Frank Galvin said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Also, this thread is not big on free speech. What is the difference between the First and Second Amendments?

---

You leftists really do live in your own reality, don't you?

---

No, free speech is pretty basic to American reality.

---

But let me guess....

You had no problem limiting speech for anyone that asked questions about the origin of covid, safety of vaccines, legality of vaccine passports, having to show proof of vaccination to get a job, enter a restaurant, etc..

You were probably ok with those types of speech being shut down and with the left talking about making those illegal....

---

You guess wrong.

---

I doubt that. The more you post the more i see you are ok with certain speech being allowed (if it is from the left) and certain speech (from the right) being banned.


You clearly believe what the media tells you to, like Jan 6th we were mere minutes away from our government being torn down and that poor AOC was in fear for her life (even though she was in a different building).

---

You can't cite one thing I have ever said that calls for banning or prosecuting any speech.

You just assume if I am for allowing left leaning speech I am against right leaning sppech. Much like the ACLU (which is why I posted the link) I am in favor of allowing almost all speech.

---

Actually yes I can.

The ACLU is NOT for allowing all types of speech. So that there is my proof. That you would cite a group that HAS tried to limit speech is all the proof I need.

Fore example, the ACLU will no longer defend groups on the far right or any speech THEY deem as hate speech.

And for a group that supposedly fights for the Constitution it is a shame they violated that innocent until proven guilty thing you mentioned earlier.....

---

What are you talking about?

The ACLU has a long history of fighting for free speech to include the KKK and anti-LGBTQ activists. It is just as active in fightng for criminal defendants.

https://www.aclu.org/issues/free-speech#:~:text=Over%20the%20years%2C%20the%20ACLU,LGBT%20activists%2C%20and%20flag%20burners.

Can you show me something from the ACLU that supports your version?

---

LOL. Their actions over the last 10 years or so. Their leaders going on record saying they would no longer defend hate speech. Their leaders saying they would not support or defend Trump supporters.

Wake up.

Frank Galvin said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Malbec said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Also, this thread is not big on free speech. What is the difference between the First and Second Amendments?

---

You leftists really do live in your own reality, don't you?

---

No, free speech is pretty basic to American reality.

---

If HAMAS is a designated terrorist organization by the U.S. (and since 1997), and protestors say, "We are HAMAS!" while chanting "Death to America!," would that be simply 'free speech'?

---

By that I think you mean could the government succesfully prosecute the students for making a terrisitc threat? Doubtful. "Death to America" is not imminent action and the students are not going to cause imminent action.

If they said burn the federal courthouse that more specfic statement is going to be more actionable. If they said burn the federal courthouse while stockpiling kerosene or publishing diagrams, defintitely yes.

Again the First Amendment exists to protect offensive political speech.

---

"Death to America" is not imminent action and the students are not going to cause imminent action."

You don't know that, nor can you expect anyone else to downplay the threat to your level. And it doesn't even have to be "imminent" in order to be considered a violent threat.

---

Verbatim from the Texas terroristic threat statute:

"threatens to commit any offense involving violence to any person … with intent to place any person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury."

---

Speech doesn't have to qualify as a "terroristic threat" under Texas statute in order to be considered unprotected.

---

The presumption is all speech is protected. It is removed from protection for specifc reasons: libel/slander; public safety; national security; safety and liberty of others.

Why should we remove Death to America from the protections of the First Amendment. What is the legal rationale?

---

You answer your own question.

---

You just ignore the law to fit your opinion. Yes safety can be a reason for censorship. For that to work there must be an actual threat to safety whihc is the point of Ohio v. Brandenburg and which is why I said if the students are obstructive, destructiove or have an intent to cause imminent harm and can do so to arrest them.

Chanting random stupid and offensive things does not meet that test.

---

Yes it does.

IN citing that case you left out the part where the court said that if the speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite pr produce such action."

---

Again from my post:

Government cannot censor anti-government speech unless it is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." College kids chanting is not specifc enough to say there is imminent lawless action and is not likely to produce that action. It is most certanly free speech protected by the First Amendement just as burning American flags is.

Compare and contrast with what you said I left out.

Try it this way: what is the imminent danger that the students intend to provoke and there is a chance will provoke by chnating Death to America or We are Hamas or somehting just as dumb?

---

Yes there is an imminent danger because there is violence going on.

How can you not see that?

cowboycwr said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Also, this thread is not big on free speech. What is the difference between the First and Second Amendments?

---

You leftists really do live in your own reality, don't you?

---

No, free speech is pretty basic to American reality.

---

But let me guess....

You had no problem limiting speech for anyone that asked questions about the origin of covid, safety of vaccines, legality of vaccine passports, having to show proof of vaccination to get a job, enter a restaurant, etc..

You were probably ok with those types of speech being shut down and with the left talking about making those illegal....

---

You guess wrong.

---

I doubt that. The more you post the more i see you are ok with certain speech being allowed (if it is from the left) and certain speech (from the right) being banned.


You clearly believe what the media tells you to, like Jan 6th we were mere minutes away from our government being torn down and that poor AOC was in fear for her life (even though she was in a different building).

---

You can't cite one thing I have ever said that calls for banning or prosecuting any speech.

You just assume if I am for allowing left leaning speech I am against right leaning sppech. Much like the ACLU (which is why I posted the link) I am in favor of allowing almost all speech.

---

Actually yes I can.

The ACLU is NOT for allowing all types of speech. So that there is my proof. That you would cite a group that HAS tried to limit speech is all the proof I need.

Fore example, the ACLU will no longer defend groups on the far right or any speech THEY deem as hate speech.

And for a group that supposedly fights for the Constitution it is a shame they violated that innocent until proven guilty thing you mentioned earlier.....

---

What are you talking about?

The ACLU has a long history of fighting for free speech to include the KKK and anti-LGBTQ activists. It is just as active in fightng for criminal defendants.

https://www.aclu.org/issues/free-speech#:~:text=Over%20the%20years%2C%20the%20ACLU,LGBT%20activists%2C%20and%20flag%20burners.

Can you show me something from the ACLU that supports your version?

---

LOL. Their actions over the last 10 years or so. Their leaders going on record saying they would no longer defend hate speech. Their leaders saying they would not support or defend Trump supporters.

Wake up.

---

Sorry, but "their actions" without saying those actions are isn't proof of anything.

As far as leadership saying they would no longer defend hate speech-how about a link? And even if it says that, the statement is not what you cited it for which is the ACLU is trying to limit free speech.

Refusal to provide free representation defending speech is not the same thing as limiting speech.

Frank Galvin said:

---

Refusal to provide free representation defending speech is not the same thing as limiting speech.

---

What's one of the radical left's favorite maxims that applies here?

If you refuse to be part of the solution, then you are part of the problem.

cowboycwr said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Malbec said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Also, this thread is not big on free speech. What is the difference between the First and Second Amendments?

---

You leftists really do live in your own reality, don't you?

---

No, free speech is pretty basic to American reality.

---

If HAMAS is a designated terrorist organization by the U.S. (and since 1997), and protestors say, "We are HAMAS!" while chanting "Death to America!," would that be simply 'free speech'?

---

By that I think you mean could the government succesfully prosecute the students for making a terrisitc threat? Doubtful. "Death to America" is not imminent action and the students are not going to cause imminent action.

If they said burn the federal courthouse that more specfic statement is going to be more actionable. If they said burn the federal courthouse while stockpiling kerosene or publishing diagrams, defintitely yes.

Again the First Amendment exists to protect offensive political speech.

---

"Death to America" is not imminent action and the students are not going to cause imminent action."

You don't know that, nor can you expect anyone else to downplay the threat to your level. And it doesn't even have to be "imminent" in order to be considered a violent threat.

---

Verbatim from the Texas terroristic threat statute:

"threatens to commit any offense involving violence to any person … with intent to place any person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury."

---

Speech doesn't have to qualify as a "terroristic threat" under Texas statute in order to be considered unprotected.

---

The presumption is all speech is protected. It is removed from protection for specifc reasons: libel/slander; public safety; national security; safety and liberty of others.

Why should we remove Death to America from the protections of the First Amendment. What is the legal rationale?

---

You answer your own question.

---

You just ignore the law to fit your opinion. Yes safety can be a reason for censorship. For that to work there must be an actual threat to safety whihc is the point of Ohio v. Brandenburg and which is why I said if the students are obstructive, destructiove or have an intent to cause imminent harm and can do so to arrest them.

Chanting random stupid and offensive things does not meet that test.

---

Yes it does.

IN citing that case you left out the part where the court said that if the speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite pr produce such action."

---

Again from my post:

Government cannot censor anti-government speech unless it is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." College kids chanting is not specifc enough to say there is imminent lawless action and is not likely to produce that action. It is most certanly free speech protected by the First Amendement just as burning American flags is.

Compare and contrast with what you said I left out.

Try it this way: what is the imminent danger that the students intend to provoke and there is a chance will provoke by chnating Death to America or We are Hamas or somehting just as dumb?

---

Yes there is an imminent danger because there is violence going on.

How can you not see that?

---

"Death to America" is the threat. What is the violence? Has there been an attack on the government?

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Also, this thread is not big on free speech. What is the difference between the First and Second Amendments?

---

Big difference between "free speech," as you call it, and the heckler's veto. The latter is what is taking place at Columbia, with pro-Hamas students harassing people for merely being Jewish. Yesterday, they formed a human chain to specifically prevent Jewish students from entering buildings.

Instead of "free speech," it is something more akin to this:

---

I am certain both types of speech are happening. Anyone preventing access to public buildings is disturbing the peace. Someone who threatens the person or property of another with intent to follow through is making a criminal threat. If someone lays hands on another, it is assault. Arrest and remove them, which it sounds like the school is doing.


Offensive speech like Death to America and war criminal or flag burning is protected. It has to be for the First Amendment to have any meaning.

---

"Death to America" goes over the line. I am an American. Wishing for my death is a direct threat to me, as well as most of my fellow 330 million Americans. I have no problem with making a bonfire out of Palestinian flags and Korans. I don't do it out of respect. That respect is fading fast.

"Death to America" chants are just fine in Gaza, Iran, Iraq, etc. They are unacceptable on American soil.

---

The First Amendment is not designed to protect non offensive speech.

whitetrash said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Refusal to provide free representation defending speech is not the same thing as limiting speech.

---

What's one of the radical left's favorite maxims that applies here?

If you refuse to be part of the solution, then you are part of the problem.

---

First, I am not accepting the premise. Someone tell me which free speech case the ACLU refused.

Second, that maxim is not leftist. Plenty of football coaches and hardcore capitalists say the same.

Third, if you are goi g to accuse someone of limiting speech there probably be some evidence of an affirmative act, IMHO.

Frank Galvin said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Also, this thread is not big on free speech. What is the difference between the First and Second Amendments?

---

You leftists really do live in your own reality, don't you?

---

No, free speech is pretty basic to American reality.

---

But let me guess....

You had no problem limiting speech for anyone that asked questions about the origin of covid, safety of vaccines, legality of vaccine passports, having to show proof of vaccination to get a job, enter a restaurant, etc..

You were probably ok with those types of speech being shut down and with the left talking about making those illegal....

---

You guess wrong.

---

I doubt that. The more you post the more i see you are ok with certain speech being allowed (if it is from the left) and certain speech (from the right) being banned.


You clearly believe what the media tells you to, like Jan 6th we were mere minutes away from our government being torn down and that poor AOC was in fear for her life (even though she was in a different building).

---

You can't cite one thing I have ever said that calls for banning or prosecuting any speech.

You just assume if I am for allowing left leaning speech I am against right leaning sppech. Much like the ACLU (which is why I posted the link) I am in favor of allowing almost all speech.

---

Actually yes I can.

The ACLU is NOT for allowing all types of speech. So that there is my proof. That you would cite a group that HAS tried to limit speech is all the proof I need.

Fore example, the ACLU will no longer defend groups on the far right or any speech THEY deem as hate speech.

And for a group that supposedly fights for the Constitution it is a shame they violated that innocent until proven guilty thing you mentioned earlier.....

---

What are you talking about?

The ACLU has a long history of fighting for free speech to include the KKK and anti-LGBTQ activists. It is just as active in fightng for criminal defendants.

https://www.aclu.org/issues/free-speech#:~:text=Over%20the%20years%2C%20the%20ACLU,LGBT%20activists%2C%20and%20flag%20burners.

Can you show me something from the ACLU that supports your version?

---

LOL. Their actions over the last 10 years or so. Their leaders going on record saying they would no longer defend hate speech. Their leaders saying they would not support or defend Trump supporters.

Wake up.

---

Sorry, but "their actions" without saying those actions are isn't proof of anything.

As far as leadership saying they would no longer defend hate speech-how about a link? And even if it says that, the statement is not what you cited it for which is the ACLU is trying to limit free speech.

Refusal to provide free representation defending speech is not the same thing as limiting speech.

---

Sorry look it up. Someone else already gave you a link. Use google. I am not your search engine. You won't because you want someone else to do the work for you (typical leftist) and then will find ways to deny the proof given to you.

Frank Galvin said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Malbec said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Also, this thread is not big on free speech. What is the difference between the First and Second Amendments?

---

You leftists really do live in your own reality, don't you?

---

No, free speech is pretty basic to American reality.

---

If HAMAS is a designated terrorist organization by the U.S. (and since 1997), and protestors say, "We are HAMAS!" while chanting "Death to America!," would that be simply 'free speech'?

---

By that I think you mean could the government succesfully prosecute the students for making a terrisitc threat? Doubtful. "Death to America" is not imminent action and the students are not going to cause imminent action.

If they said burn the federal courthouse that more specfic statement is going to be more actionable. If they said burn the federal courthouse while stockpiling kerosene or publishing diagrams, defintitely yes.

Again the First Amendment exists to protect offensive political speech.

---

"Death to America" is not imminent action and the students are not going to cause imminent action."

You don't know that, nor can you expect anyone else to downplay the threat to your level. And it doesn't even have to be "imminent" in order to be considered a violent threat.

---

Verbatim from the Texas terroristic threat statute:

"threatens to commit any offense involving violence to any person … with intent to place any person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury."

---

Speech doesn't have to qualify as a "terroristic threat" under Texas statute in order to be considered unprotected.

---

The presumption is all speech is protected. It is removed from protection for specifc reasons: libel/slander; public safety; national security; safety and liberty of others.

Why should we remove Death to America from the protections of the First Amendment. What is the legal rationale?

---

You answer your own question.

---

You just ignore the law to fit your opinion. Yes safety can be a reason for censorship. For that to work there must be an actual threat to safety whihc is the point of Ohio v. Brandenburg and which is why I said if the students are obstructive, destructiove or have an intent to cause imminent harm and can do so to arrest them.

Chanting random stupid and offensive things does not meet that test.

---

Yes it does.

IN citing that case you left out the part where the court said that if the speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite pr produce such action."

---

Again from my post:

Government cannot censor anti-government speech unless it is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." College kids chanting is not specifc enough to say there is imminent lawless action and is not likely to produce that action. It is most certanly free speech protected by the First Amendement just as burning American flags is.

Compare and contrast with what you said I left out.

Try it this way: what is the imminent danger that the students intend to provoke and there is a chance will provoke by chnating Death to America or We are Hamas or somehting just as dumb?

---

Yes there is an imminent danger because there is violence going on.

How can you not see that?

---

"Death to America" is the threat. What is the violence? Had there been an attack on the government?

---

What is the violence???? Seriously??? Are you really this dense or just trolling?

The violence is the taking over of buildings, barring people from buildings, putting their hands on people, the violence that has been in the news and in this thread multiple times.

cowboycwr said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Malbec said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Also, this thread is not big on free speech. What is the difference between the First and Second Amendments?

---

You leftists really do live in your own reality, don't you?

---

No, free speech is pretty basic to American reality.

---

If HAMAS is a designated terrorist organization by the U.S. (and since 1997), and protestors say, "We are HAMAS!" while chanting "Death to America!," would that be simply 'free speech'?

---

By that I think you mean could the government succesfully prosecute the students for making a terrisitc threat? Doubtful. "Death to America" is not imminent action and the students are not going to cause imminent action.

If they said burn the federal courthouse that more specfic statement is going to be more actionable. If they said burn the federal courthouse while stockpiling kerosene or publishing diagrams, defintitely yes.

Again the First Amendment exists to protect offensive political speech.

---

"Death to America" is not imminent action and the students are not going to cause imminent action."

You don't know that, nor can you expect anyone else to downplay the threat to your level. And it doesn't even have to be "imminent" in order to be considered a violent threat.

---

Verbatim from the Texas terroristic threat statute:

"threatens to commit any offense involving violence to any person … with intent to place any person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury."

---

Speech doesn't have to qualify as a "terroristic threat" under Texas statute in order to be considered unprotected.

---

The presumption is all speech is protected. It is removed from protection for specifc reasons: libel/slander; public safety; national security; safety and liberty of others.

Why should we remove Death to America from the protections of the First Amendment. What is the legal rationale?

---

You answer your own question.

---

You just ignore the law to fit your opinion. Yes safety can be a reason for censorship. For that to work there must be an actual threat to safety whihc is the point of Ohio v. Brandenburg and which is why I said if the students are obstructive, destructiove or have an intent to cause imminent harm and can do so to arrest them.

Chanting random stupid and offensive things does not meet that test.

---

Yes it does.

IN citing that case you left out the part where the court said that if the speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite pr produce such action."

---

Again from my post:

Government cannot censor anti-government speech unless it is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." College kids chanting is not specifc enough to say there is imminent lawless action and is not likely to produce that action. It is most certanly free speech protected by the First Amendement just as burning American flags is.

Compare and contrast with what you said I left out.

Try it this way: what is the imminent danger that the students intend to provoke and there is a chance will provoke by chnating Death to America or We are Hamas or somehting just as dumb?

---

Yes there is an imminent danger because there is violence going on.

How can you not see that?

---

"Death to America" is the threat. What is the violence? Had there been an attack on the government?

---

What is the violence???? Seriously??? Are you really this dense or just trolling?

The violence is the taking over of buildings, barring people from buildings, putting their hands on people, the violence that has been in the news and in this thread multiple times.

---

Yeah that is unconnected to the threat.

Let's say a criminal defendant is charged with a series of what would ordinarily be misdemeanors. But that defendant is charged with felonies because allegedly the misdemeanors were used to hide another crime. My guess is that the defendant would try to show the absence of a connection and therefore the lack of a felony.


And he should-criminal law works that way. It is very specific, the prosecutor has to prove every element of the crime.

Same concept-imminent threat is measured by the literal threat. Is there the likelihood of an imminent attack on the "United States."


To be clear the activities you mentioned are illegal and people should be arrested for them. But the should not be arrested for voicing political views.

cowboycwr said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Also, this thread is not big on free speech. What is the difference between the First and Second Amendments?

---

You leftists really do live in your own reality, don't you?

---

No, free speech is pretty basic to American reality.

---

But let me guess....

You had no problem limiting speech for anyone that asked questions about the origin of covid, safety of vaccines, legality of vaccine passports, having to show proof of vaccination to get a job, enter a restaurant, etc..

You were probably ok with those types of speech being shut down and with the left talking about making those illegal....

---

You guess wrong.

---

I doubt that. The more you post the more i see you are ok with certain speech being allowed (if it is from the left) and certain speech (from the right) being banned.


You clearly believe what the media tells you to, like Jan 6th we were mere minutes away from our government being torn down and that poor AOC was in fear for her life (even though she was in a different building).

---

You can't cite one thing I have ever said that calls for banning or prosecuting any speech.

You just assume if I am for allowing left leaning speech I am against right leaning sppech. Much like the ACLU (which is why I posted the link) I am in favor of allowing almost all speech.

---

Actually yes I can.

The ACLU is NOT for allowing all types of speech. So that there is my proof. That you would cite a group that HAS tried to limit speech is all the proof I need.

Fore example, the ACLU will no longer defend groups on the far right or any speech THEY deem as hate speech.

And for a group that supposedly fights for the Constitution it is a shame they violated that innocent until proven guilty thing you mentioned earlier.....

---

What are you talking about?

The ACLU has a long history of fighting for free speech to include the KKK and anti-LGBTQ activists. It is just as active in fightng for criminal defendants.

https://www.aclu.org/issues/free-speech#:~:text=Over%20the%20years%2C%20the%20ACLU,LGBT%20activists%2C%20and%20flag%20burners.

Can you show me something from the ACLU that supports your version?

---

LOL. Their actions over the last 10 years or so. Their leaders going on record saying they would no longer defend hate speech. Their leaders saying they would not support or defend Trump supporters.

Wake up.

---

Sorry, but "their actions" without saying those actions are isn't proof of anything.

As far as leadership saying they would no longer defend hate speech-how about a link? And even if it says that, the statement is not what you cited it for which is the ACLU is trying to limit free speech.

Refusal to provide free representation defending speech is not the same thing as limiting speech.

---

Sorry look it up. Someone else already gave you a link. Use google. I am not your search engine. You won't because you want someone else to do the work for you (typical leftist) and then will find ways to deny the proof given to you.

---

Yeah I looked at the other link. It was critical of the ACLU while Trump was president. But it was not close to supporting your argument.

I always end up in the same place when I ask far right for factual support for their argument.


They can't produce it.

Frank Galvin said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Malbec said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Also, this thread is not big on free speech. What is the difference between the First and Second Amendments?

---

You leftists really do live in your own reality, don't you?

---

No, free speech is pretty basic to American reality.

---

If HAMAS is a designated terrorist organization by the U.S. (and since 1997), and protestors say, "We are HAMAS!" while chanting "Death to America!," would that be simply 'free speech'?

---

By that I think you mean could the government succesfully prosecute the students for making a terrisitc threat? Doubtful. "Death to America" is not imminent action and the students are not going to cause imminent action.

If they said burn the federal courthouse that more specfic statement is going to be more actionable. If they said burn the federal courthouse while stockpiling kerosene or publishing diagrams, defintitely yes.

Again the First Amendment exists to protect offensive political speech.

---

"Death to America" is not imminent action and the students are not going to cause imminent action."

You don't know that, nor can you expect anyone else to downplay the threat to your level. And it doesn't even have to be "imminent" in order to be considered a violent threat.

---

Verbatim from the Texas terroristic threat statute:

"threatens to commit any offense involving violence to any person … with intent to place any person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury."

---

Speech doesn't have to qualify as a "terroristic threat" under Texas statute in order to be considered unprotected.

---

The presumption is all speech is protected. It is removed from protection for specifc reasons: libel/slander; public safety; national security; safety and liberty of others.

Why should we remove Death to America from the protections of the First Amendment. What is the legal rationale?

---

You answer your own question.

---

You just ignore the law to fit your opinion. Yes safety can be a reason for censorship. For that to work there must be an actual threat to safety whihc is the point of Ohio v. Brandenburg and which is why I said if the students are obstructive, destructiove or have an intent to cause imminent harm and can do so to arrest them.

Chanting random stupid and offensive things does not meet that test.

---

Yes it does.

IN citing that case you left out the part where the court said that if the speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite pr produce such action."

---

Again from my post:

Government cannot censor anti-government speech unless it is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." College kids chanting is not specifc enough to say there is imminent lawless action and is not likely to produce that action. It is most certanly free speech protected by the First Amendement just as burning American flags is.

Compare and contrast with what you said I left out.

Try it this way: what is the imminent danger that the students intend to provoke and there is a chance will provoke by chnating Death to America or We are Hamas or somehting just as dumb?

---

Yes there is an imminent danger because there is violence going on.

How can you not see that?

---

"Death to America" is the threat. What is the violence? Had there been an attack on the government?

---

What is the violence???? Seriously??? Are you really this dense or just trolling?

The violence is the taking over of buildings, barring people from buildings, putting their hands on people, the violence that has been in the news and in this thread multiple times.

---

Yeah that is unconnected to the threat.

Let's say a criminal defendant is charged with a series of what would ordinarily be misdemeanors. But that defendant is charged with felonies because allegedly the misdemeanors were used to hide another crime. My guess is that the defendant would try to show the absence of a connection and therefore the lack of a felony.


And he should-criminal law works that way. It is very specific, the prosecutor has to prove every element of the crime.

Same concept-imminent threat is measured by the literal threat. Is there the likelihood of an imminent attack on the "United States."


To be clear the activities you mentioned are illegal and people should be arrested for them. But the should not be arrested for voicing political views.

---

LOL. Unconnected???

They are literally saying it while doing the violence.

NEW: Pro-Palestine protester has no clue why she is protesting and then asks a friend why they are protesting who also has no clue.

Remarkable.

Reporter: "Why are you protesting?"

Protester: "Demanding that NYU stops! I honestly don't know what NYU is doing... Do you know what… pic.twitter.com/cI46n6YNht

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) April 24, 2024

Frank Galvin said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Also, this thread is not big on free speech. What is the difference between the First and Second Amendments?

---

You leftists really do live in your own reality, don't you?

---

No, free speech is pretty basic to American reality.

---

But let me guess....

You had no problem limiting speech for anyone that asked questions about the origin of covid, safety of vaccines, legality of vaccine passports, having to show proof of vaccination to get a job, enter a restaurant, etc..

You were probably ok with those types of speech being shut down and with the left talking about making those illegal....

---

You guess wrong.

---

I doubt that. The more you post the more i see you are ok with certain speech being allowed (if it is from the left) and certain speech (from the right) being banned.


You clearly believe what the media tells you to, like Jan 6th we were mere minutes away from our government being torn down and that poor AOC was in fear for her life (even though she was in a different building).

---

You can't cite one thing I have ever said that calls for banning or prosecuting any speech.

You just assume if I am for allowing left leaning speech I am against right leaning sppech. Much like the ACLU (which is why I posted the link) I am in favor of allowing almost all speech.

---

Actually yes I can.

The ACLU is NOT for allowing all types of speech. So that there is my proof. That you would cite a group that HAS tried to limit speech is all the proof I need.

Fore example, the ACLU will no longer defend groups on the far right or any speech THEY deem as hate speech.

And for a group that supposedly fights for the Constitution it is a shame they violated that innocent until proven guilty thing you mentioned earlier.....

---

What are you talking about?

The ACLU has a long history of fighting for free speech to include the KKK and anti-LGBTQ activists. It is just as active in fightng for criminal defendants.

https://www.aclu.org/issues/free-speech#:~:text=Over%20the%20years%2C%20the%20ACLU,LGBT%20activists%2C%20and%20flag%20burners.

Can you show me something from the ACLU that supports your version?

---

LOL. Their actions over the last 10 years or so. Their leaders going on record saying they would no longer defend hate speech. Their leaders saying they would not support or defend Trump supporters.

Wake up.

---

Sorry, but "their actions" without saying those actions are isn't proof of anything.

As far as leadership saying they would no longer defend hate speech-how about a link? And even if it says that, the statement is not what you cited it for which is the ACLU is trying to limit free speech.

Refusal to provide free representation defending speech is not the same thing as limiting speech.

---

Sorry look it up. Someone else already gave you a link. Use google. I am not your search engine. You won't because you want someone else to do the work for you (typical leftist) and then will find ways to deny the proof given to you.

---

Yeah I looked at the other link. It was critical of the ACLU while Trump was president. But it was not close to supporting your argument.

I always end up in the same place when I ask far right for factual support for their argument.


They can't produce it.

---

Like I said. Do your own work. One simple google search and you could find the evidence.

Like a memo from the ACLU on how to determine if they will accept a case.

Far right???? LOL. Pointing out the ACLU picks and chooses their cases is a fact and not a far right thing. I told you where to get the evidence. Go look it up.

boognish_bear said:

---

Found a thread that lists different places it's happening.

- UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
*4/22 - Encampment is launched
organizers: @TAHRIRumich pic.twitter.com/Q1Zas3FaXb

— jill (@JillM_Webb) April 22, 2024

- UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS, DALLAS
*4/23 SIT-IN AT ADMIN BUILDING pic.twitter.com/QK8oE5AjMX

— jill (@JillM_Webb) April 23, 2024

- UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA
*Emergency protest against Biden's upcoming Tampa visit due to his handling of the genocide (4/23) pic.twitter.com/ZufvZo0VjK

— jill (@JillM_Webb) April 23, 2024

---

I had an aquaintance that graduated from University of North Texas say the pro Hamas sentiment runs pretty deep there.

I have no idea, just acedotal at this point.

D. C. Bear said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Also, this thread is not big on free speech. What is the difference between the First and Second Amendments?

---

Big difference between "free speech," as you call it, and the heckler's veto. The latter is what is taking place at Columbia, with pro-Hamas students harassing people for merely being Jewish. Yesterday, they formed a human chain to specifically prevent Jewish students from entering buildings.

Instead of "free speech," it is something more akin to this:

---

I am certain both types of speech are happening. Anyone preventing access to public buildings is disturbing the peace. Someone who threatens the person or property of another with intent to follow through is making a criminal threat. If someone lays hands on another, it is assault. Arrest and remove them, which it sounds like the school is doing.


Offensive speech like Death to America and war criminal or flag burning is protected. It has to be for the First Amendment to have any meaning.

---

"Death to America" goes over the line. I am an American. Wishing for my death is a direct threat to me, as well as most of my fellow 330 million Americans. I have no problem with making a bonfire out of Palestinian flags and Korans. I don't do it out of respect. That respect is fading fast.

"Death to America" chants are just fine in Gaza, Iran, Iraq, etc. They are unacceptable on American soil.

---

The First Amendment is not designed to protect non offensive speech.

---

The Militant Muslims are now protesting in Austin. That is 50 miles from me. Sure hope those anonymous ragheads don't venture out too far and get lost! The feral hogs in the pecan bottom sure seem hungry!

cowboycwr said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Also, this thread is not big on free speech. What is the difference between the First and Second Amendments?

---

You leftists really do live in your own reality, don't you?

---

No, free speech is pretty basic to American reality.

---

But let me guess....

You had no problem limiting speech for anyone that asked questions about the origin of covid, safety of vaccines, legality of vaccine passports, having to show proof of vaccination to get a job, enter a restaurant, etc..

You were probably ok with those types of speech being shut down and with the left talking about making those illegal....

---

You guess wrong.

---

I doubt that. The more you post the more i see you are ok with certain speech being allowed (if it is from the left) and certain speech (from the right) being banned.


You clearly believe what the media tells you to, like Jan 6th we were mere minutes away from our government being torn down and that poor AOC was in fear for her life (even though she was in a different building).

---

You can't cite one thing I have ever said that calls for banning or prosecuting any speech.

You just assume if I am for allowing left leaning speech I am against right leaning sppech. Much like the ACLU (which is why I posted the link) I am in favor of allowing almost all speech.

---

Actually yes I can.

The ACLU is NOT for allowing all types of speech. So that there is my proof. That you would cite a group that HAS tried to limit speech is all the proof I need.

Fore example, the ACLU will no longer defend groups on the far right or any speech THEY deem as hate speech.

And for a group that supposedly fights for the Constitution it is a shame they violated that innocent until proven guilty thing you mentioned earlier.....

---

What are you talking about?

The ACLU has a long history of fighting for free speech to include the KKK and anti-LGBTQ activists. It is just as active in fightng for criminal defendants.

https://www.aclu.org/issues/free-speech#:~:text=Over%20the%20years%2C%20the%20ACLU,LGBT%20activists%2C%20and%20flag%20burners.

Can you show me something from the ACLU that supports your version?

---

LOL. Their actions over the last 10 years or so. Their leaders going on record saying they would no longer defend hate speech. Their leaders saying they would not support or defend Trump supporters.

Wake up.

---

Sorry, but "their actions" without saying those actions are isn't proof of anything.

As far as leadership saying they would no longer defend hate speech-how about a link? And even if it says that, the statement is not what you cited it for which is the ACLU is trying to limit free speech.

Refusal to provide free representation defending speech is not the same thing as limiting speech.

---

Sorry look it up. Someone else already gave you a link. Use google. I am not your search engine. You won't because you want someone else to do the work for you (typical leftist) and then will find ways to deny the proof given to you.

---

Yeah I looked at the other link. It was critical of the ACLU while Trump was president. But it was not close to supporting your argument.

I always end up in the same place when I ask far right for factual support for their argument.


They can't produce it.

---

Like I said. Do your own work. One simple google search and you could find the evidence.

Like a memo from the ACLU on how to determine if they will accept a case.

Far right???? LOL. Pointing out the ACLU picks and chooses their cases is a fact and not a far right thing. I told you where to get the evidence. Go look it up.

---

If this is what you are referring to, it is over 6 years old. It didn't stop the ACLU for winning a case for the NRA since then.

Frank Galvin said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Also, this thread is not big on free speech. What is the difference between the First and Second Amendments?

---

You leftists really do live in your own reality, don't you?

---

No, free speech is pretty basic to American reality.

---

But let me guess....

You had no problem limiting speech for anyone that asked questions about the origin of covid, safety of vaccines, legality of vaccine passports, having to show proof of vaccination to get a job, enter a restaurant, etc..

You were probably ok with those types of speech being shut down and with the left talking about making those illegal....

---

You guess wrong.

---

I doubt that. The more you post the more i see you are ok with certain speech being allowed (if it is from the left) and certain speech (from the right) being banned.


You clearly believe what the media tells you to, like Jan 6th we were mere minutes away from our government being torn down and that poor AOC was in fear for her life (even though she was in a different building).

---

You can't cite one thing I have ever said that calls for banning or prosecuting any speech.

You just assume if I am for allowing left leaning speech I am against right leaning sppech. Much like the ACLU (which is why I posted the link) I am in favor of allowing almost all speech.

---

Actually yes I can.

The ACLU is NOT for allowing all types of speech. So that there is my proof. That you would cite a group that HAS tried to limit speech is all the proof I need.

Fore example, the ACLU will no longer defend groups on the far right or any speech THEY deem as hate speech.

And for a group that supposedly fights for the Constitution it is a shame they violated that innocent until proven guilty thing you mentioned earlier.....

---

What are you talking about?

The ACLU has a long history of fighting for free speech to include the KKK and anti-LGBTQ activists. It is just as active in fightng for criminal defendants.

https://www.aclu.org/issues/free-speech#:~:text=Over%20the%20years%2C%20the%20ACLU,LGBT%20activists%2C%20and%20flag%20burners.

Can you show me something from the ACLU that supports your version?

---

LOL. Their actions over the last 10 years or so. Their leaders going on record saying they would no longer defend hate speech. Their leaders saying they would not support or defend Trump supporters.

Wake up.

---

Sorry, but "their actions" without saying those actions are isn't proof of anything.

As far as leadership saying they would no longer defend hate speech-how about a link? And even if it says that, the statement is not what you cited it for which is the ACLU is trying to limit free speech.

Refusal to provide free representation defending speech is not the same thing as limiting speech.

---

Sorry look it up. Someone else already gave you a link. Use google. I am not your search engine. You won't because you want someone else to do the work for you (typical leftist) and then will find ways to deny the proof given to you.

---

Yeah I looked at the other link. It was critical of the ACLU while Trump was president. But it was not close to supporting your argument.

I always end up in the same place when I ask far right for factual support for their argument.


They can't produce it.

---

There were legitimate criticisms of the ACLU in that article and given the upcoming election I think it's fair to ask the question, "If Trump (or any Republican going forward) is elected, will the ACLU or its individual lawyers again act in ways that go against one of its stated core principles of supporting 1st amendment rights.

"The A.C.L.U. unfurled new guidelines that suggested lawyers should balance taking a free speech case representing right-wing groups whose "values are contrary to our values" against the potential such a case might give "offense to marginalized groups."

Other things noted included running ads against Justice Kavanaugh and a transgender attorney for the ACLU tweeting that a book criticizing transgenderism should be banned.

There may be nothing the organization is doing actively at the moment, but those things start to add up after a while and just saying "Well, that was under Trump" doesn't just make them go away or allay concerns that it might be seen again.

90sBear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Also, this thread is not big on free speech. What is the difference between the First and Second Amendments?

---

You leftists really do live in your own reality, don't you?

---

No, free speech is pretty basic to American reality.

---

But let me guess....

You had no problem limiting speech for anyone that asked questions about the origin of covid, safety of vaccines, legality of vaccine passports, having to show proof of vaccination to get a job, enter a restaurant, etc..

You were probably ok with those types of speech being shut down and with the left talking about making those illegal....

---

You guess wrong.

---

I doubt that. The more you post the more i see you are ok with certain speech being allowed (if it is from the left) and certain speech (from the right) being banned.


You clearly believe what the media tells you to, like Jan 6th we were mere minutes away from our government being torn down and that poor AOC was in fear for her life (even though she was in a different building).

---

You can't cite one thing I have ever said that calls for banning or prosecuting any speech.

You just assume if I am for allowing left leaning speech I am against right leaning sppech. Much like the ACLU (which is why I posted the link) I am in favor of allowing almost all speech.

---

Actually yes I can.

The ACLU is NOT for allowing all types of speech. So that there is my proof. That you would cite a group that HAS tried to limit speech is all the proof I need.

Fore example, the ACLU will no longer defend groups on the far right or any speech THEY deem as hate speech.

And for a group that supposedly fights for the Constitution it is a shame they violated that innocent until proven guilty thing you mentioned earlier.....

---

What are you talking about?

The ACLU has a long history of fighting for free speech to include the KKK and anti-LGBTQ activists. It is just as active in fightng for criminal defendants.

https://www.aclu.org/issues/free-speech#:~:text=Over%20the%20years%2C%20the%20ACLU,LGBT%20activists%2C%20and%20flag%20burners.

Can you show me something from the ACLU that supports your version?

---

LOL. Their actions over the last 10 years or so. Their leaders going on record saying they would no longer defend hate speech. Their leaders saying they would not support or defend Trump supporters.

Wake up.

---

Sorry, but "their actions" without saying those actions are isn't proof of anything.

As far as leadership saying they would no longer defend hate speech-how about a link? And even if it says that, the statement is not what you cited it for which is the ACLU is trying to limit free speech.

Refusal to provide free representation defending speech is not the same thing as limiting speech.

---

Sorry look it up. Someone else already gave you a link. Use google. I am not your search engine. You won't because you want someone else to do the work for you (typical leftist) and then will find ways to deny the proof given to you.

---

Yeah I looked at the other link. It was critical of the ACLU while Trump was president. But it was not close to supporting your argument.

I always end up in the same place when I ask far right for factual support for their argument.


They can't produce it.

---

There were legitimate criticisms of the ACLU in that article and given the upcoming election I think it's fair to ask the question, "If Trump (or any Republican going forward) is elected, will the ACLU or its individual lawyers again act in ways that go against one of its stated core principles of supporting 1st amendment rights.

"The A.C.L.U. unfurled new guidelines that suggested lawyers should balance taking a free speech case representing right-wing groups whose "values are contrary to our values" against the potential such a case might give "offense to marginalized groups."

Other things noted included running ads against Justice Kavanaugh and a transgender attorney for the ACLU tweeting that a book criticizing transgenderism should be banned.

There may be nothing the organization is doing actively at the moment, but those things start to add up after a while and just saying "Well, that was under Trump" doesn't just make them go away or allay concerns that it might be seen again.

---

I agree. The other poster is arguing the ACLU is currently trying to limit speech. The article doesn't say that.

It's just a sideline issue anyway. The real question is whether someone should arrest the student protestors for what they are saying.

I say no and apparently all the people who profess to be terrified of the facist democrats say yes-go ahead and take the citizenship rights and deport people because they voiced a political view.

Now I've taken the time to look it up, there was a pretty vigorous protest at UNT last week on 04/17.

So the friend is right.

Frank Galvin said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Frank Galvin, are you a lawyer or in law school?

If I wouldn't do well in law school, then God help me.
If you are a lawyer or in law school, then God help us all.

---

I'm a semi-retired lawyer.

I graduated 4th in my class of 270 at SMU in 1991. Law Review editor, runner-up in the school wide moot court competition.

I have succesfully argued in the Texas Supreme Court (several times), the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (several times), on brief in The U.S. Supreme Court, in many Texas Courts of Appeals, every U.S. district court in Texas and probably 20 more around the country. I lost my share of arguments also but companies pay me $750 an hour based on my knowledge of how the law works and my ability to articulate it.

Criminal law iand constitutional law are not my specialties although I did get the high grades in my law school basic Consittuional law class and my Constittuional Criminal Procedure class. As noted though, that was a long time ago.

I see a lot of people ttelling me I must be wrong but I don't see anyone other than the poster who posted the overthrow statute say why I am wrong or post any actual support for their argument. It comes down to this. The First Amendment protects our most cherished rights. There is an exceedingly high bar before the government can restrain or punish speech. Offenisive as it may be, I have not seen any reporting of student speech that meets that very high bar.

---

Frankly, I don't believe you. Not at all. You actually wrote this sentence - "terrorist threats are the only ones that are ilegal". An intelligent person just would not let that leave their keyboard, let alone double down on it later.

You also have some of the dumbest takes on this forum.

So if you ARE telling the truth, then God help us all even more.

---

The truth is verifiable. Read the statutes that deal with threats. To be criminal the treat has to be for imminent danger.

I quoted the statutes for you. I can't do anymore than that. You are so typical of society today. Unwilling to lok at the facts becuase you are certain, based on nothing but your uninformed opinion, that you are correct.

---

You can quote statutes all you want, but it's your understanding of them that's always going to be under question, given that your legal theory means that someone can threaten to kill another person on a specified date in five years, and because that threat isn't "imminent", it is not illegal, and therefore it is protected speech.

It's not about "looking at facts", it's also about judging your interpretation of those facts by weighing them against common sense and logic. By that assessment, your interpretation is incredibly faulty. If you disagree, then explain why I'm wrong. Go ahead, I'm waiting.

If you want to talk about typical, YOU are typical of a leftist - living in your own reality, you have a distorted understanding of the facts, which only comes by way of the biased lens through which you see them, and then which is reinforced by an echo chamber of that same distortion. You decide on what conclusion you already want to believe, and then you work the "facts" around it to support it, while chiding the other side for denying your "facts".

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Go back to accusing people of lying since you don't want to talk about thread topic anymore.

---

I've asked you repeatedly - did I have sufficient cause for it, or no?

The fact that you won't answer says it all, and that your argument against me has failed. Go away.

---

Yes, yes, you are right (because you say so). Even though you don't cite any laws and say other people are lying when they do.

Toodles.

---

Yes, yes, I'm SO wrong, that you are completely unable to argue why.

"Toodles" is exactly what you said when you argued with me for 2 pages about absolute vs. relative truth and later realized you had been proven wrong.

---

Yeah you quoted logic in that thread about as well as you quoted law in this one. But I remember you won! (Because you said so).

---

Right, that's why you couldn't answer the question there, just as you are completely unable to answer them here. If you disagree, then prove me wrong - answer it: if a certain hypothetical scenario contains "x", then is it absolute truth that the hypothetical scenario contains "x"?

You won't, and we all will know why.

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

- UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA
*Emergency protest against Biden's upcoming Tampa visit due to his handling of the genocide (4/23) pic.twitter.com/ZufvZo0VjK

— jill (@JillM_Webb) April 23, 2024

---

I had an aquaintance that graduated from University of North Texas say the pro Hamas sentiment runs pretty deep there.

I have no idea, just acedotal at this point.

---

Interesting factoid

One of the founders of the Muslim brotherhood and the a major intellectual founder of modern political Islam/salafist jihad went to the University of Northern Colorado


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayyid_Qutb

[Sayyid Ibrahim Husayn Qutb, Arabic: , romanized: Sayyid 'Ibrhm usayn Qub; 9 October 1906 29 August 1966) was an Egyptian Islamic scholar, revolutionary, poet, and a leading member of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood in the 1950s and 1960s. In 1966, he was convicted of plotting the assassination of Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser and was executed by hanging. He is considered as "the Father of Salafi jihadism", the religio-political doctrine that underpins the ideological roots of global jihadist organisations such as al-Qaeda and ISIL]

Quote:

---

"Death to America" is the threat. What is the violence? Has there been an attack on the government?

---

Have "Death to America" chants ever been preceded by actual violent attacks on Americans and their government before?

I can't remember.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Go back to accusing people of lying since you don't want to talk about thread topic anymore.

---

I've asked you repeatedly - did I have sufficient cause for it, or no?

The fact that you won't answer says it all, and that your argument against me has failed. Go away.

---

Yes, yes, you are right (because you say so). Even though you don't cite any laws and say other people are lying when they do.

Toodles.

---

Yes, yes, I'm SO wrong, that you are completely unable to argue why.

"Toodles" is exactly what you said when you argued with me for 2 pages about absolute vs. relative truth and later realized you had been proven wrong.

---

Yeah you quoted logic in that thread about as well as you quoted law in this one. But I remember you won! (Because you said so).

---

Right, that's why you couldn't answer the question there, just as you are completely unable to answer them here. If you disagree, then prove me wrong - answer it: if a certain hypothetical scenario contains "x", then is it absolute truth that the hypothetical scenario contains "x"?

You won't, and we all will know why.

---

I won't because I'm not going to derail this thread. However, if you would like I will create another thread later where I will respond to that question.

ron.reagan said:

---

NEW: Pro-Palestine protester has no clue why she is protesting and then asks a friend why they are protesting who also has no clue.

Remarkable.

Reporter: "Why are you protesting?"

Protester: "Demanding that NYU stops! I honestly don't know what NYU is doing... Do you know what… pic.twitter.com/cI46n6YNht

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) April 24, 2024

---

brainwashed lemmings

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Go back to accusing people of lying since you don't want to talk about thread topic anymore.

---

I've asked you repeatedly - did I have sufficient cause for it, or no?

The fact that you won't answer says it all, and that your argument against me has failed. Go away.

---

Yes, yes, you are right (because you say so). Even though you don't cite any laws and say other people are lying when they do.

Toodles.

---

Yes, yes, I'm SO wrong, that you are completely unable to argue why.

"Toodles" is exactly what you said when you argued with me for 2 pages about absolute vs. relative truth and later realized you had been proven wrong.

---

Yeah you quoted logic in that thread about as well as you quoted law in this one. But I remember you won! (Because you said so).

---

Right, that's why you couldn't answer the question there, just as you are completely unable to answer them here. If you disagree, then prove me wrong - answer it: if a certain hypothetical scenario contains "x", then is it absolute truth that the hypothetical scenario contains "x"?

You won't, and we all will know why.

---

I won't because I'm not going to derail this thread. However, if you would like I will create another thread later where I will respond to that question.

---

Likely excuse. In lesser words than what you just posted, you could have easily answered it. I don't need to create a whole other thread for it, the question is right before you now. You balked. I've proven my point.

Pretty eye opening…

The same goes for the Aaron Bushnell self-immolation. People don't want to believe it, but it's all there in his Reddit posts, which I looked over in detail recently for @theammind. It all came back to white people, not Jews, for Bushnell. https://t.co/2RGFRAjzdd pic.twitter.com/i1qF5A7eAs

— RAW EGG NATIONALIST (@Babygravy9) April 24, 2024

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Go back to accusing people of lying since you don't want to talk about thread topic anymore.

---

I've asked you repeatedly - did I have sufficient cause for it, or no?

The fact that you won't answer says it all, and that your argument against me has failed. Go away.

---

Yes, yes, you are right (because you say so). Even though you don't cite any laws and say other people are lying when they do.

Toodles.

---

Yes, yes, I'm SO wrong, that you are completely unable to argue why.

"Toodles" is exactly what you said when you argued with me for 2 pages about absolute vs. relative truth and later realized you had been proven wrong.

---

Yeah you quoted logic in that thread about as well as you quoted law in this one. But I remember you won! (Because you said so).

---

Right, that's why you couldn't answer the question there, just as you are completely unable to answer them here. If you disagree, then prove me wrong - answer it: if a certain hypothetical scenario contains "x", then is it absolute truth that the hypothetical scenario contains "x"?

You won't, and we all will know why.

---

I won't because I'm not going to derail this thread. However, if you would like I will create another thread later where I will respond to that question.

---

Likely excuse. In lesser words than what you just posted, you could have easily answered it. I don't need to create a whole other thread for it, the question is right before you now. You balked. I've proven my point.

---

Oh well. I offered.

Hooked 'em

Breaking: Law enforcement arrests pro-Palestine students protesting on UT-Austin campus, handcuffing and removing at least four people.

Authorities told students they could face criminal trespass charges if they didn’t disperse.https://t.co/5jXZcUgX8H

— Texas Tribune (@TexasTribune) April 24, 2024

hey, you punk ass kids don't want to be here, then GTFO. We don't need your BS. Good on the Speaker for showing up at Columbia and telling the Chancellor to GTFO. Good on you, sir. You are 2 for 2 this week.

Redbrickbear said:

---

Pretty eye opening…

The same goes for the Aaron Bushnell self-immolation. People don't want to believe it, but it's all there in his Reddit posts, which I looked over in detail recently for @theammind. It all came back to white people, not Jews, for Bushnell. https://t.co/2RGFRAjzdd pic.twitter.com/i1qF5A7eAs

— RAW EGG NATIONALIST (@Babygravy9) April 24, 2024

---

I suppose one way to abolish your own whiteness is to char yourself to a burnt crisp.

J.R. said:

---

hey, you punk ass kids don't want to be here, then GTFO. We don't need your BS. Good on the Speaker for showing up at Columbia and telling the Chancellor to GTFO. Good on you, sir. You are 2 for 2 this week.

---

Where is your President? Is he in the basement? Is he at the ice cream shop? The beach? The man is worthless. The American people deserve better than this empty suit.

Good on Mike Johnson for doing what Biden doesn't have the balls to do.