Venice mayor: anyone who screams Allahu Akbar will be shot

[BigPapaKain]

(08-28-2017, 08:37 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Well, then the other 90 something percent of the "Religion of Peace" should do something about their religion's tagline being used as the mantra of terrorism.

I didn't realize you were super racist.

I mean, people with your skin color are super racist. Ipso facto you're a super racist.

The actions of the extreme minority shouldn't condemn the peaceful majority.

[*Nately120*]

(08-28-2017, 08:37 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Well, then the other 90 something percent of the "Religion of Peace" should do something about their religion's tagline being used as the mantra of terrorism.

As a straight white male what have you done to remedy the fact that you are among the chief demographic of sex-offenders?  Well, other than elect a straight white male who is an accused serial rapist to be president, of course!

[SunsetBengal]

(08-28-2017, 09:57 PM)Nately120 Wrote: As a straight white male what have you done to remedy the fact that you are among the chief demographic of sex-offenders?  Well, other than elect a straight white male who is an accused serial rapist to be president, of course!

Idk man, I beat the shit out of a guy in college, because a female came out of a room, at a party with him.  She was weeping and visibly shaken, she said he forced himself on her.  I guess that doesn't count, as it was like 25 years ago, but whatever..

[*Nately120*]

(08-28-2017, 10:05 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Idk man, I beat the shit out of a guy in college, because a female came out of a room, at a party with him.  She was weeping and visibly shaken, she said he forced himself on her.  I guess that doesn't count, as it was like 25 years ago, but whatever..

It wasn't Pig Ben, was it?

[SunsetBengal]

(08-28-2017, 10:31 PM)Nately120 Wrote: It wasn't Pig Ben, was it?

Lol, no.  But it was a guy about that size.

[BmorePat87]

(08-28-2017, 08:37 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Well, then the other 90 something percent of the "Religion of Peace" should do something about their religion's tagline being used as the mantra of terrorism.

still irrelevant 

[SunsetBengal]

(08-28-2017, 11:23 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: still irrelevant 

Really, you think so?  Why is that?

I mean, we get the entire "all White people are racist", and "if you voted for Trump, you are obviously a Nazi", and "if you don't support gay marriage, you hate all gays", and the "if you love America, you must be an illiterate redneck", etc...   You see a trend there?  For being of the mindset of "inclusiveness", you sure do want to alienate a bunch of the population.

But anyway, shouting Allahu Akbar has become synonymous with "terrorism is about to occur".  Why don't you hold the rest of the members of that population responsible, the same way that you hold White people responsible for all the things that you do?

[BmorePat87]

(08-28-2017, 11:44 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: I mean, we get the entire "all White people are racist", and "if you voted for Trump, you are obviously a Nazi", and "if you don't support gay marriage, you hate all gays", and the "if you love America, you must be an illiterate redneck", etc...   You see a trend there?  For being of the mindset of "inclusiveness", you sure do want to alienate a bunch of the population.

But anyway, shouting Allahu Akbar has become synonymous with "terrorism is about to occur".  Why don't you hold the rest of the members of that population responsible, the same way that you hold White people responsible for all the things that you do?

What the hell does any of this have to do with anything I've said in this thread or an argument regarding what constitutes free speech? You're bitching and moaning about something I am currently not doing and then doing it back to me. 

Quote:Really, you think so?  Why is that?

Yelling "God is Great" isn't an explicit threat. We have pretty strict protections on our free speech and the courts have ruled in favor of some pretty outlandish things because they were an expression of political beliefs that didn't necessarily pose a true threat to anyone. That fact that some people only know some arabic words in relation to  radical islam doesn't mean you can outright ban it. As I've alluded to before, we're free to march the streets with weapons shouting Nazi propaganda because we have free speech and, short of calling for direct violence on someone, we can use some pretty heinous innuendos. 

Now, this is Europe, specifically Italy, so maybe it's legal there, but it wouldn't be here and,by our measure of free speech and free practice of religion, it would violate the principles we hold closest. I'm not sure why the majority of conservative leaning posters are backing this.

[GMDino]

(08-28-2017, 11:44 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Really, you think so?  Why is that?

I mean, we get the entire "all White people are racist", and "if you voted for Trump, you are obviously a Nazi", and "if you don't support gay marriage, you hate all gays", and the "if you love America, you must be an illiterate redneck", etc...   You see a trend there?  For being of the mindset of "inclusiveness", you sure do want to alienate a bunch of the population.

But anyway, shouting Allahu Akbar has become synonymous with "terrorism is about to occur".  Why don't you hold the rest of the members of that population responsible, the same way that you hold White people responsible for all the things that you do?

One of my best friends in a diehard Trump supporter.  I can't even BEGIN to talk politics with him.

And the one thing he does that ticks me off more than anything is that damn victim card about "oh! I can't say anything because I'm a racist because I voted for Trump!!!"

That is such a cop out and below what I expect from smart people.

Not everyone who voted for Trump is racists...but people are racist voted for Trump.  There's a difference.

[Matt_Crimson]

(08-28-2017, 08:22 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: No one has the right to threaten violence as at that point your threatening someone's right to life. It doesn't say much for your argument if you're comparing saying "god is great" to threatening someone with harm. 

To be clear, the point was not to equate the two but to make the point that taking away instances of free speech does not itself act as a significant or complete prohibition of free speech in itself, as that seem to be your argument towards the mayor.

Again. I'm not denying what he said is an infringement on free speech, but how significant or effective is it in its attempt to cast limitations on someone's right to speak freely or worship? I would say not very.

Basically what I'm saying he's not taking away anyone's ability to speak freely or to worship for that matter. He is putting a limitation on it, but the limitatin is not a broad infingement on free speech or wor ship that takes away ones ability to do either.

I just feel it's a bit overblown to say he's taking away free speech and worship. What he said does not effect those who don't do exactly what he said they would need to be doing to be shot. Had he said they would shoot anyone practicing Islam then I'd say that's a pretty broad brush to paint with.

But as noted already he said you had to be running, shouting alluha ackbar and be at St Mark's Sqaure and in addition to that "be within three paces"  for security personal to shoot you. I don't know how many Muslims run into St Mark's Sqaure shouting God is great but I highly doubt it's a common enough occurence for the mayors command to be significantly inhibiting.

[GMDino]

(08-29-2017, 10:07 AM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: To be clear, the point was not to equate the two but to make the point that taking away instances of free speech does not itself act as a significant or complete prohibition of free speech in itself, as that seem to be your argument towards the mayor.

Again. I'm not denying what he said is an infringement on free speech, but how significant or effective is it in its attempt to cast limitations on someone's right to speak freely or worship? I would say not very.

Basically what I'm saying he's not taking away anyone's ability to speak freely or to worship for that matter. He is putting a limitation on it, but the limitatin is not a broad infingement on free speech or wor ship that takes away ones ability to do either.

I just feel it's a bit overblown to say he's taking away free speech and worship. What he said does not effect those who don't do exactly what he said they would need to be doing to be shot. Had he said they would shoot anyone practicing Islam then I'd say that's a pretty broad brush to paint with.

But as noted already he said you had to be running, shouting alluha ackbar and be at St Mark's Sqaure and in addition to that "be within three paces"  for security personal to shoot you. I don't know how many Muslims run into St Mark's Sqaure shouting God is great but I highly doubt it's a common enough occurence for the mayors command to be significantly inhibiting.

I honestly believe that was just an example and that the implication is that ANY one who seems to be doing "terroristic things" will be shot.

[StLucieBengal]

Defending "religion of peace's" phrase that pays as free speech or worship is comical.

It's the tag line that brings death, pain, and destruction.

If "religion of peace" members do not like that then maybe they should look at having a reformation to push he violence out.

[GMDino]

(08-29-2017, 10:34 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Defending  "religion of peace's" phrase that pays as free speech or worship is comical.  

It's the tag line that brings death, pain, and destruction.

If "religion of peace" members do not like that then maybe they should look at having a reformation to push he violence out.

It's the same argument about the Nazi hate speech.

"If Nazi members do not like that then maybe they should look at having a reformation to push the violence out."

[StLucieBengal]

(08-29-2017, 10:39 AM)GMDino Wrote: It's the same argument about the Nazi hate speech.

"If Nazi members do not like that then maybe they should look at having a reformation to push the violence out."

Lol at "Nazi's"

There isn't the numbers of these Nazi's to be a problem. And they do not have a phrase that pays that leads to certain death for many innocents.

[GMDino]

(08-29-2017, 10:50 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Lol at "Nazi's"

There isn't the numbers of these Nazi's to be a problem.  And they do not have a phrase that pays that leads to certain death for many innocents.

Is there is free speech or there is not?   There are restrictions, or there are not.

[StLucieBengal]

(08-29-2017, 10:59 AM)GMDino Wrote: Is there is free speech or there is not?   There are restrictions, or there are not.

That phrase has become the calling card for death, destruction, and violence worldwide. When anyone hears it they get moving. They don't start thinking oh that nice Muslim over there must be praying.

[Benton]

(08-29-2017, 10:07 AM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: To be clear, the point was not to equate the two but to make the point that taking away instances of free speech does not itself act as a significant or complete prohibition of free speech in itself, as that seem to be your argument towards the mayor.

Again. I'm not denying what he said is an infringement on free speech, but how significant or effective is it in its attempt to cast limitations on someone's right to speak freely or worship? I would say not very.

Basically what I'm saying he's not taking away anyone's ability to speak freely or to worship for that matter. He is putting a limitation on it, but the limitatin is not a broad infingement on free speech or wor ship that takes away ones ability to do either.

I just feel it's a bit overblown to say he's taking away free speech and worship. What he said does not effect those who don't do exactly what he said they would need to be doing to be shot. Had he said they would shoot anyone practicing Islam then I'd say that's a pretty broad brush to paint with.

But as noted already he said you had to be running, shouting alluha ackbar and be at St Mark's Sqaure and in addition to that "be within three paces"  for security personal to shoot you. I don't know how many Muslims run into St Mark's Sqaure shouting God is great but I highly doubt it's a common enough occurence for the mayors command to be significantly inhibiting.

(08-29-2017, 10:34 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Defending  "religion of peace's" phrase that pays as free speech or worship is comical.  

It's the tag line that brings death, pain, and destruction.

If "religion of peace" members do not like that then maybe they should look at having a reformation to push he violence out.

Matt, you've made some valid points. Unfortunately, Lucie is showing why you can't allow a narrow restriction.

Out of nearly 2 billion people you've got less than half a percent — according to RAND Corp estimates — that are violent extremists. But you'll still get folks who say inflammatory things like "It's the tag line that brings death, pain, and destruction." That's the same line of thinking as "all Christians are bad because of Westboro Baptist" or "all white people are racist" or "all black men are criminals." Broad generalizations do nothing to resolve real issues. 

So you end up with a need to be able to have an open conversation and open practice of religion to dispel misguided beliefs.

[GMDino]

(08-29-2017, 11:06 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: That phrase has become the calling card for death, destruction, and violence worldwide.   When anyone hears it they get moving.    They don't start thinking oh that nice Muslim over there must be praying.

Is there free speech for everyone?

Simple question.

Can a Christian stand on a street corner screaming "God is Great"?  Then a Muslim can scream Allah Akbar.

Look at it like open carry.  Someone can walk down the street with a gun.  Doesn't matter your race or religion.

But if you attempt to use that gun to commit a crime that is illegal.

[BmorePat87]

(08-29-2017, 10:07 AM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: To be clear, the point was not to equate the two but to make the point that taking away instances of free speech does not itself act as a significant or complete prohibition of free speech in itself, as that seem to be your argument towards the mayor.

Again. I'm not denying what he said is an infringement on free speech, but how significant or effective is it in its attempt to cast limitations on someone's right to speak freely or worship? I would say not very.

Basically what I'm saying he's not taking away anyone's ability to speak freely or to worship for that matter. He is putting a limitation on it, but the limitatin is not a broad infingement on free speech or wor ship that takes away ones ability to do either.

I just feel it's a bit overblown to say he's taking away free speech and worship. What he said does not effect those who don't do exactly what he said they would need to be doing to be shot. Had he said they would shoot anyone practicing Islam then I'd say that's a pretty broad brush to paint with.

But as noted already he said you had to be running, shouting alluha ackbar and be at St Mark's Sqaure and in addition to that "be within three paces"  for security personal to shoot you. I don't know how many Muslims run into St Mark's Sqaure shouting God is great but I highly doubt it's a common enough occurence for the mayors command to be significantly inhibiting.

Any instance of limiting free speech is stopping someone's ability to practice it. I get what you're saying, but allowing speech we disagree with to be stopped is a slippery slope, much more so than limiting someone from inciting violence. 

This is essentially the argument being used against protestors who oppose colleges allowing white nationalists to speak on campus. What they're saying is heinous, but it's allowed because that's free speech.

[hollodero]

(08-29-2017, 10:34 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Defending  "religion of peace's" phrase that pays as free speech or worship is comical.  

It's the tag line that brings death, pain, and destruction.

If "religion of peace" members do not like that then maybe they should look at having a reformation to push he violence out.

What is comical is how one would defend Nazi's rights to shout Nazi slogans like blood and soil or Jews will not replace us and whatnot, because free spech, slippery slope.
And at the same time shouting God is Great on Arabic should be forbidden. Not just that, people shouting that should be shot.

Because Nazis can be fine people? While muslims can't possibly be? I can't even grasp the line of thinking making this stance possible. This hypocrisy got to hurt.