At what point is the government violating the 1st amendment? - Page 2

General » General Discussion

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - At what point is the government violating the 1st amendment? (Page 2 of 2)

Posted: 9/10/2010 8:46:09 PM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:

Quoted:
How many troops has it got killed? Get real, these people get pissed off
like this all the time.

There have been demonstrations against this since June. Members here have explained how it is already creeping into their interactions with the locals they need to make friends with.
The State Department, Interpol, and the DoD have all put out reports saying this shit is causing major problems.

Next up is deaths.

That's the fatal mistake - you assume they're going about this the right way, and they're not.

If 'the locals' are going to go Jihad over a burned book, they don't need to make friends, they need to recognize them as terrorists and act accordingly.

When it comes to war and counterinsurgency, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Your demonstrated ignorance seems to know no bounds.

You just say one ignorant thing after another.

Now, I know you get offended by someone saying that your "opinion" on these matters carries little or no weight, but let's be honest here...
...you are completely clueless about these things.

I base this solely upon YOUR words.

I respect you RIGHT to speak about these things, but I have zero respect for your lack of knowledge and unfamiliarity with the subject matter.

Second guessing the observations of guys who've been there time and again, based on your internet acquired wisdom is something you should avoid.

The assumption that you can come to some type of peace with these folks is a fatal mistake...Their options regarding you are as follows.......

1. Convert you to Islam

2. Make you a slave subject to sharia law and muslim rule.

3. Kill you

There is NO NUMBER 4 get your head out of your ass and wrap it around this concept. They will make TEMPORARY friends and allies so long as it suits their current purpose and when it doen't ....well ....if you don't get the picture by now..

Your best strategy is to out them and then deal with the situation as it presents itself. Anything other than that is just kidding yourself, the only thing they respect is the power to crush them. If you're in any doubt over this fact take a look at the caliber of the leaders in those countries for a reality check. Take special notice of how they deal with internal problems over there.

ETA: The .gov can make all the public statemants regarding the guy in question it wants to, but has no business engaging him directly.

Posted: 9/10/2010 8:49:25 PM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:
The government is violating the 1st Amendment the MOMENT that it even mentions 1st Amendment.

Did they violate it when they wrote it and ratified it?

Posted: 9/10/2010 8:54:49 PM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The government is violating the 1st Amendment the MOMENT that it even mentions 1st Amendment.

Did they violate it when they wrote it and ratified it?

LOL... WE THE PEOPLE wrote it and ratified it. The .gov came into being AFTER that. You write the rules BEFORE the game. (though some in .gov have a problem with this and prefer to make it up as they go along)

.

Posted: 9/10/2010 8:55:12 PM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:

The assumption that you can come to some type of peace with these folks is a fatal mistake...Their options regarding you are as follows.......

1. Convert you to Islam

2. Make you a slave subject to sharia law and muslim rule.

3. Kill you

There is NO NUMBER 4 get your head out of your ass and wrap it around this concept. They will make TEMPORARY friends and allies so long as it suits their current purpose and when it doen't ....well ....if you don't get the picture by now..

It's REALLY never occurred to you that WE "make TEMPORARY friends and allies so long as it suits OUR current purpose and when it doesn't..."

Your best strategy is to out them and then deal with the situation as it presents itself. Anything other than that is just kidding yourself, the only thing they respect is the power to crush them. If you're in any doubt over this fact take a look at the caliber of the leaders in those countries for a reality check. Take special notice of how they deal with internal problems over there.

How much time have you spent living in the ME, Arab Lands, or other Islamic Nations?

You speak with such authority and seem so confident that I assume you speak the languages and have fought with and against many Islamic enemies.

Posted: 9/10/2010 8:56:50 PM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:

Quoted:

The assumption that you can come to some type of peace with these folks is a fatal mistake...Their options regarding you are as follows.......

1. Convert you to Islam

2. Make you a slave subject to sharia law and muslim rule.

3. Kill you

There is NO NUMBER 4 get your head out of your ass and wrap it around this concept. They will make TEMPORARY friends and allies so long as it suits their current purpose and when it doen't ....well ....if you don't get the picture by now..

It's REALLY never occurred to you that WE "make TEMPORARY friends and allies so long as it suits OUR current purpose and when it doesn't..."

Your best strategy is to out them and then deal with the situation as it presents itself. Anything other than that is just kidding yourself, the only thing they respect is the power to crush them. If you're in any doubt over this fact take a look at the caliber of the leaders in those countries for a reality check. Take special notice of how they deal with internal problems over there.

How much time have you spent living in the ME, Arab Lands, or other Islamic Nations?

You speak with such authority and seem so confident that I assume you speak the languages and have fought with and against many Islamic enemies.

Everyone's an armchair Green Beret today.

Posted: 9/10/2010 8:56:52 PM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The government is violating the 1st Amendment the MOMENT that it even mentions 1st Amendment.

Did they violate it when they wrote it and ratified it?

LOL... WE THE PEOPLE wrote it and ratified it. The .gov came into being AFTER that. You write the rules BEFORE the game. (though some in .gov have a problem with this and prefer to make it up as they go along)

.

Do you know who wrote the Constitution and when it was written and ratified?

You DO realize that they were mostly serving members of the US Government at the time?

Posted: 9/10/2010 8:57:50 PM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:

Quoted:

The second that our CIC opened his idiot mouth and gave support for the mosque at ground zero and then condemned the Koran burning.

None of that is violation of the 1st.

It is, however, one of the few things that Zero got right.

No Zero only contraindicated himself on one hand he supported our rights by siding with the Mosque being built on Ground Zero.Then to totally flip flopped on our rights by calling out this guy Florida out

The right to do something does not make it right to do it.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with building a mosque a few blocks from ground zero... As I've said before, non-terrorist American Muslims were attacked on 9/11 too... This is not a theocratic nation, and Muslims that abide by our laws are welcome here - yes, I know, much to the dismay of some on this site... There is absolutely ZERO evidence of law-breaking on the part of the NY mosque folks...

There is everything wrong with putting US troops in danger & harming our war effort, for a publicity stunt conducted to try and 'save' a bankrupt church/business ensemble....

Oh Okay! So if we find evidence that a mosque is being used on the side for business dealings you'd be in favor of shutting it down and/or sicking the IRS on them, right? ................ wait! That is unless such a course of action might cause muslims to riot and possibly kill US servicemen, in which case you'd be opposed to an IRS audit of a mosque/business ensemble, right?

I guess what that pastor/businessman down in Florida needs to do is to threaten violence (in which US servicemen might be endangered) unless the NY Iman withdraws his plans for the Ground Zero mosque. That train of thought seems to be the only car your engine will pull .......

Posted: 9/10/2010 8:58:55 PM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
THIS THREAD IS NOT A DISCUSSION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT TO BURN THE KORAN.

So burning a book is legal. It is protected by law. I can understand the media giving you shit for it and people giving you shit for it.

In my opinion though, the pastor who planned on burning the Koran has ben harrassed by the government. I feel the government has noright to be calling this man and sending FBI agents to his house to scare him about using his right to free speech.

When the government takes your land they don't pay you what it is worth AFTER the land is doomed and nobody wants to buy it. They pay you market value of the property BEFORE they drove it down with the decision to steal it. That is because they recognize their actions have affected your land value.

When you have the president, the FBI , the defense secretary all confronting you personally don't you think your right to speak freely ewithout government interference has already been violated?

I have no want to burn a koran but Im temped to do it just to tell the government to piss off and if I was the pastor I would specifically say " i was thinking about not doing it but since the government feels it can intimidate my right to free speech I will do it anyways to prove a point that Political correctness and the government interfering with our rights has gone too far"

what say you?

Has the GOVERNMENT violated the 1st by harrassing this man ?

To answer your question, Yes.

He knew the dangers of what he was doing before the FBI showed up and did whatever spook job they used on him. The FBI shouldn't be interfering with any kind of Political or Religious Rally ever. What the FBI should have been doing was setting up surveillance stations all over that church and the surrounding areas in hopes of catching a terrorist or Islam extremist attempting to hurt someone.

Posted: 9/10/2010 9:00:10 PM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:

Has the GOVERNMENT violated the 1st by harrassing this man?

Posted: 9/10/2010 9:00:50 PM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The second that our CIC opened his idiot mouth and gave support for the mosque at ground zero and then condemned the Koran burning.

None of that is violation of the 1st.

It is, however, one of the few things that Zero got right.

No Zero only contraindicated himself on one hand he supported our rights by siding with the Mosque being built on Ground Zero.Then to totally flip flopped on our rights by calling out this guy Florida out

The right to do something does not make it right to do it.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with building a mosque a few blocks from ground zero... As I've said before, non-terrorist American Muslims were attacked on 9/11 too... This is not a theocratic nation, and Muslims that abide by our laws are welcome here - yes, I know, much to the dismay of some on this site... There is absolutely ZERO evidence of law-breaking on the part of the NY mosque folks...

There is everything wrong with putting US troops in danger & harming our war effort, for a publicity stunt conducted to try and 'save' a bankrupt church/business ensemble....

Oh Okay! So if we find evidence that a mosque is being used on the side for business dealings you'd be in favor of shutting it down and/or sicking the IRS on them, right? ................ wait! That is unless such a course of action might cause muslims to riot and possibly kill US servicemen, in which case you'd be opposed to an IRS audit of a mosque/business ensemble, right?

I guess what that pastor/businessman down in Florida needs to do is to threaten violence (in which US servicemen might be endangered) unless the NY Iman withdraws his plans for the Ground Zero mosque. That train of thought seems to be the only car your engine will pull .......

Thanks to the general idiocy around the 'Victory Mosque' by people like you, the ability of the government to do just that has been greatly hamstrung.

Posted: 9/10/2010 9:01:49 PM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:
. What the FBI should have been doing was setting up surveillance stations all over that church and the surrounding areas in hopes of catching a terrorist or Islam extremist attempting to hurt someone.

They have.

Posted: 9/10/2010 9:02:32 PM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:
THIS THREAD IS NOT A DISCUSSION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT TO BURN THE KORAN.

So burning a book is legal. It is protected by law. I can understand the media giving you shit for it and people giving you shit for it.

In my opinion though, the pastor who planned on burning the Koran has ben harrassed by the government. I feel the government has noright to be calling this man and sending FBI agents to his house to scare him about using his right to free speech.

When the government takes your land they don't pay you what it is worth AFTER the land is doomed and nobody wants to buy it. They pay you market value of the property BEFORE they drove it down with the decision to steal it. That is because they recognize their actions have affected your land value.

When you have the president, the FBI , the defense secretary all confronting you personally don't you think your right to speak freely ewithout government interference has already been violated?

I have no want to burn a koran but Im temped to do it just to tell the government to piss off and if I was the pastor I would specifically say " i was thinking about not doing it but since the government feels it can intimidate my right to free speech I will do it anyways to prove a point that Political correctness and the government interfering with our rights has gone too far"

what say you?

Has the GOVERNMENT violated the 1st by harrassing this man ?

Simple answer is yes. I haven't read the thread, but there is a constitutional principle/test called "chilling effect on free speech." When government does things that make it difficult (not necessarily through laws) (either through burden on carrying out speech or through intimidation, generally, by high-ranking officials or through policy) for a person to exercise free speech, then it is said that government action has had a "chilling effect" on free speech and expression and such action is therefore unconstitutional.

Posted: 9/10/2010 9:02:33 PM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
He knew the dangers of what he was doing before the FBI showed up and did whatever spook job they used on him. The FBI shouldn't be interfering with any kind of Political or Religious Rally ever. What the FBI should have been doing was setting up surveillance stations all over that church and the surrounding areas in hopes of catching a terrorist or Islam extremist attempting to hurt someone.

Personal dangers, sure. But I think it may be asking a little too much of the guy to have nuanced understanding of Islam, international diplomacy and counter-insurgency warfare.

Posted: 9/10/2010 9:03:27 PM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Has the GOVERNMENT violated the 1st by harrassing this man?

Nothing is preventing him from burning the books.

IF the locals use some fire warden nonsense to stop him, THAT is a violation.

But the fact that Obama, Clinton, Petraeus, Gates, Larry King and Larry Hagman have pleaded with him to no do it does NOT violate or even slightly infringe upon his rights.

Obama could order it stopped. But he won't.
Why? Because THAT would violate his rights.

Posted: 9/10/2010 9:05:07 PM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:

Quoted:

The second that our CIC opened his idiot mouth and gave support for the mosque at ground zero and then condemned the Koran burning.

None of that is violation of the 1st.

It is, however, one of the few things that Zero got right.

Nah. You're wrong. There's nothing wrong with condemning something while doing nothing illegal to stop it.

Posted: 9/10/2010 9:06:00 PM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The government is violating the 1st Amendment the MOMENT that it even mentions 1st Amendment.

Did they violate it when they wrote it and ratified it?

LOL... WE THE PEOPLE wrote it and ratified it. The .gov came into being AFTER that. You write the rules BEFORE the game. (though some in .gov have a problem with this and prefer to make it up as they go along)

.

Do you know who wrote the Constitution and when it was written and ratified?

You DO realize that they were mostly serving members of the US Government at the time?

Yes I am well aware of the the particulars ....You DO realize that without the BOR the colonies would have never agreed to ratify the Constitution ?? Also that the men writing it were proposing a form of government which had yet to be settled on and were in fact members of the Continential congress as the Federal governmaent couldn't be established till after is framework was written and adopted by the colonies.

OP.. sorry for the hijack .... now back on topic.

Posted: 9/10/2010 9:07:11 PM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The second that our CIC opened his idiot mouth and gave support for the mosque at ground zero and then condemned the Koran burning.

None of that is violation of the 1st.

It is, however, one of the few things that Zero got right.

Obama should have done neither as neither had anything to do with running the Federal .gov

This and Remember that Obama said the mosque issue was a state and city issue and
not a federal issue.

Getting troops killed in Afghanistan and fucking up our foreign policy is most assuredly the federal government's fucking problem.

I wish everyone would quit adding this "getting troops killed in Afghanistan" comment in every post on here about this subject, i just got back from Afghanistan and believe me they tried to kill me every time i was outside the wire and they knew i was there. I was mortared, shot at, and i saw soldiers killed by IED's and this was all way before a tiny church in Florida decided to burn some Korans.

Posted: 9/10/2010 9:09:32 PM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The government is violating the 1st Amendment the MOMENT that it even mentions 1st Amendment.

Did they violate it when they wrote it and ratified it?

LOL... WE THE PEOPLE wrote it and ratified it. The .gov came into being AFTER that. You write the rules BEFORE the game. (though some in .gov have a problem with this and prefer to make it up as they go along)

.

Do you know who wrote the Constitution and when it was written and ratified?

You DO realize that they were mostly serving members of the US Government at the time?

Yes I am well aware of the the particulars ....You DO realize that without the BOR the colonies would have never agreed to ratify the Constitution ??

"Colonies"???

Now I see why you are confused.

The Senate and the House of Representatives predated the Constitution.

Posted: 9/10/2010 9:13:45 PM EDT

[#19]

This is a sensitive issue, but I refuse to believe why so many can't see why the government was forced to talk to this man. We have wars going on in two Islamist countries, we have a growing population of muslims in this country, and just the mere mentioning of burning a quran (or however you spell it) has already brought half the worlds muslims out calling for Jihad. All of this because one man is trying to incite some violence. Lets be serious the guy is a fawking quack anyways, along with the nutjobs over in Kansas. The government had no other choice. He's causing more stress and potential for violence ontop of whats coming down the pipe if and when the new Mosque gets built, and subsequently blown up by another religous fanatic of some other denomination.

Posted: 9/10/2010 9:14:46 PM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The government is violating the 1st Amendment the MOMENT that it even mentions 1st Amendment.

Did they violate it when they wrote it and ratified it?

LOL... WE THE PEOPLE wrote it and ratified it. The .gov came into being AFTER that. You write the rules BEFORE the game. (though some in .gov have a problem with this and prefer to make it up as they go along)

.

Do you know who wrote the Constitution and when it was written and ratified?

You DO realize that they were mostly serving members of the US Government at the time?

Yes I am well aware of the the particulars ....You DO realize that without the BOR the colonies would have never agreed to ratify the Constitution ??

"Colonies"???

Now I see why you are confused.

The Senate and the House of Representatives predated the Constitution.

No confusion ... check the timeline .... colonies came before states.

Posted: 9/10/2010 9:18:21 PM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The government is violating the 1st Amendment the MOMENT that it even mentions 1st Amendment.

Did they violate it when they wrote it and ratified it?

LOL... WE THE PEOPLE wrote it and ratified it. The .gov came into being AFTER that. You write the rules BEFORE the game. (though some in .gov have a problem with this and prefer to make it up as they go along)

.

Do you know who wrote the Constitution and when it was written and ratified?

You DO realize that they were mostly serving members of the US Government at the time?

Yes I am well aware of the the particulars ....You DO realize that without the BOR the colonies would have never agreed to ratify the Constitution ??

"Colonies"???

Now I see why you are confused.

The Senate and the House of Representatives predated the Constitution.

No confusion ... check the timeline .... colonies came before states.

And Articles of Confederation came before the Constitution, but after statehood. The colonies became states on July 4, 1776. Great Britain recognized their existence as such in the Treaty of Paris of 1783. The Constitution was written in 1787, ratified in 1789, and the first ten amendments were ratified in 1791.

Posted: 9/10/2010 9:21:11 PM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The government is violating the 1st Amendment the MOMENT that it even mentions 1st Amendment.

Did they violate it when they wrote it and ratified it?

LOL... WE THE PEOPLE wrote it and ratified it. The .gov came into being AFTER that. You write the rules BEFORE the game. (though some in .gov have a problem with this and prefer to make it up as they go along)

.

Do you know who wrote the Constitution and when it was written and ratified?

You DO realize that they were mostly serving members of the US Government at the time?

Yes I am well aware of the the particulars ....You DO realize that without the BOR the colonies would have never agreed to ratify the Constitution ??

"Colonies"???

Now I see why you are confused.

The Senate and the House of Representatives predated the Constitution.

No confusion ... check the timeline .... colonies came before states.

You are confused.

No "colony" ratified the BOR. "Colonies" are British.

The BOR was debated and voted upon by the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives.

The Declaration of Independence cause the "colonies" to cease to exist. At that point they became States.

Therefore no "colony" ratified anything.

Posted: 9/10/2010 9:36:49 PM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:

Has the GOVERNMENT violated the 1st by harrassing this man ?

Simple answer is yes. I haven't read the thread, but there is a constitutional principle/test called "chilling effect on free speech." When government does things that make it difficult (not necessarily through laws) (either through burden on carrying out speech or through intimidation, generally, by high-ranking officials or through policy) for a person to exercise free speech, then it is said that government action has had a "chilling effect" on free speech and expression and such action is therefore unconstitutional.

I think this is the answer to the question in this thread. All the other discussion is irrelevant to the question.

Posted: 9/10/2010 9:42:38 PM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The government is violating the 1st Amendment the MOMENT that it even mentions 1st Amendment.

Did they violate it when they wrote it and ratified it?

LOL... WE THE PEOPLE wrote it and ratified it. The .gov came into being AFTER that. You write the rules BEFORE the game. (though some in .gov have a problem with this and prefer to make it up as they go along)

.

Do you know who wrote the Constitution and when it was written and ratified?

You DO realize that they were mostly serving members of the US Government at the time?

Yes I am well aware of the the particulars ....You DO realize that without the BOR the colonies would have never agreed to ratify the Constitution ??

"Colonies"???

Now I see why you are confused.

The Senate and the House of Representatives predated the Constitution.

No confusion ... check the timeline .... colonies came before states.

You are confused.

No "colony" ratified the BOR. "Colonies" are British.

The BOR was debated and voted upon by the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives.

The Declaration of Independence cause the "colonies" to cease to exist. At that point they became States.

Therefore no "colony" ratified anything.

Sorry about that ... I was getting it lumped in with the timeframe around 1763 when the British crown was still involved in colonial legislature. So 13 STATES then..

Posted: 9/10/2010 9:44:11 PM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:

Quoted:

You are confused.

No "colony" ratified the BOR. "Colonies" are British.

The BOR was debated and voted upon by the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives.

The Declaration of Independence cause the "colonies" to cease to exist. At that point they became States.

Therefore no "colony" ratified anything.

Sorry about that ... I was getting it lumped in with the timeframe around 1763 when the British crown was still involved in colonial legislature. So 13 STATES then..

Where did 1763 come into this discussion?

Posted: 9/10/2010 10:05:03 PM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:

Quoted:

You are confused.

No "colony" ratified the BOR. "Colonies" are British.

The BOR was debated and voted upon by the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives.

The Declaration of Independence cause the "colonies" to cease to exist. At that point they became States.

Therefore no "colony" ratified anything.

Sorry about that ... I was getting it lumped in with the timeframe around 1763 when the British crown was still involved in colonial legislature. So 13 STATES then..

Where did 1763 come into this discussion?

IIRC the new states carried over alot of the basic structure of the colonial charters. The issue started to heat up around that time since even though the British parliment had passed laws concerning the colonies for about a century, after 1763 they tried revenue raising by direct taxation. The 1763 thing came into it with the then colonies debating what the purpose of government should be VS. what the british thought the constitution of the empire should be. I got a little crossed up as to what came first immeadiately following the Revolution, which turns out that it was the state constitutions, then articles of confederation, etc. etc......

Posted: 9/10/2010 10:07:48 PM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:

Quoted:

You are confused.

No "colony" ratified the BOR. "Colonies" are British.

The BOR was debated and voted upon by the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives.

The Declaration of Independence cause the "colonies" to cease to exist. At that point they became States.

Therefore no "colony" ratified anything.

Sorry about that ... I was getting it lumped in with the timeframe around 1763 when the British crown was still involved in colonial legislature. So 13 STATES then..

Where did 1763 come into this discussion?

IIRC the new states carried over alot of the basic structure of the colonial charters. The issue started to heat up around that time since even though the British parliment had passed laws concerning the colonies for about a century, after 1763 they tried revenue raising by direct taxation. The 1763 thing came into it with the then colonies debating what the purpose of government should be VS. what the british thought the constitution of the empire should be. I got a little crossed up as to what came first immeadiately following the Revolution, which turns out that it was the state constitutions, then articles of confederation, etc. etc......

So you are arguing you got mired in pre-Revolution politics, and that's why you didn't know the basics of American history like first comes Revolution/States, then Confederation, then Constitution?

You want us to believe that, or that you just did research on wikipedia to figure out why everyone was telling you that you were wrong?

Posted: 9/10/2010 10:09:20 PM EDT

[#28]

Had to check my source (wanted to find an older one which hadn't suffered from liberal revisionist history writing). "The Making of the American Constitution by Merrill Jensen and copyrighted in 1964 with the original edition being from 1958.

Posted: 9/10/2010 10:11:12 PM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:
Had to check my source (wanted to find an older one which hadn't suffered from liberal revisionist history writing). "The Making of the American Constitution by Merrill Jensen and copyrighted in 1964 with the original edition being from 1958.

You had to check your source for some of the most basic facts in American history?

Posted: 9/10/2010 10:12:11 PM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:

Quoted:

You are confused.

No "colony" ratified the BOR. "Colonies" are British.

The BOR was debated and voted upon by the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives.

The Declaration of Independence cause the "colonies" to cease to exist. At that point they became States.

Therefore no "colony" ratified anything.

Sorry about that ... I was getting it lumped in with the timeframe around 1763 when the British crown was still involved in colonial legislature. So 13 STATES then..

Where did 1763 come into this discussion?

IIRC the new states carried over alot of the basic structure of the colonial charters. The issue started to heat up around that time since even though the British parliment had passed laws concerning the colonies for about a century, after 1763 they tried revenue raising by direct taxation. The 1763 thing came into it with the then colonies debating what the purpose of government should be VS. what the british thought the constitution of the empire should be. I got a little crossed up as to what came first immeadiately following the Revolution, which turns out that it was the state constitutions, then articles of confederation, etc. etc......

So you are arguing you got mired in pre-Revolution politics, and that's why you didn't know the basics of American history like first comes Revolution/States, then Confederation, then Constitution?

You want us to believe that, or that you just did research on wikipedia to figure out why everyone was telling you that you were wrong?

I don't use wikipedia for anything... I have a library with older editions of actual printed material. Been @% years since my last American history class, but still no excuse I SHOULD have known it.

Posted: 9/10/2010 10:12:13 PM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Has the GOVERNMENT violated the 1st by harrassing this man ?

Simple answer is yes. I haven't read the thread, but there is a constitutional principle/test called "chilling effect on free speech." When government does things that make it difficult (not necessarily through laws) (either through burden on carrying out speech or through intimidation, generally, by high-ranking officials or through policy) for a person to exercise free speech, then it is said that government action has had a "chilling effect" on free speech and expression and such action is therefore unconstitutional.

I think this is the answer to the question in this thread. All the other discussion is irrelevant to the question.

yep

Posted: 9/11/2010 2:37:46 AM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Has the GOVERNMENT violated the 1st by harrassing this man ?

Simple answer is yes. I haven't read the thread, but there is a constitutional principle/test called "chilling effect on free speech." When government does things that make it difficult (not necessarily through laws) (either through burden on carrying out speech or through intimidation, generally, by high-ranking officials or through policy) for a person to exercise free speech, then it is said that government action has had a "chilling effect" on free speech and expression and such action is therefore unconstitutional.

I think this is the answer to the question in this thread. All the other discussion is irrelevant to the question.

yep

No it isn't. You still need official government action, i.e. a law, policy, or regulation, to win. You don't have that here.

Posted: 9/11/2010 3:46:50 AM EDT

[#33]

The FBI , IMHO was told to go down there and "explain" to this idiot that people will be coming for you, in the hopes that he would cease with his book burning.

While technically that isnt intimidation, that would have been the next step.

They probably said something like this.

"Sir were very busy and Im afraid that the FBI cannot guarantee your safety if you do this."

IMPLYING that they will look the other way at threats to this man and his church.

The 1st A was written to protect speech YOU DONT LIKE , no matter what side youre on.

So in a roundabout way yes, his rights are being.......nipped in the bud, cause Hussein is pro islam/anti freedom

Posted: 9/11/2010 3:55:56 AM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:
We have become so pussified.........

EXACTLY!!!

The "Pussyfication" of America!!!!

Posted: 9/11/2010 4:21:36 AM EDT

[#35]

Using the threat of violence, whether made by governments or individuals, to silence dissent, political speech or religion is a violation of the 1st Amendment. That is what we have government for, at least that's what the founders intended, to protect rights however unpopular.

Posted: 9/11/2010 4:37:15 AM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:

Quoted:
THIS THREAD IS NOT A DISCUSSION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT TO BURN THE KORAN.

So burning a book is legal. It is protected by law. I can understand the media giving you shit for it and people giving you shit for it.

In my opinion though, the pastor who planned on burning the Koran has ben harrassed by the government. I feel the government has noright to be calling this man and sending FBI agents to his house to scare him about using his right to free speech.

When the government takes your land they don't pay you what it is worth AFTER the land is doomed and nobody wants to buy it. They pay you market value of the property BEFORE they drove it down with the decision to steal it. That is because they recognize their actions have affected your land value.

When you have the president, the FBI , the defense secretary all confronting you personally don't you think your right to speak freely ewithout government interference has already been violated?

I have no want to burn a koran but Im temped to do it just to tell the government to piss off and if I was the pastor I would specifically say " i was thinking about not doing it but since the government feels it can intimidate my right to free speech I will do it anyways to prove a point that Political correctness and the government interfering with our rights has gone too far"

what say you?

Has the GOVERNMENT violated the 1st by harrassing this man ?

To my knowledge the government hasn't old him he can't burn his pile of korans, nor has it made any direct threats of retaliation if he does. It seems the government has tried to convince him not to do it by explaining the potential ramifications of doing so, but that does not amount to a 1A violation.

So sending a team of armed feds to intimidate him and lean on him isn't a threat? BS.

Posted: 9/11/2010 4:39:21 AM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:

Quoted:
THIS THREAD IS NOT A DISCUSSION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT TO BURN THE KORAN.

So burning a book is legal. It is protected by law. I can understand the media giving you shit for it and people giving you shit for it.

In my opinion though, the pastor who planned on burning the Koran has ben harrassed by the government. I feel the government has noright to be calling this man and sending FBI agents to his house to scare him about using his right to free speech.

When the government takes your land they don't pay you what it is worth AFTER the land is doomed and nobody wants to buy it. They pay you market value of the property BEFORE they drove it down with the decision to steal it. That is because they recognize their actions have affected your land value.

When you have the president, the FBI , the defense secretary all confronting you personally don't you think your right to speak freely ewithout government interference has already been violated?

I have no want to burn a koran but Im temped to do it just to tell the government to piss off and if I was the pastor I would specifically say " i was thinking about not doing it but since the government feels it can intimidate my right to free speech I will do it anyways to prove a point that Political correctness and the government interfering with our rights has gone too far"

what say you?

Has the GOVERNMENT violated the 1st by harrassing this man ?

No.

Unless they take direct action to prevent him from executing his rights, no violation has ocurred.

Informing him of the possible consequences of a very ill-advised use of his rights, that will put American troops in danger by decreasing local cooperation with US forces currently engaged in combat overseas...

Is something the FBI most certainly SHOULD do.

That's not in line with the current interpretation of those rights. If a company sent armed men to loom over any muslim employee that wanted to pray, he'd sue them and win. Same should apply to Big Brother.

Posted: 9/11/2010 8:35:10 AM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Has the GOVERNMENT violated the 1st by harrassing this man ?

Simple answer is yes. I haven't read the thread, but there is a constitutional principle/test called "chilling effect on free speech." When government does things that make it difficult (not necessarily through laws) (either through burden on carrying out speech or through intimidation, generally, by high-ranking officials or through policy) for a person to exercise free speech, then it is said that government action has had a "chilling effect" on free speech and expression and such action is therefore unconstitutional.

I think this is the answer to the question in this thread. All the other discussion is irrelevant to the question.

yep

No it isn't. You still need official government action, i.e. a law, policy, or regulation, to win. You don't have that here.

When the highest ranking members of the government and various cabinet-level agencies make statement which are consistent, you have policy.

Posted: 9/11/2010 8:55:55 AM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Has the GOVERNMENT violated the 1st by harrassing this man ?

Simple answer is yes. I haven't read the thread, but there is a constitutional principle/test called "chilling effect on free speech." When government does things that make it difficult (not necessarily through laws) (either through burden on carrying out speech or through intimidation, generally, by high-ranking officials or through policy) for a person to exercise free speech, then it is said that government action has had a "chilling effect" on free speech and expression and such action is therefore unconstitutional.

I think this is the answer to the question in this thread. All the other discussion is irrelevant to the question.

yep

No it isn't. You still need official government action, i.e. a law, policy, or regulation, to win. You don't have that here.

When the highest ranking members of the government and various cabinet-level agencies make statement which are consistent, you have policy.

Or maybe you have a government official (Bob Gates) exercising his own first amendment right to make a phone call to a Pastor.

Posted: 9/11/2010 9:41:50 AM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Has the GOVERNMENT violated the 1st by harrassing this man ?

Simple answer is yes. I haven't read the thread, but there is a constitutional principle/test called "chilling effect on free speech." When government does things that make it difficult (not necessarily through laws) (either through burden on carrying out speech or through intimidation, generally, by high-ranking officials or through policy) for a person to exercise free speech, then it is said that government action has had a "chilling effect" on free speech and expression and such action is therefore unconstitutional.

I think this is the answer to the question in this thread. All the other discussion is irrelevant to the question.

yep

No it isn't. You still need official government action, i.e. a law, policy, or regulation, to win. You don't have that here.

When the highest ranking members of the government and various cabinet-level agencies make statement which are consistent, you have policy.

No you don't, what you have is another form of speech that is guaranteed by the Constitution.

Posted: 9/11/2010 10:22:17 AM EDT

[#41]

Quoted:

Quoted:

The government is violating the 1st Amendment the MOMENT that it even mentions 1st Amendment.

Did they violate it when they wrote it and ratified it?

LOL... WE THE PEOPLE wrote it and ratified it. The .gov came into being AFTER that. You write the rules BEFORE the game. (though some in .gov have a problem with this and prefer to make it up as they go along)

.

Do you know who wrote the Constitution and when it was written and ratified?

You DO realize that they were mostly serving members of the US Government at the time?

Yes I am well aware of the the particulars ....You DO realize that without the BOR the colonies would have never agreed to ratify the Constitution ??

"Colonies"???

Now I see why you are confused.

The Senate and the House of Representatives predated the Constitution.

No confusion ... check the timeline .... colonies came before states.

You are confused.

No "colony" ratified the BOR. "Colonies" are British.

The BOR was debated and voted upon by the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives.

The Declaration of Independence cause the "colonies" to cease to exist. At that point they became States.

Therefore no "colony" ratified anything.

Sorry about that ... I was getting it lumped in with the timeframe around 1763 when the British crown was still involved in colonial legislature. So 13 STATES then..

My reasoning is actually along the lines of intent.

Government RARELY if EVER gives anything back.

If the government talks about the 2nd Amendment, it's about to try and pass legislation against it.

Same thing with Freedom of Speech/Press...If the government gets involved, it will NOT be for a good reason.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - At what point is the government violating the 1st amendment? (Page 2 of 2)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us