COVID-19 RESOURCES
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

So does each lawyer and judge who blindly apply the law

EternalFantasies

EternalFantasies

EqualOportunity"Offender"
Joined
Feb 25, 2017
Posts
4,663
and let go a child rapist murderer go on the grounds of some technicality, ... does it mean that that lawyer and/judge, support child raping and murdering?


No matter your message, of peace, of hate, ... this is a FREE country. freedom of speech is protected. One must look at things objectively.

So... STFU Arnold.
 
EternalFantasies said:
and let go a child rapist murderer go on the grounds of some technicality, ... does it mean that that lawyer and/judge, support child raping and murdering?


No matter your message, of peace, of hate, ... this is a FREE country. freedom of speech is protected. One must look at things objectively.

So... STFU Arnold.
Click to expand...

That's why killer mobsters were let go ... things have to be done of legally under our law.

That is why Sanctuary cities and 'Sharia law' is not and cannot be legal under the constitution of the united States of America.
 
http://www.billionbibles.org/sharia/sharia-law.html


"As a legal system, Sharia law is exceptionally broad. While other legal codes regulate public behavior, Sharia law regulates public behavior, private behavior, and even private beliefs. Compared to other legal codes, Sharia law also prioritizes punishment over rehabilitation, and the penalties under Sharia law favor corporal and capital punishments over incarceration. Of all legal systems in the world today, Sharia law is deemed the most intrusive and restrictive, especially against women (see below), and is making inroads into Western democracies"
 
What's happening can indeed be interpreted as a form of sharia law manifesting in the west....
 
EternalFantasies said:
What's happening can indeed be interpreted as a form of sharia law manifesting in the west....
Click to expand...
Please name a Western jurisdiction that has accepted courts implementing Sharia, Torah, or other strict religious code as valid in civil or criminal cases. I'd add Tribal laws there, but many North American tribes are sovereign realms with traditional court systems... which are still subservient to higher non-tribal courts.

FGB said:
That's why killer mobsters were let go ... things have to be done of legally under our law.
Click to expand...
Or at least a judge and / or jury must be convinced of what's legal. Sometimes they, and prosecutors, get lazy about what legal procedures are important. Then the defendant is usually fucked. Justice goes to them who can afford it.

That is why Sanctuary cities and 'Sharia law' is not and cannot be legal under the constitution of the united States of America.
Click to expand...
It gets tricky when state or other sovereignty butts up against federalism. For instance, an imam might convert a majority of members of the Osanamee Indian Nation to Islam. As a sovereign nation, Osanamees could implement Sharia law and/or declare themselves a Sanctuary Nation. They could be overruled by SCOTUS -- if SCOTUS is so inclined at the time.
 
Hypoxia said:
Please name a Western jurisdiction that has accepted courts implementing Sharia, Torah, or other strict religious code as valid in civil or criminal cases. I'd add Tribal laws there, but many North American tribes are sovereign realms with traditional court systems... which are still subservient to higher non-tribal courts.
Click to expand...

It's the spirit of it.

In here, freedom of speech has not been overturned legally has it? However, it is under attack by both left and right.

When the very "Right" was in office, in bush years, people were upset. They protested every time Bush was out there. Free speech zones were setup for those protesters, and so often a mile or more away from where Bush passed or spoke...

That's a hit for speech speech as you can't localize it in certain places.

In "Left" times? Right wingers protested Obama, but the SS did not feel a need to limit free speech that way.

Today, with the Donald, who no one can place him Right or Left btw, the very ones in Bush times complaining about being sidelined far away and their free speech being infringed upon, are the ones today giving free speech it's biggest hit through prejudice and shaming.

They attacked the Nazis, who were expressing what they are, but legally, and created a mess out of the situation. That free speech is taking a hit for it is being labelled as a tool used by haters..

College campus safe zones.

Hate speech laws.

etc.


No. No Sharia law has been implemented in any jurisdiction :)
 
FGB said:
http://www.billionbibles.org/sharia/sharia-law.html


"As a legal system, Sharia law is exceptionally broad. While other legal codes regulate public behavior, Sharia law regulates public behavior, private behavior, and even private beliefs. Compared to other legal codes, Sharia law also prioritizes punishment over rehabilitation, and the penalties under Sharia law favor corporal and capital punishments over incarceration. Of all legal systems in the world today, Sharia law is deemed the most intrusive and restrictive, especially against women (see below), and is making inroads into Western democracies"
Click to expand...

Which is why Sharia and the Constitution cannot exist in the same space.
 
attachment.php
 
Last edited:
What is 'speech' legally? I interpret it as a "means of communication". Voices; written words and symbols; images; performance; messages to be printed, broadcast, transcieved. In general, it's information. Gregory Bateson defined info as "any difference that makes a difference"; that's the basis of modern data transmission and storage.

But what forms of 'speech' can and should be protected? If someone points a weapon at me, uses that weapon, sets dogs upon me, they've certainly sent message, emitted 'speech'. Is shooting people a form of free speech? Are a group of armed Nazis outside a synagogue, yelling and flourishing weapons, exercising free speech? How about Klansmen burning a cross on your lawn?

"Free speech" applies in public spaces, not private. "Free speech" in public is not absolute; you *can* be held accountable. And your freedom of speech is balanced by my right to ignore you or shout you down.
 
Aglaopheme said:
attachment.php
Click to expand...

And what if what is being called bullshit, is actually correct?

What if what they think others are being assholes for, is actually for their own good?

The Nazis are an extreme example, but it's not limited to that example. This has been happening all over the place, and this charlottetown example is giving the same 'wrong' crap huge wind coz it happened to be against something that projects hate and intolerance.

Had the left been educated, informed, wise, tactful, ... they'd not fall for it. But it it precisely for the lack of that, that it was known they would fall for it. And now the wind mill has done it's work perfectly.

Now go check my Orwell thread.
 
Hypoxia said:
What is 'speech' legally? I interpret it as a "means of communication". Voices; written words and symbols; images; performance; messages to be printed, broadcast, transcieved. In general, it's information. Gregory Bateson defined info as "any difference that makes a difference"; that's the basis of modern data transmission and storage.

But what forms of 'speech' can and should be protected? If someone points a weapon at me, uses that weapon, sets dogs upon me, they've certainly sent message, emitted 'speech'. Is shooting people a form of free speech? Are a group of armed Nazis outside a synagogue, yelling and flourishing weapons, exercising free speech? How about Klansmen burning a cross on your lawn?

"Free speech" applies in public spaces, not private. "Free speech" in public is not absolute; you *can* be held accountable. And your freedom of speech is balanced by my right to ignore you or shout you down.
Click to expand...

A dangerous apologetic contemporary leftist argument that goes entirely against your rights and freedoms.

You just relaxed the definition, stretched it unreasonably, and all that does is expose it to a wider array of bullets, and then, one day, you'll say: i miss my free speech days.

Will it happen before you die tho?

Hence why Orwell predicted something to happen in the far future.
 
Aglaopheme said:
attachment.php
Click to expand...

I just thought of a different answer to this highly confident and presumptuous post...

No one expressed themselves in your house (i'm so tempted to say bitch here)...

If I go express my nazi feelings on the street, it's my right. You coming down to protest my self expression is asking for trouble.


I remember once, in the province of caca, the final in europe was france against italy and france won.

So, the jolly degenerates decided to parade downtown and celebrate, and walked and walked and took a left turn and headed to little italy.

Sooooo.. a couple of blocks and the police had blocked the road, and said you cannot parade up there.

Timing. It's not that its not their right to parade anywhere, but, today, emotions high, big event, ... why provoke those emotions?


I'm sorry to say, that even with the ugly messages even Nazis have, the Right sends that massage in an orderly fashion.

The left? They shit all over the place, then fall on the floor in front of the police have a nervous breakdown for an excuse.

Argh.. Wake the fuck up.
 
Are you claiming that "free speech" is absolute, that "shouting FIRE in a crowded theatre" and "inciting to riot" and false advertising are protected speech, that physical intimidation and violence are protected speech? You may have difficulty finding courts to agree with you.
 
Hypoxia said:
Are you claiming that "free speech" is absolute, that "shouting FIRE in a crowded theatre" and "inciting to riot" and false advertising are protected speech, that physical intimidation and violence are protected speech? You may have difficulty finding courts to agree with you.
Click to expand...

What I just wrote above, the example of the police stopping them, should've answered you that I am not.

Still, you did not understand my reply to you (1:50pm) and how it's irrelevant. you are missing the point.
 
EternalFantasies said:
I just thought of a different answer to this highly confident and presumptuous post...

No one expressed themselves in your house (i'm so tempted to say bitch here)...

If I go express my nazi feelings on the street, it's my right. You coming down to protest my self expression is asking for trouble.


I remember once, in the province of caca, the final in europe was france against italy and france won.

So, the jolly degenerates decided to parade downtown and celebrate, and walked and walked and took a left turn and headed to little italy.

Sooooo.. a couple of blocks and the police had blocked the road, and said you cannot parade up there.

Timing. It's not that its not their right to parade anywhere, but, today, emotions high, big event, ... why provoke those emotions?


I'm sorry to say, that even with the ugly messages even Nazis have, the Right sends that massage in an orderly fashion.

The left? They shit all over the place, then fall on the floor in front of the police have a nervous breakdown for an excuse.

Argh.. Wake the fuck up.
Click to expand...

Soooooo.......if you express your nazi feelings (which are contentious in content and framed with the express purpose to make people angry) on the street, it's your right. But if I express my contempt and disgust for your feelings on the street I'm looking for trouble? I agree it's your right to express any ideas or opinions you want, but it's also my right to stand across the street and tell you you're an asshole. You are being hypocritical and two faced when you demanding that which you refuse to allow others.

One of my favorite quotes on this subject is:..."America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You gotta want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours...Show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then, you can stand up and sing about the "land of the free"...

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112346/quotes

There is way to much hypocrisy from the right and the left. Oppose someone's view point? Absolutely! Protest? Positively! counter protest? go for it! We need differing view points. We need diversity. We don't need hate and violence. voice your opinion. Scream your derision at whom ever will listen. That's your right. BUT, the minute you lay hands on another, the minute you use physical force or violence to bolster your point is the moment you should have your ass kicked.

'nuff said.


Comshaw
 
Comshaw said:

Soooooo.......if you express your nazi feelings (which are contentious in content and framed with the express purpose to make people angry) on the street, it's your right. But if I express my contempt and disgust for your feelings on the street I'm looking for trouble? I agree it's your right to express any ideas or opinions you want, but it's also my right to stand across the street and tell you you're an asshole. You are being hypocritical and two faced when you demanding that which you refuse to allow others.

One of my favorite quotes on this subject is:..."America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You gotta want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours...Show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then, you can stand up and sing about the "land of the free"...

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112346/quotes

There is way to much hypocrisy from the right and the left. Oppose someone's view point? Absolutely! Protest? Positively! counter protest? go for it! We need differing view points. We need diversity. We don't need hate and violence. voice your opinion. Scream your derision at whom ever will listen. That's your right. BUT, the minute you lay hands on another, the minute you use physical force or violence to bolster your point is the moment you should have your ass kicked.

'nuff said.


Comshaw
Click to expand...

There is a little bit of getting over oneself in this.

No one said you can't protest against that kind of thinking (the nazi type). what's being said is, organize yourself, and do it at a different time, or place, etc.

Send a message, not seek confrontation.
 
EternalFantasies said:
There is a little bit of getting over oneself in this.

No one said you can't protest against that kind of thinking (the nazi type). what's being said is, organize yourself, and do it at a different time, or place, etc.

Send a message, not seek confrontation.
Click to expand...

Bullshit. What you said, verbatim was: ..."If I go express my nazi feelings on the street, it's my right. You coming down to protest my self expression is asking for trouble."...

Which is a pretty clear statement of: "I have my rights and will avail myself of them when ever I wish, but you only get to do it how and when I think you should and if you do it anyway I'll make you regret it."

Two faced and hypocritical as I said. Confrontation is sending a message. Confrontation doesn't give anyone an acceptable excuse for violence. You don't like that I tell you to your face your an asshole? tough. It seems you have no problem telling me how much you hate me. Both of those are acceptable expressions of free speech. Neither one of those is an allowance for violence. As I said, and this goes for either side of the issue, say what you will, make your point, but lay a hand on anyone and your ass needs to be in jail. Your right to wave your fist ends where the tip of my nose begins.

Comshaw
 
Last edited:
Comshaw said:
Bullshit. What you said, verbatim was: ..."If I go express my nazi feelings on the street, it's my right. You coming down to protest my self expression is asking for trouble."...

Which is a pretty clear statement of: "I have my rights and will avail myself of them when ever I wish, but you only get to do it how and when I think you should and if you do it anyway I'll make you regret it."

Two faced and hypocritical as I said. Confrontation is sending a message. Confrontation doesn't give anyone an acceptable excuse for violence. You don't like that I tell you to your face your an asshole? tough. It seems you have no problem telling me how much you hate me. Both of those are acceptable expressions of free speech. Neither one of those is an allowance for violence. As I said, and this goes for either side of the issue, say what you will, make your point, but lay a hand on anyone and your ass needs to be in jail. Your right to wave your fist ends where the tip of my nose begins.

Comshaw
Click to expand...

You are certainly free to be blind and an idiot.

The bottom line will always be, that if someone scheduled a rally, doing one in the same time and place to protest them is asking for confrontation.

Doing one the next day, or elsewhere, to show there's more masses of people than theirs, to promote how you are more peaceful, etc. Is the way to go.

Choosing to respond on the same day, in the same place, and going there asking for a confrontation, was entirely your fault.
 
Dartmouth Professor Defends Antifa Violence

Dartmouth College professor Mark Bray defended the violence used by left-wing Antifa groups, arguing that they need to preemptively strike to avoid the rise of white nationalists.

Host Chuck Todd brought Bray and the Southern Poverty Law Center president Richard Cohen back onto “Meet the Press” Sunday to debate whether Antifa’s violent tactics are acceptable. Todd previously had Bray and Cohen on his show Wednesday night wherein Bray revealed that he supports responding to extreme right groups with violence. (RELATED: MSNBC: ‘Should The Far-Right Be Confronted With Force?’)

“Considering someone died in Charlottesville, why do you defend confronting in a violent way?” Todd asked Bray on Sunday.

Bray argued that violence is necessary to stop white supremacist and neo-Nazi groups from getting too normalized or powerful, framing the issue as one of self-defense.
The rest here: http://dailycaller.com/2017/08/20/dartmouth-professor-defends-antifa-violence-video/


Now there's all the warnings we've been trying to send out.

Now the snowflakes this this way. And the snowball continues.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

butters
SCOTUS seems to think people are too 'hypersensitive' and it's not the stalker's problem but the stalkee, who should lighten up a bit
Replies
1
Views
204
Lazaran
L
sultrysandy
Supreme Court to hear major LGBT rights case day after election
Replies
4
Views
902
coati
C
Colonel Hogan
Ignorance of the law is no excuse. But this is what it looks like.
2 3 4
Replies
92
Views
5K
Colonel Hogan
Colonel Hogan
badbabysitter
#Gamergate and the MRA actively disrupt Expo
Replies
2
Views
308
badbabysitter
badbabysitter
4
Only Five Hours Left to the Fast
Replies
23
Views
1K
RobDownSouth
RobDownSouth
Back
Top