Common sense over free speech?

[Big Dog]

I know we've hashed this out but my extreme side says that the only thing missing on this bi*ch is a .45 hole between the eyes. I would categorize this as over stepping bounds..........:frustrado

She's extreme

I'm a secret sicko, I know............

 

[Av8r3400]

A calssic case of cultist brain washing.

 

[mtntopper]

This could only happen in the great USA as the rest of the world would not tolerate what she and her fellow "church" members are saying and doing. They would be locked away in a cage or just gone. Too bad we are so tolerant of individual rights, but a necessary evil for our own individual protection.

 

[Melensdad]

She was interviewed on a radio show yesterday morning and I happened to catch the interview while driving to work. It was one of the fascinating things I have ever heard on the radio. I was simply glued to the radio listening to this woman speak and she is very very well versed in the Bible, capable of quoting literally dozens of verses without need for reference. Now her interpretations of these verses seem to be a bit off norm and extreme, but it was the basis for her entire life and how she lived it.

I would suggest that she is our version of a radical Muslim. That being someone who takes the written word to such an extreme point that the intent is bastardized, however she honestly believes in what she is doing.

Oddly fascinating.

 

[daedong]

I take it these protests were within the bounds of the law?


This interview was just a provocative interview; it simply sensationalises and lacked purpose other than to give her publicity. It is not worthy of national publicity. Having said that if she was to be interviewed it should have been done much more objectively than it was, a very poor performance by fox and the interviewers. Personally I think she should be just ignored after all we are talking about less than a hundred people.

 

[Dutch-NJ]

Do you really live in Australia?

I take it these protests were within the bounds of the law?

They probably are. However, there are proposed laws to restrain this type of conduct. http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=16064

We Americans take our Constitutional rights very seriously.

This interview was just a provocative interview; it simply sensationalises and lacked purpose other than to give her publicity. It is not worthy of national publicity. Having said that if she was to be interviewed it should have been done much more objectively than it was, a very poor performance by fox and the interviewers. Personally I think she should be just ignored after all we are talking about less than a hundred people.

Americans like to be outraged. However, today most of us only vent our emotions vicariously.

I was born during WW II and grow up in a rough section of New York. In those days, most Americans put their political and philosophical differences aside and pulled as a team.

I remember neighborhood men sitting on their stoops (steps) at night after work. Many were longshoremen (dock workers). They would tell stories about “big mouth” co-workers.

During WW II there was an expression, “Loose lips sink ships.” It was taboo to go to a bar after work and talk about what was loaded on ships or sailing schedules.

Occasionally someone would forget and say something that they shouldn’t have. Many times those “big mouths” would find themselves pushed into the East River or New York Harbor. If they didn't drown and complained, they were told that overhead cargo nets could fail. But their Freedom of Speech rights were always protected.

 

[mtntopper]

I take it these protests were within the bounds of the law?
This interview was just a provocative interview; it simply sensationalises and lacked purpose other than to give her publicity. It is not worthy of national publicity. Having said that if she was to be interviewed it should have been done much more objectively than it was, a very poor performance by fox and the interviewers. Personally I think she should be just ignored after all we are talking about less than a hundred people.

By ignoring her, do you then also agree she and her "church" should be allowed to picket and protest at the funerals for US soldiers killed in Iraq?

It looked to me that she was took control of the direction of the interview to be able to express her radical movements extreme beliefs and with the intention of trying to get others to join them in protests and public demonstrations. By not answering the questions and talking over the interviewer she tried to gain the upper hand in the interview. Would anyone be able to actually interview her and get any factual answers as to her movements real objectives and goals in protesting at funerals? It is definitely her goal to get recognized and create sensationalism for herself. She is using religion to justify her extreme inconsiderate and almost treasonous actions in my opinion, but her ability to speak is a protected right.

She may be non-violent but I would not want to take any chance as she is the type to inflame others to violence with her comments and actions, just like any other "terrorist" in the world. Protesting the actions of the government and government policy in a non violent way is acceptable. Protesting and slandering at a dead soldiers funeral is not acceptable in our society. Some type of limits need to placed on extreme radicals that intentionally undermine our country and our way of life.

 

[daedong]

Do you really live in Australia?

Yep just a piss-ant nation so my points of view rate very low here
and I am probably the only one out side North America with a FF T-shirt



Seriously the cultural, political differences do get me into trouble at times
Welcome aboard FF

By ignoring her, do you then also agree she and her "church" should be allowed to picket and protest at the funerals for US soldiers killed in Iraq?

Unfortunately this is the ugly side of democracy all we should do is support the families of the soldiers. This woman and her crazy group should not be publicised. It only feeds other sickos

 

[BoneheadNW]

the only thing missing on this bi*ch is a .45 hole between the eyes.

That would be a waste of ammunition.

Personally I think she should be just ignored after all we are talking about less than a hundred people.

I agree. All she wants is publicity.

I would suggest that she is our version of a radical Muslim.

I agree with that statement also.
Bottom line: Keep her and her group away from the funerals and ignore them.
Bone

 

[Dutch-NJ]

Unfortunately this is the ugly side of democracy all we should do is support the families of the soldiers. This woman and her crazy group should not be publicised. It only feeds other sickos

Ah hah........ Publicizing these sickos is also protected by our Constitution.

Over the years our Constitution has been amended. The first ten amendments is called our “Bill of Rights.” Those first ten amendments were ratified December 15, 1791.

The first Amendment reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Over the years our courts have interpreted what those words mean. Permit me to try and explain the current interpretations.

“Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech,” gives this sicko the right to spew her sick words.

“Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press,” gives the media the right to publicize the words this sicko spews.

“Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people peaceably to assemble,” gives the sicko and the media the right to crash a funeral.

Here’s where the court interpretations gets a little confusing.

“Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech,” does NOT give children the right to say a prayer in school, or for some citizens to say our Pledge of Allegiance to our flag.

By denying our children the right to say a prayer in school may seem like the courts are prohibiting the free exercise of their religion, but the courts claim it doesn't.

Do you understand? If you do, please explain it to me.