 |

cracklover
Dec 20, 2011, 1:40 PM
Post #1 of 4
(334 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 9676
|
This is getting ridiculous. Terrorism is the new bogeyman. The first amendment has not seen such a bad day in as long as I can remember. GO
|
|
|
 |
 |

curt
Dec 20, 2011, 3:22 PM
Post #2 of 4
(320 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 26, 2002
Posts: 18043
|
The Boston Globe wrote: ...Mehanna, who had become increasingly radical in his views, traveled to Yemen in 2004 seeking terrorism training, so he could carry out jihad, or holy war, against US soldiers in Iraq. After failing to find training there, he returned to the United States, determined to help Al Qaeda by translating and distributing propaganda promoting jihad on the Internet... Yeah what a shame. He certainly sounds like a nice enough guy. Curt
|
|
|
 |
 |

pinktricam
Dec 21, 2011, 12:43 AM
Post #3 of 4
(301 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 7947
|
You do know he'll probably end up in the same place Christopher Hitchens did, right?
|
|
|
 |
 |

cracklover
Dec 21, 2011, 8:15 AM
Post #4 of 4
(281 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 9676
|
curt wrote: The Boston Globe wrote: ...Mehanna, who had become increasingly radical in his views, traveled to Yemen in 2004 seeking terrorism training, so he could carry out jihad, or holy war, against US soldiers in Iraq. After failing to find training there, he returned to the United States, determined to help Al Qaeda by translating and distributing propaganda promoting jihad on the Internet... Yeah what a shame. He certainly sounds like a nice enough guy. Curt Since when is being a not-nice guy against any law? The grand sum total of what he did was: 1 - Translate Al Qaeda propaganda into English and put it on his website. 2 - Get disillusioned with Al Qaeda and argue against them, and in favor of the US, on the most popular Radical Islamic web forum. Until he was banned from the forum. So ignoring the latter, was the former not protected speech under the First Amendment? Wikipedia notes the cases in which the First Amendment right to Free Speech is waived in criminal cases:
In reply to: Criticism of the government and advocacy of unpopular ideas that people may find distasteful or against public policy, such as racism, sexism, and other hate speech are almost always permitted. There are exceptions to these general protections, including the Miller test for obscenity, child pornography laws, speech that incites imminent lawless action, and regulation of commercial speech such as advertising. So what classifies as speech designed to "incite imminent lawless action"? Well, again, according to Wikipedia:
In reply to: The canonical example, enunciated by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, is falsely yelling "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater (This example was authored in Schenck v. United States, but still passes the "imminent lawless action" test). The trend since Holmes's time has been to restrict the clear and present danger exception to apply to speech which is completely apolitical in content. So did he give Al Qaeda money? No. Did he house Al Qaeda trainees in his house? No. Did he provide ANY material support in any way? No. Were his actions designed to incite any imminent lawless action? No. But who cares. Just wave the "terrorism" charge and First Amendment rights whither away. Ridiculous. And sad. GO
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
 |
|
|