agree. The Actions of the "Offended" must be the responsibility of the "Offended".








I don't see why there is a question about "who's responsible for their actions or reactions"? If someone called my Dad (my personal Hero) a "traitor", while that is a "provoke" should I have the right to shoot that person? I'd want want too, but the "provoker" is just an ignorant person and unfortunately, that can't be outlawed.








Not really. It comes down to personal responsibility for actions or even inactions. So, that's not actually separating the cases. 








The terms you used are "Civil Law" not "Criminal Law", in the US, we have both.








hmmm, Phelps gets away with it all the time.





Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Sep 27, 2010 - 12:29PM #59
Guessses
Posts: 2,233

Sep 27, 2010 -- 12:27PM, teilhard wrote:


He does ... ???


Sep 27, 2010 -- 12:22PM, Guessses wrote:


Sep 27, 2010 -- 12:14PM, teilhard wrote:


Nope ... "Incitement" -- to Riot, to committ a Felony, etc. -- is a CRIMINAL Offense ...


Sep 27, 2010 -- 12:03PM, Guessses wrote:


Sep 27, 2010 -- 11:57AM, teilhard wrote:


On the Contrary, it IS ( ALWAYS ) ALL about "Cases" ... ALWAYS ...


Statute and Case Law CLEARLY are AGAINST "defamation," and "slander," and "libel," and "incitement" ...


Sep 27, 2010 -- 11:54AM, Guessses wrote:


Sep 27, 2010 -- 11:51AM, teilhard wrote:


It all comes down to "Cases," doesn't it ... ???


Sep 26, 2010 -- 9:29AM, Guessses wrote:


Sep 26, 2010 -- 8:13AM, teilhard wrote:


Yes and No ... It is already LONG well-established in both Statute and Case Law that "Free Speech" is NOT Absolute ...


Sep 25, 2010 -- 1:02PM, Guessses wrote:


Sep 25, 2010 -- 12:54PM, Ken wrote:


Sep 25, 2010 -- 12:04PM, teilhard wrote:


SOME People will continue-to-continue of course to assert that "Free Speech" does and MUST include The RIGHT to OFFEND, The Right to Insult, the Righ to Inflame ...



Because it does. Being offended and insulted are trivial injuries; they merely sting the ego. We do not seek recourse to the law to prevent trivial injuries nor abridge our rights to protect our egos. A freedom of speech that isn't the freedom to offend and insult isn't a freedom at all. As to being inflamed, that's entirely up to the person who has been offended, not to the person who offends him. Mature adults are responsible for their own reactions. It is up to them to ensure that they react in a seemly manner.  


 




I'd have to agree. The Actions of the "Offended" must be the responsibility of the "Offended".








I don't see why there is a question about "who's responsible for their actions or reactions"? If someone called my Dad (my personal Hero) a "traitor", while that is a "provoke" should I have the right to shoot that person? I'd want want too, but the "provoker" is just an ignorant person and unfortunately, that can't be outlawed.








Not really. It comes down to personal responsibility for actions or even inactions. So, that's not actually separating the cases. 








The terms you used are "Civil Law" not "Criminal Law", in the US, we have both.








hmmm, Phelps gets away with it all the time.








Sure, harassing Soldier Funerals and other crap like that!

Infinite Blessings
Mike/NAFOD
"Lord, please, protect me from Your followers!"
"WWBD? Buddha- Does it matter? If you are enlightened it does not. If you are not enlightened it still doesn't matter."
"If you go looking to place blame, eventually you'll wind up blaming the Gods"
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Sep 27, 2010 - 12:41PM #60
teilhard
Posts: 50,086

Yes ... And   IF  and  WHEN  his Speech and Conduct incite and elicit a VIOLENT  Response, HE may well be held responsible for it ...


It's ALL  ( ALWAYS ) about "Cases," you see ...


Sep 27, 2010 -- 12:29PM, Guessses wrote:


Sep 27, 2010 -- 12:27PM, teilhard wrote:


He does ... ???


Sep 27, 2010 -- 12:22PM, Guessses wrote:


Sep 27, 2010 -- 12:14PM, teilhard wrote:


Nope ... "Incitement" -- to Riot, to committ a Felony, etc. -- is a CRIMINAL Offense ...


Sep 27, 2010 -- 12:03PM, Guessses wrote:


Sep 27, 2010 -- 11:57AM, teilhard wrote:


On the Contrary, it IS ( ALWAYS ) ALL about "Cases" ... ALWAYS ...


Statute and Case Law CLEARLY are AGAINST "defamation," and "slander," and "libel," and "incitement" ...


Sep 27, 2010 -- 11:54AM, Guessses wrote:


Sep 27, 2010 -- 11:51AM, teilhard wrote:


It all comes down to "Cases," doesn't it ... ???


Sep 26, 2010 -- 9:29AM, Guessses wrote:


Sep 26, 2010 -- 8:13AM, teilhard wrote:


Yes and No ... It is already LONG well-established in both Statute and Case Law that "Free Speech" is NOT Absolute ...


Sep 25, 2010 -- 1:02PM, Guessses wrote:


Sep 25, 2010 -- 12:54PM, Ken wrote:


Sep 25, 2010 -- 12:04PM, teilhard wrote:


SOME People will continue-to-continue of course to assert that "Free Speech" does and MUST include The RIGHT to OFFEND, The Right to Insult, the Righ to Inflame ...



Because it does. Being offended and insulted are trivial injuries; they merely sting the ego. We do not seek recourse to the law to prevent trivial injuries nor abridge our rights to protect our egos. A freedom of speech that isn't the freedom to offend and insult isn't a freedom at all. As to being inflamed, that's entirely up to the person who has been offended, not to the person who offends him. Mature adults are responsible for their own reactions. It is up to them to ensure that they react in a seemly manner.  


 




I'd have to agree. The Actions of the "Offended" must be the responsibility of the "Offended".








I don't see why there is a question about "who's responsible for their actions or reactions"? If someone called my Dad (my personal Hero) a "traitor", while that is a "provoke" should I have the right to shoot that person? I'd want want too, but the "provoker" is just an ignorant person and unfortunately, that can't be outlawed.








Not really. It comes down to personal responsibility for actions or even inactions. So, that's not actually separating the cases. 








The terms you used are "Civil Law" not "Criminal Law", in the US, we have both.








hmmm, Phelps gets away with it all the time.








Sure, harassing Soldier Funerals and other crap like that!





Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 6 of 11  •  Prev 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 ... 11 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook