Political Wrinkles  

Go Back   Political Wrinkles > Political Forums > The President & the Executive Branch
Register FAQDonate PW Store PW Trivia Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

The President & the Executive Branch Discuss High Ranking DOJ Official Refuses to Affirm 1st Amendment Rights at the Political Forums; This was from July and flew under the radar, but it's totally relevant in the aftermath of the embassy attacks ...

Reply
 
Share LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 09-17-2012, 11:57 AM
cnredd's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Gender: Male
Posts: 54,965
Thanks: 2,211
Thanked 35,123 Times in 20,180 Posts
Default 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......


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.
__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to cnredd For This Useful Post:
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 09-17-2012, 12:15 PM
MrLiberty's Avatar
professional curmudgeon
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 30,506
Thanks: 21,953
Thanked 18,612 Times in 11,938 Posts
Default 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.
__________________
Sometimes by losing a battle you find a new way to win the war.

Donald Trump
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 09-17-2012, 04:49 PM
foundit66's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: California
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,613
Thanks: 10,111
Thanked 15,294 Times in 9,271 Posts
Post 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?

I tried googling part of the youtuber's comments and got nothing of merit. 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") ...

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 ...

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 ..."
__________________
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln

Last edited by foundit66; 09-17-2012 at 04:57 PM..
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to foundit66 For This Useful Post:
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 09-17-2012, 08:04 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Arizona
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,071
Thanks: 1,599
Thanked 3,068 Times in 2,073 Posts
Default Re: High Ranking DOJ Official Refuses to Affirm 1st Amendment Rights

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
Do we have anything concrete to back up the claims of the youtube poster?

I tried googling part of the youtuber's comments and got nothing of merit. 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") ...

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




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 ..."
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?
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 09-17-2012, 09:00 PM
saltwn's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Esto perpetua
Posts: 81,129
Thanks: 55,374
Thanked 26,240 Times in 18,773 Posts
Send a message via AIM to saltwn Send a message via MSN to saltwn Send a message via Yahoo to saltwn
Default Re: High Ranking DOJ Official Refuses to Affirm 1st Amendment Rights

Quote:
Originally Posted by cnredd View Post
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......

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?
__________________
Trump’s only true skill is the con...~Serwer|The Atlantic
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 09-17-2012, 09:14 PM
foundit66's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: California
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,613
Thanks: 10,111
Thanked 15,294 Times in 9,271 Posts
Post Re: High Ranking DOJ Official Refuses to Affirm 1st Amendment Rights

Quote:
Originally Posted by AzMike View Post
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.


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.
Because even though we DO NOT have any such laws, I have REPEATEDLY seen people on this board pretend we do.
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.
"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.
__________________
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln

Last edited by foundit66; 09-17-2012 at 09:19 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 09-17-2012, 11:51 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Arizona
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,071
Thanks: 1,599
Thanked 3,068 Times in 2,073 Posts
Default Re: High Ranking DOJ Official Refuses to Affirm 1st Amendment Rights

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
Was the guy allowed to actually answer?

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


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.
Because even though we DO NOT have any such laws, I have REPEATEDLY seen people on this board pretend we do.
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.
"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.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to AzMike For This Useful Post:
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 09-18-2012, 12:04 AM
foundit66's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: California
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,613
Thanks: 10,111
Thanked 15,294 Times in 9,271 Posts
Post Re: High Ranking DOJ Official Refuses to Affirm 1st Amendment Rights

Quote:
Originally Posted by AzMike View Post
You shouldn't need a long answer to a yes or no question.
Most of us can understand complex thoughts.
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 View Post
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 View Post
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...

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?
__________________
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 09-18-2012, 09:04 AM
Conservative Sage
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 17,698
Thanks: 11,038
Thanked 11,657 Times in 6,938 Posts
Send a message via ICQ to AZRWinger
Default Re: High Ranking DOJ Official Refuses to Affirm 1st Amendment Rights

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
Was the guy allowed to actually answer?

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


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.
Because even though we DO NOT have any such laws, I have REPEATEDLY seen people on this board pretend we do.
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.
"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.
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 09-18-2012, 10:36 AM
foundit66's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: California
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,613
Thanks: 10,111
Thanked 15,294 Times in 9,271 Posts
Default Re: High Ranking DOJ Official Refuses to Affirm 1st Amendment Rights

Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
The fact is religion does have special status per the First amendment.
It does grant "special status".
But NOT to violate the law.

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


Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
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.
__________________
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to foundit66 For This Useful Post:
Reply

Tags
1st, affirm, amendment, doj, high, official, ranking, refuses, rights

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:38 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0