Islamic Law Comes to Michigan

I neither approve nor disapprove of the billboard.....it isn't in the same catagory as having a koran burner marching in front of a mosque. I would feel the same way about a group that burned the bible marching in front of a church.....especially if the members of the church were known for violent reactions. I really hate to see people hurt and killed in the name of free speech, unless you are engaged in a revolution.

So slam me for feeling the dilemma posed to Michigan and approving of their decision to protect their citizens.....this is NOT ISLAMIC LAW....it's common sense, And those who would call it Islamic law, like the title of this thread, are just fanning the flames for their own purposes.

(I'll wait now for those who will say we are engaged in a revolution, and if a kid or two dies then that's ok....collateral damages and all that)

WHAT????

She drinks.

archer wrote:

outdoor338 wrote: Terry Jones burned a Qur’an. So what? What happened to the freedom of assembly, the freedom of speech, and the freedom of expression? Terry Jones is prohibited from rallying in Michigan for fear of Islamic violence. Is that how far down the Sharia rabbit hole we have gone? Why is it that any time American law comes into conflict with Islamic law, it is American law that has to give way?

http://visiontoamerica.org/151/islamic- ... -michigan/

These are the same people who are buddies with the Westboro Baptist Church.....you know, those fine folks that protest at veterans' funerals. Are you in favor of that too?

In April 2010 church members participated in a joint protest against homosexuality with the Westboro Baptist Church, a group known for disrupting the funerals of U.S. soldiers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dove_World ... activities

Personally, I abhor all of it, I think there are limits to freedom of speech, especially when it can be proven that an individual, or a group, were aware that their speech or actions would harm others. Like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, and someone dies in the crush of people, That person/group should be held responsible. Or do you disagree with such laws that put limits on public speech? No one is saying they can't say what they want....just that they cannot say it directly in front of the mosque. Kinda like stopping protestors from putting their ugly signs up right in front of a funeral. States can, and should, protect their citizens from irresponsible groups looking not to protest but to start a riot.

Obviously a pretty slippery slope, the matter of limiting public speech. I have a hard time understanding why freedom of speech should be geographically determined. Either you have freedom of speech or you do not. Allowing one group or another to decide what is allowed or not allowed pretty much depends upon what their own perspective is on a issue. This is not freedom of speech at all. When and where was it said that freedom of speech comes with the guarantee that no bodily harm comes to anyone else in the world? Why is it necessary to make the speaker responsible for other's actions. Do the people who kill and maim or do other ill advised things have no responsibility for their actions?

How do you feel about someone who yells "fire" in a crowded theater......should they be blameless for the stanpede that follows.....is this freedom of speech?

archer wrote: How do you feel about someone who yells "fire" in a crowded theater......should they be blameless for the stanpede that follows.....is this freedom of speech?

What if there really is a fire? :pop

pineinthegrass wrote:

archer wrote: How do you feel about someone who yells "fire" in a crowded theater......should they be blameless for the stanpede that follows.....is this freedom of speech?

What if there really is a fire? :pop

my humble apologies....I should have made it clear that said person was yelling "fire" in a crowded theater in which no fire was to be found and the yelling of "fire" there fore was not related to any harm that might befall the aforementioned crowd of people from a fire.

archer wrote: How do you feel about someone who yells "fire" in a crowded theater......should they be blameless for the stanpede that follows.....is this freedom of speech?

That is a limit to free speech as has been determined by the Supreme Court.

If the Nazi party can parade in Skokie (a mostly Jewish community) --- I suppose that Terry Jones can burn Qurans in Dearborn.

Jones could likely secure the assistance of the ACLU.

That did - as much as I believe in free speech - I also believe in holding people accountable for the consequences of their actions.

I have no interest in outlawing Jones' speech. (I think he's an idiot - but this is America - and even idiots have rights).

If he provokes a riot, I don't object to him having to pay damages. (idiots pay for their idiotic actions, too).
(like yelling "fire" in a theatre).

Should the free speech restrictions be applied to the looney minister, or to the press who would trumpet his actions?