Sunday, April 25, 2010

A 1st Amendment Consideration

The Dallas Morning View posted a very interesting opinion piece. Much has been written and discussed about the possible abuse of the 1st Amendments rights that may be going on, but this is the first time I've heard it put quite like this.

We simply must ask: How do we deal with the Palins, Bachmans, Becks and Limbaughs, who subtly encourage violence in their subdued but widely heard rhetoric?

If Glenn Beck were Muslim, would we take him off the air? Would Michelle Bachmann be subject to intense scrutiny?

I believe the answer is yes, and lest we want to be a nation of hypocrites, we simply have to look at the elephant in the room and examine just how much of a security threat these individuals and others represent.


What's your opinion? Could a Muslim Imam from Detroit get away with some of the things Glenn Beck says?

Please leave a comment.

23 comments:

  1. "Could a Muslim Imam from Detroit get away with some of the things Glenn Beck says?"

    Yes, he could. In fact, he would probably be paraded around by Glenn Beck to illustrate that muslims aren't so bad after all.

    The thing is a muslim imam from Detroit would never say the things that Glenn Beck says.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'll admit I do not listen to Glenn Beck very often, but what exactly has he said to encourage violence? So far the only threat to security he poses is the security of incumbents holding on to their seats in the general election.

    Muslim people get away with direct threats all of the time. In fact a muslim man just got away with threatening to blow up an aircraft.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Clearly the only way to close this loophole is background checks, waiting periods, and full registtration of everyone wanting to exercise this dangerous right.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Our gun fetishists like to pretend their obsession with guns is all about civil rights.

    Recently, the gun fetishists were all giggly and gay about AZ passing some of this nation's laxest CCW laws. The gun fetishists declared this legislation to be the biggest civil rights legislation since school desegregation.

    It is odd, therefore, that the same state--AZ--feted by the gun fetishists just passed legislation which allows any LEO to demand proof of citizenship papers of anyone based on nothing more than skin color or accent or dress.

    Odder still, the sponsors of the legislation which essentially requires all non-whites to carry papers that must be shown on demand are the very same who championed the CCW laws. And those who supported the "show us ze papers" laws also supported the CCW legislation.

    So, when gun fetishists talk about civil rights--you have to understand they're only referring to white males.

    --JadeGold

    ReplyDelete
  5. And for the 12th month in a row, Jade Gold gets the "I can call people a racist in comments without even mentioning the original post" award.

    Good job and congratulations.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Shorter FWM: "Waaaahhh."

    --JadeGold

    ReplyDelete
  7. "Odder still, the sponsors of the legislation which essentially requires all non-whites to carry papers that must be shown on demand..."

    Already proven to be bullshit.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Not BS at all, AzRed.

    The AZ legislation allows LEOs to ask anyone--without warrant or probable cause--to prove they're in the US legally.

    This means someone can be targetted by police for no other reason than skin color, accent or dress and they must produce this proof or be charged with a crime.

    Glad to see you gunloons support overt racism.

    I'm thinking you'll probably demand brown skinned folks wear a state-issued patch on their clothing (golden sombrero?) to identify themselves.

    --JadeGold

    ReplyDelete
  9. "I'm thinking you'll probably demand brown skinned folks wear a state-issued patch on their clothing (golden sombrero?) to identify themselves."

    Golden Sombrero Patch? Now that's funny right there.

    Moving aside the rambling thread drift, I really am curious, could someone provide us with some examples of the hate speech mentioned in the original post?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Read the legislation Jade. It's not even a whole page in where it says that the police can only ask for verification of citizenship during the course of lawful contact.

    So no one will be randomly stopped on the street and asked for their "papers" like the illegal apologists would like to have us think.

    They will only be asked for their "papers" if they're already being detained for another reason.

    Or as the author of the legislation said, "...the bill requires a "lawful contact" in the first place, not just stopping people because they look like illegal immigrants."

    ReplyDelete
  11. "So no one will be randomly stopped on the street and asked for their "papers" like the illegal apologists would like to have us think.""

    Of course MikeB already said that he thinks this is a good idea. He said that he thought it was a good idea for NYPD to do their stop and frisk nonsense. This is what Jade would have us believe will happen in Arizona.

    So how about it Mike, is stopping someone without cause a good idea? Be it determining if the person is carrying a gun or is an illegal alien or merely to check their "papers"?

    ReplyDelete
  12. This post sure didn't lead to valuable discussion. Here's a summary:

    1. Glenn Beck is engages in violent hate speech and should be silenced for the good of the planet.

    2. What did Glenn Beck say?

    3. Racist!

    4. Arizona is bad, m'kay.

    ReplyDelete
  13. AZ Red: The bill is 16 pages long--not 1 as you assert.

    Further, the term "lawful contact" does not mean when someone has been detained for some other reason. basically, "lawful contact" covers anything that is not illegal.

    --JadeGold

    ReplyDelete
  14. AZ Red: The bill is 16 pages long--not 1 as you assert.

    He never asserts that. Read what he wrote again. He says that it is a page into the legislation that the 'lawful contact' is mentioned. He does not say that the entire legislation resides on that page.

    ReplyDelete
  15. FWM asked, "So how about it Mike, is stopping someone without cause a good idea?"

    No, that's not good.

    ReplyDelete
  16. MikeB,

    I thought you were a fan of NYPD's Stop and Frisk initiative?

    ReplyDelete
  17. "AZ Red: The bill is 16 pages long--not 1 as you assert."

    That's not what I said.

    "Further, the term "lawful contact" does not mean when someone has been detained for some other reason. basically, "lawful contact" covers anything that is not illegal."

    "...the bill requires a "lawful contact" in the first place, not just stopping people because they look like illegal immigrants." - Russell Pearce

    So unless you're saying the newspaper is fabricating the words of Russell Pearce, the legislation does not authorize police to stop people and force them to show documentation because of their skin color, accent or dress, as you allege.

    ReplyDelete
  18. FWM, I'm ambivalent about it, at least that's how I feel now. At other times I may have felt that the police need to have some latitude to use their discretion, but I realize that's asking for abuse.

    ReplyDelete
  19. FWM asked, "Moving aside the rambling thread drift, I really am curious, could someone provide us with some examples of the hate speech mentioned in the original post?"

    I think if you browsed my blog for Glenn Beck videos, you'd find some. Otherwise Youtube is full of examples. What was your point, certainly not that they don't exist?

    ReplyDelete
  20. "What was your point, certainly not that they don't exist?"

    My point was that in 19 comments, maybe we could discuss the topic of the post some.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Define "hate speech" MikeB.

    I'm a fan of the 1st Amendment, even of the most disgusting, despicable speech you could think of.

    Yes, I even support the right of you and vile folks like Jade and Laci to spew their tripe out onto blogs.

    Just because I find it hateful, intolerant, contemptible and utterly disgusting doesn't mean it is "hate speech" or in any way unprotected by the 1st Amendment.

    ReplyDelete
  22. You're right FWM, we do get off topic. But isn't that part of the fun?

    Mike W., I don't care what the definition of "hate speech" is. What I find interesting and agree with is the several articles which have come out lately about how guys like Beck and Limbaugh are coming close to the point of crossing a line in what is acceptable and what is not under the 1st Amendment. Examples abound. I'm not going to look for them to prove my point to you. Make of that what you will.

    ReplyDelete
  23. are coming close to the point of crossing a line in what is acceptable and what is not under the 1st Amendment.

    And what "line" would that be?

    Big surprise that you have no respect for the 1st Amendment.

    ReplyDelete