Islamic Law Comes to Michigan

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?

First, I do not see that as a valid comparison to protesting in front of a mosque? You are not engaged in expressing an opinion on ideology or religious doctrine.

I will presume your example is of a person doing something as you described without good cause. Frankly, I do not know how I feel about that other than I do not consider that a matter of free speech as it is a malicious matter. Yes, I'm exercising judgement here that may or may not be valid, but in your example, I'd be inclined to agree with you. Fire poses a potential threat to human life. Protesting in front of a mosque does not pose the same threat other than in the name of religious doctrine, a source of justified conflict throughout the ages in the name of God. Ugh.

Rockdoc said it best.

You either have it or you don't. You don't have to like the person or agree with the person, but if we start letting each court, each city and each state to determine when we have it and when we do not then we are in serious trouble. He is a real idiot, has imo, no common sense and just wants to try and make a name for himself. Guess he got bored, and figured out maybe this will get his name out there, but to deny this idiot just because the muslims stated that if he did then there would be violence should have been arrested for communicating a threat. They dictated the outcome to some queezey city government. He should have been allowed to do it, then if the muslims did do anything, they would have broken the law and law enforcement would have had to react accordingly. Now we have a situation that a city government decided when an individual is allowed free speech and when one is not. NOT ACCEPTABLE

Rockdoc Franz 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?

First, I do not see that as a valid comparison to protesting in front of a mosque? You are not engaged in expressing an opinion on ideology or religious doctrine.

I will presume your example is of a person doing something as you described without good cause. Frankly, I do not know how I feel about that other than I do not consider that a matter of free speech as it is a malicious matter. Yes, I'm exercising judgement here that may or may not be valid, but in your example, I'd be inclined to agree with you. Fire poses a potential threat to human life. Protesting in front of a mosque does not pose the same threat other than in the name of religious doctrine, a source of justified conflict throughout the ages in the name of God. Ugh.

It is a matter of law. IMO if we interpret "clear and present danger" as possibly intciting someone to violence we no longer have free speech. I would say the evil that congress has a right to prevent is in the violent reaction not the "speech".

"In the opinion's most famous passage, Justice Holmes sets out the "clear and present danger" test:

The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States

Thanks for that clarification NCS.