A film named 'Innocence of Muslims' ignating rage across muslim world

[Miskiin-Macruuf-Aqiyaar]

'Freedom of speech,' my back. No person worth his kastuumo can be insulted, in publishing or in recording, because it is libelous. I can't insult that same person face to face because it is, erm, slandering. And not to mention about 'hate speech.'

 

But nabigeena of all people, insulting him what can come from with the wildest imaginable evil person's mind, it is all in 'freedom of speech' category.

 

Here, they know the limits of this crap piece they call 'freedom of speech.'

 

Limits of Freedom of Speech

 

Does the First Amendment mean anyone can say anything at any time? No.

The Supreme Court has rejected an interpretation of speech without limits.

 

Because the First Amendment has such strong language, we begin with the presumption that speech is protected. Over the years, the courts have decided that a few other public interests — for example, national security, justice or personal safety — override freedom of speech. There are no simple rules for determining when speech should be limited, but there are some general tests that help.

 

Clear and Present Danger

 

Will this act of speech create a dangerous situation? The First Amendment does not protect statements that are uttered to provoke violence or incite illegal action.

 

Justice Holmes, speaking for the unanimous Supreme Court, stated, “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.”

 

Fighting Words

 

Was something said face-to-face that would incite immediate violence?

 

In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, the Supreme Court stated that the “English language has a number of words and expressions which by general consent [are] ‘fighting words’ when said without a disarming smile. … Such words, as ordinary men know, are likely to cause a fight.” The court determined that the New Hampshire statute in question “did no more than prohibit the face-to-face words plainly likely to cause a breach of the peace by the addressee, words whose speaking constitute a breach of the peace by the speaker — including ‘classical fighting words,’ words in current use less ‘classical’ but equally likely to cause violence, and other disorderly words, including profanity, obscenity and threats.” Jurisdictions may write statutes to punish verbal acts if the statutes are “carefully drawn so as not unduly to impair liberty of expression.”

 

Libel and Slander

 

Was the statement false, or put in a context that makes true statements misleading? You do not have a constitutional right to tell lies that damage or defame the reputation of a person or organization.

 

Obscenity

 

In June 1973 in Miller v. California, the Supreme Court held in a 5-to-4 decision that obscene materials do not enjoy First Amendment protection.

 

In Miller v. California (1973), the court refined the definition of “obscenity” established in Roth v. United States (1957). It also rejected the “utterly without redeeming social value” test of Memoirs v. Massachusetts.

 

In the three-part Miller test, three questions must receive affirmative responses for material to be considered “obscene”:

• Would the average person, applying the contemporary community standards, viewing the work as a whole, find the work appeals to the prurient interest?

Does the work depict or describe sexual conduct in a patently offensive way?

Does the work taken as a whole lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value?

[GaraadMon]

Miskiin-Macruuf-Aqiyaar;870420 wrote:

'Freedom of speech,' my back. No person worth his kastuumo can be insulted, in publishing or in recording, because it is libelous. I can't insult that same person face to face because it is, erm, slandering. And not to mention about 'hate speech.'

 

But nabigeena of all people, insulting him what can come from with the wildest imaginable evil person's mind, it is all in 'freedom of speech' category.

 

Here, they know the limits of this crap piece they call 'freedom of speech.'

Libel doesn't pertain to persons long dead from what I know. Also, slander cases should be handled in a courtroom, not by the hands of a blood-thirsty mob.

[Maaddeey]

If you say that was freedom of speach, I say Muslims' part is freedom of action!, you don't loke it, cool. I was only showing I didn't like yours either!.

[N.O.R.F]

^lol

 

Cara, you’re right. If I felt insulted/slandered/defamed etc., there is a process in place for me to sue. Meaning free speech has been curtailed by the laws in place. Whether or not the lawsuit is successful is neither here nor there.

 

How does the saying “the original purpose of free speech” miss the point? Laws protecting the free expression of the citizenry didn’t just happen. They came about as a result of pressure from the public who spoke out against the establishment’s censorship. There was an ‘original purpose’.

 

I don’t have a problem with your points 1 to 4 and don’t want anything else. Just the acknowledgement that free speech isn’t entirely ‘free’.

[NGONGE]

Two ****** groups winding each other up. In a couple of years, all this will be forgotton and a new video, painting, speach will cause a new riot, fight or protest.

[Mario B]

NGONGE;870500 wrote:

Two ****** groups winding each other up. In a couple of years, all this will be forgotton and a new video, painting, speach will cause a new riot, fight or protest.

If we don't take care of our extremists and they don't restain theirs, then soon the self fulfilling prophecy of "clash of civilisation" of Samuel Huntington will come to pass, like a Greed tragedy, and lot of innocent people are going to die.

[Maaddeey]

^ or the prophecy of al saadiq al musaddaq, the clash of Muslms and kuffar and their defeat, hoppe you believe it.

[Mario B]

Maaddeey;870544 wrote:

^ or the prophecy of al saadiq al musaddaq, the clash of Muslms and kuffar and their defeat, hoppe you believe it.

Only purified Muslims will fight for this deen, not a moron like you, who has no qualms in blowing up a market full of innocent women and children.

 

He has success the one who purifies himself [ Q 87:14]

[Maaddeey]

Who said I will fight?. I ask again, do you believe that prophesy?.

 

Stop quoting the Quran, only yesterday you were against it!.

[Mario B]

Why should I stop quoting Quran, I'm a Muslim....and where was I against it? I was against the killing of a diplomat and his staff by a Muslim mob because some moron like you made a hate film about Islam. As for what the US authority will do with him, it's their justice system, I don't represent America. I also asked if there was any justification for the events in Benghazi but you refused to ans!

 

As for the statement " who said I will fight?"....that just proved you're a coward, something we all knew in this forum.

 

P.s Don't confuse me with Johny B and co, I'm a theist and they're atheists!

[Buuxo]

Maaddeey;870435 wrote:

If you say that was freedom of speach, I say Muslims' part is freedom of action!, you don't loke it, cool. I was only showing I didn't like yours either!.

Send them to the cemetery ! Uusheeg damiir- laaweyaal

 

Interesting how many Gitmo eey ku aruuriyeen for apparently inciting hatred ,laakin waxaan waa freedom of speech,and Muslims are just overreacting .

[NGONGE]

Mario B;870539 wrote:

If we don't take care of our extremists and they don't restain theirs, then soon the self fulfilling prophecy of "clash of civilisation" of Samuel Huntington will come to pass, like a Greed tragedy, and lot of innocent people are going to die.

You can't. Not when the numbers are that huge and people are in the mood for roiting. We'll just have to wait that one out.

[Maaddeey]

If you refuse to stop quoting, then look up this aayah: walladiina yu'duuna al mu'miniina wal mu'minaati..... (axzaab 59), recite it more than once and ponder it upon.

[Mario B]

Maaddeey;870859 wrote:

If you refuse to stop quoting, then look up this aayah: walladiina yu'duuna al mu'miniina wal mu'minaati..... (axzaab 59), recite it more than once and ponder it upon.

al ahzab 59?

 

O prophet! tell thy wives and daughters, and the believing women, that they should cast their outer garments over their persons (when abroad): that is most convenient, that they should be known (as such) and not molested: and Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful[Quran 33:59]

[Maaddeey]

Mario B;870881 wrote:

al ahzab 59?

 

O prophet! tell thy wives and daughters, and the believing women, that they should cast their outer garments over their persons (when abroad): that is most convenient, that they should be known (as such) and not molested: and Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful[Quran 33:59]

The one above it. 58 since you are Muslim, you are supposed to read it in its original language; Arabic!.