| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
25 Aug 2006 03:12:19 PM |
| Object: |
Man's arrest violates 1st Amendment rights |
NEW YORK - A businessman was charged with providing satellite
broadcasts of a Hezbollah television station to New York-area
customers, authorities said Thursday.
Javed Iqbal, 42, was arrested Wednesday on conspiracy charges of
enabling the broadcasts of al Manar, which was designated by the U.S.
government this spring as a global terrorist entity, U.S. Attorney
Michael Garcia said in a statement.
Garcia said Iqbal used satellite dishes at his Staten Island home to
distribute the broadcasts through a Brooklyn company called HDTV
Limited.
Al Manar, launched in 1991, features news programming that promotes
Hezbollah's political positions and shows statements from the group and
speeches from its leader.
A lawyer for Iqbal, Mustapha Ndanusa, called the accusations against
his client "completely ridiculous" and said he was unaware of another
instance in which someone was accused of violating U.S. laws by
enabling people to obtain news outlets with a satellite dish.
Iqbal, who moved to the United States from Pakistan 24 years ago, was
surprised by the arrest, Ndanusa said. Iqbal could face up to five
years in prison if convicted.
The U.S. government considers Hezbollah, Lebanon's most sophisticated
Shiite group, illegal because it promotes some views counter to White
House positions.
.
|
|
| User: "Joseph Welch" |
|
| Title: Re: Man's arrest violates 1st Amendment rights |
25 Aug 2006 03:52:16 PM |
|
|
<beachshark1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1156536739.741876.216660@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
There's no First Amendment violation here. Doing business with known
terrorist organizations is illegal - and should be.
--
George W. Bush has made the terrorists stronger, their influence wider,
their numbers larger, and their motivation to attack the U.S. and other
western interests greater. He has repeatedly abused his authority and
violated his Oath of Office by turning his back on the United States
Constitution; thereby surrendering to the terrorists by underminig American
freedoms,values, and the very foundations of our system of government.
Supporting Bush is treason.
***************
JW
***************
"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have
you left no sense of decency?"
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/welch-mccarthy.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gogarty" |
|
| Title: Re: Man's arrest violates 1st Amendment rights |
25 Aug 2006 09:17:39 PM |
|
|
In article <lxJHg.1667$EV1.1282@fe03.buzzardnews.com>,
seattledemocracy@freewebspace.com says...
<beachshark1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1156536739.741876.216660@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
There's no First Amendment violation here. Doing business with known
terrorist organizations is illegal - and should be.
I utterly disagree with you. This is suppression of opinion and comment.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joseph Welch" |
|
| Title: Re: Man's arrest violates 1st Amendment rights |
26 Aug 2006 03:26:23 AM |
|
|
"Gogarty" <Gogarty@Clongowes.edu> wrote in message
news:uZqdnV-LCIuhMnLZnZ2dnUVZ_u-dnZ2d@bway.net...
There's no First Amendment violation here. Doing business with known
terrorist organizations is illegal - and should be.
I utterly disagree with you. This is suppression of opinion and comment.
Horse *****.
--
George W. Bush has made the terrorists stronger, their influence wider,
their numbers larger, and their motivation to attack the U.S. and other
western interests greater. He has repeatedly abused his authority and
violated his Oath of Office by turning his back on the United States
Constitution; thereby surrendering to the terrorists by underminig American
freedoms,values, and the very foundations of our system of government.
Supporting Bush is treason.
***************
JW
***************
"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have
you left no sense of decency?"
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/welch-mccarthy.html
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Man's arrest violates 1st Amendment rights |
28 Aug 2006 05:19:24 PM |
|
|
Gogarty wrote:
In article <lxJHg.1667$EV1.1282@fe03.buzzardnews.com>,
seattledemocracy@freewebspace.com says...
<beachshark1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1156536739.741876.216660@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
There's no First Amendment violation here. Doing business with known
terrorist organizations is illegal - and should be.
I utterly disagree with you. This is suppression of opinion and comment.
And you're absolutely right, Gogarty. Thanks for standing up for our
Bill of Rights.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Man's arrest violates 1st Amendment rights |
25 Aug 2006 04:01:04 PM |
|
|
Joseph Welch wrote:
<beachshark1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1156536739.741876.216660@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
There's no First Amendment violation here. Doing business with known
terrorist organizations is illegal - and should be.
I disagree. This isn't a matter of terrorists, but of a media source
with views at odds with the White House. We're talking opinions,
period. And, with the Bush regime's cloudy use of the word
"terrorism", potentially dangerous to all.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joseph Welch" |
|
| Title: Re: Man's arrest violates 1st Amendment rights |
25 Aug 2006 04:13:14 PM |
|
|
<beachshark@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1156539664.269082.49430@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
There's no First Amendment violation here. Doing business with known
terrorist organizations is illegal - and should be.
I disagree. This isn't a matter of terrorists, but of a media source
with views at odds with the White House. We're talking opinions,
period.
Horse *****. We're talking about broadcasts produced by a known terrorists
organization being re-broadcast by an American businessman.
Get a grip.
--
George W. Bush has made the terrorists stronger, their influence wider,
their numbers larger, and their motivation to attack the U.S. and other
western interests greater. He has repeatedly abused his authority and
violated his Oath of Office by turning his back on the United States
Constitution; thereby surrendering to the terrorists by underminig American
freedoms,values, and the very foundations of our system of government.
Supporting Bush is treason.
***************
JW
***************
"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have
you left no sense of decency?"
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/welch-mccarthy.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Man's arrest violates 1st Amendment rights |
25 Aug 2006 05:34:16 PM |
|
|
Horse *****. We're talking about broadcasts produced by a known terrorists
organization being re-broadcast by an American businessman.
Get a grip.
The quoted texts at the bottom of your posts indicate that you may not
be a typical anti-freedom republican, so I'm a little surprised by your
take on this.
Don't you agree that using the force of law to prevent Americans from
publishing others ideas and to prevent Americans from hearing such
views is outrageous, in my opinion. I'm a pro-democracy, pro-freedom
American patriot, and I don't ever want to see our First Amendment
compromised or used as a tool by polititicians -- and that includes
ideas and opinions about naziism, racism, zionism or any other topic.
I don't fear ideas, and it's my right to hear others if I want. The
same right applies to all, even those whose views differ from mine.
From the intent of our nations founders, I have the inalienable right
to free exchange of opinions and ideas.
American patriot, and I don't ever want to see our First Amendment
compromised or used as a tool by polititicians -- and that includes
ideas and opinions about naziism, racism, zionism or any other topic.
I don't fear ideas, and it's my right to hear others if I want. The
same right applies to all, even those whose views differ from mine.
From the intent of our nations founders, I have the inalienable right
to free exchange of opinions and ideas.
From your take on this, Americans can also be prevented from ever
hearing views of ordinary Iraqis who oppose the forced occupation of
that country, or an American to make them available to other Americans,
since Bush has labeled resisters "terrorists".I don't think our
government should ever have the right to punish me for sharing or
listening to ideas or views. Period.
If you hold personal freedom and principles above political
manipulations, you should agree with me.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joseph Welch" |
|
| Title: Re: Man's arrest violates 1st Amendment rights |
25 Aug 2006 07:06:52 PM |
|
|
<beachshark@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1156545256.792432.83260@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
The quoted texts at the bottom of your posts indicate that you may not
be a typical anti-freedom republican, so I'm a little surprised by your
take on this.
Why? Is there something about being a rational individual that makes one
embrace trafficking with terrorists?
THIS IS NOT A FIRST AMENDMENT ISSUE. There are Constitutional issues at
stake to be sure - but they have to do with regulation of trade and
treaties, not "freedom of speech". There is no "right" to rebroadcast
programs produced by terrorist organizations.
This is no more a "freedom of speech" issue than trafficking in child
pornography.
Don't you agree that using the force of law to prevent Americans from
publishing others ideas and to prevent Americans from hearing such
views is outrageous, in my opinion.
Using force of law to prevent people from doing business with terrorist
organizations is far from outrageous - it's necessary. The ideas being
broadcast were not spoken, printed, or produced by the individual doing the
rebroadcasting. Even so, if this man had called for the violent overthrow
of America and terrorist acts against America's allies - this is NOT
protected "free speech", nor should it be.
I'm a pro-democracy, pro-freedom American patriot, and I don't ever want
to see our First Amendment
compromised or used as a tool by polititicians -- and that includes ideas
and opinions about naziism, racism, zionism or any other topic.
I'm in full agreement. However, this right is not unlimited, and (as
already established by several "fire in a crowded theater" type cases), NOT
unlimited.
From your take on this, Americans can also be prevented from ever
hearing views of ordinary Iraqis who oppose the forced occupation of
that country, or an American to make them available to other Americans,
since Bush has labeled resisters "terrorists".
False.
I don't think our government should ever have the right to punish me for
sharing or listening to ideas or views. Period.
I do.
If you hold personal freedom and principles above political
manipulations, you should agree with me.
On that point you can go ***** yourself.
--
George W. Bush has made the terrorists stronger, their influence wider,
their numbers larger, and their motivation to attack the U.S. and other
western interests greater. He has repeatedly abused his authority and
violated his Oath of Office by turning his back on the United States
Constitution; thereby surrendering to the terrorists by underminig American
freedoms,values, and the very foundations of our system of government.
Supporting Bush is treason.
***************
JW
***************
"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have
you left no sense of decency?"
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/welch-mccarthy.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gogarty" |
|
| Title: Re: Man's arrest violates 1st Amendment rights |
25 Aug 2006 09:22:45 PM |
|
|
In article <ijMHg.3753$hs2.3566@fe05.buzzardnews.com>,
seattledemocracy@freewebspace.com says...
<beachshark@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1156545256.792432.83260@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
The quoted texts at the bottom of your posts indicate that you may not
be a typical anti-freedom republican, so I'm a little surprised by your
take on this.
Why? Is there something about being a rational individual that makes one
embrace trafficking with terrorists?
I too am surprised. I wonder what the origfinal Joseph Welch would have had
to say. Seems you have a tipping point.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joseph Welch" |
|
| Title: Re: Man's arrest violates 1st Amendment rights |
26 Aug 2006 03:25:35 AM |
|
|
"Gogarty" <Gogarty@Clongowes.edu> wrote in message
news:uZqdnVmLCIvyLXLZnZ2dnUVZ_u-dnZ2d@bway.net...
I too am surprised. I wonder what the origfinal Joseph Welch would have
had
to say.
The original Joseph Welch would have had the good sense not to make
ridiculous arguments.
--
George W. Bush has made the terrorists stronger, their influence wider,
their numbers larger, and their motivation to attack the U.S. and other
western interests greater. He has repeatedly abused his authority and
violated his Oath of Office by turning his back on the United States
Constitution; thereby surrendering to the terrorists by underminig American
freedoms,values, and the very foundations of our system of government.
Supporting Bush is treason.
***************
JW
***************
"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have
you left no sense of decency?"
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/welch-mccarthy.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Man's arrest violates 1st Amendment rights |
28 Aug 2006 05:17:31 PM |
|
|
Joseph Welch wrote:
<beachshark@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1156545256.792432.83260@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
The quoted texts at the bottom of your posts indicate that you may not
be a typical anti-freedom republican, so I'm a little surprised by your
take on this.
Why? Is there something about being a rational individual that makes one
embrace trafficking with terrorists?
But, I'm not so sure you're being rational on this. Could your
pro-Israel bent be clouding your view? By the way, why are you so
pro-Israel, even to the point of discounting America's Bill of Rights
if they prevent the punishment of Israel's enemies?
THIS IS NOT A FIRST AMENDMENT ISSUE. There are Constitutional issues at
stake to be sure - but they have to do with regulation of trade and
treaties, not "freedom of speech". There is no "right" to rebroadcast
programs produced by terrorist organizations.
This is no more a "freedom of speech" issue than trafficking in child
pornography.
A big difference between expressing views and engaging in child
pornography. BIG difference. I'm surprised you equate the two.
Firstly, child pornography entails abusing children who are not adults,
and are victims in the matter. Allowing adult Americans to hear
viewpoints is of a higher value than any "victimization" you apparently
suffer from it.
Don't you agree that using the force of law to prevent Americans from
publishing others ideas and to prevent Americans from hearing such
views is outrageous?
Using force of law to prevent people from doing business with terrorist
organizations is far from outrageous - it's necessary. The ideas being
broadcast were not spoken, printed, or produced by the individual doing the
rebroadcasting. Even so, if this man had called for the violent overthrow
of America and terrorist acts against America's allies - this is NOT
protected "free speech", nor should it be.
Where do you get this "doing business" crap, Joe? Apparently, in the
sense you're using it, everything is doing business. And, the fact
that the "ideas being broadcast were not spoken, printed, or produced
by the individual doing the rebroadcasting" is nonsensical.
Irrelevant. In fact, the fact that this man merely rebroadcast
anothers opinions is even more red flag that he should not be arrested
and silenced.
I'm a pro-democracy, pro-freedom American patriot, and I don't ever want
to see our First Amendment
compromised or used as a tool by polititicians -- and that includes ideas
and opinions about naziism, racism, zionism or any other topic.
I'm in full agreement. However, this right is not unlimited, and (as
already established by several "fire in a crowded theater" type cases), NOT
unlimited.
But, no one yelled "fire in a crowded theater", now did they? Trying
to evade the real point at hand?
From your take on this, Americans can also be prevented from ever
hearing views of ordinary Iraqis who oppose the forced occupation of
that country, or an American to make them available to other Americans,
since Bush has labeled resisters "terrorists".
False.
One word... "false"... that's it? How is it false? I assume since you
couldn't offer anything, you couldn't think of anything at the moment.
My point is NOT false, but accurate. If you claim that any American
who re-broadcasts the comments of someone labeled a terrorist by the
Bush regime is committing a criminal act, then re-broadcasting any
comment by those resisting America's occupation of Iraq, who are
continually labeled as "terrorists" by Bush and his cohorts, would be
illegal.
I don't think our government should ever have the right to punish me for
sharing or listening to ideas or views. Period.
I do.
Then hopefully you'll never wield any power over others in this nation.
You're dangerous to freedom and the ideals given us by our
forefathers. And, I can't respect someone like you.
If you hold personal freedom and principles above political
manipulations, you should agree with me.
On that point you can go ***** yourself.
Ohhhh... is that you, ***** Cheney? Real classy. Just like the fool
you emulate.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joseph Welch" |
|
| Title: Re: Man's arrest violates 1st Amendment rights |
29 Aug 2006 01:32:41 PM |
|
|
<beachshark1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1156803451.213836.281670@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
Why? Is there something about being a rational individual that makes one
embrace trafficking with terrorists?
But, I'm not so sure you're being rational on this.
I'm both more rational, and more intelligent than you are.
Could your pro-Israel bent be clouding your view?
Huh? What are you talking about.
By the way, why are you so pro-Israel, even to the point of discounting
America's Bill of Rights
if they prevent the punishment of Israel's enemies?
What the ***** are you talking about? I've had few conversations with anyone
about Israel, and am generally quite critical of that nation's foreign
policy and military strategies.
This is no more a "freedom of speech" issue than trafficking in child
pornography.
A big difference between expressing views and engaging in child
pornography. BIG difference.
Uh-huh. And a big difference between expressing views and rebroadcasting
terrorist propaganda, too.
I'm surprised you equate the two.
Of course you're surprised. You're a fucking idiot.
Firstly, child pornography entails abusing children who are not adults,
and are victims in the matter.
And terrorism entails murdering people (adults and children) who are unarmed
and innocent.
Damn, you're fucking dense.
--
George W. Bush has made the terrorists stronger, their influence wider,
their numbers larger, and their motivation to attack the U.S. and other
western interests greater. He has repeatedly abused his authority and
violated his Oath of Office by turning his back on the United States
Constitution; thereby surrendering to the terrorists by underminig American
freedoms,values, and the very foundations of our system of government.
Supporting Bush is treason.
***************
JW
***************
"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have
you left no sense of decency?"
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/welch-mccarthy.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gogarty" |
|
| Title: Re: Man's arrest violates 1st Amendment rights |
25 Aug 2006 09:20:09 PM |
|
|
In article <_QJHg.1670$EV1.1036@fe03.buzzardnews.com>,
seattledemocracy@freewebspace.com says...
<beachshark@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1156539664.269082.49430@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
There's no First Amendment violation here. Doing business with known
terrorist organizations is illegal - and should be.
I disagree. This isn't a matter of terrorists, but of a media source
with views at odds with the White House. We're talking opinions,
period.
Horse *****. We're talking about broadcasts produced by a known terrorists
organization being re-broadcast by an American businessman.
Get a grip.
You get a grip. The man has every right to rebroadcast what has been
broadcast elsewhere regardless of source or content.
George W. Bush has made the terrorists stronger, their influence wider,
their numbers larger, and their motivation to attack the U.S. and other
western interests greater. He has repeatedly abused his authority and
violated his Oath of Office by turning his back on the United States
Constitution; thereby surrendering to the terrorists by underminig American
freedoms,values, and the very foundations of our system of government.
Supporting Bush is treason.
***************
JW
***************
"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have
you left no sense of decency?"
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/welch-mccarthy.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joseph Welch" |
|
| Title: Re: Man's arrest violates 1st Amendment rights |
26 Aug 2006 03:26:05 AM |
|
|
"Gogarty" <Gogarty@Clongowes.edu> wrote in message
news:uZqdnV6LCItOMnLZnZ2dnUVZ_u-dnZ2d@bway.net...
You get a grip. The man has every right to rebroadcast what has been
broadcast elsewhere regardless of source or content.
If you really believe that - then you're a damned fool.
--
George W. Bush has made the terrorists stronger, their influence wider,
their numbers larger, and their motivation to attack the U.S. and other
western interests greater. He has repeatedly abused his authority and
violated his Oath of Office by turning his back on the United States
Constitution; thereby surrendering to the terrorists by underminig American
freedoms,values, and the very foundations of our system of government.
Supporting Bush is treason.
***************
JW
***************
"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have
you left no sense of decency?"
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/welch-mccarthy.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Carl" |
|
| Title: Re: Man's arrest violates 1st Amendment rights |
25 Aug 2006 05:07:04 PM |
|
|
Joseph is right you know, beachshark. What you're actually doing is
advocating the ABUSE of the freedom of speech privilege, not defending it on
constitutional grounds. You're confused. See my other post for more.
"Joseph Welch" <seattledemocracy@freewebspace.com> wrote in message
news:_QJHg.1670$EV1.1036@fe03.buzzardnews.com...
<beachshark@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1156539664.269082.49430@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
There's no First Amendment violation here. Doing business with known
terrorist organizations is illegal - and should be.
I disagree. This isn't a matter of terrorists, but of a media source
with views at odds with the White House. We're talking opinions,
period.
Horse *****. We're talking about broadcasts produced by a known terrorists
organization being re-broadcast by an American businessman.
Get a grip.
--
George W. Bush has made the terrorists stronger, their influence wider,
their numbers larger, and their motivation to attack the U.S. and other
western interests greater. He has repeatedly abused his authority and
violated his Oath of Office by turning his back on the United States
Constitution; thereby surrendering to the terrorists by underminig
American freedoms,values, and the very foundations of our system of
government. Supporting Bush is treason.
***************
JW
***************
"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?
Have you left no sense of decency?"
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/welch-mccarthy.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joseph Welch" |
|
| Title: Re: Man's arrest violates 1st Amendment rights |
25 Aug 2006 07:01:43 PM |
|
|
"Carl" <crothman@NOSPAMoptonline.net> wrote in message
news:cwKHg.891$k%3.48@newsfe12.lga...
Joseph is right you know, beachshark. What you're actually doing is
advocating the ABUSE of the freedom of speech privilege, not defending it
on constitutional grounds.
Horse ***** again. That is NOT what I said.
No "right" can be "abused" - only used. My claim is that there is no right
to do business with terrorist organizations. Period.
This is not a First Amendment issue anymore than child pornography is.
--
George W. Bush has made the terrorists stronger, their influence wider,
their numbers larger, and their motivation to attack the U.S. and other
western interests greater. He has repeatedly abused his authority and
violated his Oath of Office by turning his back on the United States
Constitution; thereby surrendering to the terrorists by underminig American
freedoms,values, and the very foundations of our system of government.
Supporting Bush is treason.
***************
JW
***************
"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have
you left no sense of decency?"
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/welch-mccarthy.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Carl" |
|
| Title: Re: Man's arrest violates 1st Amendment rights |
25 Aug 2006 08:58:04 PM |
|
|
No "right" can be "abused" - only used.
This is not a First Amendment issue anymore than child pornography is.
Sorry Joseph, but you lost me. If no right can be abused, then why can't
someone publish, buy, or sell child pornography as long as they're not the
ones who perpetrated the child pornography? After all, they're only buying
and selling pictures, not participating in the act nor enslaving the
children.
You're tripping over yourself Joseph. And that ain't no horse *****.
"Joseph Welch" <seattledemocracy@freewebspace.com> wrote in message
news:teMHg.3752$hs2.2636@fe05.buzzardnews.com...
"Carl" <crothman@NOSPAMoptonline.net> wrote in message
news:cwKHg.891$k%3.48@newsfe12.lga...
Joseph is right you know, beachshark. What you're actually doing is
advocating the ABUSE of the freedom of speech privilege, not defending it
on constitutional grounds.
Horse ***** again. That is NOT what I said.
No "right" can be "abused" - only used. My claim is that there is no
right to do business with terrorist organizations. Period.
This is not a First Amendment issue anymore than child pornography is.
--
George W. Bush has made the terrorists stronger, their influence wider,
their numbers larger, and their motivation to attack the U.S. and other
western interests greater. He has repeatedly abused his authority and
violated his Oath of Office by turning his back on the United States
Constitution; thereby surrendering to the terrorists by underminig
American freedoms,values, and the very foundations of our system of
government. Supporting Bush is treason.
***************
JW
***************
"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?
Have you left no sense of decency?"
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/welch-mccarthy.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joseph Welch" |
|
| Title: Re: Man's arrest violates 1st Amendment rights |
26 Aug 2006 03:22:26 AM |
|
|
"Carl" <crothman@NOSPAMoptonline.net> wrote in message
news:NUNHg.1461$ic2.170@newsfe08.lga...
No "right" can be "abused" - only used.
This is not a First Amendment issue anymore than child pornography is.
Sorry Joseph, but you lost me.
Be still my heart.
If no right can be abused, then why can't someone publish, buy, or sell
child pornography as long as they're not the ones who perpetrated the
child pornography?
Because there is no such right to do so in the first place.
It's really not that hard to figure out.
--
George W. Bush has made the terrorists stronger, their influence wider,
their numbers larger, and their motivation to attack the U.S. and other
western interests greater. He has repeatedly abused his authority and
violated his Oath of Office by turning his back on the United States
Constitution; thereby surrendering to the terrorists by underminig American
freedoms,values, and the very foundations of our system of government.
Supporting Bush is treason.
***************
JW
***************
"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have
you left no sense of decency?"
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/welch-mccarthy.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Carl" |
|
| Title: Re: Man's arrest violates 1st Amendment rights |
26 Aug 2006 08:12:01 PM |
|
|
Because there is no such right to do so in the first place.
Ever hear of freedom of the press, another on eof those guaranteed
'freedoms'. Joseph? If person X wants to publish photos of a child
pornographic nature, and he had no involvement in the making of those
photos, why can't he then?
As well, implied in 'freedom of speech', Joseph, is freedom of expression,
which doesn't just protect the written and spoken word, but artistic and
musical expression as well. If that Mr. X feels that pornography, whether
child or otherwise, is artistic expression, don't we tell him he's wrong
(ie. abusing his freedom of speech [expression])? How do you reconcile
these inconsistencies?
Look, the point is if you believe in untethered freedom of speech and
freedom of press, and you feel, as you've stated, they cannot be abused but
only exercised, then you also believe that no one has the right to filter
what someone else thinks falls under these categories. Otherwise you're
either a hypocrite or inconsistent in how you apply your logic.
"Joseph Welch" <seattledemocracy@freewebspace.com> wrote in message
news:WzTHg.3760$hs2.1870@fe05.buzzardnews.com...
"Carl" <crothman@NOSPAMoptonline.net> wrote in message
news:NUNHg.1461$ic2.170@newsfe08.lga...
No "right" can be "abused" - only used.
This is not a First Amendment issue anymore than child pornography is.
Sorry Joseph, but you lost me.
Be still my heart.
If no right can be abused, then why can't someone publish, buy, or sell
child pornography as long as they're not the ones who perpetrated the
child pornography?
Because there is no such right to do so in the first place.
It's really not that hard to figure out.
--
George W. Bush has made the terrorists stronger, their influence wider,
their numbers larger, and their motivation to attack the U.S. and other
western interests greater. He has repeatedly abused his authority and
violated his Oath of Office by turning his back on the United States
Constitution; thereby surrendering to the terrorists by underminig
American freedoms,values, and the very foundations of our system of
government. Supporting Bush is treason.
***************
JW
***************
"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?
Have you left no sense of decency?"
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/welch-mccarthy.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joseph Welch" |
|
| Title: Re: Man's arrest violates 1st Amendment rights |
27 Aug 2006 11:42:20 PM |
|
|
"Carl" <crothman@NOSPAMoptonline.net> wrote in message
news:Bj6Ig.2407$PF4.520@newsfe11.lga...
Because there is no such right to do so in the first place.
Ever hear of freedom of the press, another on eof those guaranteed
'freedoms'. Joseph?
Heard of it, supported it, and practiced it. It is not however unlimited.
If person X wants to publish photos of a child pornographic nature, and
he had no involvement in the making of those photos, why can't he then?
For a variety of reasons that I'd be willing to go into, but won't for fear
of drifting off-topic. The short answer to your question is that there is
the First Amendment does not protect child pornography - therefore there is
no "right" to do so.
If that Mr. X feels that pornography, whether child or otherwise, is
artistic expression, don't we tell him he's wrong (ie. abusing his freedom
of speech [expression])?
No, we don't tell him that he is "abusing" a "right" - we tell him that HE
HAS NO SUCH RIGHT.
Damn, you're fucking dense.
How do you reconcile these inconsistencies?
There is no inconsistency.
Look, the point is if you believe in untethered freedom of speech
If by "untethered" you mean "unlimited", then I damn wel DON'T believe there
is such a thing as freedom of speech without limits.
Try threatening the President of the United States with murder. Go ahead.
See how far your argument gets you.
and you feel, as you've stated, they cannot be abused but only exercised,
then you also believe that no one has the right to filter what someone
else thinks falls under these categories.
Uh - no.
Go back on your meds, dude.
--
George W. Bush has made the terrorists stronger, their influence wider,
their numbers larger, and their motivation to attack the U.S. and other
western interests greater. He has repeatedly abused his authority and
violated his Oath of Office by turning his back on the United States
Constitution; thereby surrendering to the terrorists by underminig American
freedoms,values, and the very foundations of our system of government.
Supporting Bush is treason.
***************
JW
***************
"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have
you left no sense of decency?"
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/welch-mccarthy.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Carl" |
|
| Title: Re: Man's arrest violates 1st Amendment rights |
28 Aug 2006 10:33:32 AM |
|
|
If by "untethered" you mean "unlimited", then I damn wel DON'T believe
there is such a thing as freedom of speech without limits.
Try threatening the President of the United States with murder. Go ahead.
See how far your argument gets you.
Ha! This is what I'VE been saying all along Joseph. You just flip-flopped
the entire argument! Re-read the whole thread Joseph and you'll see that
you're just parroting what I said before. And you think I'M on meds???
Funny.
Now, if you agree that there is "no such thing as freedom of speech without
limits" (which we're now BOTH in agreement on) then WHO decides the limits
Joseph? And what ARE the limits? And what do you call it when someone
EXCEEDS the limit (surely not 'abusing, right Joe)?
Maybe you're not following along Joseph... ?
"Joseph Welch" <seattledemocracy@freewebspace.com> wrote in message
news:PxuIg.92$pb.12@fe05.buzzardnews.com...
"Carl" <crothman@NOSPAMoptonline.net> wrote in message
news:Bj6Ig.2407$PF4.520@newsfe11.lga...
Because there is no such right to do so in the first place.
Ever hear of freedom of the press, another on eof those guaranteed
'freedoms'. Joseph?
Heard of it, supported it, and practiced it. It is not however unlimited.
If person X wants to publish photos of a child pornographic nature, and
he had no involvement in the making of those photos, why can't he then?
For a variety of reasons that I'd be willing to go into, but won't for
fear of drifting off-topic. The short answer to your question is that
there is the First Amendment does not protect child pornography -
therefore there is no "right" to do so.
If that Mr. X feels that pornography, whether child or otherwise, is
artistic expression, don't we tell him he's wrong (ie. abusing his
freedom of speech [expression])?
No, we don't tell him that he is "abusing" a "right" - we tell him that HE
HAS NO SUCH RIGHT.
Damn, you're fucking dense.
How do you reconcile these inconsistencies?
There is no inconsistency.
Look, the point is if you believe in untethered freedom of speech
If by "untethered" you mean "unlimited", then I damn wel DON'T believe
there is such a thing as freedom of speech without limits.
Try threatening the President of the United States with murder. Go ahead.
See how far your argument gets you.
and you feel, as you've stated, they cannot be abused but only exercised,
then you also believe that no one has the right to filter what someone
else thinks falls under these categories.
Uh - no.
Go back on your meds, dude.
--
George W. Bush has made the terrorists stronger, their influence wider,
their numbers larger, and their motivation to attack the U.S. and other
western interests greater. He has repeatedly abused his authority and
violated his Oath of Office by turning his back on the United States
Constitution; thereby surrendering to the terrorists by underminig
American freedoms,values, and the very foundations of our system of
government. Supporting Bush is treason.
***************
JW
***************
"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?
Have you left no sense of decency?"
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/welch-mccarthy.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joseph Welch" |
|
| Title: Re: Man's arrest violates 1st Amendment rights |
28 Aug 2006 12:41:56 PM |
|
|
"Carl" <crothman@NOSPAMoptonline.net> wrote in message
news:g1EIg.367$h51.269@newsfe12.lga...
Try threatening the President of the United States with murder. Go
ahead. See how far your argument gets you.
Ha! This is what I'VE been saying all along Joseph. You just flip-flopped
the entire argument! Re-read the whole thread Joseph and you'll see that
you're just parroting what I said before. And you think I'M on meds???
Funny.
No, I think you NEED to be on meds, and there's nothing funny about it.
It's actually kind of sad.
Now, if you agree that there is "no such thing as freedom of speech
without limits" (which we're now BOTH in agreement on) then WHO decides
the limits Joseph?
In this country - the United States Supreme Court ultimately, why?
And what ARE the limits?
Google is your friend. Do your own fucking homework. As ready examples,
I'd say that threatening the President and broadcasting terrorist recordings
exceed the limits of free speech.
And what do you call it when someone EXCEEDS the limit
"Illegal".
(surely not 'abusing, right Joe)?
No, because no such "right" exists.
--
George W. Bush has made the terrorists stronger, their influence wider,
their numbers larger, and their motivation to attack the U.S. and other
western interests greater. He has repeatedly abused his authority and
violated his Oath of Office by turning his back on the United States
Constitution; thereby surrendering to the terrorists by underminig American
freedoms,values, and the very foundations of our system of government.
Supporting Bush is treason.
***************
JW
***************
"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have
you left no sense of decency?"
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/welch-mccarthy.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "ThomJeff" |
|
| Title: Re: Man's arrest violates 1st Amendment rights |
25 Aug 2006 10:10:01 PM |
|
|
Joseph Welch wrote:
"Carl" <crothman@NOSPAMoptonline.net> wrote in message
news:cwKHg.891$k%3.48@newsfe12.lga...
Joseph is right you know, beachshark. What you're actually doing is
advocating the ABUSE of the freedom of speech privilege, not defending it
on constitutional grounds.
Horse ***** again. That is NOT what I said.
No "right" can be "abused" - only used. My claim is that there is no right
to do business with terrorist organizations. Period.
WTF? WTF does "do business" have to do with it?
This is not a First Amendment issue anymore than child pornography is.
Who decides who is a terrorist? You?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joseph Welch" |
|
| Title: Re: Man's arrest violates 1st Amendment rights |
26 Aug 2006 03:23:21 AM |
|
|
"ThomJeff" <thomjeff2001@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:12eves9ovutrdbc@corp.supernews.com...
Horse ***** again. That is NOT what I said.
No "right" can be "abused" - only used. My claim is that there is no
right to do business with terrorist organizations. Period.
WTF? WTF does "do business" have to do with it?
Read the Constitution,.
This is not a First Amendment issue anymore than child pornography is.
Who decides who is a terrorist? You?
I know one when I see one, yeah. But in this case, the US Treasury and the
State Department have a pretty good handle on that.
Are you denying that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization?
--
George W. Bush has made the terrorists stronger, their influence wider,
their numbers larger, and their motivation to attack the U.S. and other
western interests greater. He has repeatedly abused his authority and
violated his Oath of Office by turning his back on the United States
Constitution; thereby surrendering to the terrorists by underminig American
freedoms,values, and the very foundations of our system of government.
Supporting Bush is treason.
***************
JW
***************
"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have
you left no sense of decency?"
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/welch-mccarthy.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Man's arrest violates 1st Amendment rights |
28 Aug 2006 05:21:27 PM |
|
|
Joseph Welch wrote:
"ThomJeff" <thomjeff2001@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:12eves9ovutrdbc@corp.supernews.com...
Horse ***** again. That is NOT what I said.
No "right" can be "abused" - only used. My claim is that there is no
right to do business with terrorist organizations. Period.
WTF? WTF does "do business" have to do with it?
Read the Constitution,.
This is not a First Amendment issue anymore than child pornography is.
Who decides who is a terrorist? You?
I know one when I see one, yeah. But in this case, the US Treasury and the
State Department have a pretty good handle on that.
HORSESHIT!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joseph Welch" |
|
| Title: Re: Man's arrest violates 1st Amendment rights |
29 Aug 2006 01:29:59 PM |
|
|
<beachshark1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1156803687.582497.290080@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
HORSESHIT!
Between your ears, yep.
--
George W. Bush has made the terrorists stronger, their influence wider,
their numbers larger, and their motivation to attack the U.S. and other
western interests greater. He has repeatedly abused his authority and
violated his Oath of Office by turning his back on the United States
Constitution; thereby surrendering to the terrorists by underminig American
freedoms,values, and the very foundations of our system of government.
Supporting Bush is treason.
***************
JW
***************
"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have
you left no sense of decency?"
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/welch-mccarthy.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Graeme" |
|
| Title: Re: Man's arrest violates 1st Amendment rights |
25 Aug 2006 06:31:55 PM |
|
|
Carl wrote:
Joseph is right you know, beachshark. What you're actually doing is
advocating the ABUSE of the freedom of speech privilege, not defending it on
constitutional grounds. You're confused. See my other post for more.
When did freedom of speech become a "privilege"? It's one of the most
fundamental rights, and one that America has traditionally been most
proud of. If we let the government designate whatever organization it
wants as terrorist, then silence them on those grounds, it severely
weaken our rights. Can the Ku Klux Klan, the Black Panthers, the
American Nazi Party, and other radical organizations also be designated
as terrorist or too radical to be heard?
Freedom of speech means just that--no matter how radical or repugnant
the views are.
"Joseph Welch" <seattledemocracy@freewebspace.com> wrote in message
<beachshark@gmail.com> wrote in message
There's no First Amendment violation here. Doing business with known
terrorist organizations is illegal - and should be.
I disagree. This isn't a matter of terrorists, but of a media source
with views at odds with the White House. We're talking opinions,
period.
Horse *****. We're talking about broadcasts produced by a known terrorists
organization being re-broadcast by an American businessman.
Get a grip.
--
George W. Bush has made the terrorists stronger, their influence wider,
their numbers larger, and their motivation to attack the U.S. and other
western interests greater. He has repeatedly abused his authority and
violated his Oath of Office by turning his back on the United States
Constitution; thereby surrendering to the terrorists by underminig
American freedoms,values, and the very foundations of our system of
government. Supporting Bush is treason.
***************
JW
***************
"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?
Have you left no sense of decency?"
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/welch-mccarthy.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Carl" |
|
| Title: Re: Man's arrest violates 1st Amendment rights |
25 Aug 2006 08:48:47 PM |
|
|
Can the Ku Klux Klan, the Black Panthers, the
American Nazi Party, and other radical organizations also be designated
as terrorist or too radical to be heard?
Of course they can and have been curtailed. Can the KKK publish an ad
signing up white men to lynch Black people? Can the Black Panthers hold a
rally to plan the mass murder of all White people? Can the Nazi party
publish a plan for the gassing of Jews and Gypsys? May you call me on the
phone and talk to me about blowing up an airplane? Can a bus driver tell
Black kids to sit in the back of the bus? Can I, as a businessman, advertise
that 'female only' may apply? (the answer to that is 'no' by the way).
How many people have been prosecuted (which I am in favor of, by the way) by
the Federal government for civil rights violations when they've used racial
epithets while committing an assault ? What happened to their freedom of
speech? Hmmm.
Freedom of speech is protected as long as it's limited to an exchange of
intellectual ideas, not as in inciting actual actions against selected
people. Remember, as I posted in another thread, it is against the law to
yell 'Fire!' in a public place if there is no fire. Why? Isn't it your
protected 'right' to say what you want?
And when I referred to freedom of speech as a 'privilege', I am alluding to
the fact that it is not a recognized 'right' in most countries in the world.
It is a privilege granted to us by our Constitution. But, as you can see,
the more some people stretch the intent of the first amendment, the more and
more it becomes curtailed.
It is a 'right' to be used with reasonable discretion. Or it will become one
that is increasingly lost to us.
"John Graeme" <jdgraeme@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1156548715.778558.93100@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Carl wrote:
Joseph is right you know, beachshark. What you're actually doing is
advocating the ABUSE of the freedom of speech privilege, not defending it
on
constitutional grounds. You're confused. See my other post for more.
When did freedom of speech become a "privilege"? It's one of the most
fundamental rights, and one that America has traditionally been most
proud of. If we let the government designate whatever organization it
wants as terrorist, then silence them on those grounds, it severely
weaken our rights. Can the Ku Klux Klan, the Black Panthers, the
American Nazi Party, and other radical organizations also be designated
as terrorist or too radical to be heard?
Freedom of speech means just that--no matter how radical or repugnant
the views are.
"Joseph Welch" <seattledemocracy@freewebspace.com> wrote in message
<beachshark@gmail.com> wrote in message
There's no First Amendment violation here. Doing business with known
terrorist organizations is illegal - and should be.
I disagree. This isn't a matter of terrorists, but of a media source
with views at odds with the White House. We're talking opinions,
period.
Horse *****. We're talking about broadcasts produced by a known
terrorists
organization being re-broadcast by an American businessman.
Get a grip.
--
George W. Bush has made the terrorists stronger, their influence wider,
their numbers larger, and their motivation to attack the U.S. and other
western interests greater. He has repeatedly abused his authority and
violated his Oath of Office by turning his back on the United States
Constitution; thereby surrendering to the terrorists by underminig
American freedoms,values, and the very foundations of our system of
government. Supporting Bush is treason.
***************
JW
***************
"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?
Have you left no sense of decency?"
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/welch-mccarthy.html
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Man's arrest violates 1st Amendment rights |
28 Aug 2006 05:01:57 PM |
|
|
Glad to see at least SOME Americans understand our rights. And, John,
you're right... we're discussing the First Amendment right, not a
"privilege" as Carl sees it.
John Graeme wrote:
Carl wrote:
Joseph is right you know, beachshark. What you're actually doing is
advocating the ABUSE of the freedom of speech privilege, not defending it on
constitutional grounds. You're confused. See my other post for more.
When did freedom of speech become a "privilege"? It's one of the most
fundamental rights, and one that America has traditionally been most
proud of. If we let the government designate whatever organization it
wants as terrorist, then silence them on those grounds, it severely
weaken our rights. Can the Ku Klux Klan, the Black Panthers, the
American Nazi Party, and other radical organizations also be designated
as terrorist or too radical to be heard?
Freedom of speech means just that--no matter how radical or repugnant
the views are.
"Joseph Welch" <seattledemocracy@freewebspace.com> wrote in message
<beachshark@gmail.com> wrote in message
There's no First Amendment violation here. Doing business with known
terrorist organizations is illegal - and should be.
I disagree. This isn't a matter of terrorists, but of a media source
with views at odds with the White House. We're talking opinions,
period.
Horse *****. We're talking about broadcasts produced by a known terrorists
organization being re-broadcast by an American businessman.
Get a grip.
--
George W. Bush has made the terrorists stronger, their influence wider,
their numbers larger, and their motivation to attack the U.S. and other
western interests greater. He has repeatedly abused his authority and
violated his Oath of Office by turning his back on the United States
Constitution; thereby surrendering to the terrorists by underminig
American freedoms,values, and the very foundations of our system of
government. Supporting Bush is treason.
***************
JW
***************
"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?
Have you left no sense of decency?"
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/welch-mccarthy.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Man's arrest violates 1st Amendment rights |
28 Aug 2006 04:56:31 PM |
|
|
Carl, Joseph is NOT right, you know. And, I've noticed in subsequent
posts in this thread that you have taken to arguing that he is not
right, as well. Back to the matter at hand, I am not advocating the
abuse of the freedom of speech privilege (is this contained in the Bill
of Privileges, I wonder?). You're quite confused. See my other post
for more.
Carl wrote:
Joseph is right you know, beachshark. What you're actually doing is
advocating the ABUSE of the freedom of speech privilege, not defending it on
constitutional grounds. You're confused. See my other post for more.
"Joseph Welch" <seattledemocracy@freewebspace.com> wrote in message
news:_QJHg.1670$EV1.1036@fe03.buzzardnews.com...
<beachshark@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1156539664.269082.49430@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
There's no First Amendment violation here. Doing business with known
terrorist organizations is illegal - and should be.
I disagree. This isn't a matter of terrorists, but of a media source
with views at odds with the White House. We're talking opinions,
period.
Horse *****. We're talking about broadcasts produced by a known terrorists
organization being re-broadcast by an American businessman.
Get a grip.
--
George W. Bush has made the terrorists stronger, their influence wider,
their numbers larger, and their motivation to attack the U.S. and other
western interests greater. He has repeatedly abused his authority and
violated his Oath of Office by turning his back on the United States
Constitution; thereby surrendering to the terrorists by underminig
American freedoms,values, and the very foundations of our system of
government. Supporting Bush is treason.
***************
JW
***************
"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?
Have you left no sense of decency?"
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/welch-mccarthy.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
