Fift.  I plead da fift.

But our society needs an excuse to put up with it without fighting back.  That's where this movie comes in.  

And Jenna Jameson owes an ice pack to every girl I fucked in the ass after watching her movies.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

http://soldiersystems.net/2012/09/16/the-right-free-speech/


The Right to Free Speech

Next to the Declaration of Independence, no document has influenced the world more than the Constitution of the United States of America; a document drafted by the Second Continental Congress, in Philadelphia on September 17, 1787.

Broadly speaking, the Continental Congress felt that, as written, the Constitution could easily lead to tyranny and on March 4, 1789, in the City of New York, the 1st Congress of the United States passed 12 Articles as proposed amendments to the Constitution of the United States. The proposed amendments required ratification by three-fourths of the States. Article I and Article II dealing with Congressional representation and compensation of Congress failed to be ratified by the needed three-fourths; however, the remaining ten Articles were ratified and became the first Ten Amendments to the Constitution of the United States; subsequently known as the Bill of Rights. It is the First Amendment to the Constitution that is the subject of my article.

   “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for redress of grievances”

The First Amendment guarantees that we, as citizens, have right to speak freely; however, nowhere in its text does it indemnify us for free speech. Although an individual’s right to free speech has generally been upheld by the courts, in matters the courts perceive the individual acting as a citizen commenting on issues of public interest (Pickering v. Board of Education); it is by no means Carte Blanche, and you can be held accountable for things that are said. Some of the more revealing cases involve the termination of employment by an employer for cause in both private and public sector positions.

One case that comes to mind is BONN v. CITY OF OMAHA U.S. Court of Appeals, Eight Circuit. This is a case in where Tristan Bonn, acting as the Public Safety Auditor for the City of Omaha, was terminated for filing a report critical of the Omaha Police Department. Bonn claimed Civil Rights violation and freedom of speech. Both the lower and appellate courts upheld the termination. Other interesting case law Smith v. Frouin, 28 F.3d 646 (Illinois 1994) involving a Chicago police detective’s complaint about a smoke free zone.

What these cases reaffirm is that although The Bill of Rights guarantees the individual a right to free speech it does not indemnify or hold harmless the individual for the consequences of that speech. Furthermore, they illustrate that courts have maintained a balance. The moral of the story has always been “know what you’re talking about and choose your words carefully;” remembering that I can’t keep you from saying something but I can hold you accountable for what you say.

-Sal Palma
twobirdsflyingpub.wordpress.com

You can quote anything you like but all it does is serve to show that you just don't get it.  They aren't voting for your ban do to differences of opinion, you lack the ideals that most of us hold and you've incorrectly drawn a parallel that isn't true or right but you're too blind to see it.

Listen man, if three pages worth of GD agree about fucking anything, it's probably true.  In this case the agreement is in your lack of understanding.  Agree to disagree and move on to another thread or fight a losing battle that you are on the wrong side of- your call and I don't give a fuck, I just hate watch people miss the point.

Also, you do understand that the First Amendment grants us protections from the government and not each other, right?  Your posts don't seem to lead to that.

what, pray tell, are those "ideals" that i lack? the only thing i don't get is how anything i've said makes me out to be some kind of freedom hating muslim appeaser. i've offered up plenty of explanation to my line of thought, yet nobody else is putting up anything other than that i "don't get it."

i'm saying nothing about the message, just the intent behind it. i never said the guy should be arrested or forced to pay to build new embassies. i never said the muslims were not totally responsible for their actions. I never said there should be limits to the 1A. all i've been trying to say is that IF the reason for the film was to incite the muzzies to kill, then it was a stupid thing to do. IF IT WAS NOT the intent of the film, then homeboy shoulda known what would happen... as others have said, they don't need a reason to kill. why give them an excuse?

damn, why is that so fucking hard to understand?

when i first heard that a US ambassador was dragged through the streets, i was fucking outraged. i'm still fucking outraged. i believe that attacking sovereign US territory or killing a diplomat is tantamount to a declaration of goddamn war. i also believe that the appropriate reaction to such an attack should be swift, severe, and leave the aggressor with no doubt whatsoever that they "gone and done fucked up real bad" and are now suffering the consequences of their actions. furthermore, the response (or lack thereof) by our fearless leaders has been underwhelming, yet expected. had our reaction to the incident in egypt been more appropriate, ie. the shooting of the first head that appeared over the wall, the incidents in libya and elsewhere would not have happened, but that's just my freedom hating, muslim appeasing opinion, man.

What a concept.  You radical!

Because your first stupid post was to compare the stupid YouTube clip to yelling fire in a crowded theater, which IS illegal.





And learn to capitalize, skippy. Following the basic rules of written English can help make a fucking stupid post appear to be just stupid.

this guy seems like a real shitbird...

i compared the intent of the video, which likely was to incite the muslims into rioting and injuring innocent people, to the intent of yelling fire in a crowded theater which would also result in innocent people being injured, not the goddamn legal status of either, and i said "somewhat akin," not "exactly like." there is a huge fucking difference there, but both could have the intent to cause harm to innocent people. clear enough?

i know how to capitalize, holmes. i choose not to. big fucking deal. choosing to ignore a rule in the super-serious universe of the internet is nothing compared to the shitwits that can't spell common two to five letter words or use a goddamn apostrophe correctly.

I'd probably be all butt-hurt and defensive after 4 pages of people people basically calling me an idiot for an incredibly stupid and poorly thought-out post I made. Probably butt-hurt and and defensive enough to start making up wild and senseless explanations for said initial post, just like you're doing.



But, my offer to help zazz your posts up a bit using this exciting new product called 'English Grammar®' still stands. Trust me, it is looking like you'll need all the help you can get. At least Mitch had the good sense to run off after making his fucktardly stupid statement.

I think he should pay reparations for telling the people in that silly little movie they can act........but I did laugh when Muhammed's wives were chasing him around the tent for screwing the servant girl.

Stupid little film, I don't see how it has anything to do with the embassy attacks. Maybe muslims should protest the Muslim vs Muslim massacres going on in the region instead.

Nope

The video wasnt even that good

They are using this as a excuse

The ROP is just a haven for Terrorist

Free

at least i can count past two...