Quit Bashing the Religion of Peace:)
2007-08-16 05:34:21
·
answer #1
·
answered by PNAC ~ Penelope 4
·
3⤊
4⤋
Under the rules that the supreme court uses, 1st ammendment rigths can be infringed upon if the following conditions are met
1) There is a significant government interest involved
2) Prohibiting the speech directly achieves the government interest
3) There is no other means by which the same interest can be achieved
If banning the speech you are talking about fits all of these conditions, the governmnet can censor them and shut the site down. I think that this site DOES meet all of these conditions. It should be closed.
2007-08-16 12:38:38
·
answer #2
·
answered by Louis G 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
If they did this in American this would be protected I'm sure by free speech at least if the manual described kidnapping White Americans.
Nice that someone took the time to write a whole 60 pages about how to kidnap someone. That my friends is what religion is all about. (lol) Sharing your knowledge with others.
Mohammed would be proud of his little blood thirsty followers.
2007-08-16 12:37:43
·
answer #3
·
answered by tnfarmgirl 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
actually.. I think it is.. just like you can look up how to make a nuclear weapon on-line. It's not talking about these things.. it's actually trying to do it that gets you in trouble. Does it make it right? ... well I'd never call it right.. but at best it's in one of those gray areas... it does, however, make it legal. But in all honesty... I would think the government is looking at who is looking at those websites as well... just a hunch.
Edit: After thinking about it a little more.. a good lawyer could spin this into a "conspiracy to commit" category. Bleh.. I don't think the law is cut and dry on this type of thing.. it really would come done to who had the better lawyer I think.... the accused or the state.
2007-08-16 12:54:03
·
answer #4
·
answered by pip 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
I certainly hope not .
BTW , I've got a radical islamist Muslim emailing me trying to justify their terrorism . He's well-spoken and clearly very educated .He sees it as an order from god . He's a Y/A user too and because I can check his profile , i now know how crafty he really is . And whether it's accurate or a ploy , he has an avatar of a white, blonde-haired male . I guess I'm asking for any advice to be offered . His arguments are easy to beat , but he's under the spell of Satan yet thinks it's God .
2007-08-16 12:40:32
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
Yes it is protected by free speech but whether it is smart for it to be allowed as content by the web host it isn't smart. Unless DHS wants it to be allowed to see who looks at the site.
In fact when I try to get to it I'm finding it suspended.
2007-08-16 12:39:10
·
answer #6
·
answered by redgriffin728 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
No--advocacy of or promoting criminal acts is against the law. However, such sites are susually located outside US jurisdiction.
And--as the neoconslike to remind us whenever liberals point to Bush's violations of the human rights of detainees, the Constitutional rules don't apply. So-by their standards, its perfectly legitimate!
What's sauce for the goos is sauce for the gander! lol.
2007-08-16 12:37:41
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
Have faith my friend in the FBI, whoever posted that $hit will be $hitting themselves, waiting for the long arm of the law to reach out and grab them where it hurts, lol,
Hail and God Bless our silent protectors.
2007-08-16 12:47:29
·
answer #8
·
answered by ~Celtic~Saltire~ 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
I think those kinds of websites are protected speech.
I also think that they should pop up on every Americana's browser home page.
Maybe they'll snap out of it then.
2007-08-16 12:40:59
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Under recent unconstitutional royal edicts from the Whitehouse, the people making such information may be classified as terrorists and their property confiscated.
Since you advertised the forum by posting its URL, you fall into the same bag. You are now a terrorist under existing uncontested edicts.
2007-08-16 12:35:53
·
answer #10
·
answered by ? 7
·
2⤊
4⤋