jump to last post 1-2 of 2 discussions (21 posts)

Department of Justice: Legal Repercussions for Free Speech

  1. profile image0
    JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago

    Unbelievable(not really, it's all believable nowadays)...

    DoJ says that there will be legal repercussions for anybody who slanders Islam on social media.

    America is dying.

    1. bBerean profile image60
      bBereanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Surely if the technology could support it, thought police would be the next natural step.

      1. profile image0
        JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        The NSA's new data center is supposed to be able to process every piece of data on the internet, every text, every phone call, every recorded conversation, in real time.

        What it will actually be used for is anybody's guess.

        1. Silverspeeder profile image59
          Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Tax collection.

          Someone in the UK rather foolishly posted on one of the social media sites that he had brought himself a new car, renovated his house and been on the holiday of a lifetime, the taxman got hold of the information and investigated his tax affairs, he was charged with tax avoidance.

          Governments are all about tax collection, it keeps them in power and keeps the wheels of control turning.

      2. profile image0
        Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Yeah, it's the real-life sequel to Minority Report, coming soon to a neighborhood near us all,  for the viewing pleasure of the tyrants in charge of our government, including clowns like David Axelrod and Joe Biden.

    2. Shinkicker profile image92
      Shinkickerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      As long as it's not hate speech I think people should be free to criticise whatever religion they disagree with

      1. profile image0
        JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        There is no such thing as "hate speech". It's made up.

        There is free speech, or there isn't. It's part of the foundation of America, and we're losing it.

        It's especially sad that I would be free to say "All Christians are XXX", but if I said "All Muslims are XXX" I could be prosecuted... that's not freedom.

        And very few people care... The Voice is on

    3. Josak profile image61
      Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Got a link? Or this the usual falsehoods?

    4. Josak profile image61
      Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Actually this seems to be bull as usual. A lawyer that works for the DOJ (someone who has no power to set policy or anything of the sort) sort of threatened that they might prosecute people who make "inflammatory statements about Islam" which really could mean threats, incitements to violence etc. (all of which are criminal) maybe you have a better source but it seems like the usual rambling about falsehoods and blatant scaremongering by an ideology with nothing more to offer.

      1. profile image59
        Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        "A lawyer that works for the DOJ (someone who has no power to set policy or anything of the sort) sort of threatened that they might prosecute people who make "inflammatory statements about Islam" "

        But they do have the power to prosecute, so how much power do you think they need?

        1. Josak profile image61
          Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Individual mid level employees of the DOJ don't speak for the DOJ is my point nor do they decide who can be convicted.

          Plus all he said was "inflammatory statements", a threat for example is inflammatory so really the statement isn't even radical in any way.

          Just the usual storm in a teacup.

    5. profile image0
      Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Did they really say that?
      Well, the DOJ can kiss my.........elbow.   And the elbows of a whoooole bunch of Americans.   Who the hay even trusts the DOJ  in any arena anyway, considering the horrid leadership it has.   It's a political tyranny, and has been since Obama's appointees got their hands on power.


      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHTfJRp-3ss

    6. profile image0
      Sooner28posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Source?

      Though I don't doubt some people in our government would love to censor criticism of Islam, I wanna see hard evidence that the DOJ is arguing for that position.

      1. Josak profile image61
        Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Yeah they didn't argue that position at all, completely false.

    7. Quilligrapher profile image88
      Quilligrapherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      “America is dying.” “America is dying.” Listen up everybody, “America is dying.”

      Every time I turn around, Chicken Little is telling us the sky is falling!

      Under the law, if I tell one or more people an untruth about another and this untruth harms the reputation of the person or persons defamed then I am guilty of slander. “Slander is a civil wrong (tort) and can be the basis for a lawsuit.” {1}

      For the benefit of all the Chicken Littles in the audience, a lawsuit is the same as “legal repercussions.” Therefore, it seems appropriate for someone at the DOJ to remind us that if we do not play nice, some one might give us a time out.

      Thank God. The sky is not really falling after all nor is America dying. Everyone can relax.
      http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
      {1} http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/slander

      1. profile image0
        Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I think the issue here is that people can't trust the current DOJ.   Why would anyone wanna let an Office whose leaders are corrupt,  tell them what to do?   Only those who are deliberately pulling the sky down to cover themselves.   So, in effect, the sky IS falling, because those multiple fools are buying the hogwash that's being perpetuated upon the whole Country.

  2. profile image84
    Education Answerposted 3 years ago

    What happened to the guy that made the video that the POTUS blamed for the Benghazi attack?

    1. Josak profile image61
      Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      He violated his parole, plead guilty to doing so and was sent to jail for a year. He was NOT charged with hate speech or slander etc.

      1. profile image84
        Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Capone didn't go to prison for murder, prostitution, or alcohal production.  The fact that he wasn't charged with this doesn't mean a lot.


        People who violate probation are arrested, with no bond, and go to prison for a year?  What was his original crime?  It must have been pretty bad to warrant this kind of treatment.  It sure seems like an atypical sentencing to me.  Don't most people get a slap on the wrist for this kind of violation?  After speaking to a judge I know, I now know that the answer is yes.  Yes, he received a highly atypical, stringent sentece.

        1. Josak profile image61
          Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Nope he committed seven probationary violations, and plead guilty to six, thus he received the typical two months for each of them.
          He broke the law and got a year for it, there is no conspiracy.

          1. profile image84
            Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            No, you're not right. 

            "On September 27, 2012, US federal authorities stated Nakoula was arrested in Los Angeles for allegedly violating terms of his probation. Prosecutors stated that some of the violations included making false statements regarding his role in the film and his use of the alias "Sam Bacile".[12] On November 7, 2012, Nakoula pled guilty to four of the charges against him and was sentenced to one year in prison and four years of supervised release."

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakoula_Basseley_Nakoula

            Now, he goes to prison for making false statements regarding his role in the film?  This is wrong, a great example of politics being played.

 
working