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

It's very likely, as I said before, that they missed something.

I think your two examples are poor. In the first, the threat isn't direct. Saying "it's possible that there might have to be some revengence taken" is not the same as saying "God says to kill gay people, so go kill gay people."

In the second, which I remember well, Liddy was responding to the hypothetical situation of a person having their homes raided by law enforcement to confiscate guns. His whole point was that shooting federal agents engaged in what he believed was extralegal would be an act of self-defense. Whether or not you agree with Mr. Liddy's take on constitutional law, it's not the kind of incitement I'm talking about.

I'm guessing you've never had anyone threaten to kill you, but if it happens, you can, at the very least, get a restraining order in Texas. You will also get a visit from the Secret Service if you even joke about killing the president. Why should it be okay to tell people in your mosque, church, youtube channel or Facebook page to kill gay people?

I've not advocating lynch mobs or warrantless surveillance. I'm simply making the statement that religious leaders should not get a special privilege of inciting to murder as free speech. And if it isn't criminal, it is a mental health issue, and either way people that do these things are a clear danger to others.

No one is labeling you. I just think bombarding God's nutters with gay p*rn is juvenile and a waste of time, but sincere engagement with people you disagree who aren't mentally ill rarely is a waste of time.

 

I guess this is the sort of thing that influences Dan Patrick.

 

I'm not hoping to absolve anyone of anything, DD. This guy and his church ought to get a visit tomorrow from the FBI for inciting the murder of gay people, but won't because his "firmly held belief" is more important than holding him responsible for incitement.

 

This would "help" a Rubio or Cruz. This only further exposes Trump as being unfit to lead a country under any circumstance. Only one candidate is getting negative press for their response.

http://time.com/4365411/orlando-shooting-donald-trump-tweet-congrats/

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/back...ions-warnings-radical-islam/story?id=39797778

 

That dude has a gaggle of converts, not to mention will soon have an international presence:

 

Or....the reason it won't happen is because according to the relevant Supreme Court ruling, what he's saying is protected free speech. It has nothing to do with "firmly held belief", it has to do with the Supreme Court's ruling as to what is protected free speech and what's not.

 

I think a modern court would uphold a law designed to narrowly prevent extremism through some sort of brainwashing.

It would allow us to go after Inspire Magazine which could clearly be illegal but somehow is not.

I think if congress & obama crafted a bi-partisan bill on this it would get upheld, but it has to be done very carefully and with a very narrow focus so that it could not be abused and applied to other situations.

 

I'm not sure they would because it would be going directly against previous rulings. Maybe it could happen if Hillary stocks the court full of extremely liberal anti civil rights justices, but that's about the only way I see it working without a constitutional amendment.

I mean, this interpretation is considered so solid that it hasn't even been challenged since 1969

 

Trump is right again. Political correctness is literally getting people killed.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/orla...ored-unhinged-behavior-because-he-was-muslim/

 

Fine. So he can say what he likes and he's completely immune to any consequences if someone acts on what he's advocating. But at the very least, he and his organization should be investigated and his tax-exempt status should be under scrutiny if his organization promotes killing gay people.

 

There's this as well.

As I said, the FBI missed something.

 

Would imprisoning pastors for hate speech have helped?

My first example set legal precedent that covers "God wants you to kill gay people." Sadly.

The second example can be replaced with any instance of a pastor calling for death to gays, which is a nearly regular occurrence, or anybody calling for anybody's death.

Threatening to murder me is a very specific act. Depending on how plausible and imminent that was I'd want a measure of security. A restraining order still doesn't sound like imprisonment.

Threatening to murder the President is a very specific act as well. You'll get visited as you should. You'll only get imprisoned if you're really planning to act on it.

I don't have qualms with surveillance per say, if it is limited to very exigent circumstances like the explicit call of mass murder. Imprisonment is another matter entirely.

And honey, being somebody who likes to trawl in Stormfront Opposing Views for amusement, and being somebody who had the unfortunate task of writing on the "diversity in tech" beat for a while, you best believe death threats are a thing I've seen. None that I've taken seriously lol. But still.

Twitter and Reddit. those old bugaboos. can't let the haters take over tho

The thing is, religious leaders aren't getting a pass. Nobody is. The law is designed to give everybody a pass unless you're asking the dude pointing the gun to shoot the President now, basically. You can change the law, that's fine, but it'll be a wholesale change, not the "religious nutters" exemption.

eh, it'd take a couple of hours, and I've been itching to try the twitter package in Python.

I didn't say gay p*rn either, I said two guys kissing.

We're having sincere engagement as well here. I can multitask. you worry bout ur time ill worry bout mine

 

Well for sure he'll be investigated on some level as will his organization, but I don't think they can pull the tax exempt status based on disagreeing with the message. Personally I'd be all for removing the tax exempt status of all religious organizations, but I don't agree with discriminating against specific organizations based on their message.

 

yeah, agree 100% on this.

 

Pure speculation here: the shooter was likely a closeted homosexual and it drove him mad from the cognitive dissonance. He didn't want to be gay. He wanted to be a big strong man and that's why he beat his ex-wife. He would always use excessive gay slurs and obsess over their lifestyle choices. He thought Islam and then Wahhabism could fix these feelings. But seeing two men embrace each other was the last draw and he knew these feelings were forever. He still was sexually attracted to men, he took the only option that he saw. He stole the lives of those he wanted to love and his own.

May he be erased completely from time and utterly forgotten. Rather lets celebrate and protect those he sought to destroy.

#PrayForOrlando #NoH8

 

The guy does appear to be a bit crazy at the very least.

 

I have no idea where this idiotic obsession came from where the anyone who hates homosexuals is called a homosexual. There are millions of Muslims who just really hate homosexuals. The fact that he associated with known terrorists, was married twice, and claimed to be ISIS makes me think his motivations were PROBABLY religious in nature.

 

I generally disagree with you as well Bandwagoner, but I do agree with you that people have plenty of their own vapid reasons to hate homosexuals--plenty enough that it doesn't warrant manufacturing more of the same.

 

I think previous ruling were directed at the ambiguity and abuse of prior laws.

If you had a law that specifically made it illegal to advocate violence against particular groups (not hate but violence) - such as Inspire Magazine which clearly does - than that is something that should allow the gov't to step in.

There's a difference between saying homosexuals are immoral and x,y,z and saying homosexuals should not be allowed to live. One is ambiguous in terms of whether or not it's a judgement or advocating violence the later clearly advocating violence.

 

He's implying anybody not 'white' is not American. Good for him.