You have to reward those that lied and carried your water.

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.

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

I don't know anything about Zim thinking Trayvon stole his bike..I think 240 was just joking when he said that...and I don't recall anyone saying Zim was a racist..at least I didn't

it's been amateur hour so far.  Remember when the first lawyer declined, then claimed, then un-claimed the use of "Stand your ground"?  haha.

Given the 911 call, I can't see any scenario where he just walks.  I think they'll plead out shortly. 

everything we've quoted in this thread is what has been shown to be witnessed or BASED ON ZIMMERFUCKS OWN STATEMENTS!!!!!!!!

If anything, you and all the other 3333 cheerleaders on here are the ones using tortured, twisted logic and bending over ass-backwards to justify Zim's actions

ya gotta give the lawyer props for having the balls to pull such a move.  He knew what was on that video lol. 

this trial should be entertaining like that.   I know zimm will never take the stand, of course, but willingness to pull shit like this shows the dude is just ready to pull anything.

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.

we do not yet know the damage.  bloomberg's campaign of "ban stand your ground laws nationwide" won't start full throttle until the trial.

you remember. of course, that he waited until FIVE MINUTES after the zimmerman indictment to announce his initial campaign start.  typical politician, never letting a crisis go to waste   And once the trial starts, he'll be back with the campaign. 

So it's very premature to say "this affects nothing" when trial hasn't begun yet.  Did we see all of the fallout of the OJ case BEFORE the OJ trial started?  Nope.

True, the officer was fired for not being truthful about saying he was on the contract.. he shook his head in the affirmative indicating that was his answer to the question "Do you work here".. He says he stated "Yes I work at the Austin Police Department". His answer doesn't make sense when taken in context so the 2 workers were believed over the officer. An arbitrator could rule that terminating the officer for such a thing is excessive but that is the arbitrators call. Our stance is honesty is paramount to being an officer.

The prostitute thing.. I agree that it is an outdated law. However it is a law and he was also fired because he lied. He lied about the situation, he later lied saying the officers planted the $10 bill he had stuck in the A/C vent to pay her with...The prostitute on the other hand said they have ""dated" before and he pays $10 for a BJ.  I don't feel sorry for the officer at all.     

like i said the stupidity on this site is unmatched anywhere on the internet    taking the word of a guy that just killed someone as fact 

I can only speak for the place I work at but we try to get rid of them when we find them. That same day an officer was fired for being caught with a prostitute and lying about it.   

ok lets just take the word of someone who just killed another person as fact  the stupidity of some on this site is comical 

seriously, do you think zimm's goal was 100% "save homeless guy"?

Or do you think just a little bit of it was a chance to stick it to the cops?   I know a lot of people who dislike cops - I don't know ANY who were actually crazy enough to SHOVE one of them.  ZImmerman did.  I mean, of all the mean, crazy, upset, angry jerks I know - NONE of them were batshit crazy enough to put their hands on a LEO.

BUT, if you're not convinced, you can read zimm's own words, complaining about the "thin blue line"

in my mind a guy cannot claim to be acting in self-defense when he himself provoked said conflict and went out of his way to do so....thats like you walking down the street drinking a soda and I then cross said street, follow you, you notice me following you, and not only that, but zeroing in on you like I am going to do something, you start to run, I chase you, catch up to you, you're scared, your heart is pounding and so is mine, we get into an altercation, and I proceed to pull out a gun and kill you because you "provoked me" and I was "defending" myself.....I was only "standing my ground"

surely even a stupid dumb ignorant fuck like you can see how illogical that scenario is??

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.

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

http://www.keyetv.com/news/features/top-stories/stories/free-movie-gets-austin-cop-fired-8946.shtml

Yesterday a local cop was fired for lying. It involved getting free tickets for him and his family at a theater.. You have to be on the security contract to get the free tickets and he indicated he was. The contract holder found out about it and reported him to I.A. It was his word against two theater employees. The department took the word of the two employees because it made more sense. An example of holding officers accountable.

Yes.
Pits are really just as nice as other breeds when raised correctly... It's just that they've become a status symbol for shitbags who want "a badass dog" to go wit dey badazz self. So these dohs get a rep as bloodthirsty monsters because so many wannabe gangster pricks raise them to be piece of shit dogs.

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?

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

sure I have
the results of the election are well known and completely support the fact that the tea party HARMED the Republicans
If you choose do believe they didn't harm the party or even helped them they you are certainly entitled to that delusion

let me guess, you didn't bother to read the IRS code I posted on 501c4 nor did you bother to look at the link I posted