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

There's a lot of pastors who preach death to LGBT. Not surprised you could find an imam.

It's a tough question--the US has always had more liberal protections for speech and where it becomes incitement. I don't know if it's worth giving up those protections and the more rigorous dialogue that happens in America for the sake of lone wolf attackers...

I do think the penalty for statements like these should be having to watch an hour of Jersey Shore. At least one.

 

http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost.php?p=10543957&postcount=17

 

And yet here you are bringing it up.

Never mind that Obama has spend the last 7.5 years of his administration not only continuing Bush's terrorism policies but extending it - such as a 10x increase in drone attacks on terrorists and re-authorizing the government to spy on Americans for terrorists activities.

 

The sad thing is, and in many cases, the majority of LGBT that died or were injured were probably not open to their family or their family already disowned them. I know this sort of issue shouldn't be in the 21st century but the reality of the situation.

 

We hold Charles Manson responsible for the murders committed by his followers. Why should we not hold religious leaders that also tell their followers to commit capital crimes to the same standard?

 

I seriously doubt that that was true. Some, of course, but not close to a majority, in my opinion. In today's climate, despite the horror of today, the members of the LGBT community are far more open about who they are.

 

Yes I knew you were going to tell me to move at some point, it's your classic statement when you've clearly lost an argument. Moreover I don't care about strictly terrorist attacks I'm talking about all gun violence. Those "locks" work, plain and simple.

 

Good question. Scientologists have gone to prison for illegal acts carried out by followers. Why are other "religions" immune?

 

It's basically what I say to people who fundamentally "don't get it". Since you don't seem to get it, you'd probably be happier elsewhere and I fully support that. I do understand that some people really don't like the liberties guaranteed in the constitution of the US, so I always suggest that they be free to find another country more in line with their ideals.

Best of luck to you.

 

Stop listening won't happen.

I think preaching violence and hate toward group of any citizen or people should mean restricted rights, freedom and definitely lose any government sponsored privilege (such as tax free organization). In addition, if it leads to actual violence, those folks should be held to some real accountability, including jail time.

 

There's a slight difference between ordering a specific crime and having it happen and saying people should die in general. Slight enough to make a legal difference AFAIK, otherwise why aren't those Westboro crazies and the rest of the death preachers locked up?

I am all for rooting out irrational religious bunk, but those standards have to be applied equally, and it has to be within the law as a measured response. A response would have to consider that hate speech and its definitions change from era to era, and hate speech statutes can be used as a censoring or stifling weapon.

The truth is America, for better or for worse, sticks to its First Amendment. The Supreme ruled 9-0 in favor of letting Westboro picket dead soldiers while calling for death to all gays. Do I like the fact that crazies might feed off that incentive? Hell no. But this is a price, up to now, Americans have been willing to pay for a free society where everybody expresses themselves.

I'm all for examining how incitement is better defined to minimize the effect of hateful rhetoric like this, but that has to be balanced in a legal context, not given as a spur of the moment reaction to a disgusting imam.

 

The issue with arresting the guy for his rhetoric is that I'm not 100% sure his words would pass the Brandenburg test so I think they'd be considered legally protected. In 1969 the SCOTUS ruled that unless the speech was leading to "imminent lawless action" and that the action was not only "imminent" but "likely".

A good example of someone who should have been arrested for inciting "imminent lawless action" would have been Micheal Brown's father when he told an angry mob to burn the town down and they immediately followed his orders.

Unfortunately in the instance of the guy suggesting that homosexuals be killed it ends up being protected speech because he's not advocating for lawlessness that is "imminent". If he was saying those same things in front of a pride rally or outside of a gay bar, then he could be prosecuted but saying those things in a different setting makes it protected.

Basically we'd need a new SCOTUS ruling or a change in the constitution in order to jail him for his comments.

 

We seldom agree, but I commend you for doing the research here and highlighting it, Bobby.

(and no this is not sarcasm, this is a genuine comment.)

 

Isn't there a legal line drawn between "[group X] should burn in hell (or whatever)" and "go kill [group X]"?

It's the incitement/encouragement to action that matters, right?

 

The test that it has to pass is if lawlessness is imminent and likely as a result of the speech. If you say "go kill group x" but it's not likely to happen or it's not something that is going to immediately happen then it is protected speech. If you have an angry mob with guns and torches outside of someone's house and they say "Go kill group x" that is inside the house, it's not protected speech and they can be arrested.

Personally I don't really like that interpretation, but it's what we're stuck with till they rule differently or the constitution is amended.

 

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...put-to-death-claims-to-be-life-long-democrat/

Not just the Westboro crazies either...

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-po...izona-pastor-calls-killing-all-gays-christmas

Not sure either are locked up.

It's not an easy issue. I think these are the test cases that really test bedrock principles because they're so viscerally disgusting at first glance.

From what I do know, it's like Bobby says, you basically only get imprisoned if there's a pretty damn direct casual link between you saying something and it happening.

 

I missed your first post while typing mine. Good explanation.

 

Manson should have started a non profit religion. Make millions of dollars and no consequences.

 

The reason they could get Manson was that he was directly ordering people to murder specific targets so his comments weren't legally protected. If you could prove that someone told this guy to go shoot up the club then you could toss them in jail for it even if they were a religious figure.

 

Can't remember, were the 2 houses specifically targeted or are were they just told to go kill rich white people?