Watch that freedom of speech

[skyraider]

Barack Obama’s Attorney for the Eastern district of Tennessee Bill Killian and Kenneth Moore, special agent in charge of the FBI’s Knoxville Division, want Americans to know that if you say something negative towards Islam or Muslims, the Federal government may imprison you. They will be having an event called “Public Disclosure in a Diverse Society” on June 4, the same day Obama is scheduled to sign the United Nations Small Arms Treaty.

The Tullahoma Times reports,

Read more at Federal Attorney Warns Negative Posts Against Islam Could Get You Prosecution & Imprisonment - Freedom Outpost | Freedom Outpost

 

[LDB]

Yeah, you're only allowed to do that toward Christians.

 

[RLENT]

Barack Obama’s Attorney for the Eastern district of Tennessee Bill Killian and Kenneth Moore, special agent in charge of the FBI’s Knoxville Division, want Americans to know that if you say something negative towards Islam or Muslims, the Federal government may imprison you.

That would appear to be a perversion of the truth ... which casts you in a fairly dubious light, in terms of making ignorant (or perhaps intentionally misleading) characterizations of actual events.

From the remarks of United States Attorney William C. Killian at the very event you refer to:

... Sadly, this is the reality of our hate crimes work. Almost 10 years after 9/11. More than 50 federal prosecutions later and lots of long prison sentences . . . and far too many people are still repeating the same vicious acts of hate against members of the Arab/Muslim/Sikh and South Asian Communities.

But truly, what would cause a man to attempt to burn a place of worship?

I think that it is instructive that we remember what the 1st Amendment says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Let me be clear, in this country hateful speech is allowed, it is protected by the freedom of speech part of the First amendment. But if someone makes threats of violence, that is not protected speech, and they will be prosecuted. Likewise, if someone commits acts of violence, under the guise of religion or other speech, they will be prosecuted for their violent acts.

... You need not like the color of a person’s skin, practice their religion, agree with their sexual orientation, enjoy their various cultural traits or appreciate their living with a disability. However, under the law, we must respect their civil rights. Under the law, people may not be threatened or subjected to violence because of these traits. And we will continue to work night and day to keep our communities safe – safe from terrorists, and safe from those who commit hate crimes.

Full remarks:

USDOJ: US Attorney's Office - Eastern District of Tennessee

Further, it would appear, based on some of your previous posts, that you are exclusively targeting members of a single particular faith, solely on the basis of that faith - and arguably painting with a broad brush - which, in my book, qualifies you as a religious bigot.

I'm sure Jeebus would be quite proud (whether Jesus actually would is another matter altogether however)

They will be having an event called “Public Disclosure in a Diverse Society” on June 4, the same day Obama is scheduled to sign the United Nations Small Arms Treaty.

No, actually they had an event ...

And it's probably a good thing ... given that Tennessee seems about like Ground Zero for religious intolerance, and in particular, redneck goober stupidity about Islam ...

The Tullahoma Times reports,

Read more at Federal Attorney Warns Negative Posts Against Islam Could Get You Prosecution & Imprisonment - Freedom Outpost | Freedom Outpost

The above is factually inaccurate ... because you say that "The Tullahoma Times reports" ... and then link to a wingnut article which attempts to (mis)characterize what the Tullahoma Times actually reported ... and in doing so perverts what the Tullhoma Times did actually report ...

For example:

From the wingnuts at Freedom's Outpost:

"The Islamic community has yet to condemn terrorism ..."

What the Tullahoma Times actually reported:

Mohyuddin said Muslims across the nation consistently issue press releases condemning terrorist acts, but the media usually does not pick up the information. He added that the apparent silence leaves the impression that Muslims do not condemn such acts.

Like Killian, Mohyuddin said word needs to be spread so more people understand the Muslim culture.

“It is in the self-interest of Muslims in the United States to counter violent extremism, because we and our children do not want to be viewed with suspicion,” Mohyuddin said. “The Muslim community is a vital resource in the fight against terrorism.”

Killian said he has made other presentations in the state about Muslim culture and civil rights laws, and the Muslims he’s become acquainted with are outstanding citizens.

“Some of the finest people I’ve met are Muslims,” he said, adding later: “We want to inform everybody about what the law is, but more importantly, we want to provide what the law means to Muslims, Hindus and every other religion in the country.

Tullahoma News - Group sets meeting to increase tolerance of Muslims, culture

It would appear that you are indeed trying to best our resident reporter of wingnut perversions of the truth ...

Congrats - keep up the good work ...

 

[Maverick]

That would appear to be a perversion of the truth ... which casts you in a fairly dubious light, in terms of making ignorant (or perhaps intentionally misleading) characterizations of actual events.

From the remarks of United States Attorney William C. Killian at the very event you refer to:

Full remarks:

USDOJ: US Attorney's Office - Eastern District of Tennessee

Further, it would appear, based on some of your previous posts, that you are exclusively targeting members of a single particular faith, solely on the basis of that faith - and arguably painting with a broad brush - which, in my book, qualifies you as a religious bigot.

I'm sure Jeebus would be quite proud (whether Jesus actually would is another matter altogether however)


No, actually they had an event ...

And it's probably a good thing ... given that Tennessee seems about like Ground Zero for religious intolerance, and in particular, redneck goober stupidity about Islam ...


The above is factually inaccurate ... because you say that "The Tullahoma Times reports" ... and then link to a wingnut article which attempts to (mis)characterize what the Tullahoma Times actually reported ... and in doing so perverts what the Tullhoma Times did actually report ...

For example:

From the wingnuts at Freedom's Outpost:


What the Tullahoma Times actually reported:


Tullahoma News - Group sets meeting to increase tolerance of Muslims, culture

It would appear that you are indeed trying to best our resident reporter of wingnut perversions of the truth ...

Congrats - keep up the good work ...

What a crock. You've managed to break everything down into minute detail, in order to prove what point?

The basic premise is this, and always has been......it's OK to bomb the heck out of them in some fake "freedom" against some imaginary dictator, long as it's US doing it?

But it's NOT okay to speak against them in the good ole US of A......internally? Speaking for no one else, but you sure seem duped by the whole obvious affair, and consequent agenda.

 

[cheri1122]

Oh boy. Maverick, I think you have misunderstood RLENT, just as the OP misunderstood the news item cited. Though to be fair, the news item was deliberately written to induce just such a misunderstanding, because most won't read it carefully, or check out the linked articles.
I'll let RLENT state his response, but what I got from the OP is that people can not threaten violence and expect to get away with it, just because they believe Muslims are the enemy.[They're not.] There was no substantiation of the headline claiming "negative posts against Islam could get you prosecution and imprisonment" - none at all. The law requires a direct or implied threat of violence, just as it always has, and the same as for everyone else.
Another headline promising what it can't deliver, accepted as truth by those who can't be bothered to look closely at whether it does or not.

 

[Maverick]

Cheri

I think we tend to break things down and analyze them to the ump degree here. I know your right to this point, but the facts are still the same in real life.

This country bombs and obliterates Muslim countries under the concept of "freeing them", all the while stating WE are not to belittle them in any way. (which I personally do not). The problem with the OP and the consequent reply is this.....

We want to blame them for all the supposed travesties in the world; yet they hold many H visa's, we welcome the religion, we make overtures for protective laws? The whole doggone thing is a study in ridiculousness.

Nothing like creating a boogeyman, then writing articles for, or against, that boogeyman. It's a non-issue because it's misdirection either way. To keep it simple? They are no threat, here nor there.

Yes they are, no they're not.....doesn't cut it with me.

 

[RLENT]

What a crock.

You've managed to break everything down into minute detail, in order to prove what point?

Minute detail ?

I would suggest that you avail yourself of a good English dictionary so that you might come to a proper understanding of what the word "minute" actually means in the context you are attempting to use it.

I simply addressed the first whole thought or premise of the OP - which was entirely false - simply by showing the relevant portions of one of the speakers cited in that OP.

And then proceeded to address at least some of the additional falsities in both the OP's post and the article that he linked.

The point was to show that the OP is either ignorant or stupid enough to be taken in by such sleazy "journalism" as he cites ... or that he is intentionally seeking to incite religious bigotry.

In light of repeated postings of a similar nature, I'm personally beginning to think it's the latter. Of course, he's certainly free to choose to be a religious bigot - provided he doesn't threaten or actually commit violence.

Just like I'm free to point out what it is he's doing.

The basic premise is this, and always has been......it's OK to bomb the heck out of them in some fake "freedom" against some imaginary dictator, long as it's US doing it?

But it's NOT okay to speak against them in the good ole US of A......internally?

No - the basic premise of the article is incitement against an entire faith - on the basis of the violent acts of a miniscule number of those who claim to be adherents of that faith ...

It is religious bigotry - of the pretty much the same flavor and variety that the Nazis used to justify persecuting the Jews and committing genocide.

Speaking for no one else, but you sure seem duped by the whole obvious affair, and consequent agenda.

Do you have any idea of the events that have taken place in Tennessee since 9/11 ?

Fire at Tenn. Mosque Building Site Ruled Arson - CBS News

The context which made something like this (the event) actually necessary ?

Pamela Geller at Tennessee Anti-Muslim Protest: "Without Freedom of Speech We Must Resort to Violence" - Little Green Footballs

Or are you just shooting off your mouth in complete and total ignorance ?

Tennessee county official not sorry for image promoting violence against Muslims | The Raw Story

Aware of the violent criminal acts that have taken place elsewhere in the US by mentally deranged freakazoids, who are sometimes the very committed followers of Jeebus ?

Iraq veteran accused of arson in fires at mosque, Planned Parenthood - Los Angeles Times

Interestingly, from what I have read, most of them have additional trait one in common, besides their xenophobic racism and religious bigotry ... many/most of the people who commit these acts are ex-military:

Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mosque arsonist: Fox News made me do it! - Salon.com

Mosque arsonist Randolph Linn sentenced to 20 years | Religion News Service

 

[RLENT]

We want to blame them for all the supposed travesties in the world; yet they hold many H visa's, we welcome the religion, we make overtures for protective laws? The whole doggone thing is a study in ridiculousness.

Nothing like creating a boogeyman, then writing articles for, or against, that boogeyman. It's a non-issue because it's misdirection either way. To keep it simple? They are no threat, here nor there.

Assuming I am understanding your actual intent, we would be in agreement: they (Muslims generally) are no real threat to speak of ... though if we continue with our current foreign policy, we might well be able to remedy that and actually make them one ...

 

[Maverick]

Minute detail ?

I would suggest that you avail yourself of a good English dictionary so that you might come to a proper understanding of what the word "minute" actually means in the context you are attempting to use it.

I simply addressed the first whole thought or premise of the OP - which was entirely false - simply by showing the relevant portions of one of the speakers cited in that OP.

And then proceeded to address at least some of the additional falsities in both the OP's post and the article that he linked.

The point was to show that the OP is either ignorant or stupid enough to be taken in by such sleazy "journalism" as he cites ... or that he is intentionally seeking to incite religious bigotry.

In light of repeated postings of a similar nature, I'm personally beginning to think it's the latter. Of course, he's certainly free to choose to be a religious bigot - provided he doesn't threaten or actually commit violence.

Just like I'm free to point out what it is he's doing.


No - the basic premise of the article is incitement against an entire faith - on the basis of the violent acts of a miniscule number of those who claim to be adherents of that faith ...

It is religious bigotry - of the pretty much the same flavor and variety that the Nazis used to justify persecuting the Jews and committing genocide.


Do you have any idea of the events that have taken place in Tennessee since 9/11 ?

Fire at Tenn. Mosque Building Site Ruled Arson - CBS News

The context which made something like this (the event) actually necessary ?

Pamela Geller at Tennessee Anti-Muslim Protest: "Without Freedom of Speech We Must Resort to Violence" - Little Green Footballs

Or are you just shooting off your mouth in complete and total ignorance ?

Tennessee county official not sorry for image promoting violence against Muslims | The Raw Story

Aware of the violent criminal acts that have taken place elsewhere in the US by mentally deranged freakazoids, who are sometimes the very committed followers of Jeebus ?

Iraq veteran accused of arson in fires at mosque, Planned Parenthood - Los Angeles Times

Interestingly, most of them have additional trait one in common, besides their xenophobic racism and religious bigotry ... many/most of the people who commit these acts are ex-military:

Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mosque arsonist: Fox News made me do it! - Salon.com

Mosque arsonist Randolph Linn sentenced to 20 years | Religion News Service

Your kidding me, right?

Your sources include, of all venues.......Fox news? Solon? Wikipedia? Raw?

These are certainly most trusted people to report the real news. Not slanted at all, and in no way part of the propaganda machine.

I have no doubt of a certain validity.....but final say? Nah.....

You know what? I've read your post's and comments, and to be honest? I would not need you, for telling me, about what's really happening around the world....if my very last breath would be dependent.

 

[RLENT]

Your kidding me, right?

Not in the least ...

Your sources include, of all venues.......Fox news? Solon? Wikipedia? Raw?

These are certainly most trusted people to report the real news. Not slanted at all, and in no way part of the propaganda machine.

I never claimed that any of them were totally unbiased and without a point of view ... but what in any of the links that is claimed as factual do you actually dispute ?

I was very clear in my response to the OP about what I disputed - and provided sources to back up my claims of falsity ...

Can you do the same with any of the links I cited in the post you are replying to ?

Any factual issues that you would care to dispute ?

Did these mosque bombings/attempts not occur in TN, MO, or OH ?

Did that utterly repugnant and vile hate-monger Pamela Gellar not appear at a TN rally and say what the headline claims (and the video clearly shows)

Did the Sikh Temple shooting not occur ?

Did the MO bomber not consider himself a "conservative Christian" ?

Were these folks not ex-military ?

I have no doubt of a certain validity ...

Well praise the Lord for small wonders ...

..but final say? Nah.....

What do you dispute ?

Or are you going to try and hide behind some nebulous blanket dismissal ?

You know what? I've read your post's and comments, and to be honest? I would not need you, for telling me, about what's really happening around the world....if my very last breath would be dependent.

Oh ... well ... I have to say that I am just cut to the quick ... deeply wounded like a scorned ...

Well, you get the point.

As for me "telling you what's happening around the world", I'd prefer neither you nor anyone else place that burden upon me ...

You have your own mind - use it as was intended.

While I certainly do offer my own thoughts and commentary on what I read, it's up to every individual to decide for themselves what's what ...

If someone chooses to check out stuff that I link to, then that's their call ... just as it is to decide what to make of what they find there ...

 

[Maverick]

You have your own mind - use it as was intended.

I wish more would do the same.

 

[RLENT]

I'll conclude from your lack of response that you have no actual disputes with any of the facts alleged in what I posted, or any of the links I provided.

 

[Turtle]

I'll conclude from your lack of response that you have no actual disputes with any of the facts alleged in what I posted, or any of the links I provided.

I wonder what constitutes an acceptable source, provided the information is nevertheless correct.

Discrediting (or dismissing as irrelevant) the source is called the "Poisoning of the Well" logical fallacy when it is used to dismiss or discredit the information from that source. What if one of the sources listed was, for example, the National Enquirer? Would that make the information from the National Enquirer incorrect and to be dismissed? It's not a logical fallacy to say that information from the National Enquirer is probably not correct, and to want independent confirmation. It is, however, a logical fallacy to say that something is wrong because it was printed in the National Enquirer and then to dismiss it outright. The same hold true for Salon, Fox News, Wiki, and any other source one can think of.

 

[OntarioVanMan]

News Organizations can so muddy the water of an event...that unless one was in actual attendance to witness the truth.....

Nearly every news outlet is doing a lot of "cut and paste" to make the event fit their particular agenda....the common folk is not getting the real story.... real slimy news reporting usually won't have the video clip of the actual event along with story either....

and since nearly every news outlet is like this, the common folk have to use the balance system...read from both sources and find the middle ground.....somewhere in the middle might be the true story.....hence, providing links to anyones opinion is not really viable as it will only support the posters position (links of convenience).... not necessarily the truth.

 

[Maverick]

I'll conclude from your lack of response that you have no actual disputes with any of the facts alleged in what I posted, or any of the links I provided.

You may so conclude.....or it could be I just turned in for the night.

Since OVM covered my response above, no need to expand those thoughts.

 

[OntarioVanMan]

I was more in line with supporting the "poisoned well" idea of Turtles...

I am not scholar nor a debater...never got to take debating class....I know not, the art of debate.

 

[OntarioVanMan]

I watch Turtles or Rlents posts the work put into the multi quotes and all the link insertions.....

bottom line......In about 5 minutes no one will remember or even care.....LOL

 

[RLENT]

bottom line......In about 5 minutes no one will remember or even care.....LOL

You might have a little projection going there ...

 

[RLENT]

I wonder what constitutes an acceptable source, provided the information is nevertheless correct.

What constitutes an acceptable source is, like beauty, in the eye of the beholder.

Some individuals/organizations/publications have a track record - a history - which affects their credibility in eyes of some, particularly those who might be more informed on the particular subject matter (as well as informed about the specific individuals/organizations/publications) rather than less ...

A history of agenda - particularly one which will stoop to lies, misrepresentations, and outright perversions of the truth - places these entities into a category in which their claims deserve to be viewed with a high degree of skepticism ...

Perhaps a good example of that is in my original post - where the author reports something (the assertion that "The Islamic community has yet to condemn terrorism ...") for which he provides absolutely no sources for ... and which directly conflicts with what is actually reported in the source which he does provide ...

Anyone who is at least halfway paying attention to the issue knows that it is an outright lie ... as a simple search using "Muslims condemn terrorism" will easily prove ...

To your larger point, each claim or source, needs to be evaluated on it's own merits ... but part of that evaluation probably ought to be what is known about the history and/or the agenda of the those making the claim.

Discrediting (or dismissing as irrelevant) the source is called the "Poisoning of the Well" logical fallacy when it is used to dismiss or discredit the information from that source. What if one of the sources listed was, for example, the National Enquirer? Would that make the information from the National Enquirer incorrect and to be dismissed? It's not a logical fallacy to say that information from the National Enquirer is probably not correct, and to want independent confirmation. It is, however, a logical fallacy to say that something is wrong because it was printed in the National Enquirer and then to dismiss it outright. The same hold true for Salon, Fox News, Wiki, and any other source one can think of.

Precisely.

 

[RLENT]

You may so conclude.....or it could be I just turned in for the night.

Since you are back and still have provided no substantive response, I will conclude my initial evaluation was correct: you have no dispute with anything that was presented as factual in anything I linked.