KillingtonZone.com

deadheadskier wrote:What do folks think should be the limits to 1st Amendment rights?

In the wake of Orlando, there's been a number of things Trump has said that I disagree with, but one that I do agree with is the need for surveillance of mosques with known ties to radicalization. And it's not just mosques, but any place of worship, club etc. that promotes acts of violence against other Americans.

I saw this article and video this morning.

http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2016/06/ ... ub-attack/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

To me this goes beyond what should be the limits of free speech. We often talk that one of the reasons there's so much violence in the USA is because of our failure to treat the mentally ill. In the case of violence, shouldn't criminal insanity be a large part of the discussion? Aren't those who promote jihad criminally insaneno, they know what they are doing they just believe its right,ie the "good hate"... and a danger to society and themselves? yes of course they are Should such people be allowed to walk the streets as ticking time bombs? probably notShould a pastor like this man be allowed to promote violence against gays probably noteven if it's his wish that it's the government that carries out the violence?slippery slope where I mostly liken it to "yelling fire" in any situation other than fire, it would seem his direct words are inciting violence regardless of religious freedom...

I guess I just see the best plan to reducing violence is to recognize the threats before it happens as well as eliminate what can create such radical thoughts and behavior. thoughts and behavior can never be fully controlled, public approval/disapproval goes a long way but it also leads to mob rule and abuse of minority opinions, soooo....I guess it's up to "culture" itself?Would anyone be surprised if a member of this man's church went out and committed a hate crime against a gay person? definitely not...I certainly wouldn't.

deadheadskier wrote:I suppose the big hurdle is that a crooked Imam or Pastor could skirt around the issue by just reciting the passages in the books that call for the violence. pretty much with every law in a country that lives by "rule of law" vs "absolute rule" the onus is on the individual to voluntarily comply with little to no physical restrictions necessary, it's the cornerstone of a free society....

The vast majority of religious people are peaceful, but it was invented as a tool for social control. The problem is that sick people know that method of control is easy to use to rally support for violent purposes. Do this because God/Allah whatever says so.power corrupts ...

deadheadskier wrote:Maybe some of his other speeches call for violence against innocent people

steamboat1 wrote:

deadheadskier wrote:Maybe some of his other speeches call for violence against innocent people

No it's in that speech towards the end. "Violence against innocents. it's in the book" he said.