Activist 'banned for life' from criticizing homosexuality

Religions > Atheism > Activist 'banned for life' from criticizing homosexuality

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 10

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	"J Young"
Date:	16 Dec 2007 11:47:51 PM
Object:	Activist 'banned for life' from criticizing homosexuality

Thank God that I live here in America
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59217
Saturday, December 15, 2007
Activist 'banned for life' from criticizing homosexuality
Offending pamphlets quoted ad: 'Man seeking boys . age not so relevant'
Posted: December 15, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
A lifetime ban on public criticism of homosexuality was upheld against a
Catholic activist in Canada by his province's superior court.
Bill Whatcott was fined 17,500 Canadian dollars by the Saskatchewan Human
Rights Commission in a complaint by four homosexuals who charged he
"injured" their "feelings" and "self respect" in pamphlets denouncing the
"gay lifestyle" as immoral and dangerous, Lifesite News reported.
Saskatchewan's Court of Queens Bench, which hears criminal and civil cases,
upheld a 2006 decision Tuesday by the provincial Human Rights Commission.
"This fine is for telling the truth [that] homosexual sodomites can change
their behavior and be set free from their sin and depravity through the
forgiveness of sins and shed blood of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,"
Whatcott said.
A licensed practical nurse, Whatcott regularly campaigns against the
political movement that is rapidly advancing homosexual rights in the
Canadian legal system, LifeSiteNews said.
"Shame on the Saskatchewan Court of Queens Bench for pandering to homosexual
activism and ignoring the truth," he said.
The provincial Human Rights Commission noted Whatcott was "ordered to
discontinue distributing any materials that promote hatred against people
because of their sexual orientation."
The tribunal held that "preventing the distribution of such materials was a
reasonable limit on Whatcott's right to freedom of religion and expression
as guaranteed by Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms."
Whatcott says his pamphlets used "verbatim" a text from a classified
personal advertisement in a local homosexual publication that said, "Man
seeking boys . age not so relevant."
LifeSiteNews noted Ottawa Citizen columnist David Warren criticized the
tribunals as "kangaroo courts" and "star chambers" with "quasi-legal powers
that should be offensive to the citizens of any free country ... in which
the defendant's right to due process is withdrawn."
A petition to Prime Minister Stephen Harper is being circulated calling for
abolishment, or at least curtailment, of the powers of the commissions.
Last month, a Canadian political party leader's posting of a WND article on
homosexuality brought him before the country's Human Rights Commission to
face accusations he was motivated by "hate and defamation."
Ron Gray of the Christian Heritage Party said he was told directly by an
employee of the Human Rights Commission that the Canadian Human Rights Act,
under which he is being accused, is "about censorship." Two of the three
complaints filed by Edmonton man Rob Wells relate to the posting of an April
2002 WND story titled "Report: Pedophilia more common among 'gays.'"
The third complaint against Gray is for several commentaries he wrote and
distributed to party members. One, titled "Sitcom prophet," compared the
current climate of debate about homosexuality in Canada to the "Cone of
Silence" in the 1960s-era television comedy "Get Smart."
--
J Young
jyoungvisions@aol.com
.

User: "peter"
Title: Re: Activist 'banned for life' from criticizing homosexuality	20 Dec 2007 06:18:10 PM

"J Young" <jyoungvisions@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1g1oaq.1or.19.1@news.alt.net...

Thank God that I live here in America

Yes aren't we all lucky that you're not here

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59217

Saturday, December 15, 2007

Activist 'banned for life' from criticizing homosexuality

Offending pamphlets quoted ad: 'Man seeking boys . age not so relevant'

Posted: December 15, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com

A lifetime ban on public criticism of homosexuality was upheld against a
Catholic activist in Canada by his province's superior court.

Bill Whatcott was fined 17,500 Canadian dollars by the Saskatchewan Human
Rights Commission in a complaint by four homosexuals who charged he
"injured" their "feelings" and "self respect" in pamphlets denouncing the
"gay lifestyle" as immoral and dangerous, Lifesite News reported.

Saskatchewan's Court of Queens Bench, which hears criminal and civil
cases, upheld a 2006 decision Tuesday by the provincial Human Rights
Commission.

"This fine is for telling the truth [that] homosexual sodomites can change
their behavior and be set free from their sin and depravity through the
forgiveness of sins and shed blood of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,"
Whatcott said.

A licensed practical nurse, Whatcott regularly campaigns against the
political movement that is rapidly advancing homosexual rights in the
Canadian legal system, LifeSiteNews said.

"Shame on the Saskatchewan Court of Queens Bench for pandering to
homosexual activism and ignoring the truth," he said.

The provincial Human Rights Commission noted Whatcott was "ordered to
discontinue distributing any materials that promote hatred against people
because of their sexual orientation."

The tribunal held that "preventing the distribution of such materials was
a reasonable limit on Whatcott's right to freedom of religion and
expression as guaranteed by Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights
and Freedoms."

Whatcott says his pamphlets used "verbatim" a text from a classified
personal advertisement in a local homosexual publication that said, "Man
seeking boys . age not so relevant."

LifeSiteNews noted Ottawa Citizen columnist David Warren criticized the
tribunals as "kangaroo courts" and "star chambers" with "quasi-legal
powers that should be offensive to the citizens of any free country ... in
which the defendant's right to due process is withdrawn."

A petition to Prime Minister Stephen Harper is being circulated calling
for abolishment, or at least curtailment, of the powers of the
commissions.

Last month, a Canadian political party leader's posting of a WND article
on homosexuality brought him before the country's Human Rights Commission
to face accusations he was motivated by "hate and defamation."

Ron Gray of the Christian Heritage Party said he was told directly by an
employee of the Human Rights Commission that the Canadian Human Rights
Act, under which he is being accused, is "about censorship." Two of the
three complaints filed by Edmonton man Rob Wells relate to the posting of
an April 2002 WND story titled "Report: Pedophilia more common among
'gays.'"

The third complaint against Gray is for several commentaries he wrote and
distributed to party members. One, titled "Sitcom prophet," compared the
current climate of debate about homosexuality in Canada to the "Cone of
Silence" in the 1960s-era television comedy "Get Smart."

--
J Young
jyoungvisions@aol.com

User: "Zeb"
Title: Re: Activist 'banned for life' from criticizing homosexuality	17 Dec 2007 06:27:14 AM

J Young <jyoungvisions@aol.com> wrote:

Thank God that I live here in America

But in the USA it's OK to burn churches to the ground for criticizing
homosexuality and to shoot assholes who express hatred towards Gays.
It happens at least 5 times a week and the police do nothing.
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Activist 'banned for life' from criticizing homosexuality	17 Dec 2007 12:10:32 AM

On 17 Dez., 06:47, "J Young" <jyoungvisi...@aol.com> wrote:

Thank God that I live here in America

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59217

And this is what a real news site has to say about this person:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2005/06/08/christ050608.html
Police investigating Christian activist for hate crimes
Last Updated: Wednesday, June 8, 2005 | 12:52 PM ET
CBC News
Two thousand leaflets attacking gays and lesbians have put a Christian
activist in western Canada under investigation by Edmonton police for
hate crimes. The flyers by Bill Whatcott of Regina refer to gay
marriage as "sodomite marriage" and use graphic language to describe
the alleged sex practices of homosexuals.
The handouts also used derogatory terms to describe federal Defence
Minister Bill Graham.
Whatcott stuffed his pamphlets into mailboxes in the riding of Deputy
Prime Minister Anne McLellan, and some recipients complained to
police.
"The material is offensive and it's an affront on the basic tenets of
our society, which is about multiculturalism, tolerance and peaceful
co-existence," Const. Steve Camp, of the Edmonton police hate crimes
unit, said.
As far as I'm concerned, isn't the USA also in favor of
"multiculturalism, tolerance and peaceful co-existence", J Young?
.

User: "Michelle Malkin"
Title: Re: Activist 'banned for life' from criticizing homosexuality	17 Dec 2007 08:07:33 AM

<parsifal222@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a0e72f4b-0786-4ef8-a46e-234e9aa77d52@b40g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

On 17 Dez., 06:47, "J Young" <jyoungvisi...@aol.com> wrote:

Thank God that I live here in America

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59217

And this is what a real news site has to say about this person:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2005/06/08/christ050608.html

Police investigating Christian activist for hate crimes
Last Updated: Wednesday, June 8, 2005 | 12:52 PM ET
CBC News

Two thousand leaflets attacking gays and lesbians have put a Christian
activist in western Canada under investigation by Edmonton police for
hate crimes. The flyers by Bill Whatcott of Regina refer to gay
marriage as "sodomite marriage" and use graphic language to describe
the alleged sex practices of homosexuals.

The handouts also used derogatory terms to describe federal Defence
Minister Bill Graham.

Whatcott stuffed his pamphlets into mailboxes in the riding of Deputy
Prime Minister Anne McLellan, and some recipients complained to
police.

"The material is offensive and it's an affront on the basic tenets of
our society, which is about multiculturalism, tolerance and peaceful
co-existence," Const. Steve Camp, of the Edmonton police hate crimes
unit, said.

As far as I'm concerned, isn't the USA also in favor of
"multiculturalism, tolerance and peaceful co-existence", J Young?

How would he know? J Young lives in the Twilight Zone.
.

User: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Gwyne=F0_Bennetdottir?="
Title: Re: Activist 'banned for life' from criticizing homosexuality	17 Dec 2007 09:20:18 AM

On Dec 17, 3:07 pm, "Michelle Malkin" <hypati...@comcast.net> wrote:

<parsifal...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:a0e72f4b-0786-4ef8-a46e-234e9aa77d52@b40g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

On 17 Dez., 06:47, "J Young" <jyoungvisi...@aol.com> wrote:

Thank God that I live here in America

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59217

And this is what a real news site has to say about this person:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2005/06/08/christ050608.html

Police investigating Christian activist for hate crimes
Last Updated: Wednesday, June 8, 2005 | 12:52 PM ET
CBC News

Two thousand leaflets attacking gays and lesbians have put a Christian
activist in western Canada under investigation by Edmonton police for
hate crimes. The flyers by Bill Whatcott of Regina refer to gay
marriage as "sodomite marriage" and use graphic language to describe
the alleged sex practices of homosexuals.

The handouts also used derogatory terms to describe federal Defence
Minister Bill Graham.

Whatcott stuffed his pamphlets into mailboxes in the riding of Deputy
Prime Minister Anne McLellan, and some recipients complained to
police.

"The material is offensive and it's an affront on the basic tenets of
our society, which is about multiculturalism, tolerance and peaceful
co-existence," Const. Steve Camp, of the Edmonton police hate crimes
unit, said.

As far as I'm concerned, isn't the USA also in favor of
"multiculturalism, tolerance and peaceful co-existence", J Young?

Not really - depdning on where you are in this vast country of
weirdness.

How would he know? J Young lives in the Twilight Zone.

He lives in the confessional of an aging Catholic church, for only one
"J Young"mission - and it isn't for counsel.
.

User: "Michael"
Title: Re: Activist 'banned for life' from criticizing homosexuality	17 Dec 2007 02:32:55 PM

On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 07:20:18 -0800, GwyneÃ° Bennetdottir wrote:

As far as I'm concerned, isn't the USA also in favor of
"multiculturalism, tolerance and peaceful co-existence", J Young?

Not really - depdning on where you are in this vast country of
weirdness.

"Tolerance" is Orwellian doublespeak meaning you have
to tolerate me, but I do not have to tolerate you (or vice-versa).
Multiculturalism is another codeword, meaning any culture but the ones
that founded the nation.
Peaceful co-existence starts when you go to pay your fine, go to jail or
otherwise are compelled to it.
Multiculturalism that might *work* is limited to cultures that have a lot
in common -- Swedes and Norwegians, for instance, making jokes about each
other but that's about the limit of mutual offensiveness. Christians
versus Muslims are unlikely to ever have peaceful co-existence
because of the latter's determination to eliminate the former. Likewise a
culture of hard work and customer service cannot coexist with cultures of
national laziness.
Michael
.

User: "John D. Wentzky"
Title: Re: Activist 'banned for life' from criticizing homosexuality	17 Dec 2007 12:41:58 AM

<parsifal222@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a0e72f4b-0786-4ef8-a46e-234e9aa77d52@b40g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

On 17 Dez., 06:47, "J Young" <jyoungvisi...@aol.com> wrote:

Thank God that I live here in America

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59217

"Hate crimes", he says.

Two thousand leaflets attacking

"Attacking", he says.
Why is it all these pussies show their fraud so often by rebelling aganst
freedom of speech and free exercise of religion by calling speech an attack?

gays and lesbians have put a Christian
activist in western Canada under investigation by Edmonton police for
hate crimes. The flyers by Bill Whatcott of Regina refer to gay
marriage as "sodomite marriage" and use graphic language to describe
the alleged sex practices of homosexuals.

The handouts also used derogatory terms to describe federal Defence
Minister Bill Graham.

Whatcott stuffed his pamphlets into mailboxes in the riding of Deputy
Prime Minister Anne McLellan, and some recipients complained to
police.

"The material is offensive and it's an affront on the basic tenets of
our society, which is about multiculturalism, tolerance and peaceful
co-existence," Const. Steve Camp, of the Edmonton police hate crimes
unit, said.

Illegal government gangster ***** against the people they tax for their
enrichment.
.

User: "Virgil"
Title: Re: Activist 'banned for life' from criticizing homosexuality	17 Dec 2007 01:04:04 AM

In article <8To9j.41262$L%6.20148@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
"John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:

<parsifal222@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a0e72f4b-0786-4ef8-a46e-234e9aa77d52@b40g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

On 17 Dez., 06:47, "J Young" <jyoungvisi...@aol.com> wrote:

Thank God that I live here in America

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59217

"Hate crimes", he says.

And hate crimes they was.

Two thousand leaflets attacking

"Attacking", he says.

And attacking it was.

Why is it all these pussies show their fraud so often by rebelling aganst
freedom of speech and free exercise of religion by calling speech an attack?

Freedom of speech is not absolute.
No one has the right to shout "fire" in a crowded auditorium unless
there is a fire.
.

User: "John D. Wentzky"
Title: Re: Activist 'banned for life' from criticizing homosexuality	17 Dec 2007 04:47:46 AM

"Virgil" <Virgil@com.com> wrote in message
news:Virgil-E8AA8F.00040417122007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...

In article <8To9j.41262$L%6.20148@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
"John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:

<parsifal222@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a0e72f4b-0786-4ef8-a46e-234e9aa77d52@b40g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

On 17 Dez., 06:47, "J Young" <jyoungvisi...@aol.com> wrote:

Thank God that I live here in America

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59217

"Hate crimes", he says.

And hate crimes they was.

"G-man, I'm gay. I can't tolerate freedom of speech or free exercise of
religion. Arrest that 'bad' man for exercising his constitutional rights."
LOL!
You *ARE* an idiot.
The hate crime is the punishment and anti-liberty agenda of the homosexuals
in these matters.

Two thousand leaflets attacking

"Attacking", he says.

And attacking it was.

Liar.
Freedom of Speech doesn't 'attack' anyone.
The attack is on the part of the criminal extortionist government.

Why is it all these pussies show their fraud so often by rebelling aganst
freedom of speech and free exercise of religion by calling speech an
attack?

Freedom of speech is not absolute.

It is in the USA as long as you aren't using your speech for commercial
purposes or as part of your job that you are compensated to perform.

No one has the right to shout "fire" in a crowded auditorium unless
there is a fire.

What a joke of an analogy.
This story wasn't about anyone shouting fire in a movie theater.
.

User: "Virgil"
Title: Re: Activist 'banned for life' from criticizing homosexuality	17 Dec 2007 02:17:22 PM

In article <Bts9j.31065$mb.17011@bignews9.bellsouth.net>,
"John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:

"Virgil" <Virgil@com.com> wrote in message
news:Virgil-E8AA8F.00040417122007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...

In article <8To9j.41262$L%6.20148@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
"John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:

<parsifal222@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a0e72f4b-0786-4ef8-a46e-234e9aa77d52@b40g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

On 17 Dez., 06:47, "J Young" <jyoungvisi...@aol.com> wrote:

Thank God that I live here in America

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59217

"Hate crimes", he says.

And hate crimes they was.

"G-man, I'm gay.

JDW isn't even lighthearted.

I can't tolerate freedom of speech or free exercise of
religion. Arrest that 'bad' man for exercising his constitutional rights."

JDW was arrested and indicted on 3 counts, but exercising his
constitutional rights was no one of them.

Freedom of Speech doesn't 'attack' anyone.

But JDW does.

Freedom of speech is not absolute.

It is in the USA as long as you aren't using your speech for commercial
purposes or as part of your job that you are compensated to perform.

No one has the right to shout "fire" in a crowded auditorium unless
there is a fire.

What a joke of an analogy.

That is contained in a decision of SCOTUS limiting freedom of speech.

This story wasn't about anyone shouting fire in a movie theater.

Freedom of speech is limited by SCOTUS in a decision expaining that
limitation by analogy as "No one has the right to shout "fire" in a
crowded auditorium unless there is a fire."
JDW's abysmal ignorance of constitutional law surfaces again.
.

User: "Mark K. Bilbo"
Title: Re: Activist 'banned for life' from criticizing homosexuality	17 Dec 2007 06:04:15 AM

On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 05:47:46 -0500, John D. Wentzky wrote:

"Virgil" <Virgil@com.com> wrote in message
news:Virgil-E8AA8F.00040417122007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...

In article <8To9j.41262$L%6.20148@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, "John D.
Wentzky" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:

<parsifal222@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a0e72f4b-0786-4ef8-

a46e-234e9aa77d52@b40g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

On 17 Dez., 06:47, "J Young" <jyoungvisi...@aol.com> wrote:

Thank God that I live here in America

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59217

"Hate crimes", he says.

And hate crimes they was.

"G-man, I'm gay. I can't tolerate freedom of speech or free exercise of
religion. Arrest that 'bad' man for exercising his constitutional
rights." LOL!
You *ARE* an idiot.
The hate crime is the punishment and anti-liberty agenda of the
homosexuals in these matters.

Two thousand leaflets attacking

"Attacking", he says.

And attacking it was.

Liar.
Freedom of Speech doesn't 'attack' anyone. The attack is on the part of
the criminal extortionist government.

Why is it all these pussies show their fraud so often by rebelling
aganst freedom of speech and free exercise of religion by calling
speech an attack?

Freedom of speech is not absolute.

It is in the USA as long as you aren't using your speech for commercial
purposes or as part of your job that you are compensated to perform.

Wanna bet? Try inciting a riot and see how protected your speech is...
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
Surgeon General's Warning:
Quitting Religion Now Greatly Increases the Chances of World Peace.
.

User: "John D. Wentzky"
Title: Re: Activist 'banned for life' from criticizing homosexuality	17 Dec 2007 01:07:46 PM

"Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote in message
news:v65i35-vb4.ln1@eac.exists.not...

On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 05:47:46 -0500, John D. Wentzky wrote:

"Virgil" <Virgil@com.com> wrote in message
news:Virgil-E8AA8F.00040417122007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...

In article <8To9j.41262$L%6.20148@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, "John D.
Wentzky" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:

<parsifal222@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a0e72f4b-0786-4ef8-

a46e-234e9aa77d52@b40g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

On 17 Dez., 06:47, "J Young" <jyoungvisi...@aol.com> wrote:

Thank God that I live here in America

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59217

"Hate crimes", he says.

And hate crimes they was.

"G-man, I'm gay. I can't tolerate freedom of speech or free exercise of
religion. Arrest that 'bad' man for exercising his constitutional
rights." LOL!
You *ARE* an idiot.
The hate crime is the punishment and anti-liberty agenda of the
homosexuals in these matters.

Two thousand leaflets attacking

"Attacking", he says.

And attacking it was.

Liar.
Freedom of Speech doesn't 'attack' anyone. The attack is on the part of
the criminal extortionist government.

Why is it all these pussies show their fraud so often by rebelling
aganst freedom of speech and free exercise of religion by calling
speech an attack?

Freedom of speech is not absolute.

It is in the USA as long as you aren't using your speech for commercial
purposes or as part of your job that you are compensated to perform.

Wanna bet? Try inciting a riot and see how protected your speech is...

I'm not trying to incite a riot.
I'm not participating in Outfests.
.

User: "Virgil"
Title: Re: Activist 'banned for life' from criticizing homosexuality	17 Dec 2007 02:22:30 PM

In article <kOz9j.32622$rc2.17293@bignews1.bellsouth.net>,
"John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:

Freedom of speech is not absolute.

It is in the USA as long as you aren't using your speech for commercial
purposes or as part of your job that you are compensated to perform.

Wanna bet? Try inciting a riot and see how protected your speech is...

I'm not trying to incite a riot.

But if you were, you could be arrested tried and convicted for what you
said in trying to incite that riot.
.

User: "David Johnston"
Title: Re: Activist 'banned for life' from criticizing homosexuality	17 Dec 2007 04:41:39 PM

On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 13:22:30 -0700, Virgil <Virgil@com.com> wrote:

In article <kOz9j.32622$rc2.17293@bignews1.bellsouth.net>,
"John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:

Freedom of speech is not absolute.

It is in the USA as long as you aren't using your speech for commercial
purposes or as part of your job that you are compensated to perform.

Wanna bet? Try inciting a riot and see how protected your speech is...

I'm not trying to incite a riot.

But if you were, you could be arrested tried and convicted for what you
said in trying to incite that riot.

Then there's slander and libel. Not to mention that there are still
obscenity laws on the books as well as laws against revealing
classified information.
.

User: "Mark K. Bilbo"
Title: Re: Activist 'banned for life' from criticizing homosexuality	17 Dec 2007 07:38:46 PM

On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 14:07:46 -0500, John D. Wentzky wrote:

"Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote in message
news:v65i35-vb4.ln1@eac.exists.not...

On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 05:47:46 -0500, John D. Wentzky wrote:

"Virgil" <Virgil@com.com> wrote in message
news:Virgil-E8AA8F.00040417122007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...

In article <8To9j.41262$L%6.20148@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, "John D.
Wentzky" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:

<parsifal222@gmail.com> wrote in message news:a0e72f4b-0786-4ef8-

a46e-234e9aa77d52@b40g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

On 17 Dez., 06:47, "J Young" <jyoungvisi...@aol.com> wrote:

Thank God that I live here in America

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59217

"Hate crimes", he says.

And hate crimes they was.

"G-man, I'm gay. I can't tolerate freedom of speech or free exercise
of religion. Arrest that 'bad' man for exercising his constitutional
rights." LOL!
You *ARE* an idiot.
The hate crime is the punishment and anti-liberty agenda of the
homosexuals in these matters.

Two thousand leaflets attacking

"Attacking", he says.

And attacking it was.

Liar.
Freedom of Speech doesn't 'attack' anyone. The attack is on the part
of the criminal extortionist government.

Why is it all these pussies show their fraud so often by rebelling
aganst freedom of speech and free exercise of religion by calling
speech an attack?

Freedom of speech is not absolute.

It is in the USA as long as you aren't using your speech for
commercial purposes or as part of your job that you are compensated to
perform.

Wanna bet? Try inciting a riot and see how protected your speech is...

I'm not trying to incite a riot.
I'm not participating in Outfests.

Sigh. Do you have *any* neurons left functioning?
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
â€œEvery normal man must be tempted at times
to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and
begin to slit throats.â€
- H. L. Mencken
.

User: "Mark Sebree"
Title: Re: Activist 'banned for life' from criticizing homosexuality	17 Dec 2007 08:30:04 PM

On Dec 17, 8:38 pm, "Mark K. Bilbo" <gm...@com.mkbilbo> wrote:

On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 14:07:46 -0500, John D. Wentzky wrote:

"Mark K. Bilbo" <gm...@com.mkbilbo> wrote in message
news:v65i35-vb4.ln1@eac.exists.not...

On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 05:47:46 -0500, John D. Wentzky wrote:

"Virgil" <Vir...@com.com> wrote in message
news:Virgil-E8AA8F.00040417122007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...

In article <8To9j.41262$L%6.20...@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, "John D.
Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> wrote:

<parsifal...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:a0e72f4b-0786-4ef8-

a46e-234e9aa77...@b40g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

On 17 Dez., 06:47, "J Young" <jyoungvisi...@aol.com> wrote:

Thank God that I live here in America

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59217

And this is what a real news site has to say about this person:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2005/06/08/christ050608.html

Police investigating Christian activist for hate crimes Last
Updated: Wednesday, June 8, 2005 | 12:52 PM ET CBC News

"Hate crimes", he says.

And hate crimes they was.

"G-man, I'm gay. I can't tolerate freedom of speech or free exercise
of religion. Arrest that 'bad' man for exercising his constitutional
rights." LOL!
You *ARE* an idiot.
The hate crime is the punishment and anti-liberty agenda of the
homosexuals in these matters.

Two thousand leaflets attacking

"Attacking", he says.

And attacking it was.

Liar.
Freedom of Speech doesn't 'attack' anyone. The attack is on the part
of the criminal extortionist government.

Why is it all these pussies show their fraud so often by rebelling
aganst freedom of speech and free exercise of religion by calling
speech an attack?

Freedom of speech is not absolute.

It is in the USA as long as you aren't using your speech for
commercial purposes or as part of your job that you are compensated to
perform.

Wanna bet? Try inciting a riot and see how protected your speech is...

I'm not trying to incite a riot.
I'm not participating in Outfests.

Sigh. Do you have *any* neurons left functioning?

Yes, he does. But they are not on speaking terms with each other, or
with the outside world.
Mark Sebree

--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
"Every normal man must be tempted at times
to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and
begin to slit throats."

- H. L. Mencken

User: "Mark K. Bilbo"
Title: Re: Activist 'banned for life' from criticizing homosexuality	18 Dec 2007 09:05:49 AM

On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 18:30:04 -0800, Mark Sebree wrote:

On Dec 17, 8:38 pm, "Mark K. Bilbo" <gm...@com.mkbilbo> wrote:

On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 14:07:46 -0500, John D. Wentzky wrote:

"Mark K. Bilbo" <gm...@com.mkbilbo> wrote in message
news:v65i35-vb4.ln1@eac.exists.not...

On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 05:47:46 -0500, John D. Wentzky wrote:

"Virgil" <Vir...@com.com> wrote in message
news:Virgil-E8AA8F.00040417122007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...

In article <8To9j.41262$L%6.20...@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, "John
D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> wrote:

<parsifal...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:a0e72f4b-0786-4ef8-

a46e-234e9aa77...@b40g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

On 17 Dez., 06:47, "J Young" <jyoungvisi...@aol.com> wrote:

Thank God that I live here in America

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?

ARTICLE_ID=59217

And this is what a real news site has to say about this person:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2005/06/08/christ050608.html

Police investigating Christian activist for hate crimes Last
Updated: Wednesday, June 8, 2005 | 12:52 PM ET CBC News

"Hate crimes", he says.

And hate crimes they was.

"G-man, I'm gay. I can't tolerate freedom of speech or free
exercise of religion. Arrest that 'bad' man for exercising his
constitutional rights." LOL!
You *ARE* an idiot.
The hate crime is the punishment and anti-liberty agenda of the
homosexuals in these matters.

Two thousand leaflets attacking

"Attacking", he says.

And attacking it was.

Liar.
Freedom of Speech doesn't 'attack' anyone. The attack is on the
part of the criminal extortionist government.

Why is it all these pussies show their fraud so often by
rebelling aganst freedom of speech and free exercise of religion
by calling speech an attack?

Freedom of speech is not absolute.

It is in the USA as long as you aren't using your speech for
commercial purposes or as part of your job that you are compensated
to perform.

Wanna bet? Try inciting a riot and see how protected your speech
is...

I'm not trying to incite a riot.
I'm not participating in Outfests.

Sigh. Do you have *any* neurons left functioning?

Yes, he does. But they are not on speaking terms with each other, or
with the outside world.

I'm wondering if they're making suicide pacts...
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
â€œThe worst government is often the most moral.
One composed of cynics is often very tolerant and humane.
But when fanatics are on top there is no limit to oppression.â€
- H. L. Mencken
.

User: "Tom S."
Title: Re: Activist 'banned for life' from criticizing homosexuality	18 Dec 2007 05:47:43 PM

On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 19:38:46 -0600, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote:

On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 14:07:46 -0500, John D. Wentzky wrote:

<snip>

I'm not trying to incite a riot.
I'm not participating in Outfests.

Sigh. Do you have *any* neurons left functioning?

Two..... But they are not speaking to each other.... ((^:
Tom S.
.

User: "Ben Kaufman"
Title: Re: Activist 'banned for life' from criticizing homosexuality	20 Dec 2007 12:15:16 AM

On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 06:04:15 -0600, "Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote:

On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 05:47:46 -0500, John D. Wentzky wrote:

"Virgil" <Virgil@com.com> wrote in message
news:Virgil-E8AA8F.00040417122007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...

In article <8To9j.41262$L%6.20148@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, "John D.
Wentzky" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:

<parsifal222@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a0e72f4b-0786-4ef8-

a46e-234e9aa77d52@b40g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

On 17 Dez., 06:47, "J Young" <jyoungvisi...@aol.com> wrote:

Thank God that I live here in America

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59217

"Hate crimes", he says.

And hate crimes they was.

"G-man, I'm gay. I can't tolerate freedom of speech or free exercise of
religion. Arrest that 'bad' man for exercising his constitutional
rights." LOL!
You *ARE* an idiot.
The hate crime is the punishment and anti-liberty agenda of the
homosexuals in these matters.

Two thousand leaflets attacking

"Attacking", he says.

And attacking it was.

Liar.
Freedom of Speech doesn't 'attack' anyone. The attack is on the part of
the criminal extortionist government.

Why is it all these pussies show their fraud so often by rebelling
aganst freedom of speech and free exercise of religion by calling
speech an attack?

Freedom of speech is not absolute.

It is in the USA as long as you aren't using your speech for commercial
purposes or as part of your job that you are compensated to perform.

Wanna bet? Try inciting a riot and see how protected your speech is...

It also said that he was stuffing them into mailboxes. Free speech doesn't
entitle you to place your literature on private property. I don't know about
Canada, but in the US, without the expressed permission of the mailbox owner,
it is against the law for anyone to put anything in a mailbox other than US
postal mail.
Ben
.

User: "Mark K. Bilbo"
Title: Re: Activist 'banned for life' from criticizing homosexuality	20 Dec 2007 08:23:54 AM

On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 01:15:16 -0500, Ben Kaufman wrote:

On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 06:04:15 -0600, "Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo>
wrote:

On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 05:47:46 -0500, John D. Wentzky wrote:

"Virgil" <Virgil@com.com> wrote in message
news:Virgil-E8AA8F.00040417122007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...

In article <8To9j.41262$L%6.20148@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, "John D.
Wentzky" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:

<parsifal222@gmail.com> wrote in message news:a0e72f4b-0786-4ef8-

a46e-234e9aa77d52@b40g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

On 17 Dez., 06:47, "J Young" <jyoungvisi...@aol.com> wrote:

Thank God that I live here in America

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59217

"Hate crimes", he says.

And hate crimes they was.

"G-man, I'm gay. I can't tolerate freedom of speech or free exercise
of religion. Arrest that 'bad' man for exercising his constitutional
rights." LOL!
You *ARE* an idiot.
The hate crime is the punishment and anti-liberty agenda of the
homosexuals in these matters.

Two thousand leaflets attacking

"Attacking", he says.

And attacking it was.

Liar.
Freedom of Speech doesn't 'attack' anyone. The attack is on the part
of the criminal extortionist government.

Why is it all these pussies show their fraud so often by rebelling
aganst freedom of speech and free exercise of religion by calling
speech an attack?

Freedom of speech is not absolute.

It is in the USA as long as you aren't using your speech for
commercial purposes or as part of your job that you are compensated to
perform.

Wanna bet? Try inciting a riot and see how protected your speech is...

It also said that he was stuffing them into mailboxes. Free speech
doesn't entitle you to place your literature on private property. I
don't know about Canada, but in the US, without the expressed
permission of the mailbox owner, it is against the law for anyone to put
anything in a mailbox other than US postal mail.

Actually, I think it's against the law period. Last I knew, even though
you can buy your mail box at Home Depot or Wal-Mart, it's actually
considered property of the USG when you stick it out there for mail
delivery.
(Which sounds weird but makes a kind of legalistic sense as it makes
tampering with a mail box or even opening it if it's not yours a federal
matter)
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
"You know, I'd get it if people were just looking for a
way to fill the holes. But they want the holes. They wanna
live in the holes. And they go nuts when someone else
pours dirt in their holes.
"Climb out of your holes people!"
- Dr. House, on faith
.

User: "Serf Master"
Title: Re: Activist 'banned for life' from criticizing homosexuality	20 Dec 2007 09:26:24 AM

On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 08:23:54 -0600, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote:

On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 01:15:16 -0500, Ben Kaufman wrote:

On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 06:04:15 -0600, "Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo>
wrote:

On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 05:47:46 -0500, John D. Wentzky wrote:

"Virgil" <Virgil@com.com> wrote in message
news:Virgil-E8AA8F.00040417122007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...

In article <8To9j.41262$L%6.20148@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, "John D.
Wentzky" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:

<parsifal222@gmail.com> wrote in message news:a0e72f4b-0786-4ef8-

a46e-234e9aa77d52@b40g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

On 17 Dez., 06:47, "J Young" <jyoungvisi...@aol.com> wrote:

Thank God that I live here in America

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59217

"Hate crimes", he says.

And hate crimes they was.

"G-man, I'm gay. I can't tolerate freedom of speech or free exercise
of religion. Arrest that 'bad' man for exercising his constitutional
rights." LOL!
You *ARE* an idiot.
The hate crime is the punishment and anti-liberty agenda of the
homosexuals in these matters.

Two thousand leaflets attacking

"Attacking", he says.

And attacking it was.

Liar.
Freedom of Speech doesn't 'attack' anyone. The attack is on the part
of the criminal extortionist government.

Why is it all these pussies show their fraud so often by rebelling
aganst freedom of speech and free exercise of religion by calling
speech an attack?

Freedom of speech is not absolute.

It is in the USA as long as you aren't using your speech for
commercial purposes or as part of your job that you are compensated to
perform.

Wanna bet? Try inciting a riot and see how protected your speech is...

It also said that he was stuffing them into mailboxes. Free speech
doesn't entitle you to place your literature on private property. I
don't know about Canada, but in the US, without the expressed
permission of the mailbox owner, it is against the law for anyone to put
anything in a mailbox other than US postal mail.

A hole is security. Climbing in is step one. Pulling the hole in
with you locks you up.
.

User: "Bob Officer"
Title: Re: Activist 'banned for life' from criticizing homosexuality	17 Dec 2007 09:29:20 AM

On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 05:47:46 -0500, in alt.abortion, "John D.
Wentzky" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:

"Virgil" <Virgil@com.com> wrote in message
news:Virgil-E8AA8F.00040417122007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...

In article <8To9j.41262$L%6.20148@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
"John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:

<parsifal222@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a0e72f4b-0786-4ef8-a46e-234e9aa77d52@b40g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

On 17 Dez., 06:47, "J Young" <jyoungvisi...@aol.com> wrote:

Thank God that I live here in America

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59217

"Hate crimes", he says.

And hate crimes they was.

Two thousand leaflets attacking

"Attacking", he says.

And attacking it was.

Liar.
Freedom of Speech doesn't 'attack' anyone.
The attack is on the part of the criminal extortionist government.

Why is it all these pussies show their fraud so often by rebelling aganst
freedom of speech and free exercise of religion by calling speech an
attack?

Freedom of speech is not absolute.

It is in the USA as long as you aren't using your speech for commercial
purposes or as part of your job that you are compensated to perform.

John compensation doesn't enter into the picture. the amendment
doesn't mention compensation at all. You adding content, just like
you did when you added compensation to you pea brain idea of what is
Libel.

No one has the right to shout "fire" in a crowded auditorium unless
there is a fire.

What a joke of an analogy.

It isn't an joke, it is reality. While you do have the right to yell
that, even if there isn't a fire. You also have the obligation for
the results. if through the act of free speech you cause harm, you
must take the responsibility for those actions. Part of the
responsibility is being charged and tried for *willful* public
endangerment and cause others harm through *willful* negligence.
The same concept requires LEOs to stop people they see driving
erratically and arrest drivers which seem to be risking the publics
safety.

This story wasn't about anyone shouting fire in a movie theater.

It was about endangerment of the public and inciting others to harm
someone. In Canada those are considered "Hate Crimes". in about a
dozen of the US states those are considered "hate crimes".
--
Ak'toh'di
.

User: "John D. Wentzky"
Title: Re: Activist 'banned for life' from criticizing homosexuality	17 Dec 2007 01:18:53 PM

"Bob Officer" <bobofficers@127.0.0.7> wrote in message
news:505dm3pvif946vetmhfngmuu0uurn96q99@4ax.com...

On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 05:47:46 -0500, in alt.abortion, "John D.
Wentzky" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:

"Virgil" <Virgil@com.com> wrote in message
news:Virgil-E8AA8F.00040417122007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...

In article <8To9j.41262$L%6.20148@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
"John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:

<parsifal222@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a0e72f4b-0786-4ef8-a46e-234e9aa77d52@b40g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

On 17 Dez., 06:47, "J Young" <jyoungvisi...@aol.com> wrote:

Thank God that I live here in America

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59217

"Hate crimes", he says.

And hate crimes they was.

Two thousand leaflets attacking

"Attacking", he says.

And attacking it was.

Liar.
Freedom of Speech doesn't 'attack' anyone.
The attack is on the part of the criminal extortionist government.

Why is it all these pussies show their fraud so often by rebelling
aganst
freedom of speech and free exercise of religion by calling speech an
attack?

Freedom of speech is not absolute.

It is in the USA as long as you aren't using your speech for commercial
purposes or as part of your job that you are compensated to perform.

John compensation doesn't enter into the picture. the amendment
doesn't mention compensation at all.

Which amendment?
The Freedom of Speech amendment?
You are ignoring the fact that speech conducted at a fee or at compensation
isn't FREE SPEECH!

You adding content, just like you did when you added compensation to you
pea brain idea of what is
Libel.

Not really.
Freedom of Speech tells you, verbatim, that speech performed at compensation
isn't FREE SPEECH!
Look up free and then look up libel awards that have been issued in the past
against for profit publications.
The precedent is there to show you what constitute freedom of speech and
what constitutes speech that isn't free.

No one has the right to shout "fire" in a crowded auditorium unless
there is a fire.

What a joke of an analogy.

The speech iitself isn't prosecuteable.
What person would want to be known as the jerk who tried such a stunt?
The theater owner could ban such a person from his/her theater.
That would seem like punishment enough and to make the offender pay the cost
of refunding tickets if the people missed their movie.
Then they could go pro-rata and divide the ticket price by the number of
minutes missed, multiplied by the number of patrons.

The same concept requires LEOs to stop people they see driving
erratically and arrest drivers which seem to be risking the publics
safety.

Hmm. Trying to equate driving to speech?
SC Law dictates when any LEO can effect a pullover to investigate for DUI.
The LEO who effected to pullover of me had no lawful cause to pull me over.
It is the LEO's who were driving erratically and speeding without their
overhead safety lights or sirens on who had 'blown' my doors some 1.5 or
more miles before I travelled through an intersection where they had been
stuck for a while.

This story wasn't about anyone shouting fire in a movie theater.

It was about endangerment of the public and inciting others to harm
someone.

I didn't read the pamphlet. I read the story.
I saw no mention of any intent to incite people to harm or to endanger the
public.
Your paranoia isn't a cause fot legal action.
Crying wolf so much with no proof of your endangerment doesn't suffice in a
court of law.

In Canada those are considered "Hate Crimes".

Hmm.
MFN status looking dim for Canada, huh?

in about a
dozen of the US states those are considered "hate crimes".

Look at who is hating though.
It is the anti-USA, anti-Freedom of Speech courts and homosexuals and their
allies.
.

User: "Virgil"
Title: Re: Activist 'banned for life' from criticizing homosexuality	17 Dec 2007 02:32:01 PM

In article <LYz9j.32627$rc2.22681@bignews1.bellsouth.net>,
"John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:

You are ignoring the fact that speech conducted at a fee or at compensation
isn't FREE SPEECH!

A speech for which one is paid can be free of legal constraint on its
content, which is the point.

You adding content, just like you did when you added compensation to you
pea brain idea of what is
Libel.

Not really.
Freedom of Speech tells you, verbatim, that speech performed at compensation
isn't FREE SPEECH!

It may tell JDW that, but it doesn't tell the courts that, and the
courts rule.

Look up free and then look up libel awards that have been issued in the past
against for profit publications.
The precedent is there to show you what constitute freedom of speech and
what constitutes speech that isn't free.

No one has the right to shout "fire" in a crowded auditorium unless
there is a fire.

What a joke of an analogy.

The speech iitself isn't prosecuteable.

But a speaker can be held liable for the consequences of his speech.

The same concept requires LEOs to stop people they see driving
erratically and arrest drivers which seem to be risking the publics
safety.

Hmm. Trying to equate driving to speech?

People can be held liable for the consequences of their acts, whether
spoken or otherwise. DUI is specifically illegal, so is slander, but DUI
is a crime and slander is normally only a tort.
\

This story wasn't about anyone shouting fire in a movie theater.

It was about endangerment of the public and inciting others to harm
someone.

I didn't read the pamphlet.

Then butt out.
.

User: "John D. Wentzky"
Title: Re: Activist 'banned for life' from criticizing homosexuality	17 Dec 2007 08:35:54 PM

"Virgil" <Virgil@com.com> wrote in message
news:Virgil-77C599.13320117122007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...

In article <LYz9j.32627$rc2.22681@bignews1.bellsouth.net>,
"John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:

You are ignoring the fact that speech conducted at a fee or at
compensation
isn't FREE SPEECH!

A speech for which one is paid can be free of legal constraint on its
content, which is the point.

FCC disagrees with you.

You adding content, just like you did when you added compensation to
you
pea brain idea of what is
Libel.

Not really.
Freedom of Speech tells you, verbatim, that speech performed at
compensation
isn't FREE SPEECH!

It may tell JDW that, but it doesn't tell the courts that, and the
courts rule.

WRONG, AGAIN!
Consult FCC rules.
Then look at the courts.
Then look at what I told you.
There isn't much difference, if any.

Look up free and then look up libel awards that have been issued in the
past
against for profit publications.
The precedent is there to show you what constitute freedom of speech and
what constitutes speech that isn't free.

No one has the right to shout "fire" in a crowded auditorium unless
there is a fire.

What a joke of an analogy.

The speech iitself isn't prosecuteable.

But a speaker can be held liable for the consequences of his speech.

You gotta be kidding to a major extent.
FCC rules regulate speech on the airwaves because the networks aren't
engaging in FREE SPEECH!
PERIOD!
Understand what FREE SPEECH REALLY IS before you respond next time; and,
stop acting as if you go out and commit a crime after someone tells you
something that makes you commit the crime that the person who told you to do
it is guilty.
.

User: "Virgil"
Title: Re: Activist 'banned for life' from criticizing homosexuality	18 Dec 2007 12:23:08 AM

In article <vmG9j.23409$vt2.11864@bignews8.bellsouth.net>,
"John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:

"Virgil" <Virgil@com.com> wrote in message
news:Virgil-77C599.13320117122007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...

In article <LYz9j.32627$rc2.22681@bignews1.bellsouth.net>,
"John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:

You are ignoring the fact that speech conducted at a fee or at
compensation
isn't FREE SPEECH!

A speech for which one is paid can be free of legal constraint on its
content, which is the point.

FCC disagrees with you.

You adding content, just like you did when you added compensation to
you
pea brain idea of what is
Libel.

Not really.
Freedom of Speech tells you, verbatim, that speech performed at
compensation
isn't FREE SPEECH!

It may tell JDW that, but it doesn't tell the courts that, and the
courts rule.

WRONG, AGAIN!

JDW has had enough clashes with the courts to have learned the hard way
that the courts rule, but he appears to be a very slow learner.

Consult FCC rules.

They say the courts rule.

Then look at the courts.

They say the courts rule.

Then look at what I told you.

That tells me that JDW is a slow learner.

There isn't much difference, if any.

The courts learn a lot faster than JDW does.
[the rest of JDW's boring stupidity snipped]
.

User: "John D. Wentzky"
Title: Re: Activist 'banned for life' from criticizing homosexuality	18 Dec 2007 12:27:27 AM

"Virgil" <Virgil@com.com> wrote in message
news:Virgil-9FDBFD.23230817122007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...

In article <vmG9j.23409$vt2.11864@bignews8.bellsouth.net>,
The courts learn a lot faster than JDW does.

They are learning that taking the taxpayer purchased guns away from you
treasonous anti-USA loons is what they must do.
.

User: "Free Lunch"
Title: Re: Activist 'banned for life' from criticizing homosexuality	17 Dec 2007 08:41:01 PM

On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 21:35:54 -0500, in alt.atheism
"John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in
<vmG9j.23409$vt2.11864@bignews8.bellsouth.net>:

"Virgil" <Virgil@com.com> wrote in message
news:Virgil-77C599.13320117122007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...

In article <LYz9j.32627$rc2.22681@bignews1.bellsouth.net>,
"John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:

You are ignoring the fact that speech conducted at a fee or at
compensation
isn't FREE SPEECH!

A speech for which one is paid can be free of legal constraint on its
content, which is the point.

FCC disagrees with you.

You adding content, just like you did when you added compensation to
you
pea brain idea of what is
Libel.

Not really.
Freedom of Speech tells you, verbatim, that speech performed at
compensation
isn't FREE SPEECH!

It may tell JDW that, but it doesn't tell the courts that, and the
courts rule.

WRONG, AGAIN!
Consult FCC rules.
Then look at the courts.
Then look at what I told you.
There isn't much difference, if any.

Look up free and then look up libel awards that have been issued in the
past
against for profit publications.
The precedent is there to show you what constitute freedom of speech and
what constitutes speech that isn't free.

No one has the right to shout "fire" in a crowded auditorium unless
there is a fire.

What a joke of an analogy.

The speech iitself isn't prosecuteable.

But a speaker can be held liable for the consequences of his speech.

The next time you are actually accurate when you give us a lecture on
the law will be the first time you are accurate.
Are you planning on pro se representation?
.

User: "Bob Officer"
Title: Re: Activist 'banned for life' from criticizing homosexuality	17 Dec 2007 02:21:42 PM

On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 14:18:53 -0500, in alt.abortion, "John D.
Wentzky" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:

"Bob Officer" <bobofficers@127.0.0.7> wrote in message
news:505dm3pvif946vetmhfngmuu0uurn96q99@4ax.com...

On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 05:47:46 -0500, in alt.abortion, "John D.
Wentzky" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:

"Virgil" <Virgil@com.com> wrote in message
news:Virgil-E8AA8F.00040417122007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...

In article <8To9j.41262$L%6.20148@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
"John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:

<parsifal222@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a0e72f4b-0786-4ef8-a46e-234e9aa77d52@b40g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

On 17 Dez., 06:47, "J Young" <jyoungvisi...@aol.com> wrote:

Thank God that I live here in America

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59217

"Hate crimes", he says.

And hate crimes they was.

Two thousand leaflets attacking

"Attacking", he says.

And attacking it was.

Liar.
Freedom of Speech doesn't 'attack' anyone.
The attack is on the part of the criminal extortionist government.

Why is it all these pussies show their fraud so often by rebelling
aganst
freedom of speech and free exercise of religion by calling speech an
attack?

Freedom of speech is not absolute.

It is in the USA as long as you aren't using your speech for commercial
purposes or as part of your job that you are compensated to perform.

John compensation doesn't enter into the picture. the amendment
doesn't mention compensation at all.

Which amendment?
The Freedom of Speech amendment?
You are ignoring the fact that speech conducted at a fee or at compensation
isn't FREE SPEECH!

It sure is. free doesn't refer to cost. it refers to the ability to
speak without hinderance or interference from the government.

You adding content, just like you did when you added compensation to you
pea brain idea of what is
Libel.

Not really.
Freedom of Speech tells you, verbatim, that speech performed at compensation
isn't FREE SPEECH!

Freedom/Free doesn't refer to cost. it is a reference to without
hinderance.

Look up free and then look up libel awards that have been issued in the past
against for profit publications.

and look up awards where it was published without fee. John you are
adding stuff without understanding the words in the original.
Free is without hinderance. is has nothing to do with compensation,
payment or fee.
(Folks is John D wentzky really this stupid?)

The precedent is there to show you what constitute freedom of speech and
what constitutes speech that isn't free.

No one has the right to shout "fire" in a crowded auditorium unless
there is a fire.

What a joke of an analogy.

The speech iitself isn't prosecuteable.

It is, if the speech results in harm. Harm could be even placed in a
panic for no reason.

What person would want to be known as the jerk who tried such a stunt?

You, maybe?

The theater owner could ban such a person from his/her theater.

Could he, under what law?

That would seem like punishment enough and to make the offender pay the cost
of refunding tickets if the people missed t