We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
first amendment rights are not absolute, everyone should know that. first amendment protection is not given to certain kinds of speech content, including some extremely offensive speech.
it is a fact that islam is a murderous, worthless, gutter trash ideology.
so suppressing it and islam speech whether by law or by private acts poses no problem for me.
and no BS about disagreeing with what they say while offering to die for their right to say it.
Donny "The Bear Jew" Donowitz
Yep. You aren't protected when saying 'Fire' in a crowded theater if you know there is no fire. There are obvious sanctions against slander, etc. There was also a decision about 'fighting words'. If there is a Constitutional sanction against Geller and her group (and I don't believe there should be), it would seem that the 'fighting words' issue would be at play.
So what are fighting words and would they be different for different people. For example, it's apparently not 'fighting words' for Andres Serrano to publicly display a crucifix in a jar of urine at tax payer expense. Is it 'fighting words' to burn an American flag at a veterans gathering - or anywhere for that matter? Is the Westboro Baptist Church protected when it pickets at a veteran's funeral? Is it 'fighting words' to hold a meeting of cartoonists and display their pictures of Mohammed behind closed doors?
This is why I think the 'fighting words' issue is bogus. It only applies when the offended party is willing to 'succumb' to the incitement of the words. In other words, the person or group who is willing to threaten or cause violence because of what someone says holds the veto of another's freedom of speech. I realize there is a 'reasonable person' or some such test, but what was reasonable in 1942 is not reasonable now.
In the end, if you don't test boundaries, they will collapse in on you. We were told that in the '60s by the same people who are running the show now and they were right then and still right. I have a feeling many of them have had a change of heart since then.
For what it's worth, I'm too much of a wuss to defend anybody but me and my family to the death, but I agree with the sentiment expressed by Evelyn Hall when she attributed that quote to Voltaire.
the WBC cases and the cross-burning case are restricting the fighting words doctrine and if it is on the way out, it is because the government has other ways of keeping the peace short of restricting the first amendment.
but that is what the government can or can't do. there is a right to burn an American flag free of government interference, the USSC says so. whether there is such a right, or a right to preach jihad, or threaten America in my presence is very debateable. very debateable.
Donny "The Bear Jew" Donowitz