12

anyone like Pam Geller?

Posted by johnpe1 10 years, 11 months ago to Culture
98 comments | Share | Flag

ISIS is costing Pam thirty thousand a month for
security, given our 2nd Amendment. . what is the
justice in this??? -- j
.

All Comments

  • Posted by RonJohnson 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    You're deflecting. Deal with the fact that Jews and Christians are killing Muslims wholesale. It seems like every week Obama is droning some Muslim and killing a wedding party or a funeral party. Our military acknowledges a body count in Iraq of around 100,000 that they killed during the invasion and occupation. Tens of thousands of Afghans have been killed by coalition forces. I think the moral superiority of the Jews and Christians is a fiction once the bloodiness of their actions are looked at honestly.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by RevJay4 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    And, the muslims are also killing the muslims they don't agree with on theological grounds, or just cause it is some day of the week, or whatever.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by RonJohnson 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Before we go too far down the wrong road here: "fighting words" apply only in face-to-face confrontations. They are often included in disturbing-the-peace laws. I don't know what state you are in, but there's a pretty good chance that such rules apply to you, too. Generally the words have to have no intellectual content, just name calling that is likely to elicit a violent response.

    Unless Geller is calling a person an Islamo-fascist to his face in a public place, there is no violation of the Fighting Words doctrine. If she did, however, and got a punch to the nose, she would be the cause of her own injury.

    Fighting Words as a legal doctrine does not apply to Geller, as best I can tell.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I read it, but I thought it was saying that it does not violate free speech to have laws that consider fighting words tantamount to hitting. Oh... I see what you're saying. You're saying if such laws do not undermine free speech, then we don't have the right to say really obnoxious stupid things calculated to provoke people.

    I err on the side of free speech, though. I find it very dangerous to consider something that sounds remotely like discourse, even stupid angry childish discourse, as outside the domain of free speech.

    I also am pretty sure we don't have them in my state. In the eyes of the law you can same something godawful about someone with no policy message at all, and it's not self-defense if someone gets mad and hits you.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by RonJohnson 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    It's not my term, nor the term of any part of the country. It is a legal term that comes from a unanimous opinion of the Supreme Court. Please go back and read the rest of my comment, above.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "Have you ever heard the term "fighting words"?"
    I associate the phrase with the South. In my part o the country, someone saying something really mean and stupid is not an excuse to hit them.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "She isn't walking in a "bad part of town""
    People have every right to walk in a "bad part of town". She's exercising her right to be obnoxious.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by RonJohnson 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    They're just killing Muslims by the thousands. Bombs. Drones. Artillery. Snipers. Hundreds of thousands dead in the last 15 years. Millions wounded and displaced.
    Don't think the Muslims haven't noticed.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by RevJay4 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Are Jews or Christians beheading women and children? In the present day, I don't think so.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 10 years, 11 months ago
    Is a State being threatened? I think not but could of course be wrong. Well try life, liberty and... Or try the first Amendment as so many do? However you and Miss Geller may have to wait for a change of power. Especially if you are trying to invoke the Constitution. Now if you could prove the reason for the security were terrorists you might get somewhere with the Patriot Act. Those folks need no pesky legalities to take action.

    Back on track. What State or States.the Federal Governments power stops with the Second Amendment ruling for the most part. So what does the State or States Constitutions offer?

    That's the local cops and the question What are they for? Unless a known threat exists they are for investigating afterwards. Clearly a known threat in this case.Since a known threat exists the police are automatically involved and responsible - to the extent allowed by the State Constitution etc. etc. etc. To embellish livefree-NH's comment.

    Not to be overly facetious but any news network might offer to pick up the bill if the results would help them during sweeps week - as long as they had an exclusive with book and movie rights.

    Given the scenario I would put more faith in the latter than the former as a means of protection.

    Unless there is a drastic change in occupancy

    I rather like the answer given by minorwork but I'd still go for the book and movie deal. Guaranteed that's what the biggies are going to do beginning with the legacy building Obeyme.

    Did he decide to abdicate yet?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by RonJohnson 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Have you ever heard the term "fighting words"? The responsibility shifts to the speaker when the words can be reasonably expected to draw a violent reaction. See below:

    "The fighting words doctrine, in United States constitutional law, is a limitation to freedom of speech as protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

    In 1942, the U.S. Supreme Court established the doctrine by a 9–0 decision in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire. It held that "insulting or 'fighting words,' those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" are among the "well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech the prevention and punishment of [which] … have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem."
    Wikipedia
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The ones who executed the 9/11 attack didn't even bother to apply for citizenship. They didn't need it. They increasingly don't need it to get welfare and vote for more of it either.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    You don't see evidence for anything he says. He is throwing out anti-intellectual multiculturalist PC slogans lacing ridiculous accusations.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by RonJohnson 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Read the Old Testament. Then the Talmud. Then tell me how there can be no moderate Jews or Christians if they are true believers.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Esceptico 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I understand she is culturally Jewish, but her statements sure led me to think she was an evangelical Christian.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by woodlema 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I totally agree with you. However; in this world we live in, we know 100% for certain how some people will act and react.

    Their action or reaction is not justifiable in any way, however that does not stop them from it.

    Having said that, IF I were to run through Harlem, I would make sure I had a small army with me to protect me from said reaction that I know would come.

    I do something, I need to know what I am doing, how people will react and FUND the protection myself.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by blackswan 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I've yet to hear a single one of the vast vast majority of Muslims decry the excesses of ANY of the violent ones in their midst, and that includes ISIS and the other organizations engaged in activities that have nothing at all to do with Pam Geller. They're quiet about EVERYTHING, including the beheadings, crucifixions, slavery, etc. She's doing a service, poking that rat, and if it jumps up and tries to bite her, it needs to be met with the severest punishment. Any religion or ideology that supports the killing of someone for drawing a picture is so far off the rails as to be in the land of oz. If the "hotheads" can't control themselves, then they must be eliminated, because they're a clear and present danger.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by blackswan 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The punishment for the person who attacks the person running through Harlem hurling racial epithets should be the same for the person attempting to kill someone drawing a Muhammad cartoon. The severest punishment (preferably terminal) should be imposed. There is NO justification for the initiation of violence. Period.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by RevJay4 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    So, you suggest to keep quiet and not expressing opinions which might provoke a reaction from those who we disagree with. The reaction is not on Pam Geller, it is the responsibility of those who she pokes a finger at.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by RevJay4 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    RonJohnson, go read the "holy book" of islam. Anyone proclaiming to be an adherent of islam is allowed to lie or deceive infidels as long as it advances the goals of islam. There can be no "moderate" muslim if they are a true believer of islam.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by RevJay4 10 years, 11 months ago
    To answer the question asked. Yes, I like Pam Geller and the work she is doing. I'd like to see her, and others, "poke at the bear" more.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo