Miami-Dade Transit to remove `offensive' Islamic bus ads
Must not evangelize Muslims, even in America?
"Miami-Dade Transit is pulling advertisements from 10 buses that South Florida Muslims have said are offensive to Islam. The ads, which went up Tuesday, said "Fatwa on your head? Is your community or family threatening you?" and directed Muslims to a website encouraging them to leave Islam.
Robert Spencer, associate director of New York-based Stop the Islamization of America, which purchased the ads for one-month as the first leg of a national campaign, said they were "offered in defense of religious liberty."
Source
17 comments:
Just remember, if the ads said,
"Evangelists in your face? Is your community or family threatening you?" and directed Christians to a website encouraging them to leave Christianity.
You'd be damn sure that it would continue to be posted on freedom of speech grounds.
I have no problem if the buses are a private organization. But Anon, 4:39 is probably correct in his/her observation about the reverse case. I don't see that much of a difference between this exampled message and those done by atheists on public transporation.
Remember the days when freedom of speech was more important than appeasement? Oh, for the good old days, when voters actually had the mental capacity to know what to do in a voting booth. It's stories like this one that give the world the impression that we've become a nation of weak-minded sheep. And they're right! Whatever tragedies befall this Nation Of Fools will be richly deserved, thanks to the mindless, gutless, cretins who comprise most of it's population.
From Jon;
"HATE SPEECH" is free speech: The U.S. Supreme Court stated the general rule regarding protected speech in Texas v. Johnson (109 S.Ct. at 2544), when it held:"
If so-called hate speech is free speech, then why is it a crime?
WORD OF THE DAY
(PROTECTED) MINORITY, n.
The brass ring of Nanny State sanctioned victimhood, it "empowers" the chronically oppressed to be coddled at the expense of sovereign individuals..
Anon 3:15 PM said, "If so-called hate speech is free speech, then why is it a crime?"
You need to understand the worldview of Liberals. Theirs is a relative world where morality, ethics, and law constantly change to conform to the whim of the majority in power. If a law suits one group, then it is enforced on that group. If another group cries foul, then the law is re-assessed and conformed to appease the other group.
Conservatives, on the other hand, tend to follow the concept of absolute morality where morals, ethics, and laws are based on unchangeable ideals. In this case, the U.S. Constitution.
Obviously, one cannot fairly generalize 100% in either direction as there is corruption and abuse on both sides of the fence. But generally speaking, the reason why free speech is now considered hate speech is because of differing worldviews.
Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
Anybody remember this little ditty?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7818980.stm
Did we Christians like it? No!
Did we demand it's removal, No!
See we understand free speech is for EVERYONE. We may call a boycott of the bus company, but we sure as hell won't suppress your free speech.
But when in doubt, remember the liberal motto:
"Free speech for me, but not for thee"*
* unless you agree with me!
If so-called hate speech is free speech, then why is it a crime?
The answer is that the definition of "hate speech" has been changed, stolen and altered over the years.
The initial interpretation of "hate speech" is speech that is designed to threaten, intimidate or directly harass a person.
That is why burning a flag is protected free speech, but burning a cross on someone's lawn is not. The intent of the burning cross is to intimidate and threaten a person.
Over the years, we have gotten away from that definition to "speech that offends." That is what many people would like you to believe hate speech is. However, as Jon correctly points out, that is not "hate speech" at all. In fact, the courts have struck down the idea that "offensive speech" equals "hate speech."
So to answer your question, hate speech" as originally defined is still a crime. However, what the left and progressives define as "hate speech" is not hate speech under the US Constitution.
Anon 2:47 said;
"The answer is that the definition of "hate speech" has been changed, stolen and altered over the years."
Actually, hate speech wasn't changed over the years, because legally speaking, it hasn't been around that long. It is in fact, a recent "invention", designed to give gays and blacks greater protections under the law than the rest of the population receives. It's sole purpose was to appease the gay and black communities.
Anon 2:33 AM, it's people like you who taint the intent of the Constitution. Please crawl back under your rock.
Conservatives, on the other hand, tend to follow the concept of absolute morality where morals, ethics, and laws are based on unchangeable ideals. In this case, the U.S. Constitution.
The founders all rode horses. Following your logic, why don't conservatives all ride horses? You are trying to preserve / conserve the past ? You are by definition not progressive, eh? Give up your cars NOW. Emulate our founders. Of course you won't. You selectively choose the intents of the founders to suit your twisted agendas.
Technology changes. Right and wrong do not.
Technology changes. Right and wrong do not.
It depends on your point of view. War bad. Health care good.
Society's view of right and wrong constantly change.
The Old Testament laws/morality are also apparently inapplicable today.
War bad. Allowing tyrants to get away with imposing the perpetual state of war known as slavery is even worse. Health care good. Government using health care as a cover and justification for tyrannically controlling every aspect of your life, really bad.
Anon 12:10 AM, One can certainly be progressive in society and still adhere to traditional ethics and values. It just takes just a bit of self-control. Unfortunately, most Liberals lack such self-control, rendering them no more progressive than the average child.
Post a Comment