Political Wrinkles

Political Wrinkles (http://www.politicalwrinkles.com/)
-   The President & the Executive Branch (http://www.politicalwrinkles.com/president-executive-branch/)
-   -   High Ranking DOJ Official Refuses to Affirm 1st Amendment Rights (http://www.politicalwrinkles.com/president-executive-branch/28939-high-ranking-doj-official-refuses-affirm-1st-amendment-rights.html)

cnredd 09-17-2012 12:57 PM

High Ranking DOJ Official Refuses to Affirm 1st Amendment Rights
 
This was from July and flew under the radar, but it's totally relevant in the aftermath of the embassy attacks and the "voluntary questioning" of a person who made a film...:mad...


Quote:

In a Constitution Subcommittee hearing yesterday, Congressman Trent Franks (AZ-02) questioned Assistant Attorney General, Thomas Perez, over the Administration's commitment to 1st Amendment rights. Franks' questions were prompted by a Daily Caller article from late last year in which Perez was quoted as warmly embracing the proposals of Islamist advocates in a meeting at George Washington University, among them a request for "a legal declaration that U.S. citizens' criticism of Islam constitutes racial discrimination."

Perez reportedly ended the meeting with an enthusiastic closing speech and was quoted as saying, "I sat here the entire time, taking notes...I have some very concrete thoughts ... in the aftermath of this."

In yesterday's hearing, Chairman Franks asked Perez to affirm that the Administration would "never entertain or advance a proposal that criminalizes speech against any religion?" Perez refused.

MrLiberty 09-17-2012 01:15 PM

Re: High Ranking DOJ Official Refuses to Affirm 1st Amendment Rights
 
Quote:

Leading Sunni Clerics Demand Global Ban on Insults to Islam

Quote:

Six months after declaring that all churches in the Arabian peninsula should be destroyed, Saudi Arabia’s top cleric called at the weekend for a global ban on insults targeting all religious “prophets and messengers,” a category that, from a Muslim perspective, includes Jesus Christ.

Saturday’s demand by Saudi grand mufti Sheikh Abdul Aziz Al-Asheikh came on the same day that another of Sunni Islam’s most prominent figures, Egypt’s Al-Azhar University grand imam Ahmed el-Tayyeb, made a similar appeal.

Both men were reacting to an amateur video satirizing Mohammed, whose emergence on the Internet has been blamed for protests targeting American diplomatic missions across the Islamic world. According to wire services at least 12 deaths have been linked to the protests since Thursday, with deaths reported in Tunisia, Sudan, Pakistan, Yemen, Lebanon and Egypt.

The two clerics’ calls are a new salvo in an unremitting campaign by Islamic political and religious leaders, spearheaded by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), to pressure non-Muslims to treat Islam with deference.

In a statement released by the official Saudi Press Agency (SPA), Asheikh “appealed to all countries and international organizations to criminalize acts ridiculing all prophets and messengers (peace be upon them).”

The kingdom’s Arab News pointed out that he was referring to such figures as “Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Mohammed.”
Leading Sunni Clerics Demand Global Ban on Insults to Islam | CNSNews.com

It has been said that Hillary Clinton signed onto the OIC demand to silence anyone from speaking ill of islam. Whether it is true or not I don't know, but it sure should scare the bejesus out of everyone when you have administration officials trying to silence free speech.

Obama once said that what was wrong with the Constitution was it outlined what the government couldn't do, but not what it could do. That tells me he hates our Constitution and the freedom it affords us. :yes

foundit66 09-17-2012 05:49 PM

Re: High Ranking DOJ Official Refuses to Affirm 1st Amendment Rights
 
Do we have anything concrete to back up the claims of the youtube poster?
:shrug
I tried googling part of the youtuber's comments and got nothing of merit. :rolls The first couple of links were to the video itself. The third to somebody's craigslist post,

The chairman was not interested in letting the guy answer the question.
That much was obvious.
The question is so loosely phrased that I don't think it should be answered as "Yes", for the obvious reason that "never" and "any" encompass a LOT of crap.

For example, if a KKK member made comments inciting others to bomb a black church. Or other similar weasely way to try to cover obviously illegal "speech" into a protected status.
While obviously simple criticism should not be made illegal, I can't help but notice that the chairman avoided saying something obvious and specific ("simple criticism") into a more generic form ("speech") ... :mad

IMO, the chairman didn't want this guy to answer the question. Period.
He wanted to grand-stand.


Quote:

Originally Posted by MrLiberty
It has been said that ...

:rolls
At this stage, the right doesn't even care to TRY to give their made-up b.s. an air of credibility.
No "senior diplomats reportedly said" comment.
It's just "It has been said that ..."
:mad

AzMike 09-17-2012 09:04 PM

Re: High Ranking DOJ Official Refuses to Affirm 1st Amendment Rights
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by foundit66 (Post 478940)
Do we have anything concrete to back up the claims of the youtube poster?
:shrug
I tried googling part of the youtuber's comments and got nothing of merit. :rolls The first couple of links were to the video itself. The third to somebody's craigslist post,

The chairman was not interested in letting the guy answer the question.
That much was obvious.
The question is so loosely phrased that I don't think it should be answered as "Yes", for the obvious reason that "never" and "any" encompass a LOT of crap.

For example, if a KKK member made comments inciting others to bomb a black church. Or other similar weasely way to try to cover obviously illegal "speech" into a protected status.
While obviously simple criticism should not be made illegal, I can't help but notice that the chairman avoided saying something obvious and specific ("simple criticism") into a more generic form ("speech") ... :mad

IMO, the chairman didn't want this guy to answer the question. Period.
He wanted to grand-stand.



:rolls
At this stage, the right doesn't even care to TRY to give their made-up b.s. an air of credibility.
No "senior diplomats reportedly said" comment.
It's just "It has been said that ..."
:mad

It's a video of the guy being asked a direct question in a hearing. How the f*ck do you think you can spin this?

"never entertain or advance a proposal that criminalizes speech against any religion?" Answer? Not so sure we would commit to that. How would you answer that question?

saltwn 09-17-2012 10:00 PM

Re: High Ranking DOJ Official Refuses to Affirm 1st Amendment Rights
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by cnredd (Post 478781)
This was from July and flew under the radar, but it's totally relevant in the aftermath of the embassy attacks and the "voluntary questioning" of a person who made a film...:mad...

High Ranking DOJ Official Refuses to Affirm 1st Amendment Rights - YouTube

I got a crazy idea. How about we push freedom of religion more than freedom to hate religion?

foundit66 09-17-2012 10:14 PM

Re: High Ranking DOJ Official Refuses to Affirm 1st Amendment Rights
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by AzMike (Post 478969)
It's a video of the guy being asked a direct question in a hearing. How the f*ck do you think you can spin this?
"never entertain or advance a proposal that criminalizes speech against any religion?" Answer? Not so sure we would commit to that. How would you answer that question?

Was the guy allowed to actually answer?

What I saw was the a-hole chairman interrupting before Perez could get even a sentence out.
:yes

And as for my answer, I would want to qualify it considering how many people out there are already going to try to misrepresent my answer. :yes
Because even though we DO NOT have any such laws, I have REPEATEDLY seen people on this board pretend we do. :rolls
Additionally, I have seen people try to EXEMPT themselves from EXISTING laws which should apply to EITHER "religion" or "non-religious" cases, pretending that just because it's "religion" that automatically gives it special status.

What the question SHOULD have involved is this:
"never entertain or advance a proposal that criminalizes criticism against any religion?"
And my answer would be "yes. I would never entertain or advance such a proposal".

As to the question Perez actually got, I already explained a scenario where that SHOULD BE "no", but of course you don't want to address it. :rolls
"never" and "any" are too broad to just reference "speech".


Let's try a different tactic.
Wouldn't "criticism" be a better word to use here?
Do you disagree that the word "speech" is too broad? There are a variety of forms of currently illegal speech.

AzMike 09-18-2012 12:51 AM

Re: High Ranking DOJ Official Refuses to Affirm 1st Amendment Rights
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by foundit66 (Post 478995)
Was the guy allowed to actually answer?

What I saw was the a-hole chairman interrupting before Perez could get even a sentence out.
:yes

And as for my answer, I would want to qualify it considering how many people out there are already going to try to misrepresent my answer. :yes
Because even though we DO NOT have any such laws, I have REPEATEDLY seen people on this board pretend we do. :rolls
Additionally, I have seen people try to EXEMPT themselves from EXISTING laws which should apply to EITHER "religion" or "non-religious" cases, pretending that just because it's "religion" that automatically gives it special status.

What the question SHOULD have involved is this:
"never entertain or advance a proposal that criminalizes criticism against any religion?"
And my answer would be "yes. I would never entertain or advance such a proposal".

As to the question Perez actually got, I already explained a scenario where that SHOULD BE "no", but of course you don't want to address it. :rolls
"never" and "any" are too broad to just reference "speech".


Let's try a different tactic.
Wouldn't "criticism" be a better word to use here?
Do you disagree that the word "speech" is too broad? There are a variety of forms of currently illegal speech.

You shouldn't need a long answer to a yes or no question. That's pretty much how the Constitution works. Nice to see you want to work in some exceptions though. How obamaish of you.

foundit66 09-18-2012 01:04 AM

Re: High Ranking DOJ Official Refuses to Affirm 1st Amendment Rights
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by AzMike (Post 479045)
You shouldn't need a long answer to a yes or no question.

Most of us can understand complex thoughts. :thumbsup
Most of us can understand that it may be "yes" for some situations, and "no" for other situations.

WHY do you think the chairman was such a pansy about letting Perez finishing???
What was he afraid of?


Quote:

Originally Posted by AzMike (Post 479045)
That's pretty much how the Constitution works.

ROFLMAO!
You think so?
You are doing a poor job of avoiding everything I'm saying, but I'll keep trying.
Do you understand that there are forms of speech that are illegal?
Just because that form of speech could be aimed at a religion DOES NOT suddenly mean it should stop being illegal.


Quote:

Originally Posted by AzMike (Post 479045)
Nice to see you want to work in some exceptions though. How obamaish of you.

How boring to see you lack the moral fortitude to discuss what the actual exceptions are... :shrug

But hey. Maybe you can cower from some other tough questions...
As I pointed out, I would never entertain or advance a proposal that criminalizes criticism against any religion.

Can you elaborate on what you think the significant exception I am setting up with that?

AZRWinger 09-18-2012 10:04 AM

Re: High Ranking DOJ Official Refuses to Affirm 1st Amendment Rights
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by foundit66 (Post 478995)
Was the guy allowed to actually answer?

What I saw was the a-hole chairman interrupting before Perez could get even a sentence out.
:yes

And as for my answer, I would want to qualify it considering how many people out there are already going to try to misrepresent my answer. :yes
Because even though we DO NOT have any such laws, I have REPEATEDLY seen people on this board pretend we do. :rolls
Additionally, I have seen people try to EXEMPT themselves from EXISTING laws which should apply to EITHER "religion" or "non-religious" cases, pretending that just because it's "religion" that automatically gives it special status.

What the question SHOULD have involved is this:
"never entertain or advance a proposal that criminalizes criticism against any religion?"
And my answer would be "yes. I would never entertain or advance such a proposal".

As to the question Perez actually got, I already explained a scenario where that SHOULD BE "no", but of course you don't want to address it. :rolls
"never" and "any" are too broad to just reference "speech".


Let's try a different tactic.
Wouldn't "criticism" be a better word to use here?
Do you disagree that the word "speech" is too broad? There are a variety of forms of currently illegal speech.

The fact is religion does have special status per the First amendment. While the judiciary has sought to pervert the plain text into freedom from religion where the sensitivities of the atheists are paramount, the fact is that's not the Constitution.

foundit66 09-18-2012 11:36 AM

Re: High Ranking DOJ Official Refuses to Affirm 1st Amendment Rights
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by AZRWinger (Post 479114)
The fact is religion does have special status per the First amendment.

It does grant "special status".
But NOT to violate the law. :no

And actually, your comment is a thorough non-sequitur to the actual "question" on the table. :rolls


Quote:

Originally Posted by AZRWinger (Post 479114)
While the judiciary has sought to pervert the plain text into freedom from religion where the sensitivities of the atheists are paramount, the fact is that's not the Constitution.

Freedom of religion obviously includes being free from religion.
One cannot claim to have freedom of religion if the government enforces people to follow religious mandates. It's as simple as that.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:06 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.


Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0