How Long Before “Islamophobia” Becomes A Criminal Offense Requiring Imprisonment?

[rangerrebew]

How Long Before “Islamophobia” Becomes A Criminal Offense Requiring Imprisonment?
Robert Spencer Robert Spencer 

You may think that’s a ridiculous question. The United States would never imprison people for criticizing Islam, would it? After all, we have the First Amendment!

Sure. But consider this. The whole world, East, West, North South, agrees that insulting Christianity and Judaism is a courageous act, and often even an artistic one, to be awarded by applause from the intelligentsia, and often with awards, honors, and cash grants. The whole world also agrees that insulting Islam, even including correct analysis of how jihadis use the texts and teachings of Islam to justify violence and supremacism, is a heinous crime that must be punished. In the West, it is punished by means of deplatforming, denial of service by social media giants and credit card corporations, and vilification in the most lurid of terms in the mainstream press.

https://freedomoutpost.com/how-long-before-islamophobia-becomes-a-criminal-offense-requiring-imprisonment/

[rangerrebew]

The question after that is how long will it  take for the U.S. to become part of the Middle East?

[Cyber Liberty]

It's closer than most people think.

I read a story this morning about a man from Somalia talking to other Somalis at the Mall of America in Minneapolis.  When they hear he was from Somalia, they asked him if he was a Moslem.  He replied he had left Islam and converted to Christianity.  A person he wasn't even talking to reported him to Security and he was arrested for Trespassing.  They are pushing for prosecution of the charge.

http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,354185.0.html

[mountaineer]

It's not a stretch to wonder when they'll start using social media and discussion forum posts as grounds for hate crime prosecutions. Use the word "Muzzie," face indictment.

[Cyber Liberty]

It's not a stretch to wonder when they'll start using social media and discussion forum posts as grounds for hate crime prosecutions. Use the word "Muzzie," face indictment.

Already virtually the law of the land in Europe.  People have been jailed for that.

[To-Whose-Benefit?]

All we need is one more Democrat victory.

No matter what the Yeah, but Trump, conservatives howl about, THAT is THE defining, substantial difference.

No matter how far short the GOPE falls, we have no alternative.

The GOP can be given the huge electoral enema it needs.

The Democrats can not.

[mountaineer]

All we need is one more Democrat victory.

If they win the Senate next time around, it will not be a good thing for the First Amendment (or any of the Amendments, for that matter).

[catfish1957]

It's not a stretch to wonder when they'll start using social media and discussion forum posts as grounds for hate crime prosecutions. Use the word "Muzzie," face indictment.

And in these imbeciles mind at some point the towers falling and the Pentagon hit will be small beans, and distant memories

Muzzies, and yes that is my term for them, were near silent world wide after the 9-11 attack. (moderate ones including).  No outrage....nothing.

800 years ago our ancestors were fighting these bastards for a reason.  to fight their conquest over us.  Now their victory is more likely due to our apathy.

[To-Whose-Benefit?]

It was longer than 800 years ago.

A Viking King known as Sigurd Jorsul Farer (Sigurd who traveled to Jerusalem Land) fought against them in the 1st Crusade.

Charlemagne busied himself kicking them out of Europe 1200 years ago.

[goatprairie]

It was longer than 800 years ago.

A Viking King known as Sigurd Jorsul Farer (Sigurd who traveled to Jerusalem Land) fought against them in the 1st Crusade.

Charlemagne busied himself kicking them out of Europe 1200 years ago.

Longer than that. Charles Martel defeated the Moors  at Tours in 732.

[To-Whose-Benefit?]

Longer than that. Charles Martel defeated the Moors  at Tours in 732.

Yup.

They have needed to be met with armed and bloody resistance from the beginning.

[catfish1957]

It was longer than 800 years ago.

A Viking King known as Sigurd Jorsul Farer (Sigurd who traveled to Jerusalem Land) fought against them in the 1st Crusade.

Charlemagne busied himself kicking them out of Europe 1200 years ago.

That was a generalization to make my point.  And BTW, I think there were still crusades going on 800 years ago. 

[240B]

Disparaging Islam, Mohammed, or Allah, is already a criminal offense in most of Europe and in Britain in particular.
Everything you do online is monitored, and if somebody simply 'perceives' anything you say to be disparaging, they can report you and you can be arrested and jailed.

Although there are rare cases of antisemitism, and anti-Christian thoughts being persecuted, this is not the norm. The focus is stopping any kind of anti-Islam thought of any kind. And 'truth' has no bearing. Even if you are just stating a simply known fact, such as Islam is heavily involved in pedophilia, and Islamic men believe it is their religious 'right' to rape Infidel women, you can still be arrested.

George Orwell said, In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

[goatprairie]

The next time some European or Canadian you meet chortles about having a better country than the U.S. because  their homicide rates are lower and  all the "free" stuff they get from their government,  tell them at least we don't (yet) get thrown into prison for telling the truth.

[sneakypete]

2 years minimum,maybe 4 years maximum in places like Mn and Ca.

[Cyber Liberty]

2 years minimum,maybe 4 years maximum in places like Mn and Ca.

@sneakypete  It depends on the size of the riot you cause....

[To-Whose-Benefit?]

That was a generalization to make my point.  And BTW, I think there were still crusades going on 800 years ago.

In the Holy Land they were at the very last gasp/dying end.

In Europe however, the Pope and the French King turned on the Templars. Burned them at the stake on boilerplate of false and ridiculous charges.

Templars were responsible only to the Pope and their own Order.

They were THE reigning Special Forces power of the day

They were also World Bankers. They provided safe transport and safe deposit services for entire nations.

France and the Pope wanted all that money. So they accused the Templars of consorting, treason, and Satanic practices, all of which were flat out lies, and then burned them.

[sneakypete]

They were also World Bankers. They provided safe transport and safe deposit services for entire nations.

France and the Pope wanted all that money. So they accused the Templars of consorting, treason, and Satanic practices, all of which were flat out lies, and then burned them.

@To-Whose-Benefit?

Gimme dat ole time religion.........

[roamer_1]

Free speech IS offensive speech.

[goatprairie]

Free speech IS offensive speech.

Recently I told a few of Brit in-laws who were visiting the U.S. on vacation (they call it holiday) those words in a manner of speaking.
I told them that the first amendment isn't just for speech you like, it's to protect speech you don't like.
They appeared to be a little befuddled. I think they understood what I was getting at, but they felt you shouldn't be allowed to say things that are "harmful" to other people.
That's where we disagreed. Urging physical harm to certain groups resulting in them being physically harmed is one thing. Saying you don't like certain groups/people is quite another.
I think if some demagogue deliberately rouses the passions in some people and demands some action that causes harm be done to certain groups, he or she should be held responsible.
But simply saying certain words that are considered slander towards  certain groups is completely different.
If I say I hate group x, that's free speech.
If I tell someone that physically harming people from group x  would be a good thing, and they go out and physically harm people from group x,  I should be held responsible.

[roamer_1]

Recently I told a few of Brit in-laws who were visiting the U.S. on vacation (they call it holiday) those words in a manner of speaking.
[...]
I think if some demagogue deliberately rouses the passions in some people and demands some action that causes harm be done to certain groups, he or she should be held responsible.
But simply saying certain words that are considered slander towards  certain groups is completely different.
If I say I hate group x, that's free speech.
If I tell someone that physically harming people from group x  would be a good thing, and they go out and physically harm people from group x,  I should be held responsible.

@goatprairie
That's right - And we are in large agreement, but I would consider an even more liberal policy than that. As a rule, actions hurt people, not words. Heated words can bear harsh threats that may not be authentically meant - I am certainly guilty of that myself.

Of course there are exceptions (fire in a theater), but by and large the exceptions are made to prove the rule.

...Which brings me back to kindergarten:

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me.
Good post.
 

[sneakypete]

Free speech IS offensive speech.

@roamer_1

It's pretty much a requirement because if what you are saying doesn't shock or offend someone,no one cares if you say it or not so it doesn't need protection.

[roamer_1]

@roamer_1

It's pretty much a requirement because if what you are saying doesn't shock or offend someone,no one cares if you say it or not so it doesn't need protection.

@sneakypete
That's it exactly.

[Idiot]

And in these imbeciles mind at some point the towers falling and the Pentagon hit will be small beans, and distant memories

Muzzies, and yes that is my term for them, were near silent world wide after the 9-11 attack. (moderate ones including).  No outrage....nothing.

800 years ago our ancestors were fighting these bastards for a reason.  to fight their conquest over us.  Now their victory is more likely due to our apathy.

No truer words spoken.....