Florida Night Club Shooting - at least 20 dead - impact on US elections?

Laws can be amended.

DD

 

They can, but for your particular proposal of international hit squads, you may want to consider abandoning the whole notion of laws in the first place

 

It wouldn't have prevented every murder of every gay person or minority, of course, but I think if you freed all the non-violent drug offenders to make room and put them all in there I think that would be a clear win-win.

My relationship with Judaism and associated cliches notwithstanding, I'm neither a lawyer nor interested in a debate about Constitutional law. I'm more interested in questioning how modern societies tolerate religious leaders that incite violence, especially since this is not a problem exclusive to the United States.

In Israel, for example, if the inciters are Jewish, they are mostly ignored until they actually kill someone. If they are another religion, especially if that religion is Islam, they are harassed by authorities, and if someone decides it's needed, simply assassinated(usually by air with no regard for collateral damage) if their relationship with a terror organization is clear.

I don't think that's the model I would ideally be looking for but that seems to be where we are headed.

I understand that there is not a "religious nutter" exemption in the First Amendment, but there seems to be a "religious nutter" exemption in our culture. We are perfectly cool with allowing people to exploit the most vulnerable and credulous in our society to commit anti-social and criminal acts, or at the very least to be sympathetic to them.

I don't care what the Prophet said, or what Jesus said, it's not ok to tell people to kill gay people.

I don't care what the Constitution says. It's not ok to tell people to kill gay people.

I don't care if this is an important component of your religious, tribal, or cultural identity. It is not ok to tell people to kill gay people.

It shouldn't be tolerated be any reasonable or ethical person, ever. No, you don't get to bully others with your religious beliefs.

That's valuable time you could have spent drinking with friends, reading a good book, or watching the Euro 2016.

I stand corrected then.

I was hoping that was understood!

 

You're right. I wouldn't have said he was Jewish, a child, black, or any of the recent victims of mass shooting. He probably just was a Muslim who really, really hated gay people.

 

I don't think there will be much of an effect, but I'd assume Trump would receive a bump in the polls, as these things lead to anger and hate, which benefits Trump.

 

This wouldn't be a matter of amending the law, it would be a matter of amending the constitution which is much more difficult. The first amendment gives people the right to be essentially pretty terrible people and say some pretty awful things and unless you are going to amend that and take away rights from the people (common wishes when something bad happens) then there's not a lot that can be done. Bad things sometimes happen, it's just how it is.

 

You aren't allowed to threatened someone in an airport, and you aren't allowed to put people's safety at risk under free speech. The constitution doesn't needed to be amended to get this done - the law just has to be very clear on what constitutes speech that is unlawful.

Saying you want to kill x person is going to get you in trouble. Why shouldn't saying you want to kill x group be any different?

 

If you are directly threatening someone it passes the Brandenburg test as being inflammatory speech that is directed to inciting, and is likely to incite, imminent lawless action. Since that is the ruling of the Supreme Court as how the first amendment is to be interpreted it would take a new ruling to overturn that. The only other way it could be done is via a constitutional amendment.

Right now saying that you want someone to go kill person x or group x can get your in trouble so long as there is an imminent lawless action as a result of your speech and that the lawless action is likely to happen. Unfortunately someone simply saying that group x should be attacked or that god wants group x to die doesn't meet that standard and doesn't pass the Brandenburg test.

Basically if you are saying "people should do x" then it is protected free speech, if you are saying "You go do x" then it is not protected free speech.

 

Given that there is now a link in multiple cases - not just in Religion - that encouraging violence against a group does lead to violence against that group, I do think the Supreme Court would change it's stance slightly. I don't think an amendment is necessary, as a said, a very focused law that is specially meant to contain groups that are labeled terrorist groups would probably pass the Supreme Court since the group has already established itself as a violent perpetrator.

This would allow the gov't to act against thinks like Inspire, but would still limit their power.

 

You're making the case for the Patriot Act....it's the same kind of knee jerk response to a tragedy where rights get trampled upon and it's really not okay. Sure the freedoms afforded by the constitution make it more difficult to go after people.....but that's the point.

IMO it's more important that the constitution is protected than it is to make it easier to jail people for speech the government doesn't agree with. If they can't find a way to do things without trampling civil rights, then they can't do it.

 

Not at all. First of all there are many parts of the Patriot Act I was ok with, and many parts I was not. It was not one single thing but a very complex bill.

All I am saying is that a terrorist organization should not be able to have protected speech within US borders. The constitution is meant to protect American citizens rights, not the right of foreign terrorist organization. Why do you feel that is trampling on civil rights?

 

I was only speaking about American citizens, personally I'd have anyone who talked like that deported if they weren't American citizens because IMO the freedom of speech afforded citizens shouldn't apply to them.

 

If you don't care, I'd certainly understand, but thought I'd tell you that I'm taking you off ignore. I read your posts in other forums as it is, and you've made some very good posts down here lately. I've posted several times in Feedback, and elsewhere, that the ignore feature should be made "forum specific," since I've never carried disagreements here into other forums, having enjoyed basso's and (?)texxx's posts in Hangout and, at times (they don't post there often enough) in the basketball forums, for example. The irony to me is that I'm reading you again, and (?)texxx is history. I'm thinking about taking basso off, as well. He's really stopped getting me irritated in The Basement, as I sometimes refer to this place. Hopefully, it's a trend of some kind. -

 

These guys aren't Muslim.

 

Nah, they would have to be issued by a council that reviews the evidence, and a sentence imposed.

Either Hit or jail.....depending upon what they are doing.

DD

 

a...sharia council?

 

Our main point of disagreement seems to be the difference between intolerance and imprisonment. I don't tolerate people who spew bigoted beliefs very well, but I can understand why some people don't want to imprison them.

or watching Game of Thrones

It is. Always a pleasure, Deji.

 

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Pres. Obama on Orlando massacre: “As Americans we are united in grief and in outrage and in resolve to defend our people&quot;</p>&mdash; New York Post (@nypost) <a href="https://twitter.com/nypost/status/742193585106358273">June 13, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">OPINION: Obama must declare war, drop political correctness and save lives | Via <a href="https://twitter.com/SebGorka">@SebGorka</a> | <a href="https://t.co/2UHXnq9XjM">https://t.co/2UHXnq9XjM</a></p>&mdash; Fox News (@FoxNews) <a href="https://twitter.com/FoxNews/status/742180250872860672">June 13, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

Sorry if already posted. They found the killer's ex-wife, and I thought this was interesting, but not surprising.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/orlando-shooters-wife-sick-person/story?id=39805225

“He would be perfectly normal and happy, joking, laughing one minute -- the next minute his temper… his body would just [go] totally the opposite,” Sitora Yusufiy, 27, told ABC News. “Anger, emotionally violent and that later evolved into abuse, to beating."

“After being abused and after trying to do that and see the good in him, I can honestly say this is a sick person. This was a sick person that was really confused and went crazy..."

“In those moments of emotional instability, he would express his anger towards [a] certain culture, homosexuality, because in Islamic culture, it is not really tolerated, homosexuality. And I know at the time he was trying to get his life straight and follow his faith,”

And then there's this from the article:

Yusufiy said she had virtually no contact with Mateen since she left and cannot understand what led him to open fire on a gay nightclub in Orlando

ORLY? He beat you, had major anger issues, hated gay people, and was crazy. Hmmm. What could possibly lead such a person to shoot up a gay nightclub?

 

Yeah but clearly I am referring to terrorist organizations - like those that create Inspire, and have recruiter on social media. Right now they are protected under our laws and they can not be deported since they are not here.