Skip to main content

View Diary: Crazy Gun CEO Apologizes With Attorney (268 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Who's the terrorist here? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    drmah

    The poster above or the idiot ranting on You Tube?

    My "little mind" is open to the machinations of shredding that damn piece of paper and how it's accomplished by the manufactured consent utilizing fear porn to control and manipulate the masses into demanding they be lead to the slaughter house.

    "Terrorist" is now defined as someone exercising their unalienable right to free speech.  Specific speech that the Supreme Court decided IS protected.

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/...

     Statutes affecting the right of assembly, like those touching on freedom of speech, must observe the established distinctions between mere advocacy and incitement to imminent lawless action, for, as Chief Justice Hughes wrote in De Jonge v. Oregon, supra, at 364: "The right of peaceable assembly is a right cognate to those of free speech and free press, and is equally fundamental." See also United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 552 (1876); Hague v. CIO, 307 U.S. 496, 513, 519 (1939); NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 U.S. 449, 460-461 (1958).

    Houston, we have a problem!

    -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

    by gerrilea on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 07:00:03 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  I don't understand how forming or threatening to (0+ / 0-)

      form an army and going after elected officials, as Yeager suggests, is an inalienable rigt? Did you even listen to the tapes? Threats of gun violence againest other Americans isn't in my understaning of free speech or free-wheeling gun rights.   How can you claim this is fine and dandy with you?  Just listen! Just listen!  

      •  I did listen, he made empty idle threats (0+ / 0-)

        "when and if" x, y and z occurs.

        X, Y and Z haven't occurred, have they?

        For the speech to cross the line into territory NOT protected, the threat must be imminent, as per Brandenburg V. Ohio.

        I never once said what this idiot ranted on about was "fine and dandy", in fact, I stated it could rise to the level of a mental deficiency that must be adjudicated.

        And I further pointed out, while I do not agree with the content of his speech, I will defend his right to speak it.

        This concept and ideal once defined us as a progressive community.

        -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

        by gerrilea on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 07:53:43 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I have the right to my freedom of speech to think (0+ / 0-)

          this man is dangerous.  Yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater amid a thunder storm may be ok with some, but most of us think it irresponsible.  Don't diss our right to think this gun-threatening retoric is destructive.

          •  Hon, I'm not diss-ing anything. (0+ / 0-)

            Red herring.

            You accused me of having a closed mind that need to be opened.

            I'm trying to expand your incorrect understandings of our law and history here.

            The Schenck Decision you keep referencing was reversed  in the Brandenburg Case I quoted.

            I think religions are far more dangerous and irresponsible but the exercise of said is still a protected right.

            The freedom of speech even protects speech we abhor, especially speech we abhor!

            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

            by gerrilea on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 08:14:15 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Threating elected officials is sedition regardless (0+ / 0-)

              of how lightly you want to consider it.

              •  The Supreme Court has made it perfectly clear (0+ / 0-)

                that to cross that line, your speech must include overt acts that incite an imminent threat....not one if and when laws are passed to take firearms and not if and when they are actually enforced.

                It's a huge difference you must understand.

                -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                by gerrilea on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 08:48:38 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  UGH! (0+ / 0-)

                  OK, defend this guy all you want. He's still a threat to society.

                  •  You equate free speech that you abhor to being (0+ / 0-)

                    a threat to society.  

                    I do not defend this guys point of view but I will defend his absolute right to present it.  Until the constitution is amended or another Supreme Court decision vacates Brandenburg.

                    We cannot have an open and free society if we sensor the voices we do not agree with.  I still value that freedom, one that if your desires were to be implemented could deny us this venue to debate or differences.

                    -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                    by gerrilea on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 08:59:04 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site