Out of Pod Experience

He would probably say that the state would not respect that right. I would instead ask if he and Herzog would say those things to those people, if promised immunity... I think they're both sane and well spoken enough to never want to do that to a family even if they could get away with it.

An action, known to be wrong, which causes harm.

Once they acknowledge that much, I'd be interested to see how they justify not agreeing with bringing the man to court.

What happened to the days of beating someone with a sack full of knobs? Or stockade and tomatoes thrown at you?

So many lulz in this.

Meanwhile in the U.S. people can go to the actual funeral of a dead soldier, chant that he was a *** loving servant of the devil and that God hates him, and no one can lift a finger. They can't even make them leave.



Call me a sheep all you like, but speech shouldn' t be quite THAT free in my humble opinion.

I could have sword I explained this very same topic (in direct response to you) on the 8th post of the first page. Including why, despite their disgusting behavior, it is permitted and protected.



Thankfully, we based our society off the humble opinions of much wiser men than you.

That's the problem with freedoms, they come with a price. If a society can't take the bitter with the sweet in regards to civil rights you can quickly find yourself with no rights at all.

There are many who would scrap rights like these, usually in favor of some ideological pursuit to remove elements they personally find distasteful from society. Thus the axiom that freedom requires eternal vigilance against such fools.

Bitter with the sweet is a ridiculous analogy. The law is complicated for exactly this reason, to become specific when it needs to be. It's purely your choice to link the two together, and nothing stops a law from separating them or giving a judge the tools to do so.

The way it works here is by leaving the law open to the judge to decide if intent was malicious. Specifically, an attempt to harm people (Criminal) rather than an attempt to exercise their first amendment rights which resulted in people being distressed by what they had to say (Not criminal.). Your arguments assume the latter and circumvent the system you think you're defending.





You're doing your sleight of keyboard stuff again. My opinion was regarding the decision not the law as I stated above. I'll draw this thought out all the way, since I guess I need the disclaimer.

I disagree with the judge's decision that they were purely speaking on a political subject which is protected. I feel their protests are organized and carried out with the intent to cause harm. The locations they choose, language and conduct they use... it doesn't make sense in the context of political motivation, it's clearly someone trying to berate someone else.





People shouldn' t be free to harm others by hiding behind anything, especially not the constitution and I feel that's what they're letting these guys do.

You do arrest people for internet trolling, have draconian libel laws, have no right to a modern means of self defense, and live in the world's poster child for a surveillance socieity.

And the state hasn't blocked the 911 Victory Mosque. Quite the opposite, much to the disgust of many concerned citizens who have rightfully protested, and construction workers don't want to build it.

But hey, I know the Brits are eager to hand their country over and build as many mosques as possible. More power to you - have fun with that.

Lemme know how it's going for you in 20-30 years.

I'm going to do my best here with what you've dealt.

-I'm not sure you understand what an analogy is.

-laws are made more specific when the need arises. however they can never run counter to the founding documents with provide them their authority. No Judges actions can either. "Giving them the tools" to do so would be that circumventing you thought you identified.

-sleight of keyboard? Is this your automatic reaction when you run into a mental wall? Don't attempt to understand the logic, just think of it as a magic act?

-what is this disclaimer I don't even

-no they shouldn't. that's why one persons rights end exactly where another persons begin. No one is hiding behind the constitution, but we are careful we don't trample over it when we go to get the 'bad guys'.



3 things

-do people that shouldn't have guns in your country have them? if so, you are severely hampered from defending yourself against them. No matter how strong your kung fu or cricket bat is.

-If your innocent you have nothing to fear? Holy poo-poo if you think this is a smart statement there is no hope for you.

-No one is actually going to ban teaching evolution, it's just the rantings of a very stupid but very vocal minority. These ridiculous topics are only entertained by those who make the laws because those corrupt rotten SOBs love when their constituents occupy their time with distractions. If these morons got lathered up about making witchcraft illegal you'd find a Republican politician that would smile make that his platform. All that aside, please do continue laughing at them, the rest of us do!



So wait, first you taunt their principles of freedom, then you make a mockery of ours?

Pro tip: the mooselims aren't out to get you. An organization built by people we used as cannon fodder against the Russians and then turned our backs on in the 70's are. The only people that think we are in a religious war are idiots and people (consciously or unconsciously) itching for a religious war.

A common error that I can speak for in the USA regarding the "right to free speech" is that people often forget that everybody posses an equal right to ignore whatever is being said.

It only becomes dangerous when ignorance is applied to democracy, thus weaponizing it. And that's why people will get worked up over things like evolution and other non-issues while the banksters continue to rob the world blind.

With the westboro thing many states made laws so they have to protest a certain distance away instead of right up in their faces like before. ****** up thing about that case though was westboro counter sued the father, and won, and I believe the guy owes them money now...

Really one just needs to not give them attention. Protests only work when someone pays attention! Stop feeding them!

But thinking about it really trolling like this guy was doing is just a form of harassment/stalking. It just so happens its in a digital form.

Lesson from this is....dont be a jackass.

I do not think we have doen aything like that.