Should Farrakhan be locked up?

1. 60

   IDONOposted 11 years ago

   Should Farrakhan be locked up?
   
   This man is a terrorist by his own words spoken in a public speech. He is a disgrace to himself, all races, mankind and the God he professes to follow. The media should not give him the attention he craves every minute of his pitiful life and he should be charged with hate crimes. I dare anyone to defend this man and the hatred he spews.

   replyreport
2. 60

   Josakposted 11 years ago

   Ever heard that quote: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." It's very applicable in this situation, should he be locked up? No. Is he worth listening to? In my opinion no.
   
   "Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so too."

   replyreport
3. 64

   mintinfoposted 11 years ago

   Its the hate that hate made. Is there anyone in history that someone didn't hate one way or the other. He will be around until he is no longer relevant.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      IDONOposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      This is not history. This is today. I don't want my safety hinged on when he may becomes irrelevant. This man headed the Million Man March, which tells me he will be relevant long enough to cause a lot of damage. He should be stopped; legally.

      replyreport
4. 82

   Attikosposted 11 years ago

   Absolutely not. No one should be imprisoned for stating his views.
   
   Thomas Jefferson once wrote of freedom of thought and expression that, when someone stated an idea he found anathematic, "It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." With very few and long established exceptions, the law begins only where speech ends and action starts, not before. That is where we should keep it.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      IDONOposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Respectfully, you stand in an airport and holler "I'm blowing up a plane " and you will find out where the law begins.

      replyreport
   2. 82

      Attikosposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      The law on that holds that speech inciting imminent lawless action, which means meant and likely to cause immediate riot or other clear and present violence, is an exception to the general rule of freedom of speech. That is where the law begins.

      replyreport
5. 94

   Cre8torposted 11 years ago

   I'll be honest, I didn't hear the speech for myself but have gathered from many radio stations and news reports that it wasn't exactly...encouraging.
   
   Here's the problem...a threat, even when verbal is considered assault. "I'll kick your a$$!" is actually a punishable crime. Now, when a man says that he will basically declare war on U.S. soil, it doesn't seem anymore like a freedom of speech as much as it does a threat.
   
   So I ask this, the 17 year old boy in my local high school that wrote nothing more than the word "BOM!" on the wall is being charged...should he plead freedom of speech as his defense? There is no context for the word...no threat...just the word. This is not new either and not limited to the school in which I speak. Where is the line?

   replyreport
   1. 60

      IDONOposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Wish I could answer that last question. Maybe I missed something, but I thought freedom of speech applied to disagreement over government decisions. A threat is a threat; not an expression. There should be no gray area. e.g. bounty in Florida.

      replyreport