Armed Bikers to Hold Mohammed Contest Outside Cartoon Gunmen’s Mosque

[truth_seeker]

You're right of course, but I was focusing on the emigrating Muslims who choose to live across the pond here in the USA.

Getting to the point that I don't care what they do in their own countries.

Have been watching these no-kill shelters for cats, since I'm about ready to adopt one.   I wish we could have an adoption center for Americans wishing to rescue Christian families out of Iraq and Syria.

Still having 'nightmares' over those damned photos of headless toddlers.   Wish I'd never seen them.

My church sponsored a family from Taiwan, in the late 1950s. Father was a high ranking military man in Gen. chiang Kai-shek's forces.

Anyway the church was effectively rescuing a family, from threat of harm by then Red or Communist China.

So I sort of like your idea; namely a family or a church here, adopting a Christian family from the troubled middle east. Maybe even non-Christian.

I had a woman working in our office, until recently. Originally from Syria, but Christian. Spent her adult life in London, then Calif. Her parents were in Syria. Father died awhile ago, and when she went to deal with his death, brought her mother home to Calif.

It is walking the walk, not just talking the talk. Or putting your money where your mouth is.

[Luis Gonzalez]

They're damned words, Luis.  They're not weapons.

If anybody is offended to the point of exacting deadly force, the problem lies between THEIR ears. 

No Catholics killed over Piss Christ.  Or the Virgin Mary decorated with elephant dung.   The Muslims in the West need to get a freaking grip.

The fighting words doctrine is one of the few recognized limits of the First Amendment's protection of speech. Those bikers could have been arrested and people would have screamed about the violation of their First Amendment rights, but they would be completely wrong. Had a riot ensued as a result of their actions, both sides would have been prosecuted. One for inciting a riot, and one for engaging in violence.

Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942), articulated the fighting words doctrine limitation on free speech in their 9-0 decision:

"There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting" words those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality."

[Luis Gonzalez]

And look at the court rulings when neo-nazis marched thru Skokie, among others. You are extrapolating scenarios that have already been settled by the tumultuous 60's and 70's without any sort of delegitimization you are speculating on. Agitation is a useful tool that the Left uses to this very day.

The NSPA never marched through Skokie.

[Free Vulcan]

The fighting words doctrine is one of the few recognized limits of the First Amendment's protection of speech. Those bikers could have been arrested and people would have screamed about the violation of their First Amendment rights, but they would be completely wrong. Had a riot ensued as a result of their actions, both sides would have been prosecuted. One for inciting a riot, and one for engaging in violence.

Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942), articulated the fighting words doctrine limitation on free speech in their 9-0 decision:

You are misapplying that case to this situation. By inference then anyone offended by certain speech who responds violently could use the excuse that they were incited. If that were allowed to stand then opportunistic activist agitation groups would use that as a tool for political gains by responding with violence to the smallest things. Including and especially Muslims.

This doesn't rise to that decision - these are simple drawings. We've already visited the offending art scenario in our society years ago. If Muslims are so offended they must respond with violence, it will work against them in the long run, delegitimizing them, not those doing the drawing. The courts won't support them either.

[Free Vulcan]

The NSPA never marched through Skokie.

Red herring. The courts still ruled in their favor to do so whether done or not in addition to other cases. I'll concede the technical error, but it changes nothing.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Red herring. The courts still ruled in their favor to do so whether done or not in addition to other cases. I'll concede the technical error, but it changes nothing.

No, not a red herring, but lack of actual knowledge in your part.

I corrected you when you said "when neo-nazis marched thru Skokie". You obviously didn't know that the march actually never happened.

[Luis Gonzalez]

You are misapplying that case to this situation. By inference then anyone offended by certain speech who responds violently could use the excuse that they were incited. If that were allowed to stand then opportunistic activist agitation groups would use that as a tool for political gains by responding with violence to the smallest things. Including and especially Muslims.

This doesn't rise to that decision - these are simple drawings. We've already visited the offending art scenario in our society years ago. If Muslims are so offended they must respond with violence, it will work against them in the long run, delegitimizing them, not those doing the drawing. The courts won't support them either.

Well, in essence, yes. But that doesn't mean that the Courts will agree.

T-shirts saying "FU#K Islam" would probably fall under the Court's definition of fighting words, specially when the rally was set to take place in front of a Mosque and intended to offend.

I wasn't discussing the drawings. I was addressing the subject of this thread and article which is the rally.

[Free Vulcan]

No, not a red herring, but lack of actual knowledge in your part.

I corrected you when you said "when neo-nazis marched thru Skokie". You obviously didn't know that the march actually never happened.

It did happen, but in Chicago. Whether it happened in Skokie or not, the courts ruled that they had the right to do it, as they have many other cases, including Westboro Baptist.

[Free Vulcan]

Well, in essence, yes. But that doesn't mean that the Courts will agree.

T-shirts saying "FU#K Islam" would probably fall under the Court's definition of fighting words, specially when the rally was set to take place in front of a Mosque and intended to offend.

I wasn't discussing the drawings. I was addressing the subject of this thread and article which is the rally.

A rally which includes a drawing contest as the centerpiece, similar to Geller's one that the two terrorists showed up at.

The scenario you put forth has never held up in court. Again, Westboro Baptist as case and point. They have in fact successfully used the courts to provide the legal backing for what they do.

[Luis Gonzalez]

It did happen, but in Chicago. Whether it happened in Skokie or not, the courts ruled that they had the right to do it, as they have many other cases, including Westboro Baptist.

The Courts have (time and again) decided that holding a demonstration that may offend people is a constitutionally-protected right.

However, the Courts have ruled that fighting words constitute words that are intended to incite hatred or violence from their targets or that tend to create (deliberately or not) a verbal or physical confrontation by their mere usage, and your original post called for people to "(E)ngage them, bait them, expose them".

That is the textbook definition of fighting words.

In the NSPA demonstration, the town of Skokie refused to issue a permit because it believed (correctly) that Nazis marching in a township heavily populated by Holocaust survivors and their families would be offensive. The Court found that correctly to be wrong. You can't deny a permit and deny people both the right to peacefully assemble and the right to free speech because others may find their presence and symbolism offensive.

The fighting words doctrine did not apply there simply because the march had not happened. Had the Nazis marched down Skokie shouting offensive things about Jews and carrying offensive signs that could lead to violence because of their nature after they secured the permit, and been arrested by Skokie authorities, they would not be able to claim any sort of protection under the First Amendment.

That's the difference between Skokie and this. Just like there is no constitutionally-protected right to not be offended, there are no constitutional protections for those purposely seeking to precipitate physical or verbal confrontation by using words specifically intended for those purposes.

[Luis Gonzalez]

A rally which includes a drawing contest as the centerpiece, similar to Geller's one that the two terrorists showed up at.

The scenario you put forth has never held up in court. Again, Westboro Baptist as case and point. They have in fact successfully used the courts to provide the legal backing for what they do.

Westboro Baptists, despicable people.

The case in question was Snyder v. Phelps (2011).

While Scalia argued in his dissent that the words and signs of te members of the Westboro Baptist Church clearly constituted fighting words, the majority found that local ordinances, already in place, provided sufficient shield for funeral attendees from the protesters were adequate in protecting grieving family members and other attendees. Had those local ordinances been in place, and Phelp's people moved too close to the funeral atendees, the local authorities could have arrested them and their First Amendment rights wouldn't apply or protect them. 

I was with Scalia on that one.

[olde north church]

Yes, the 1st Amendment does protect controversial speech with a number of exceptions.  And yes, it also protects stupid people...most of the time.   

Just remember this about the 1st.  The genius who made the statement about the "Fire in a crowded theatre" also made the "3 generations of imbeciles".  Typical Progressive clap-trap.

[Free Vulcan]

The Courts have (time and again) decided that holding a demonstration that may offend people is a constitutionally-protected right.

However, the Courts have ruled that fighting words constitute words that are intended to incite hatred or violence from their targets or that tend to create (deliberately or not) a verbal or physical confrontation by their mere usage, and your original post called for people to "(E)ngage them, bait them, expose them".

That is the textbook definition of fighting words.

In the NSPA demonstration, the town of Skokie refused to issue a permit because it believed (correctly) that Nazis marching in a township heavily populated by Holocaust survivors and their families would be offensive. The Court found that correctly to be wrong. You can't deny a permit and deny people both the right to peacefully assemble and the right to free speech because others may find their presence and symbolism offensive.

The fighting words doctrine did not apply there simply because the march had not happened. Had the Nazis marched down Skokie shouting offensive things about Jews and carrying offensive signs that could lead to violence because of their nature after they secured the permit, and been arrested by Skokie authorities, they would not be able to claim any sort of protection under the First Amendment.

That's the difference between Skokie and this. Just like there is no constitutionally-protected right to not be offended, there are no constitutional protections for those purposely seeking to precipitate physical or verbal confrontation by using words specifically intended for those purposes.

The courts have always leaned on fighting words as a direct verbal assault and confrontation, man to man, than as a group. Even insults from a group are pretty gray if they don't rise to a certain level of direct targeting. You are trying here to apply the specific to the general, and that's where your argument breaks down.

As long as the biker rally stays where it should, and isn't harassing and hurling insults directly at mosque goers and such, they will be fine. When someone is as sensitive as Muslims are, simply being there is engaging and baiting them. If you truly had to provoke something, like say with Hindus and Buddhists, there would be no point.

This isn't aggressive behavior, it's standing up to aggressive behavior with a protest rally, which is well within 1st amendment rights.

[Free Vulcan]

Westboro Baptists, despicable people.

The case in question was Snyder v. Phelps (2011).

While Scalia argued in his dissent that the words and signs of te members of the Westboro Baptist Church clearly constituted fighting words, the majority found that local ordinances, already in place, provided sufficient shield for funeral attendees from the protesters were adequate in protecting grieving family members and other attendees. Had those local ordinances been in place, and Phelp's people moved too close to the funeral atendees, the local authorities could have arrested them and their First Amendment rights wouldn't apply or protect them. 

I was with Scalia on that one.

And it should be noted that he was in the dissent. Now if were an issue involving a point in Islam, you wouldn't be allowed to do that, and they would claim you were inciting them and they had the right to attack you. Similar to drawing cartoons.

Thank you for illustrating my point.

[GourmetDan]

Just remember this about the 1st.  The genius who made the statement about the "Fire in a crowded theatre" also made the "3 generations of imbeciles".  Typical Progressive clap-trap.

In this case, the theatre IS on fire and those trying to warn the brain-dead zombies are being attacked by the same...

[Luis Gonzalez]

The courts have always leaned on fighting words as a direct verbal assault and confrontation, man to man, than as a group. Even insults from a group are pretty gray if they don't rise to a certain level of direct targeting. You are trying here to apply the specific to the general, and that's where your argument breaks down.

As long as the biker rally stays where it should, and isn't harassing and hurling insults directly at mosque goers and such, they will be fine. When someone is as sensitive as Muslims are, simply being there is engaging and baiting them. If you truly had to provoke something, like say with Hindus and Buddhists, there would be no point.

This isn't aggressive behavior, it's standing up to aggressive behavior with a protest rally, which is well within 1st amendment rights. But

I was originally responding to your "engage them, bait them", then pointing out the difference between Westoboro and these bikers.

Your statement called for people to engage and "bait" Muslims. The Court has not limited fighting words to spoken words only. They ve narrowed the scope of wha constitutes fights words since the Chaplinsky trial, but the "spoken words only" caveat that you claim exists doesn't.

The obvious difference between the SCOTUS decision on the WB case and this situation is that buffer space between the protesters and those who could be incited to violence as a result of the signs and words. That buffer space doesn't seem to exist in the case of these bikers.

I didn't prove your point. In talking about how the courts have dealt with fighting words in the last and applying that to your "bait them" statement and discussing the difference between the Phelps SCOTUS case and this one. You're imagining and fabricating a world where the Courts react different toward Muslims because they're Muslims.

That didn't seem to be the case with Tsarnaev.

[Free Vulcan]

You're splitting hairs to absurdity in an attempt to 'win' this argument by obfuscation and wearing me down, but it doesn't change the fact that you over-applied your 'fighting words' position to this instance.

The 'non-words' fighting words is even more vague and nebulous - seriously doubtful it will apply here. If they are on public property, or even someone else's private property, they have plenty of 'buffer zone' in this instance, as local ordinance dictates, per the Supreme Court.

There is a difference between baiting and baiting an aggressor. An aggressor cannot tolerate any dissent in their attempt to establish territory. Merely being seen by them is enough to 'bait' them to react. Legally, that's their problem. Part of the 1st Amendment is to defy these kinds of aggressors, to let them know that people can disagree with you and you don't have the right to physically attack them.

This group is well within their rights to do what they are doing.

[Luis Gonzalez]

You're splitting hairs to absurdity in an attempt to 'win' this argument by obfuscation and wearing me down, but it doesn't change the fact that you over-applied your 'fighting words' position to this instance.

The 'non-words' fighting words is even more vague and nebulous - seriously doubtful it will apply here. If they are on public property, or even someone else's private property, they have plenty of 'buffer zone' in this instance, as local ordinance dictates, per the Supreme Court.

There is a difference between baiting and baiting an aggressor. An aggressor cannot tolerate any dissent in their attempt to establish territory. Merely being seen by them is enough to 'bait' them to react. Legally, that's their problem. Part of the 1st Amendment is to defy these kinds of aggressors, to let them know that people can disagree with you and you don't have the right to physically attack them.

This group is well within their rights to do what they are doing.

"There is a difference between baiting and baiting an aggressor". You see all Muslims as aggressors to be baited, the Court may see you as the aggressor if you decide to "bait" individuals simply because other individuals of the same religion have committed acts of aggression.

I'm not splitting hairs, you're just not well versed in the fighting words doctrine. There have been cases which narrowed the scope of what constitutes fighting words since Chaplinsky but none created a wholesale exemption for written words.

Here's the text from the SCOTUS finding:

"It is well understood that the right of free speech is not absolute at all times and under all circumstances. There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which has never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or “fighting” words — those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality. “Resort to epithets or personal abuse is not in any proper sense communication of information or opinion safeguarded by the Constitution, and its punishment as a criminal act would raise no question under that instrument.”

So you and others go stand in front of mosques and try to "bait" people into violence using those t-shirts, and signs, and in all likelihood someone will push beyond signs and t-shirts, and you will give them a legal and moral victory with unforeseen repercussions.

[Free Vulcan]

"There is a difference between baiting and baiting an aggressor". You see all Muslims as aggressors to be baited, the Court may see you as the aggressor if you decide to "bait" individuals simply because other individuals of the same religion have committed acts of aggression.

I'm not splitting hairs, you're just not well versed in the fighting words doctrine. There have been cases which narrowed the scope of what constitutes fighting words since Chaplinsky but none created a wholesale exemption for written words.

Here's the text from the SCOTUS finding:

So you and others go stand in front of mosques and try to "bait" people into violence using those t-shirts, and signs, and in all likelihood someone will push beyond signs and t-shirts, and you will give them a legal and moral victory with unforeseen repercussions.

Actually written words on signs and t-shirts as well as drawings are probably more protected than most things (Cohen v. California). Basically at this point you are arguing non-sequitors and philosophy more than actual legalities. Which is your right, but your original argument is completely shot to hell.

The courts have given far more leeway to protests than what these people are doing here. Your attempt to paint this as some sort of non-protected incitement is a legal fantasy which does not exist in this country at present, according to the courts.

[DCPatriot]

"There is a difference between baiting and baiting an aggressor". You see all Muslims as aggressors to be baited, the Court may see you as the aggressor if you decide to "bait" individuals simply because other individuals of the same religion have committed acts of aggression.

I'm not splitting hairs, you're just not well versed in the fighting words doctrine. There have been cases which narrowed the scope of what constitutes fighting words since Chaplinsky but none created a wholesale exemption for written words.

Here's the text from the SCOTUS finding:

So you and others go stand in front of mosques and try to "bait" people into violence using those t-shirts, and signs, and in all likelihood someone will push beyond signs and t-shirts, and you will give them a legal and moral victory with unforeseen repercussions.

Luis, did you know that a major league ballplayer can FAIL seventy percent of the time and still make the Hall of Fame?

Trying to claim that Westboro Baptist Church hecklers at funerals are different than heckling and wearing "eff Muslims" tee-shirts from across the street from their mosque is ludicrous.

Luis, buddy.....give it up on this one.   

[DCPatriot]

Wondering...using Luis' argument, why that sign isn't purposely inciting?   /s   It's meant to incite an entire race of people, IMO.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Actually written words on signs and t-shirts as well as drawings are probably more protected than most things (Cohen v. California). Basically at this point you are arguing non-sequitors and philosophy more than actual legalities. Which is your right, but your original argument is completely shot to hell.

The courts have given far more leeway to protests than what these people are doing here. Your attempt to paint this as some sort of non-protected incitement is a legal fantasy which does not exist in this country at present, according to the courts.

Why don't you be honest for once in this discussion.

Your words were "bait them". Bait them into doing what exactly, if NOT reacting violently so that you can then "run them out on a rail" as a result of their reaction? If you engage in an activity which uses speech, written or otherwise, with the intent of inciting violence from a group of people, you're guilty of using "fighting words".

Be at least honest enough to stand by your convictions and say that it means nothing to you to do that, but not so dishonest that you're arguing that that's not what you're doing.

The level of intellectual dishonesty in your argument is fathomless.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Luis, did you know that a major league ballplayer can FAIL seventy percent of the time and still make the Hall of Fame?

Trying to claim that Westboro Baptist Church hecklers at funerals are different than heckling and wearing "eff Muslims" tee-shirts from across the street from their mosque is ludicrous.

Luis, buddy.....give it up on this one.   

I'm your friend and you're my friend, but you really need to stop telling me what to do, when to do it, and how to do it.

Then you can also try to engage something other than your imagination and your opinion when you correct me or accuse me of "claiming" something.

Try doing what I do and read up on things.

It was the SCOTUS that opined that the difference between fighting words and not fighting words in the case of The Westboro Baptists (Snyder v. Phelps) was that  there was a sufficient buffer zone mandated by local ordinances and that as a result of that "Snyder could see no more than the tops of the picketers' signs", something that can't be said when these protesters stand in full and unimpeded view of the Mosque's entrance. Alito in his dissent (I think I incorrectly accredited Scalia with the dissent earlier) took the more conservative stance (as he tends to always do) and wrote that "(O)ur profound national commitment to free and open debate is not a license for the vicious verbal assault that occurred in this case."

Justice Breyer in a concurring opinion made it clear that the Court's decision related only to picketing, and did not take into consideration Westboro Baptist Church's on-line publications that attacked the Snyder family. meaning that written words could still be considered in a fighting words case.

I don't write and post from an emotive point. I take the time to read and try to figure out why things are they way they are, and why they happened the way they did.

Maybe, if more people followed suit, we would be better off as a people.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Wondering...using Luis' argument, why that sign isn't purposely inciting?   /s   It's meant to incite an entire race of people, IMO.

Come on DC, you are a highly intelligent individual. why do you post crap like that?

Take that sign down and put one up that says "FU#K NI$$ERS" then you'd have a point.

[Free Vulcan]

Why don't you be honest for once in this discussion.

Your words were "bait them". Bait them into doing what exactly, if NOT reacting violently so that you can then "run them out on a rail" as a result of their reaction? If you engage in an activity which uses speech, written or otherwise, with the intent of inciting violence from a group of people, you're guilty of using "fighting words".

Be at least honest enough to stand by your convictions and say that it means nothing to you to do that, but not so dishonest that you're arguing that that's not what you're doing.

The level of intellectual dishonesty in your argument is fathomless.

Luis, you've created a legal fiction that doesn't exist. Now that that's been proven, you are deflecting by seizing on a comment I made and trying to use it as a smokescreen to distract from the fact that your original argument is dead wrong. Nice Alinsky, but no dice.

Westboro goes much farther than this rally ever will with 'outrageous' speech and definitely baits people, and the SCOTUS has upheld them. You don't have a leg to stand on here, and need to stop moralizing.