On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 10:04:33 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> 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? :-)

Oh, no, but praying for a president's death is different than making a 
threat against the president.  That's what I was trying to say.

> Remember, some governments are even more scary than some religions. ;-)

True....

>> 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.

True, though even those not in the mainstream (FLDS comes to mind) they 
tend to hold off on prosecuting as long as possible.  IMNSHO, Jeffs 
should've been indicted, prosecuted, and incarcerated LONG before the 
process even started.

>> 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.)

:-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message