Quote:
Originally Posted by Aramike
Let me take a crack at your questions, Steve:It's the same principle as not being able to shout "FIRE" in a movie theatre. There is a difference between saying that "the infidel is wrong" and saying that the "infidel must be destroyed". If your speech and reasonably be taken as that which is inciteful enough to possibly limit the speech of others, than it ALREADY is restricted. Such is why large assemblies need permits - those are a step in assuring that one group's speech don't infringe upon another's.
|
Good points. But it must be done carefully. I was a big fan of the 'deportation' argument in 1979. While certain people compared it to the incarceration of American citizens in 1942 based on national origin, in fact we didn't threaten to lock up Iranians who protested here at all - we merely offered them a free ticket home.
What you say is a good start.
Quote:
|
Not giving them the unrestricted ability to promulgate their anti-American propaganda within our borders is a start.
|
A good idea on the face of it, but I think we must tread very carefully when defining how that will be implemented.
Quote:
|
The same way communities stop Walmarts - withhold the building permits.
|
Again a good idea. The only problem I see is what happened in this case - the community decided to give the permits. Criticize their motives all we want, it was still their decision to make.