Home | Forums | Salary Cap Info | Shop | Donate | Stay Connected

Go Back   Warpath > Off-Topic Discussion > Debating with the enemy

First Amendment Right

Debating with the enemy

LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-26-2012, 06:55 PM   #61
New HC, new hope!
RedskinRat's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: I'm in LA, trick!
Posts: 8,700
Re: First Amendment Right

Originally Posted by mlmpetert View Post
I was trying to ask why are most of us okay with the NY Times allowing attacks on Catholics but not Muslims?
I'm certainly not but I don't like the NYT in the first place.

Originally Posted by mlmpetert View Post
Why is selective discrimination allowed on a variety of fronts? Im not all that outraged by the NY Times and I don’t think anyone else here is either, but shouldn’t we be?
Which discrimination are you referencing? It's a bigoted newspaper, it's not a surprise.

Originally Posted by mlmpetert View Post
Should we care that Muslims are treated differently because people are worried about what some of them they might do?
Absolutely, as the judge mentioned The atheist would have been killed in the Middle East for his beliefs.

Originally Posted by mlmpetert View Post
You started a thread about a Muslim getting off for assaulting an atheist for dressing up as the Prophet Mo, and titled it First Amendment Right. To me that came across as why is offensive speech seemingly not allowed for some things but okay for others, particularly in regards to different ideologies or a nuance outside the word ideology. Whats your reason behind this thread? What do you find interesting in regards to the First Amendment and this case?
Primarily my post was to gauge whether people even care about the erosion of rights under this administration. Certainly there appears to be an incredibly out of proportion application of 'kid-glovery' regarding a very tiny but extremely vocal minority.

Originally Posted by mlmpetert View Post
Prior to knowing more about the case, why did you find the judge’s decision horrendously inept?
He decided that a police officers sworn testimony wasn't relevant ( I read the court transcripts early on so I'm not sure what you mean by 'prior') despite the fact that the defendant admitted to assaulting the victim.

The judge seemed, from everything I've read, to allow his experience in the Middle East to allow a sliding scale of justice here instead of correctly applying the the law for assault.

I appreciate your response, thanks.
RedskinRat is offline   Reply With Quote



Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:24 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site is not officially affiliated with the Washington Redskins or the NFL.
Page generated in 0.11183 seconds with 9 queries

Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0 RC5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25