Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Roger Bacon on May 31, 2013, 01:04:43 PM
-
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/05/obama-doj-trashing-islam-on-social-media-will-have-legal-repercussions/
-
Leftists and liberals hate free speech, nothing new
-
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/05/obama-doj-trashing-islam-on-social-media-will-have-legal-repercussions/
any links to actual DOJ documents or official statements about this?
-
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/05/obama-doj-trashing-islam-on-social-media-will-have-legal-repercussions/
I had to go through a couple of links but here is the source document
tell me where he says "trashing" islam on social media will have legal repurcussions
http://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/ag/speeches/2010/ag-speech-1012101.html
-
Funny how liberals never tell moooossllimmsss to just suck it up and deal with it as opposed to trying to end free speech
-
Just like Otwink recently saying that it's our responsibility to reach out to the Muslim community in the wake of these attacks.
-
Just like Otwink recently saying that it's our responsibility to reach out to the Muslim community in the wake of these attacks.
The attacks are our fault for being meanies to Islam.
-
so who gives a shit what Holder actually said
let's just get upset about what someone said that he said
that's about par for the course here right?
-
so who gives a shit what Holder actually said
let's just get upset about what someone said that he said
that's about par for the course here right?
It's the internet.
-
Is this considered social media....good! The only good muslim is a dead muslim....may muhammed endure the rape of 100 cape buffalo's.....the muslim religion is like dogshit...I could continue.....
-
Is this considered social media....good! The only good muslim is a dead muslim....may muhammed endure the rape of 100 cape buffalo's.....the muslim religion is like dogshit...I could continue.....
;D
-
I had to go through a couple of links but here is the source document
tell me where he says "trashing" islam on social media will have legal repurcussions
http://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/ag/speeches/2010/ag-speech-1012101.html
That's not the source document.
Bill Killian and Kenneth Moore are expected to address it on June 4th. And they are reporting on what Killian and/or Moore is expected to say.
Since you're slow...today is May 31.
Another retarded Obama supporter showing off those reading comprehension skills.
Dumbfuck.
-
so who gives a shit what Holder actually said
let's just get upset about what someone said that he said
that's about par for the course here right?
Yeah, idiots posting unrelated documents and then crying as though something was attributed to Holder even though the people in question are Bill Killian and Kenneth Moore.
Pretty much par for the course around here.
Shit, they even put it in bold.
How dumb can you get.
-
That's not the source document.
Bill Killian and Kenneth Moore are expected to address it on June 4th. And they are reporting on what Killian and/or Moore is expected to say.
Since you're slow...today is May 31.
Another retarded Obama supporter showing off those reading comprehension skills.
Dumbfuck.
well what is the source document then ?
that's the first question I asked and no one bothered to answer
I found that link but following the links embedded in the original link on the first post
If you say it's not the source doc then you must know what it is so why don't you post it
dumbfuck
-
well what is the source document then ?
that's the first question I asked and no one bothered to answer
I found that link but following the links embedded in the original link on the first post
If you say it's not the source doc then you must know what it is so why don't you post it
dumbfuck
What source document?
Who claimed there was one?
Oh that's right...you made it up.
So you make up an imaginary 'source document' for a meeting that hasn't even occurred and now you want to demand others post an imaginary document that only you claim exists.
Yeah...you're a bright one alright. ::)
Dumbfuck.
-
What source document?
Who claimed there was one?
Oh that's right...you made it up.
So you make up an imaginary 'source document' for a meeting that hasn't even occurred and now you want to demand others post an imaginary document that only you claim exists.
Yeah...you're a bright one alright. ::)
Dumbfuck.
Jesus are you really truly this stupid
First I didn't CLAIM there was one
I ASKED if there was one
What is the source of the claim that Holder or "Obamas DOJ" said "Trashing Islam on Social Media Will Have Legal Repercussions" ?
Since the original poster didn't answer I just followed the links within his link to other links and found Holders speech from 2010 (referenced in the article) but the article also has this link to an article in the which just talks about enforcing existing civil rights laws which apply to everyone: http://www.tullahomanews.com/?p=15360
Rest assured, everyone here can continue to "trash" Muslims all you want as there is a difference trashing them and threatening them which, if you read the article, is the example that was given.
-
Jesus are you really truly this stupid
First I didn't CLAIM there was one
I ASKED if there was one
What is the source of the claim that Holder or "Obamas DOJ" said "Trashing Islam on Social Media Will Have Legal Repercussions" ?
Since the original poster didn't answer I just followed the links within his link to other links and found Holders speech from 2010 (referenced in the article) but the article also has this link to an article in the which just talks about enforcing existing civil rights laws which apply to everyone: http://www.tullahomanews.com/?p=15360
No, first you asked, then you claimed you found this imaginary source article.
Then cried that people weren't addressing the actual words from your irrelevant article.
Then, you told me to post this imaginary source article. ::)
The Tullahoma News doesn't link a source.
Maybe some reporter just called the people involved and took a statement? Or is that way too far over your head?
Dumbfuck.
Rest assured, everyone here can continue to "trash" Muslims all you want as there is a difference trashing them and threatening them which, if you read the article, is the example that was given.
Perhaps. We'll see. I don't trust anything coming from this AG.
-
Straw Man is getting destroyed by Skip in every thread lately. It's quite amusing to watch.
Skip better watch out or he'll find himself being followed around Getbig for the next 55 years like 333. StrawAnus is quite the OCD stalker when it comes to people who have owned him on here.
-
Straw Man is getting destroyed by Skip in every thread lately. It's quite amusing to watch.
Skip better watch out or he'll find himself being followed around Getbig for the next 55 years like 333. StrawAnus is quite the OCD stalker when it comes to people who have owned him on here.
Yeah I think he's latched onto 33's nutsack since Beach ignores his existence.
-
No, first you asked, then you claimed you found this imaginary source article.
Then cried that people weren't addressing the actual words from your irrelevant article.
Then, you told me to post this imaginary source article. ::)
The Tullahoma News doesn't link a source.
Maybe some reporter just called the people involved and took a statement? Or is that way too far over your head?
Dumbfuck.
Perhaps. We'll see. I don't trust anything coming from this AG.
all of the links I posted were from the source article in the first post or from articles linked to that article
I tried to find something to support the claim in the title of this thread which said ""Trashing Islam on Social Media Will Have Legal Repurcussions"
I didn't make up anything
I didn't make up the lie in the title of this thread nor did I make up the links in the article
I just looked for something to support the claim in the title of this thread
Nothing I've found (which I pointed out in my second post on this thread) support the the claim in the thread title that "trashing" muslims will have legal repurcussions
everything I've said it quite clear so I have no idea why you're so confused
If you have some proof of the claim in the title of this thread feel free to post it
-
lol
-
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/05/obama-doj-trashing-islam-on-social-media-will-have-legal-repercussions/
I see nothing in the link to justify the title of this linked article which is: “Obama DOJ: Trashing Islam on Social Media Will Have Legal Repercussions” which is the same as the title of this thread.
I can't say I'm surprised. I wish I could, but I can't. Sensationalist titles, the distortion of words and outright lying are par for the course these days.
It's a pity that the American people - regardless of their particular political meaning - don't demand more from those that report the news.
-
I see nothing in the link to justify the title of this linked article which is: “Obama DOJ: Trashing Islam on Social Media Will Have Legal Repercussions” which is the same as the title of this thread.
I can't say I'm surprised. I wish I could, but I can't. Sensationalist titles, the distortion of words and outright lying are par for the course these days.
It's a pity that the American people - regardless of their particular political meaning - don't demand more from those that report the news.
yep and the title is in the present tense even though the "story" is really nothing more than speculation by the author about something someone might say and there is no documentation provided of anyone in the Obama DOJ saying or suggesting that merely "trashing Islam" would have legal repurcussions.
This is the kind of thing that right wingers like to circulate among themselves to get themselves worked up and freaked out
-
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/05/obama-doj-trashing-islam-on-social-media-will-have-legal-repercussions/
I would read the link but my eyes cant get of your avatar. Beautiful.
-
I would read the link but my eyes cant get of your avatar. Beautiful.
Fury's avatar does the same for me. Especially in it's full-resolution glory.
-
DOJ: Anti-Muslim Rhetoric Could Violate Law
Townhall.com ^ | June 4, 2013 | Todd Starnes
Posted on Wednesday, June 05, 2013 6:54:48 AM by Kaslin
A U.S. attorney in Tennessee said that it's possible that some inflammatory criticism of Muslims posted on social networking sites could violate federal civil rights laws.
“We need to educate people about Muslims and their civil rights, and as long as we’re here, they’re going to be protected,” U.S. attorney Bill Killian told the Tullahoma News last week. “This is also to inform the public about what federal laws are in effect and what the consequences are.”
Killian, along with an FBI agent, are expected to attend a meeting Tuesday in Manchester, Tenn. hosted by a local Muslim group to “educate people on the First Amendment and its application in society.”
His comments sparked concern among conservative groups that the federal government is about to crack down on anti-Muslim rhetoric -- a claim the U.S. attorney denies.
“It has nothing to do with Sharia law,” Killian told me in a telephone interview. “It has to do with the United States Constitution and federal statutes. You have a right under the First Amendment to hate Muslims. You can hate all Muslims if you want to."
But he added a caveat -- "as long as it does not rise to the level of violating federal civil rights laws.”
The meeting comes after a Tennessee lawmaker posted a photograph of a man aiming a shotgun with the caption, “How to wink at a Muslim.”
“It’s an open forum to discuss the First Amendment -- to discuss its application to all religions and to Muslim religions,” he said. “And to discuss federal civil rights statutes which we’ve done at other times and other places.”
Killian said the federal government has participated in at least a dozen similar Muslim education meetings across the state.
But Andy Miller, of the Tennessee Freedom Coalition, believes the federal government is using those meetings to silence and intimidate critics of Islam.
“There’s an effort to step on free speech -- any speech that’s contrary to Islam,” Miller tells me. “It seems like our federal government is going down that path.”
Miller said Tennessee has become a battleground over what he called a crackdown on anti-Muslim speech.
“This is the Bible Belt,” he said. “There’s an effort to prove that if they can do it here, they can do it anywhere.”
Killian said the supposition that the federal government would prosecute people for exercising their constitutional rights is “ridiculous.”
“We don’t prosecute people for the First Amendment,” he said. “In fact, this event is promoting the First Amendment for all people -- not only to exercise their religion, but to express their freedom of speech regardless of what it is.”
But the big question is where free speech might cross the line and violate federal civil rights laws.
“Could an Internet posting or letter in the mail or a phone call or a personal confrontation constitute a violation of those statutes,” he asked, citing 18 US Code 241 and 18 US Code 245. “Yes, it could.”
So what about the lawmaker who posted the photograph of the shotgun? Would that be a violation of federal law?
“I don’t know whether it does or not,” Killian said. “We’re treating that as if it were offensive conduct and trying to use this event as we have on many other occasions in the district -- utilize events of this nature to have people understand the Muslim religion and the Arab and Muslim people.”
Miller said the government’s explanation is problematic.
“It doesn’t make anybody here locally feel any better,” he said. “It seems as though they are creating a sacred group here that consistently gets attention from the federal government.”
“It’s interesting the Department of Justice and Homeland Security really seem to take up the banner for the Muslim population,” Miller said. “Why aren’t they having one for the Baptists? Why aren’t they having one for the Methodists? Why aren’t they having one for Jews?”
And Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog group, believes the Obama administration is using federal law to protect Muslims from criticism, Politico reports.
“In its latest effort to protect followers of Islam in the U.S., the Obama Justice Department warns against using social media to spread information considered inflammatory against Muslims, threatening that it could constitute a violation of civil rights,” the group wrote online.
-
DOJ: Anti-Muslim Rhetoric Could Violate Law
Townhall.com ^ | June 4, 2013 | Todd Starnes
Posted on Wednesday, June 05, 2013 6:54:48 AM by Kaslin
A U.S. attorney in Tennessee said that it's possible that some inflammatory criticism of Muslims posted on social networking sites could violate federal civil rights laws.
“We need to educate people about Muslims and their civil rights, and as long as we’re here, they’re going to be protected,” U.S. attorney Bill Killian told the Tullahoma News last week. “This is also to inform the public about what federal laws are in effect and what the consequences are.”
Killian, along with an FBI agent, are expected to attend a meeting Tuesday in Manchester, Tenn. hosted by a local Muslim group to “educate people on the First Amendment and its application in society.”
His comments sparked concern among conservative groups that the federal government is about to crack down on anti-Muslim rhetoric -- a claim the U.S. attorney denies.
“It has nothing to do with Sharia law,” Killian told me in a telephone interview. “It has to do with the United States Constitution and federal statutes. You have a right under the First Amendment to hate Muslims. You can hate all Muslims if you want to."
But he added a caveat -- "as long as it does not rise to the level of violating federal civil rights laws.”
The meeting comes after a Tennessee lawmaker posted a photograph of a man aiming a shotgun with the caption, “How to wink at a Muslim.”
“It’s an open forum to discuss the First Amendment -- to discuss its application to all religions and to Muslim religions,” he said. “And to discuss federal civil rights statutes which we’ve done at other times and other places.”
Killian said the federal government has participated in at least a dozen similar Muslim education meetings across the state.
But Andy Miller, of the Tennessee Freedom Coalition, believes the federal government is using those meetings to silence and intimidate critics of Islam.
“There’s an effort to step on free speech -- any speech that’s contrary to Islam,” Miller tells me. “It seems like our federal government is going down that path.”
Miller said Tennessee has become a battleground over what he called a crackdown on anti-Muslim speech.
“This is the Bible Belt,” he said. “There’s an effort to prove that if they can do it here, they can do it anywhere.”
Killian said the supposition that the federal government would prosecute people for exercising their constitutional rights is “ridiculous.”
“We don’t prosecute people for the First Amendment,” he said. “In fact, this event is promoting the First Amendment for all people -- not only to exercise their religion, but to express their freedom of speech regardless of what it is.”
But the big question is where free speech might cross the line and violate federal civil rights laws.
“Could an Internet posting or letter in the mail or a phone call or a personal confrontation constitute a violation of those statutes,” he asked, citing 18 US Code 241 and 18 US Code 245. “Yes, it could.”
So what about the lawmaker who posted the photograph of the shotgun? Would that be a violation of federal law?
“I don’t know whether it does or not,” Killian said. “We’re treating that as if it were offensive conduct and trying to use this event as we have on many other occasions in the district -- utilize events of this nature to have people understand the Muslim religion and the Arab and Muslim people.”
Miller said the government’s explanation is problematic.
“It doesn’t make anybody here locally feel any better,” he said. “It seems as though they are creating a sacred group here that consistently gets attention from the federal government.”
“It’s interesting the Department of Justice and Homeland Security really seem to take up the banner for the Muslim population,” Miller said. “Why aren’t they having one for the Baptists? Why aren’t they having one for the Methodists? Why aren’t they having one for Jews?”
And Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog group, believes the Obama administration is using federal law to protect Muslims from criticism, Politico reports.
“In its latest effort to protect followers of Islam in the U.S., the Obama Justice Department warns against using social media to spread information considered inflammatory against Muslims, threatening that it could constitute a violation of civil rights,” the group wrote online.
good post
anyone who reads it will understand why the title of this thread is a lie
-
Just out of curiosity, what is your opinion, in your capacity as a lawyer, about the laws that proscribe limits to speech that incites others to violence?
[disclaimer since this is getbig: this question doesn't mean I believe such laws are proper, that I support the DOJ or the Administration if they choose to argue that the 1st Amendment can be limited to prevent hurt feelings and angry reactions, or anything like that.]
-
Just out of curiosity, what is your opinion, in your capacity as a lawyer, about the laws that proscribe limits to speech that incites others to violence?
[disclaimer since this is getbig: this question doesn't mean I believe such laws are proper, that I support the DOJ or the Administration if they choose to argue that the 1st Amendment can be limited to prevent hurt feelings and angry reactions, or anything like that.]
I don't like those laws TBH. We all have free will and if someone says "Let's go punch AVXO in the face" and I go do it - in my mind me and me alone is responsible for that - not the speaker.
-
I don't like those laws TBH. We all have free will and if someone says "Let's go punch AVXO in the face" and I go do it - in my mind me and me alone is responsible for that - not the speaker.
I kind of agree with you there... wha... what does that mean? Oh god, is this the end of the world? ;D
-
yep and the title is in the present tense even though the "story" is really nothing more than speculation by the author about something someone might say and there is no documentation provided of anyone in the Obama DOJ saying or suggesting that merely "trashing Islam" would have legal repurcussions.
This is the kind of thing that right wingers like to circulate among themselves to get themselves worked up and freaked out
Really?
Cause you're the only one worked up about the thread title - making up an imaginary source document and crying about it
A few days ago you were trying to mislead about Republicans calling themselves stupid, whilst it was only one.
So that we've got the standard...
It's ok for you to mislead, but wrong for others?
Yeah...par for the course around here.
-
DOJ: Anti-Muslim Rhetoric Could Violate Law
Townhall.com ^ | June 4, 2013 | Todd Starnes
Posted on Wednesday, June 05, 2013 6:54:48 AM by Kaslin
A U.S. attorney in Tennessee said that it's possible that some inflammatory criticism of Muslims posted on social networking sites could violate federal civil rights laws.
“We need to educate people about Muslims and their civil rights, and as long as we’re here, they’re going to be protected,” U.S. attorney Bill Killian told the Tullahoma News last week. “This is also to inform the public about what federal laws are in effect and what the consequences are.”
Killian, along with an FBI agent, are expected to attend a meeting Tuesday in Manchester, Tenn. hosted by a local Muslim group to “educate people on the First Amendment and its application in society.”
His comments sparked concern among conservative groups that the federal government is about to crack down on anti-Muslim rhetoric -- a claim the U.S. attorney denies.
“It has nothing to do with Sharia law,” Killian told me in a telephone interview. “It has to do with the United States Constitution and federal statutes. You have a right under the First Amendment to hate Muslims. You can hate all Muslims if you want to."
But he added a caveat -- "as long as it does not rise to the level of violating federal civil rights laws.”
The meeting comes after a Tennessee lawmaker posted a photograph of a man aiming a shotgun with the caption, “How to wink at a Muslim.”
“It’s an open forum to discuss the First Amendment -- to discuss its application to all religions and to Muslim religions,” he said. “And to discuss federal civil rights statutes which we’ve done at other times and other places.”
Killian said the federal government has participated in at least a dozen similar Muslim education meetings across the state.
But Andy Miller, of the Tennessee Freedom Coalition, believes the federal government is using those meetings to silence and intimidate critics of Islam.
“There’s an effort to step on free speech -- any speech that’s contrary to Islam,” Miller tells me. “It seems like our federal government is going down that path.”
Miller said Tennessee has become a battleground over what he called a crackdown on anti-Muslim speech.
“This is the Bible Belt,” he said. “There’s an effort to prove that if they can do it here, they can do it anywhere.”
Killian said the supposition that the federal government would prosecute people for exercising their constitutional rights is “ridiculous.”
“We don’t prosecute people for the First Amendment,” he said. “In fact, this event is promoting the First Amendment for all people -- not only to exercise their religion, but to express their freedom of speech regardless of what it is.”
But the big question is where free speech might cross the line and violate federal civil rights laws.
“Could an Internet posting or letter in the mail or a phone call or a personal confrontation constitute a violation of those statutes,” he asked, citing 18 US Code 241 and 18 US Code 245. “Yes, it could.”
So what about the lawmaker who posted the photograph of the shotgun? Would that be a violation of federal law?
“I don’t know whether it does or not,” Killian said. “We’re treating that as if it were offensive conduct and trying to use this event as we have on many other occasions in the district -- utilize events of this nature to have people understand the Muslim religion and the Arab and Muslim people.”
Miller said the government’s explanation is problematic.
“It doesn’t make anybody here locally feel any better,” he said. “It seems as though they are creating a sacred group here that consistently gets attention from the federal government.”
“It’s interesting the Department of Justice and Homeland Security really seem to take up the banner for the Muslim population,” Miller said. “Why aren’t they having one for the Baptists? Why aren’t they having one for the Methodists? Why aren’t they having one for Jews?”
And Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog group, believes the Obama administration is using federal law to protect Muslims from criticism, Politico reports.
“In its latest effort to protect followers of Islam in the U.S., the Obama Justice Department warns against using social media to spread information considered inflammatory against Muslims, threatening that it could constitute a violation of civil rights,” the group wrote online.
Good post.
Looks like the thread title is pretty damn close to me.