Defensive Carry banner

Be careful what you say; now the DOJ is attacking 1A

4K views 75 replies 45 participants last post by  dmitchsr 
#1 ·
AG Lynch vows to prosecute 'anti-Muslim' speech

U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch is assuring Muslims of her support, threatening action against any “anti-Muslim rhetoric” that “edges toward violence.”

Lynch, speaking at a dinner held by the Muslim Advocates, a national legal advocacy group, announced Thursday night the Justice Department will investigate the police department in Texas that arrested a 14-year-old Muslim boy who brought a device that looked like a bomb to school. Ahmed “Clock Boy” Mohamed was never charged, but several congressmen asked Lynch for the civil-rights investigation she promised Thursday.
AG Lynch vows to prosecute ?anti-Muslim? speech

I wonder if the current cartel will consider “No Syrian refugees” as hate speech?
 
#3 ·
U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch is assuring Muslims of her support, threatening action against any (speech) that “edges toward violence.”
Sounds about right.

As it should be.

now the DOJ is attacking 1A
I'd say that's false, on the face of it.

Fact is, you make credible threats of felony violence, today, and you should get held accountable. Absolutely. Can't see what difference certain topics of speech would make. You threaten, and a reasonable person lawfully concludes that threat's credible and imminent? Then, you SHOULD be held accountable.

Hint: you already are liable for your planning, today, in such ways. That is, if only they'd hold such people accountable.
 
#8 ·
Obama Administration is quickly handing the 2016 Election to the Republicans. Americans that have not voted in 40 years are pledging to vote Trump in 2016.......and they are p.o.'d. Keep it up Barry. You are putting the final daggers in the Democratic Party. The heiress apparent to the throne, Princess Hillary will not be able to overcome the damage you have done.
 
#12 ·
That is exactly the sentiment that pushed a republican to win the governors race here. The Democratic candidate was thought to have a large lead, and was by far the popular choice, but enough PO'd Republicans came out and mopped the floor.
 
#16 ·
My right of free speech ends at the tip of the Muslim's nose. Speech isn't action, but speech is protected. The DOJ can kiss my grits.
 
#18 ·
Real nice. Muslim terrorists shoot 35 people, killing 14 of them, and nobody in the Obama administration can call a spade a spade. But within minutes, Obama calls for new violations of the 2nd amendment. Then they warn us not to say anything bad about Muslims. I never thought I'd see such an arrogant, tyrannical regime holding power in this country.
 
#19 ·
It would be interesting if they took the same approach towards pro-Muslim speech that "edges towards violence." Seems there's a fair amount of that going around.

Every time there's an attack, they start squealing about the "anti-Muslim backlash" they're sure will follow, and it never comes. They're certain that mainstream America is full of hateful bigots who need to be stomped on, and no amount of evidence will convince them otherwise.
 
#57 ·
What about it? It's free speech. America has gone too far in criminalizing threats. Threats are speech not action. Shouldn't be a crime without action, without clear imminent indication of action. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
 
#27 ·
Their a county in IN that has only miss picking president 2 times since 1880's Their leaning towards Trump County is registered more Dem than Rep. But they vote for who they want no matter the party.
 
#29 ·
Right wing fantasies aside I think they're talking about genuine threats.
 
#31 ·
Fergusion .... "burn this place down" & riots..... must have been the police's fault
Liberals ...... making threats to kill all NRA members & their children ......nothing said.
Black Lives Matter ..... promoting killing all white people and police officers ..... no comment

But bring up a Muslim ....... "we'll prosecute you for hate speech".

Make a negative facebook comment about Obama ...... "we'll prosecute you "

It's ok to say what you want ..... as long as it fits or supports their agenda. Kind of like it was under Lenin, Stalin, Khomeni, Hitler, Musolini .....

Obama is just NOT able to put any spin on this one. HE can't control the media right now. He is a lame duck in office, and doesn't recognize it yet. He can't seem to control the messaging , the events, and gosh darn it .... he's unable to control anything. The King , has no clothes.

HE also has announced ...... yep ..... he wants to BAN those ASSAULT rifles again

When Ernest was asked in the WH news conference, if any of the proposed gun control laws would have done anything to prevent what happened in California ..... his response was ........ " of course not" . There ya have it, even they realize they won't stop "anything" . So it's not about that ... it's about controlling and eventually confiscating and getting weapons out of the hands of law-abiding citizens ... or to keep whittling on it until no "law -abiding " citizen has any more of them.

Yet ... Black Friday ... highest day ever for NICS checks. That's not what he wanted to hear. But the message was clear. Obama, known to be the best gun salesman ever.
 
#32 ·
Fergusion .... "burn this place down" & riots..... must have been the police's fault
Liberals ...... making threats to kill all NRA members & their children ......nothing said.
Black Lives Matter ..... promoting killing all white people and police officers ..... no comment

But bring up a Muslim ....... "we'll prosecute you for hate speech".

Make a negative facebook comment about Obama ...... "we'll prosecute you "

It's ok to say what you want ..... as long as it fits or supports their agenda. Kind of like it was under Lenin, Stalin, Khomeni, Hitler, Musolini .....
Yup.

And that's the real problem. Not holding folks accountable for actual harms or for actual credible threats of harm. The laws are already on the books to do that. In far too many cases, though, the staffers simply won't do it ... if the agenda cannot be furthered, if fear of the resulting conflagration by the me-first generation gets too great.
 
#33 ·
Never in the last seven years have I ever heard anyone threatened with prosecution for making a negative facebook post about the President. Unless that comment was a threat. That's illegal. Most of the rest of that is nonsense. People on all sides say horrible things, and on both sides when those stray into legitimate, concrete threats it stirs the attention of LE. Note that saying a person's family should be raped or someone should die of cancer is reprehensible but probably not an actual threat. The threat does have to be credible, too. If your three year old is watching a cop show and being a sponge like little kids are says "I'm gonna kill you!" to passing garbage man, the cops will probably find it to be a credible threat.

But I suppose politics has had an influence on this for thousands of years, and probably will as long as we have people on Earth.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ccw9mm
#41 ·
If your three year old is watching a cop show and being a sponge like little kids are says "I'm gonna kill you!" to passing garbage man, the cops will probably find it to be a credible threat.
What?
Guess you have never had a daughter whos life was threatened by an ex. The cops will tell you all you can do is file a restraining order and then call us when he actually does something.


I'm open to understanding a point I'm not seeing here. Can someone give me an example of something they believe is a credible, prosecutable verbal threat? Based exclusively on speech. That applies to all equally.
How does any verbal threat alone prove beyond a reasonable doubt harm will be done?
Or do we accept that the words themselves are the crime even if not applied equally to all?
Only when perpetrated against a specified group????

Just to be clear, nothing makes my blood boil worse than hate speech/threats. I'm just trying to understand the view some are taking on making speech a crime.

I realize this has already been done.
 
#36 ·
I received an official email at work (.mil) that seemed to imply that anti-refugee speech is hate speech.

And for the record, saying that all Syrian refugees are terrorists is hate speech. That's like me saying all black men are gangsters: it's a racial stereotype that is wrong. The KKK says krap like this.

Are some Syrian refugees terrorists? Maybe, but that's beside the point.
 
#37 ·
Incorrect - Syrian is an ethnicity, not a race. Further, it's not beside the point. Refugees coming out of that country have a MUCH higher probability of being tied into terrorist organizations. All of them terrorists? No, but enough of them to warrant increased scrutiny.To claim that there is no difference in probability between the population of Syrians and say, Cuba is shortsighted to the point of being willfully ignorant.
 
#44 ·
I don't want to violate any forum rules, and as things look now I don't want to break any federal laws by expressing my thoughts on such issues as terrorisim, islam, sharia law, and syrian refugees. My opinions on such matters most certainly make me an outlaw under the current regime. I only hope that the American voters take their vote seriously this time and dig down deep and find some spark of patriotism that I feel so many of our citizens lack and start reflecting that in their voting.
 
#67 ·
My opinions on such matters most certainly make me an outlaw under the current regime.
If your opinion is that all people from the middle east, or Syria for that matter, are terrorists, then it will. It's a racial stereotype.

I don't care what the percentage is, I know it's not 100%. Google for Christians being persecuted in Syria and you'll see what I mean :smile:
 
#46 ·
It is a fact that in "some" Mosques in the US credible threats against non-believers and apostates are made regularly and yet they are protected from prosecution by the 1st Amendment. I agree that all threats should be taken seriously but I do not trust this administration to fairly apply the rule. I believe that eventually we will have to either kill or allow ourselves to be killed by the people who follow fundamental Islam, who I believe make up a majority of the Muslim religion. Is that hate speech? I am ready to kill them or anyone else that I feel is directly and purposefully targeting me or my family, friends and neighbors. Is that hate speech?

The clear intent and direction of this administration is the problem and not Americans who seek to protect their families. I don't trust the current government to protect my family or my Country.
 
#47 ·
This country was built on immigration.

People of other religions,races,creeds coming the U.S. and becoming Americans.
As a general rule melding their culture with ours and accepting our culture, laws and freedoms .
For the most part our country has benefited from this multi culturism.

Pretty much every nationality from all over the globe has found a way to fit in .

I now am sure without a shadow of a doubt that with islam in conjunction with sharia law we have found the exception to the rule.
Those that practice sharia law will never fit in in this country and in reality have no desire to do so.

Sooner or later there will be more muslims that will tire of hiding their true allegence........tire of living among the" infidels" and then another San Bernadino will happen
 
#48 ·
I now am sure without a shadow of a doubt that with islam in conjunction with sharia law we have found the exception to the rule.
Christianity combined with Mosaic law is another, prior, example. I won't quote Paul here -- even though it may be appropriate in this case -- but he removed enforcement of these laws from Christianity. I am not sure how Judaism also found it's path away from the same, but except for a few fundamentalists, it did.

I do believe mainstream Islam has done the same, though the calendar suggests the other faiths have traveled a few centuries further down this path.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Recon1342
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top