Blatant racism. This is incredible in our day and age, yet, it is widespread. I will be avoiding you Wookie.

I thought all that stuff was George Bush's fault. Oh, and what was "blatant racism"? I haven't brought race up to any degree in this thread.

Oh, I guess I could have mentioned a Supreme Court decision that helped prolong slavery and who knows what effects that had at resulting in the Civil War. I'm sure there would still have been one but possibly not as devastating.

I'm actually seriously puzzled now. I haven't brought up anything with regards to race in this thread and I was actually aligned against what could be considered homophobia. I'm wondering if there was something in the "edit - language removed" post by Jon'C. Possibly something I've said taken out of context? Maybe sassy will check back in.

I meant to address this earlier and forgot. You simply cannot decide in your own mind that- since you do not find bible readings to be intimidating- nobody else will either. There is no possible way that you can impose your opinion upon every person in that line at the DMV and erase their different experiences and possible reactions. As a gay and godless person, if I had been queued there and some guy showed up- not just by himself, but with two mooks- and started reading about the wrath of god upon sinners, I know for a fact (historical example: I once was even in an anti-protest when the WBC picketed a funeral for a gay serviceman in my area) that he probably counts me among those. Quite honestly, I would have been intimidated.

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't know we were allowed to make stuff up if we ran out of legitimate things to say.. In that case, I have no doubt Antony is the type of guy that would change lanes on the freeway without signaling. Traffic laws: only applicable to non-Antonys.

Take two. this time with racism.

Wait, I thought you said this wasn't about content?

This is fun.

hahaha, yeah, how would we ever get the idea that you're a disgusting bigot?

Actually, I always signal.

I really can't believe it took 4 or 5 pages before Sarn started getting offended.

This thread sucks.

It's not even interesting anymore.

Actually, I would not want a muslim arrested for preaching his beliefs any more than I would want a Christian. I might be annoyed by his preaching, but I would just ignore it, just like any other mature, adult individual would do.

As to an islamic community center on ground zero, I am against the idea. But I would be equally against the idea of building a Christian community center there... Or any other religious community center. How about we build a memorial in honor of the AMERICAN CITIZENS that died in the initial attacks, and those that suffered as a result of them? That would seem like a much more appropriate use of government funds.. (And funny how separation of church and state suddenly seems to not apply here...)

Well (with the exception of Emon), it took 4 or 5 pages before ME's (Massassi Elitists) started ignoring the topic and just making baseless personal attacks against me.


Agreed. Can we stop making up stupid **** and get back to the issue at hand? To put us back on track;
How is it not a violation of our First Amendment right which says "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech" to make laws that limit the locations we as Americans can practice free speech or require us to have permits in order to speak?

That question still has not been answered. They best you guys have done is to basically say that there's a legal precedent that makes such laws ok. I ask you, is a legal precedent that contradicts the US Bill of Rights a valid precedent to have in place? Should we start making more laws to limit and restrict people's rights to religion so we can set a precedent there that will eventually require people to apply for permits to practice their beliefs? It's a slippery slope to say "it's not unconstitutional because judges in the last 50 years have decided it's a better way of doing things, regardless of the Constitution.

The law isn't. Your statement about this specific instance and how he did not "do any of those things while the was reading the bible" was. Hence the specific counter-example explanation why it could be problematic.

If you're at all familiar with logic, it is a case where ALL non-DMV business/content there is prohibited without a permit since AT LEAST SOME (though uncertain which of what for whom) content could fit the intimidation clause of the penal code.

Edit: And given the precedents I quoted below [did you read them this time since you didn't even have to click a link?] in fact non-DMV related business would apply to the same cases as eg doing non-airport-related business in an airport or post office which are also nonpublic forums.



Don't derail this with unrelated rights. This is about legality of speech in different forums, if he'd been reading Moby Dick or Bash.org the law would still be the same and nobody would be trying to herring around the issue claiming his rights to believe in the white whale was being infringed on.

Edit edit: They weren't limiting his ability to practice his beliefs, just that he couldn't do it there. Unless I suppose you want to claim his right to preach to anyone in any situation and location are actually his religious rights.

You cannot practice free speech any where you go. Just like a muslim cannot preach in a church, and a christian in a mosque. If the first amendment allowed such freedom, America would have destroyed itself long ago.

I'm just going to repeat myself here.

You may be a Tibetan monk & have the ability to ignore someone shouting scripture at the top of their lungs just feet away from your face but many of us aren't capable of this feat. My wife escorts women that are having abortions from their cars in to the clinic every week. She often has to walk these poor ladies through a sea (especially on the weekends) of religious fanatics to accomplish this task. They're screaming bible verses at the top of their lungs, essentially telling them that they're going to hell. It's very intimidating, even for the seasoned veterans (one of the guys has been doing it for 30 years & says he still gets nervous on occasion). While the particular person that we're discussing in this thread isn't entirely analogous to the people that she has to deal with, there are some similarities (the largest being the fact that you can't avoid them to get to your destination).


I would like to just make it clear that no religious center of any kind was going to be on "Ground Zero". It was several blocks away. Also, they are building a memorial.

Everything else that you said in this particular post has already been commented on via the "living document" responses. You seem to be ignoring the fact that your forefathers weren't prophets, that they couldn't possibly have foreseen everything that would happen in the future of their country & that were intelligent enough to design a framework that can be updated to become more relevant.

I would like to point out once again that the people who think this is a first amendment violation do not understand freedom of speech.

No dude, you just don't understand the Bill of Rights. Only Sarn does-- better than anyone, including every lawyer and senator who has been involved in any of the amendments to it and interpretations thereof. Fo realz.

Thank you. Nobody seems to realize that the Religious center isn't ON ground zero. You can't even see ground zero from where it will be. Also nobody seems to want to mention the bars, strip clubs, and fast food restaurants that are even closer.

I don't understand how Sarn/Wookie could possibly be arguing over this. You have a man disrupting business. It doesn't matter if it's a government business or a private business, it's still business being conducted. It doesn't matter how he was disrupting business; he could be standing there dancing the Cha-Cha for all it mattered. The man continued to be disruptive, so they take him away.

The only reason content even comes up, why this even got news, is because he was reading Scripture. In short, he's a real life troll, who knew very well what would happen, and wanted to create a big stink over it. If he was arrested for doing the Cha-Cha, it wouldn't be on the news, or if it was, only as pointing out a crazy man. He specifically chose that content to cause an issue. And it's because people like Sarn and Wookie exist that it was MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.

Back in high school, I worked for an amusement park. We got tons of idiots coming in insisting that we couldn't kick them out because it was public property. I don't know what the hell they were taught, but there's way too many people who believe that just because the public can enter, that it is somehow public property.

If you guys think that this guy was doing nothing wrong then you'll absolutely love [URL="www.carlosmiller.com"]Carlos Miller's blog[/URL] where people are constantly arrested for taking photos &/or videos.

That entire blog screams "something I have literally no real reason to do is illegal, so I'm going to do it anyway because I don't understand why it is illegal and want to put my stupidity on display"

Mentat wins the thread.




This. For example, when we are filming on any kind of property, even public parks, recreation centres, and even if we are outside your house. As long as we have a location filming permit from the city, which is always attained, we can basically tell you to GTFO and you can't do ****.

Except for the fact that it's not actually illegal (although the laws vary by area) & in many of these cases the courts sided with the "victims" & they were even compensated for their inconvenience. However, there are also some silly ones on there as well though.

Generally many establishments (especially federal establishments) have rules against using cameras on the property due to worries about possible terrorist activity. It's completely and totally legal for them to prohibit you from taking photos or videotaping around them. Apparently it's part of the Patriot Act or something. I had to deal with this when I was in film school.

But this isn't how our laws work. We punish conduct, not effects. If my true speech causes harm to someone (because I truthfully assert that a local restaurant is committing dangerous violations of the health code, and the restaurant closes as a resort), there'd quite rightly be no criminal or civil claim against me. It's just nonsensical to say that we're punishing "secondary effects" of speech and not the speech itself when something about the speech itself determines whether it has consequences or not.



If you want to argue that Marbury v. Madison was illegitimate, all I can do is leave you to it. If I weren't in the middle of finals, I might have the time, but not now.

Yep, Sarn. Darn those nefarious others. Maybe some day all of those people you label as different will stop trying to make you look like a bigot.

What is wrong with our legal system is that this man was not crucified as any properly civilized system of law would have seen to.


----------------------

I think the number one problem in this thread is that Sarn and Wookie do not realize that public debates are not about being right, they are about convincing others that the other side is wrong/stupid. They also have not realized that EVERYONE was against them since the first post which essentially means that they're doing the opposition's job for them.

The number two problem they face is that they are wrong.

I think the solution is to make public proselytism taxable. I don't see any downside to it at all...

I didn't know it was illegal for persons of certain faiths to speak or "preach" to those of other faiths. At least not here.



Although I disagree with "more relevant" you are mostly right although we haven't really been talking about the amendment process. My criticism has been against what has effectively become the judicial amendment process and that is something that clearly is not incorporated into the constitution.



It would be interesting to here your thought on what you consider "freedom of speech".



I didn't interpret him as disrupting business. He appeared to be reading scripture aloud while people were waiting for the DMV to open. I'm certain that if a current American Idol contestant was singing aloud there would have been a similar reaction. I'm sure that would have been all over the news. Just imagine Casey Abrams screaming don't taze me bro'. Classic!



You should give me a little credit. I "fought" to turn this from the fanciful gay cop thread it had been since post one to one of the actual real issues involved. I also didn't start this thread, nor would I. I have tried to speak merely on the constitutional issues and I have been rational and thoughtful despite typical insults (and some ridiculous accusations of racism :confused:).



Clearly private property unless it was government owned. Not to take away from your primary point.



I clearly only referred to speech that caused those things due to libel, slander, perjury, etc. I'm not quite sure why you are arguing this point the way you are. When charges or law suits are brought in matters such as this it is because the speech consists of lies or is defamatory. Why would you compare that to truthful speech?



That's kind of how I am. Busy and tired. In fact if I do happen to check in here over the next few days it will be because I'm neglecting other things. Too bad we're not neighbors.



Again, I didn't start the thread but I did try to steer it to a reasonable discussion. I do understand, however, that many are happy having speech regulated.

I did not say that, and you know I didn't. Now I know you are either retarded, or trying to troll the most you can out of this.

quick, to the elitemobile

VROOOOOOOM

Oh it's pretty simple. I can say whatever I want as long as it's the appropriate time and place for that sort of statement.

This is not just my view of free speech. That's how it actually works.

Interesting view.



Not really. People routinely address other of differing faiths. It's fairly common although I wouldn't say routine. Just wondering why you thought they couldn't.

Wookie, you're the kind of guy who thinks that Walter in The Big Lebowski is in the right when he has the outburst in the diner ("Would you forget about the ****IN TOE!") and then when the waitress asks him to leave he cites the first amendment, aren't you?

EDIT: And that's not my view. That's me understanding the first amendment and not abusing it in the name of being a self righteous dick, which a lot of people in this country seem to have a problem doing.

Who said you were one of the elite, Tracer?

It's been a long time since I've seen that movie and it wasn't very good so I don't quite remember the scene but from the little bit you described that sounds like something you could be ejected from an establishment for.

Yeah, really, Tracer is not one of the Massassi Elite. And, sarn, if you're going to co-opt my expression, use it correctly. "Massassi Elite". Thank you.

I remember someone once said I was in the Massassi Elite. That made me laugh.

Numerous problems with that:

1. You weren't there to make valid interpretations.
2. There was no reason for him to read aloud.
3. A disruption is a disruption no matter the content.