Venice mayor: anyone who screams Allahu Akbar will be shot

[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.