|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Jim Henderson wrote:
> Well, yeah, there's nothing actionable there. Free speech and all that -
> until someone actually *does* something to be a physical threat.
Free speech doesn't cover threatening the president's life.
http://newsok.com/okc-officer-pulls-man-over-for-anti-obama-sign-on-vehicle/article/3347038?custom_click=headlines_widget
(What, you think I make this crap up? :-)
Remember, some governments are even more scary than some religions. ;-)
> government seems to be reluctant to charge a religious organization (or
> personality) with incitement.
Bingo! That's precisely what I'm saying.
Actually, it's not that they're reluctant to charge a religious
organization. It's that they're reluctant to charge a mainstream religious
organization.
> To an extent, I can see why - if they were
> to go after them, that would inflame the situation. Remember David
> Koresh?
Yes, exactly that too. That's kind of my point. *If* you were to
marginalize religion, this would be less of a problem. (Which is not to say
I believe religion should be marginalized for that reason.)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |