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