Freedom of Speech is More Important Than Islamic Law

[bell191991]

great point, well made. nice one

[rockos414]

You're wrong about freedom of speech. It does contain an asterisk. You can't yell Fire in a crowded theater. You can't say anything that would provoke immediate danger and panic. What that exactly is, is up to the supreme court.

If Muslims want to use that asterisk, they can. It's a cheap ploy to trump freedom of expression, but it's perfectly constitutional.

[indignantatheist]

@rockos414 Show me the asterisk. It's not there. What the First Amendment DOES say is "shall make no law" which is pretty plain and simple if you ask me, sir. Is it dangerous to yell "Fire" in a crowed theater? Yes. Is it unlawful? Yes, by today's law, but today's law is unconstitutional.

[rockos414]

@indignantatheist Forsyth Bethel v. Fraser, a Supreme Court precedent. A case that protected children against "sexual" speech. Of course, there's no actual asterisk dumbass! An asterisk would be equivalent to a Supreme Court precedent because it refines/interprets the amendment. There are forms of speech that are prohibited and protected under law.

There ya go, plain and simple.

[indignantatheist]

@rockos414 You thought you could win by referencing Bethel v. Fraser? Come on! They merely upheld a suspension of a guy who gave a dirty speech at a school. There is nothing unconstitutional about being suspended from school. You SHOULD be suspended for that kind of thing. You SHOULD be expelled from school if you make a bomb threat. That's not limiting freedom of speech and that precedent is not even part of this conversation!

[rockos414]

@indignantatheist The point of BvF*, Does a student's freedom of speech override the school district's standards? Do you want more Supreme Court precedents where freedom of speech was challenged? There's plenty of them.

You've lost sight of the premise. We have the first amendment, but we also have precedents that limit/control/interpret freedom of speech. An asterisk to an amendment, if you will. Do you not understand how a precedent works? It's not a hard concept to grasp.

[EmilioCasavegas]

@rockos414 If the laws in our country don't follow secular ethics, then they are inherently unconstitutional. The first amendment to the Constitution states: "Congress shall make no law respecting any establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Any limitations to freedom of speech are there to protect other rights.

[sfeeges]

Respekt

[ruumpleteaser]

You are fucking awesome

[CrystalKisser]

lololol you're crazy man!

[shlarg]

"Strap-on dildos are better than strap-on dynamite." Hmmmm....good bumper sticker material !