Patters

The issue is about freedom of speech, nothing else. Jew-haters, child-lovers, misogyninists, racists, radical fundamentalists, pornographers, and so on have freedom of speech. I think that makes society safer, because it brings to the attention of the public their sick views.

I could be convinced otherwise, but since you don't even seem to understand the basic reasoning behind advocating freedom of speech, I doubt if you're the one to do it. If outlawing radical groups would make kids safer, I would support it 100%.

I support Fred Phelps right to picket Coretta Scott King's funeral; I support the Aryan Nation's right to march through black or Jewish neighborhoods; I support Pat Robertson's right to say liberals caused Hurricane Katrina; and so on, because I think they help motivate their opposition. I think that's the wonderful nature of democracy and free speech. THIS IS ABOUT SPEECH, WISTAH, NOTHING ELSE. S-P-E-E-C-H.

I suspect you've never attended a protest, since you fail to understand the dynamics of freedom of speech. (Incidentally, I don't belong to the ACLU and never have because of the abusive groups they sometimes represent. I say let those groups find their own lawyers.)

Harry Boy

To a Liberal, freedom of speech all depends on who is giving the speech.

(Ann Coulter Pie In The Face) the educated college darlings threw the pies.

wistahpatsfan

When you take it beyond free speech and open a storefront or a webside that advocates violent personal crime, it goes beyond the Constitutional protection of "free speech" IMO. Legally, I'm sure you could spin an argument to support the rights of this type of group, but because you can make a rhetorical construct to convince a judge or jury doesn't necessarily make it right.

You know what I'm talking about and I find it curious that you see free speech as the only black-and-white issue. I've seen many posts from you criticizing such perspectives regarding other issues. I think this is a gray area that has to be viewed as such.

Your assumption about me is wrong, but that's the story of my life. As a ute, I went to 2 protests at Seabrook in the late 70's and protested other local issues in my city at council meetings.

Patters

Wistah, I understand the arguments in favor of free speech, but I put politics ahead of it. Believe me, if a law was passed that shut down any despicable group, I would not protest in the least, but I appreciate the dangers of that point of view. If a judge ruled that Nazis couldn't march in Skokie, I would have been all for it. At the same time, I understand and appreciate that the ACLU, in protecting extremist groups, is protecting my rights too. So, the issue is anything but black and white. I suppose what I think is that everything should be done to crush extremist speech, short of stopping it altogether. (And I do think that physical threats and the like should be illegal, which I think is often the case.)

Pujo

You are even allowed to advocate violent crime under the first amendment. The exception, as crafted by the Supreme Court, is when your words are inciteful and have the potential to cause a crime to occur immenently. Thus saying "I advocate murder" is OK, but "Kill him!" could be a crime.

Harry Boy

Free Speech (Ann Coulter) Pie In The Face

wistahpatsfan

That's true...I heard George Carlin advocate killing yuppies, Volvo drivers, and anyone who wore "fannie packs" once, but he didn't incite the crowd.

Pujo

A pie in the face has always been a (funny) criminal act, not official liberal doctrine.

Harry Boy

I know, Coulter laughed at them.