A Call to Any Tennessee Readers: Attend the Meeting on How the Feds Might Prosecute Those Who Post “Inflammatory Documents” About Muslims
If any Patterico readers are in Tennessee near Manchester — or even extreme northern Alabama or northwestern Georgia — you might consider covering the federal government’s latest attack on free speech.
From the Tullahoma News (Via Instapundit and Judicial Watch):
A special meeting has been scheduled for the stated purpose of increasing awareness and understanding that American Muslims are not the terrorists some have made them out to be in social media and other circles.
“Public Disclosure in a Diverse Society” will be held from 6:30 to 8:30 p.m. on Tuesday, June 4, at the Manchester-Coffee County Conference Center, 147 Hospitality Blvd.
Special speakers for the event will be Bill Killian, U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Tennessee, and Kenneth Moore, special agent in charge of the FBI’s Knoxville Division.
Sponsor of the event is the American Muslim Advisory Council of Tennessee — a 15-member board formed two years ago when the General Assembly was considering passing legislation that would restrict those who worship Sharia Law, which is followed by Muslims.
Killian and Moore will provide input on how civil rights can be violated by those who post inflammatory documents targeted at Muslims on social media.
Posting inflammatory documents can violate federal law? Federal criminal law?! Do tell! I’d like to hear more!!
“This is an educational effort with civil rights laws as they play into freedom of religion and exercising freedom of religion,” Killian told The News Monday. “This is also to inform the public what federal laws are in effect and what the consequences are.” . . .
. . . .
Killian said Internet postings that violate civil rights are subject to federal jurisdiction.
“That’s what everybody needs to understand,” he said.
Killian said slide show presentations will be made.
Matt Welch of Reason.com says:
I sincerely hope they make that Power Point public, since I’m unaware of any federal civil rights prosecutions for “inflammatory” Facebook postings, and want to keep up to speed with the Obama administration’s increasingly brazen encroachment on free expression.
I don’t think we can count on sitting back and waiting for the Obama administration to make such things public. We have to take the initiative and do a little citizen journalism.
And so . . .
Here is the Google Maps location for the Manchester-Coffee County Conference Center in Manchester, Tennessee.
I’m writing Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit to see if he might be going, but it’s almost a three-hour drive from his university, so that might be difficult. My message to Prof. Reynolds: if he goes, I will personally deposit $100 in his PayPal account and encourage my readers to do the same (not that the money likely matters much to him, but I think it’s important to demonstrate support for such projects).
We may not be able to get Prof. Reynolds to go (though I hope we can), but we should get someone to go. If any of you is closer, make the trip. I can’t advise you as to whether recording it would be legal, but maybe someone else would know. In any event, I believe any first-hand account of this meeting would be interesting and would get wide coverage, given the interest this story has generated.
Let me know in comments or by email if you think you might make the trip.
UPDATE: Thanks very much to Instapundit for the link. (New readers please bookmark the main page, and follow me on Twitter and Facebook.)
Unfortunately, Prof. Reynolds will not be able to go. So it’s up to you, the readers.
UPDATE x2: Bill Hobbs says he is going, and will record it:
@patterico @iowahawkblog @aceofspadeshq I’m going, armed with camera & vid cam. I have experience in journalism & politics. Should be fun.
— Bill Hobbs (@billhobbs) June 1, 2013
He says he will post the video on YouTube.
I encouraged him to give the law enforcement officials a couple of examples of inflammatory speech by Muslim clerics, and ask if those statements are governed by federal law. That would make some good video!
UPDATE x3: Milton Stanley says: “My wife & I will be there. I’m a regular reader of Instapundit, and I’m a reporter for the Manchester Times. The meeting is not my beat, so I won’t be covering it for the paper, but I will be there taking notes and possibly making a recording.”
I have offered Mr. Stanley a guest spot here to post his coverage if he likes. I don’t know if his employer would allow him to publish a guest post on a blog, but if they do, he is welcome to at patterico.com.
Maybe it would be legal to record this bizarre meeting if the person doing the recording claimed to be Muslim?
Simon Jester (0c9990) — 6/1/2013 @ 2:37 pmIslamophobes
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/1/2013 @ 2:37 pmRacists
Patterico (9c670f) — 6/1/2013 @ 2:41 pmU.S. attorneys are kinda on the fascist side, huh?
My feeling is that this is probably because they work for a deeply fascist and corrupt organization.
Follow the money trail!
All of these piggy piggy fascist “U.S. attorneys” work directly for the deeply fascist and corrupt “Department of Justice,” which is run by a shadowy pig named “Eric Holder.”
And who appointed this “Eric Holder?” A fascist pig named Barack Obama is who!
Google it!
happyfeet (c60db2) — 6/1/2013 @ 2:49 pmSounds like fun! I might have to make the drive. As for recording, it’s a public meeting of public officials speaking on public property trying to raise awareness.
How could recording not be legal?
Richard D Hailey (3fb892) — 6/1/2013 @ 3:01 pmRichard D Hailey,
I don’t know — but if a recording might embarrass the Obama administration, you can bet they will scour the lawbooks for any basis on which to prosecute.
Patterico (9c670f) — 6/1/2013 @ 3:05 pmRecording it will be declared “intimidation”.
Rob Crawford (49918b) — 6/1/2013 @ 3:06 pmI still remember when the government said this about Christians and stopped funding and enabling Christian bashing and… oh wait, they never did that.
Well, OK, that time the Government stopped those Jew-Hater Nazi wannabes from marching through Skokie, a town full of Holocaust survivors and… oh wait, yeah. the Feds never did that either.
The First Amendment was not written only to cover speech one likes. Given the history of the Gov’t on this issue, this is kind of fascinating.
Jersey Dave (0d1abd) — 6/1/2013 @ 3:11 pmPerhaps they will categorize it as “deep background “
Tiny Elvis (1ef2eb) — 6/1/2013 @ 3:16 pmIf it’s a public meeting, it can be recorded.
Manchester is flat in the middle of Tenn. But close to Nashville if you’re into that sort of thing.
SarahW (b0e533) — 6/1/2013 @ 3:19 pmDoes anyone know, or know how to find out, if this presentation is going to be given around the country? Manchester TN is a six hour drive, not sure I can make it but want to know WTF they think they are doing
Margaret (012f30) — 6/1/2013 @ 3:25 pmThe federal rule is that it only requires the consent of one person present and that can be the one doing the recording.
nk (875f57) — 6/1/2013 @ 3:26 pmHere is the interesting bit about the sponsoring body;
http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm/frm/115327/
narciso (3fec35) — 6/1/2013 @ 3:39 pmMuslims are kept in line by enforcers already. That’s why Islam hasn’t had a reformation yet.
I don’t think we need to add federal enforcers.
rhhardin (bbe60e) — 6/1/2013 @ 4:05 pmI intend to go, with camera and video camera.
Bill Hobbs (721882) — 6/1/2013 @ 4:10 pmMaybe Willie the Racist Hilljack Yelverton will be there.
JD (b63a52) — 6/1/2013 @ 4:12 pmBill Killian undoubtedly is one of those contemptible liberals who is ideologically not too different from the US ambassador, Christopher Stevens, killed in Benghazi. I wish we could airlift such people and fly them to — and force them to live in — the middle of Sharia-law land, such as Egypt, now under the gentle hand of the Muslim Brotherhood. Wonderful, compassionate, all-embracing people of the left (who’ve had beautiful influence on the US military too—hello, Nidal Hasan!) deserve no less than that honor and privilege.
Mark (aa8ab9) — 6/1/2013 @ 4:28 pmAnother example of the Left’s one-way street notions of tolerance and civil rights.
Dare to comment on decades of day-in-day-out murder and mayhem committed in the name of a certain religion and you’re suddenly a civil rights violator. We just saw this convoluted application of justice in the UK, where new media commenters were harrassed by authorities after a soldier was butchered by an avowed Islamist in broad daylight.
Blow up the finish line of the Boston Marathon along with several innocent bystanders and we get endless handwringing about the alienation and exclusion experienced by six-figure welfare cheats, followed by official dissembling about their cicle of ‘interesting’ friends, one of whom turns up dead during FBI questioning.
Screech ‘Alahu Akbar’ before wasting a dozen fellow soldiers and you get official reports about stress-induced workplace violence and ofr the the trigger puller, uninterrupted pay, three hots, a cot and a lawyer, followed by disclosures of the accused jihadist activism.
Notice the symmetry in the Left’s assaults on the 1st and 2nd ammendments. Notice also the asymmetry in how the Left reserves dispensation of these rights for itself. Approved victim and grievance groups are forever excused from responsibility or consequences, while approved ‘oppressor’ groups carry the ‘contrived’ stain of original sin.
vinny vidivici (e921a2) — 6/1/2013 @ 4:29 pmI will go, should I bring a camera and a recorder to document this travesty – I’m about 6hrs away
E.PWJ (1ea63e) — 6/1/2013 @ 4:39 pmWell,if some unclean,midieval,3rd world barbarian wants to bow down to a meteorite in the Arabian desert by sticking his @$$ in the air like a punk so he can honor an illiterate,mass murdering pedophile who claimed to the the “messenger” of some obscure Arabian moon “god”,then he has every right to do so..who am I to judge?..personally,I use a page from the koran every time I have to take a mohammed…it’s just so much softer than Charmin…it’s not MY fault that mohammed’s momma rode shotgun on the garbage wagon in Medina,wore kosher Jewish panties,and sucked off camels
Robbins Mitchell (4f35fd) — 6/1/2013 @ 4:48 pmAnd hellooo neal
E.PWJ (1ea63e) — 6/1/2013 @ 4:54 pmThis story is remarkable and not in a good way;
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2334476/Woolwich-murder-MI6-connection-Younger-brother-Michael-Adebolajo-paid-thousands-spy-Middle-East.html
narciso (3fec35) — 6/1/2013 @ 5:13 pmI wonder if there will be any part of the presentation that covers the disparaging of Jews, Catholics, or even that play on Broadway that makes fun of Mormons.
I’m guessing not.
Elephant Stone (8d2c6e) — 6/1/2013 @ 5:19 pmHow about the local cable channel offer to tape the event on behalf of the muslim community “outreach”?
liz953 (0a002a) — 6/1/2013 @ 5:31 pmP.S. Protecting civil rights, eh? We get endless assaults on our 2nd amendment rights by nanny-state control freaks like Bloomberg and legislatures in places like Colorado and New Jersey (surprise!). These go un-challenged by our ‘justice’ department. Same with rampant voter fraud in 105%+ democrat-voting progressive-controlled and enslaved districts in the nation’s progressive mis-managed inner cities.
Again, on-way street. Sooner we call it out for what it’s been and what it is, the better.
No trust. No benefit of doubt.
vinny vidivici (e921a2) — 6/1/2013 @ 5:37 pmComing to you soon as a “civil rights violation”
http://www.examiner.com/article/welsh-police-order-shopkeeper-to-remove-obey-our-laws-shirt-or-face-arrest
SarahW (b0e533) — 6/1/2013 @ 5:44 pmThis is a quarter mile from where my grandparents live. If I were not in Arizona I’d pay them a visit and deliver a much needed lesson in 1st amendment jurisprudence.
Lee Reynolds (5b9229) — 6/1/2013 @ 5:47 pmMy wife & I will be there. I’m a regular reader of Instapundit, and I’m a reporter for the Manchester Times. The meeting is not my beat, so I won’t be covering it for the paper, but I will be there taking notes and possibly making a recording.
Milton Stanley (ff0ccf) — 6/1/2013 @ 6:41 pmHey it’s only a 45 minute drive from Murfreesboro. Is truth still a defence against defamation/hate speech charges. Can I still get away with saying that Islam is a religion started by a Mass-murdering, pedophile, rapist, thieving slave trader who diddled his daughter-in-law? They are all documented by the Koran and Hadith so a Muslim can’t deny that without blaspheming.
Nick Temple (661642) — 6/1/2013 @ 7:24 pm““This is an educational effort with civil rights laws as they play into freedom of religion and exercising freedom of religion,” Killian told The News Monday.”
I wonder whether Killian has visited Dearbornistan in the past decade.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/1/2013 @ 7:38 pmMilton,
If you can write it up you can have a guest spot here.
Patterico (9c670f) — 6/1/2013 @ 7:39 pmThe Feds’ position is inflammatory to me.
PacRim Jim (66ecaa) — 6/1/2013 @ 9:37 pmHow do I prosecute them?
Would this be considered too inflammatory;
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4951618/Brit-Muslim-convert-tells-police-of-Prince-Harry-kill-plot.html#ixzz2V222yY7B
narciso (3fec35) — 6/1/2013 @ 10:11 pmSo let me get this straight, according to Nick, Islam is a religion that was started by a Mass-murdering, pedophile, rapist, thieving slave trader who had sex with his daughter-in-law. And since all the the above statements are documented by the Koran and Hadith, a Muslim can’t deny those statements without blaspheming.
However, according to Bill Killian a U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Tennessee I could be breaking federal law by making those statements, because those statements taken from the Koran might be considered an inflammatory or hateful post on social media.
I wonder what Walter Martin, a Baptist Minister and writer of The Kingdom of the Cults that stated Islam is a cult would say if he were still alive? Would Bill Killian have Walter Martin arrested for writing a book that could be considered “inflammatory or hateful” to Islam and other religions?
Is that a correct interpretation?
Tanny O'Haley (f5fbfe) — 6/1/2013 @ 10:38 pmAll of you are potential flight risks, and your phone records are being searched.
Icy (e73d78) — 6/1/2013 @ 10:55 pmI wonder what Bill Killian would think of Steven Crowder’s Jesus vs Muhammad video? After all it seems to have incited a lot of “inflammatory and hateful” speech including death threats. Oops, he’d probably do nothing. The death threats and “inflammatory and hateful” speech come from Muslims.
Tanny O'Haley (f5fbfe) — 6/1/2013 @ 10:58 pmThe TSA was actually pretty nice to me when I flew across the country to go to my oldest son’s wedding. When they saw my hand shaking and asked me if I could lift my arm and I told them no, I was just sent through the metal detector. My blond very caucasian wife and step-son had to go through the full body scanner as did 9 out of 10 passengers.
However, after sitting in a broken seat with something hard pushing against my tail bone for 5 and a half hours on an over booked flight from AirTran (now owned by Southwest) I would have welcomed being on a no flight list. The flight back was Wednesday and I’m still hurting. My doctor tells me I’ll be in pain for a couple of weeks and Southwest doesn’t seem to want to help me.
Tanny O'Haley (f5fbfe) — 6/1/2013 @ 11:11 pmThe last person who tried this stunt was Deval Patrick, and we all know where he is now. Soon to be Attorney General? And then the Great Black Hope in the 2016 D primary?
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 6/1/2013 @ 11:17 pmi’ll make an effort to attend.
Free speech is under attack from those that consider condemnation conditional on religious perspective.
Malign christians…no problem, they rarely kill others for percieved offense.
Malign muslims…
Free speech is our god given right regardless the subject.
Fuck those that consider themselves above this understanding.
Pieter Nosworthy (6dbcc2) — 6/1/2013 @ 11:20 pmSee David Bernstein’s book You Can’t Say That! for details about which laws they’re talking about, and how they’ve been enforced (or not) in the past.
Basically, if they were to charge someone under these laws, it would be unlikely to survive the first encounter with a judge, and they know this so most of the time they won’t bother. Sometimes, though, they decide to go after someone anyway, just to harass them. Then they become a highly popular state governor and a rising star in the D Party.
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 6/1/2013 @ 11:23 pmWell, with a shirt like that he should obey the law. And if this encounter has soured him on the law, then he should reconsider the wording on the shirt.
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 6/1/2013 @ 11:29 pmTruth is still a defense against defamation suits. There is no such thing as “hate speech charges”, so there’s no need for a defense.
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 6/1/2013 @ 11:31 pmPoor grammar earlier.
Chrisitanity and Islam, not christians and muslims.
Adherents of one feel entitled to kill those that disparage their belief.
Fuck them, fight back.
Pieter Nosworthy (6dbcc2) — 6/1/2013 @ 11:31 pmNo, Killian hasn’t said that. Or even implied it. When criticising him, be careful to stick to what he’s actually said, which is bad enough, not what your imagination has attributed to him.
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 6/1/2013 @ 11:33 pmSorry, I took it from a Blaze headline.
Tanny O'Haley (f5fbfe) — 6/1/2013 @ 11:42 pmhttp://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/06/01/u-s-attorney-anti-muslim-speech-could-be-a-civil-rights-violation/
And
http://www.tullahomanews.com/?p=15360
How do they define “inflammatory documents”? It’s the government and I don’t trust them.
Tanny O'Haley (f5fbfe) — 6/1/2013 @ 11:50 pmDoesn’t matter. The point is that he did not say or imply that what you wrote could be illegal. He did not say or imply that every post on social media that might be considered inflammatory or hateful is or might be illegal.
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 6/2/2013 @ 12:04 amNow of course “true threats” are not protected by the constitution, and are illegal. But that has no connection to civil rights legislation; true threats are illegal, at least under state law, no matter whom they’re directed at. And the standard for “true threats” is very restrictive. “Someone ought to kill you” is not a threat. Nor is “I wish someone killed you”, or “I hope someone kills you”, or “I would kill you if I thought I could get away with it”, or “One day someone is going to kill you”. Even “One day you’re going to say something that sets me off and I’ll kill you” is not enough to be a “true threat”.
“If they ever make me carry a rifle the first man I want to get in my sights is L.B.J.” is not a true threat, and is protected speech.
So is “”We’re not a revengent organization, but if our President, our Congress, our Supreme Court, continues to suppress the white, Caucasian race, it’s possible that there might have to be some revengeance taken.”
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 6/2/2013 @ 12:14 amIt’s terrible to see the government finally acting on the truest and deepest meaning of civil rights: tyranny. Once a polity accepts the notion of civil rights—that the government can compel its subjects to reject their religion in word, thought and deed (by labeling its phobic); that a government can order its subjects to be silent so that the new nobility (of protected classes) won’t hear any upsetting notions–then then civil rights prosecutions are inevitable.
ErisGuy (76f8a7) — 6/2/2013 @ 4:15 amthe only problem is in communication:
the 1st Amendment guarantees your right to BE offended and to also offend, as you will.
the problem is that most people forget the first part, which is ironic.
redc1c4 (403dff) — 6/2/2013 @ 4:24 amWhat about what they say about the USA!! I suppose that’s love speach huh!
Billie (3acf6c) — 6/2/2013 @ 5:38 amBill Hobbs is the perfect person to attend. He’s an excellent journalist.
stan (741f03) — 6/2/2013 @ 6:44 amBack in 1800, S. T. Coleridge, who wrote op-eds for a decade, wrote of Islam
“A new religion had fanaticised whole nations. Men bred up in the habits of a wild and roaming freedom, had been brought together by its influence, and taught to unite the energies of a savage life with all the harmony and calculable coincidencies of a machine. But this religion was deadly to morals, to science, to civil freedom : no society could be progressive under its influence. It was favourable to superstition, cunning, and sensual indulgence; but it bore no fruit, it yielded no marriageable arms to the vine, it sheltered no healing plant. The soil was grassless where it grew ; the fox made its nest at the root, and the owl screamed in its branches – Such was the religion of Mahomet.”
(The Morning Post, Apr. 16, 1800)
That’s in a book (Essays on His Times, Princeton U Press), and today seems to make the point that Islam is essentially tribalism efficiently expanded.
Surely the medium won’t matter. The book has to go if social media have to go.
rhhardin (bbe60e) — 6/2/2013 @ 6:58 amIs this Samuel Taylor Coleridge, the opium addict?
nk (875f57) — 6/2/2013 @ 7:01 amIn Canada and most colleges you are no longer allowed to offend. Canada has hate speech laws and colleges have hate speech codes. Both with courts that presume you are guilty. They don’t have to prove you’re guilty, you have to prove you’re innocent. Quoting the Bible about homosexuality can get you in trouble in both places.
Already in some places in the US you can be fined and/or loose your business license if your Christian faith tells you not to photograph or bake cakes for homosexual “wedding” ceremonies. If your Christian faith tells you abortion is murder, the HHS will require you to provide abortions to your employees and give you no choice. When someone asked me what I was going to do after work and I said that I was going to support Chick-Fil-le, I received bad marks on my work review. My work was great, reliable and very fast, but my simple statement without mentioning homosexuality got me a warning because “everybody” was offended by my one sentence. Someone in Congress wants the Redskins to change their name because they deem it offensive.
Democrats have tried to create a hate crimes category. Colleges have created rules against hate speech and the workplace can be oppressive to Christians where work ethic doesn’t count, you are deemed a hater and offensive just because you’re a Christian. I’ve kept quiet so I wouldn’t be persecuted at work while I’ve seen it happen to others. I’ve never received less than an exceeds expectations on my work reviews until I mentioned chick-fi-le which caused me to have a poor review, not because of my work, but because of one sentence I said.
Yes I have a right to be offended and offend, but it may cause me to loose my job or business which effectively shuts me up. Just look at what happened to prop 8 supporters in California.
https://patterico.com/2008/11/18/mob-anger-and-violence-by-proposition-8-opponents/
Real laws like laws against politics within 100 feet of a polling place were not enforced or destruction of property were not enforced because those people were offensive. Or those colleges students who were attacked in the San Francisco area for talking about Christianity. The victims were not protected because of their speech and told to not go in that area because their speech was offensive.
The far left offends me with their offensive speech codes and offensive treatment of those who disagree with them.
Tanny O'Haley (f5fbfe) — 6/2/2013 @ 7:43 amThe day they try to establish this law…..is they day they become legitimate targets.
trump (36f767) — 6/2/2013 @ 8:01 amthe whimsical and capricious reasonings produced by the pervert Roberts court invite and embolden this sort of fascist frontal assault on constitutional rights
happyfeet (8ce051) — 6/2/2013 @ 8:05 amI’m chartering a C130 carrying a load of Smithfield Chinese pork chops to drop on the event.
Thomas_Aquinas (ff1939) — 6/2/2013 @ 8:10 amI’m sure the attendees will enjoy the taste of perfectly grilled pork fat.
I know I do.
null
Does that mean they are currently targets, just not legitimate ones?
Thomas_Aquinas (ff1939) — 6/2/2013 @ 8:12 amThere were rumors I thought were kooky that Roberts was blackmailed. Now I don’t necessarily think it’s the kookiest notion. They will use what they have and get what they want; if his adoption was wonky in any of the particulars OF COURSE they would go after him. He could never admit it or he would be ruined.
So I’m not enjoying the new paranoia. Thanks Obama.
SarahW (b0e533) — 6/2/2013 @ 8:32 amSo when will we find out what happened at this meeting and exactly how they define “inflammatory documents”? Is there video? Any recording at all?
Tanny O'Haley (f5fbfe) — 6/2/2013 @ 9:05 amWhen someone asked me what I was going to do after work and I said that I was going to support Chick-Fil-le, I received bad marks on my work review.
It would be interesting to see the background and characteristics of the person who graded you.
I’ve become increasingly disgusted by people of the left, starting several years ago. That’s when I began coming across studies and surveys (which I’ve been able to peruse only because of the ease and convenience of the internet) that revealed the traits and behavior of liberals can easily be just the opposite of what they fancy about themselves and liberalism overall.
My learning a few weeks ago (from an article in the LA Times) that one of the icons of the left and Democrat Party, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, apparently was as racist/bigoted as his vice president, Harry Truman, was (who, btw, was a big champion of the idea of publicly funded, socialized healthcare over 50 years ago, and who used the word “conservative” pejoratively on the campaign trail in the 1940s) still took me by surprise. IOW, I originally found myself giving a liberal more benefit of the doubt than he deserved.
As for another icon of the Democrat Party, several decades after the death of FDR, and currently headlining the drudgereport:
Mark (aa8ab9) — 6/2/2013 @ 9:15 amnk #52 …
I thought ‘guilt by association’ wasn’t an American value ?
Regardless of his (presuming ‘he’) preferences in recreational activities, is it not more important whether the *substance* of what he wrote (in the quote in #51) is valid or not ?
When (if?) Pres’ent Obama actually does something Presidential, he should get the credit for having done so – whether or not a given individual respects him …
Similarly, Islam should get the credit for the kind of religion is is, based upon the actions of its followers …
A good deed done in an evil name remains a good deed …
An evil deed done in a good name remains an evil deed …
The association with the name doesn’t change the nature of the deed …
And we forget that at our peril …
Alasdair (2e7f9f) — 6/2/2013 @ 10:59 amWas this a private business, and the person giving this warning the owner? If so, they’re entitled to do this, and their right to do so is protected by the very 1st amendment you’re championing. If it was a private business but this person was not the owner and not acting on the owner’s instructions, then I’d complain to the owner. If it was a public entity, then they had no right to do this and in your place I would have challenged it.
They can want. There’s no law against wanting. Just because you’re in Congress doesn’t mean you lose your right to ask people to do things — nor does it mean they lose their right to say no.
Not just Democrats, and they haven’t just tried. Many states have such laws, and they’re generally passed with bipartisan support. But what’s your objection to them? Are you under the impression, somehow, that they make hatred a crime?!
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 6/2/2013 @ 11:20 amSay what?!
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 6/2/2013 @ 11:20 amIn all cases the examples I gave were of private companies. In the case of the only bad review I’ve ever received in my life it was from a principle of a small company. The other companies where I saw animosity against Christians were Bank of America and Countrywide where one of my reviews was above exceeds expectations. There I saved them over 35 million and made them more than that because of the many pieces of software I created which enabled workers, contractors, and other programmers to do their jobs. One of my bosses at Countrywide said he almost didn’t hire me because I was a Christian and he didnt think they were very smart. He was the executive VP who gave me the above exceeds expectations rating which had to be approved by the CTO and as far as smart I may not be wise but I have a 172 IQ.
I believe that hate crime legislation leads to hate speach legislation which has already happened on many college campuses and in Canada where according to Mark Steyn they have guarantees for free speech. They still created hate speech legislation where a pastor was convicted of hate speech for quoting the Bible in a newspaper ad. My problem with hate speech legislation supposedly designed to prevent someone from being offended is who determines what is hate speech? In Canada Muslims get a free pass for saying Jews are scum and should be murdered, while people who say anything against Islam are punished unless you have big money to defend yourself. Also the truth isn’t a defense if you’ve offended some group as they’ve found out in Canada.
Why is murder because of hate different from other murder. Isn’t all first degree murder bad? Should one person get a higher sentence because of what they thought while murdering? I think we should go back to the death penalty for all first degree murder and start executions in a timely manor. About 40 executions a year has been proven to decrease the murder rate by about 2,200 a year. Then we don’t need hate crimes legislation.
Tanny O'Haley (f5fbfe) — 6/2/2013 @ 2:00 pmCanada has no guarantees of anything; like Europe, they have aspirations to “rights”, which must be balanced against other aspirations, so in the end it’s all meaningless. The USA has a first amendment, which is an actual guarantee of actual rights, and an entrenched line of precedent that it means what it says. Free speech is safe here.
Hate crime laws don’t really exist for things like first degree murder, where you’re going to get the book thrown at you no matter what. They exist for what would otherwise be petty crimes. Spray painting a swastika in a Jewish neighbourhood, or KKK in a black one, in order to frighten the inhabitants, is different from spray painting your initials because you’re a bored juvenile delinquent. The penalty for tagging should be to clean up the damage and apologise. The penalty for vandalism intended to terrorise an entire community should be much more than that. (See Clarence Thomas’s opinion about cross-burning.)
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 6/2/2013 @ 2:28 pmFree speech is safe here.
Six words.
AP, James Rosen, DOJ-Eric Holder.
peedoffamerican (c1890a) — 6/2/2013 @ 2:44 pmSix more words.
IRS-Tea Party-Romney contributors-AUDITS
peedoffamerican (c1890a) — 6/2/2013 @ 2:51 pmSix more words.
Free speech is safe here.-NOT
peedoffamerican (c1890a) — 6/2/2013 @ 2:53 pmI don’t give a damn about the AP thing; there is no constitutional issue. The Supreme Court ruled decades ago that the fourth amendment does not protect pen registers, so they’re not even claiming that was violated. Instead the outrage is over a special privilege the first amendment supposedly gives journalists, and that’s a load of bull. The only thing about the AP “scandal” is that it shows 0bama and Holder to be hypocrites; it’s good political ammunition against them, and should be used to the full, but there’s no real impact on the freedom of speech.
Ditto for Rosen. The first amendment gives him no more protection than it does you or me, and we are not protected from search warrants if there’s probable cause to believe that we hold evidence of a crime. The issue with Rosen is Holder’s possible perjury; on the face of it he seems to have lied either to Congress or to a judge, and my bet is the latter. (Though Orin Kerr has a point when he says that all Holder told the judge was that he had reason to believe he had committed a felony, not that he intended to prosecute him for it. That way both statements could be true.)
DOJ and Holder is a mess of scandals, but I don’t see any threat to free speech that will survive contact with a judge.
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 6/2/2013 @ 4:46 pmbut I don’t see any threat to free speech that will survive contact with a judge.
Comment by Milhouse (3d0df0) — 6/2/2013 @ 4:46 pm
Well then you are a f@cking fool with blinders on, because it did survive contact with a third judge!
peedoffamerican (35b482) — 6/2/2013 @ 5:16 pmOne of my bosses at Countrywide said he almost didn’t hire me because I was a Christian and he didnt think they were very smart.
Hardly surprising based on the mindset that allowed Countrywide to flourish a few years ago, per below.
If I were screening job applications for a task that required confidence in knowing a potential employee would handle money in an honest way, I’d be much more hesitant about hiring a person who espoused a secular-liberal way of thinking and life. Yea, there are dishonest people of all stripes and persuasions, but I have a hunch that a person in the “embezzler” category also will be more likely to be found amongst those in the category of “supporter of leftist values and liberal politicians.”
Mark (aa8ab9) — 6/2/2013 @ 5:55 pmMark,
The VIP program was also used by any Countrywide employee with a title of vice president or above. The rest of us got the “B” group. It took them so long to process my loan that I finally went with a broker who gave me a home loan at a lower rate than Countrywide was offering and more quickly. One coworker almost didn’t get to buy his house because time was running out on the offer period. He also went with a different lender. Regular borrowers did not have to go through the “B” group which I think may have been staffed by incompetent relatives of employees higher up the food chain than I, though that is supposition on my part and not based on facts but perceived performance.
My boss tried to use the “B” team to show upper management how bad it was. Lucky for him he didn’t have to worry about time. My boss was a good man and genuinely concerned about his employee’s welfare. He was a good man who was treated unfairly in the end by management who decided to listen to a liar who was eventually found out and let go four years later.
Tanny O'Haley (f5fbfe) — 6/2/2013 @ 6:25 pmI agree Milhouse, it’s perfectly ok to Judge shop with the claim that a FOX REPORTER maybe a FELON in violation with the 1918 espionage act, and also a FLIGHT RISK. And I think it’s ok to use that bullshit to spy on his parents.
Gus (694db4) — 6/2/2013 @ 6:40 pmYou’re a clown.
More CLOWN TALK from Milhouse.
“”Was this a private business, and the person giving this warning the owner? If so, they’re entitled to do this, and their right to do so is protected by the very 1st amendment you’re championing””
What happens when an Employee says. Allahu Akbar, and he gets a bad review because of it?
Milhouse, do yourself a wee favor. Look up the definition of “entitled”. Honk honk clown boy.
Gus (694db4) — 6/2/2013 @ 6:42 pmWhat did?
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 6/2/2013 @ 7:17 pmWhere did I suggest any such thing? But what on earth has it got to do with free speech? Surely you’re not suggesting that the constitution gives journalists some sort of special privilege above ordinary people?
It’s illegal to discriminate in employment on the basis of religion; it’s perfectly legal to do so on the base of political opinion.
Why don’t you do that, halfwit?
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 6/2/2013 @ 7:22 pmSheesh, the Dim is strong in Gus.
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 6/2/2013 @ 7:23 pmCarl Boyd Jr. http://www.nbttr.com/about_CBJr.html
Nick Temple (661642) — 6/2/2013 @ 8:29 pmSaid on his Sunday Radio show Noting But The Truth on WTN99.7 that he would be at the meeting. It could get crowded.
But that’s exactly what they did. They didn’t give me a bad review because of a political opinion, but because of my sincerely held religious belief. Plus they assumed I had a position that I don’t have and never articulated. I asked the reviewer to tell me exactly when I said what the reviewer said I said and the reviewer could not come up with a single instance. They just assumed I said what they thought a Christian would say because they have a far left wing projection of what a Christian would say that is far from reality. Their view of a Christian is based on Hollywood’s bad caricature of a Christian.
Tanny O'Haley (f5fbfe) — 6/2/2013 @ 9:03 pmI thought it was because you said you were supporting Chick-Fil-A at the time when they were having hysterics about it. That’s a political opinion, no matter what your reason for holding it. Personally I supported Chick-Fil-A only because they were being bullied; religion had nothing to do with it.
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 6/2/2013 @ 9:12 pmI supported Chick-Fil-A because of my religious beliefs, because I agreed with the CEO’s statement in a Baptist magazine that he and his staff have Biblical traditional families which is a sincerely held religious belief for me not a political belief.
Tanny O'Haley (f5fbfe) — 6/2/2013 @ 9:29 pmNow, saying I was going to a TEA Party rally because I believe in lower taxes is a political opinion. Taking a stand on biblically based families is a religious belief.
Tanny O'Haley (f5fbfe) — 6/2/2013 @ 9:33 pmMilhouse, I’m feeling a little animosity from you. Have I done something to insult you?
Tanny O'Haley (f5fbfe) — 6/2/2013 @ 9:36 pmI like fat chickens.
nk (875f57) — 6/2/2013 @ 9:37 pmNo, not at all. There is no animosity on my end. Not to you, that is. Gus is another story.
Why you take a stand isn’t really relevant. Any political stand may be motivated by religion, but that doesn’t give it legal protection from discrimination. It has to be so, or we’d have the absurd situation that one person’s support for lower (or higher) taxes is motivated by religion, and therefore protected, while another’s is motivated by something else and therefore unprotected! For that matter, how do you know that they knew about the religious motivation for your position, and that’s why they punished you? Maybe they thought it was motivated by something else, such as bigotry.
No, what matters is the stand itself, not why you take it. Support for or opposition to Chick-Fil-A, or higher/lower taxes, is a political position, and a private employer may discriminate against you for it, regardless of your reason for holding it.
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 6/2/2013 @ 9:47 pmReally? ISTR that Bush was declared guilty of “lynching” because Texas didn’t have a hate crime statute to tack onto the death sentences they imposed on a couple of people who really did commit a lynching.
Rob Crawford (e6f27f) — 6/3/2013 @ 9:43 amIt looks like every 99.7 WTN host is advertizing the time and date for this meeting.
Nick Temple (89bb7a) — 6/3/2013 @ 10:25 amThis is a 100,000 watt talk radio station. Once again, there could be a little bit of a crowd.
Gellar’s AFDI is going to be there
http://beforeitsnews.com/opinion-conservative/2013/06/afdi-to-protest-justice-departments-attempt-to-criminalize-criticism-of-islam-2656114.html
E.PWJ (6140f6) — 6/3/2013 @ 1:22 pmWhat is being over-looked is that threats are being made by all faiths. The Christians being the worst, followed by Muslim, Hindu and Atheists. On a Self to be condition of life, the act of calling I am (Self to be)”washed in the blood”, “broken-hearted”, “torn all to pieces”, “blown away” and many more, are all acts of terrorism. It is your words describing I am that are doing the most harm whether said by Christian, Muslim, Hindu or whatever. It is not even being addressed here in the matter of accepting Muslims or Christians anywhere. A Christian saying “I am washed in the blood of Jesus”, will create bloodshed not only to Christians but Muslims as well. I should not have to say that it is your word which creates life, you all should know that. Man cannot live by bread alone but by every word you speak. I am a man (Don Hardy) introducing myself I will say, I am Don Hardy. Who is Don Hardy? I am. I am that I am. You jeopardize my well-being when you describe I am as “tickled to death”! These are the words that caused Jesus Christ to be hung on a cross and it was someone as I am who is responsible. Even gurus in India will tell you that silence is the great healer. Where was Ramana Maharaji when Gandhi needed support to bring Muslim and Hindu to a peaceful existance? He was silent!
Donald R. Hardy (ea6231) — 6/3/2013 @ 4:07 pmI had a pear and endive salad for lunch, Donald. Is there some deeper meaning there I should know about?
elissa (090ff1) — 6/3/2013 @ 5:12 pmIt is without karmic consequence, elissa, as the Fourth Veda of the Rutabaga explains, since no vegan can be made to be reincarnated as a fruit or vegetable.
Mahankatman (875f57) — 6/3/2013 @ 5:26 pmWho is Don Hardy? That is the question on everybody’s mind.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/3/2013 @ 5:26 pmThat’s exactly my point. No hate crime law was needed in the Byrd case, or in the Shepard case in WY (regardless of what really motivated that crime), because the murderers’ sentences would not have been any greater. Thus the attacks on Bush were patently scurrilous. Hate crime laws are needed for cases of what would otherwise be petty crime.
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 6/3/2013 @ 6:07 pmAre you quite sure that is the law in every state, Milhouse?
I don’t think it’s the law in California.
Patterico (9c670f) — 6/3/2013 @ 6:22 pmIf you say so. California is a strange place. (As is NY, but as far as I know it isn’t strange in that particular way.)
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 6/3/2013 @ 6:43 pmOther federal laws, not enforced by EEOC, also prohibit discrimination and reprisal against federal employees and applicants. The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA) contains a number of prohibitions, known as prohibited personnel practices, which are designed to promote overall fairness in federal personnel actions. 5 U.S.C. 2302. The CSRA prohibits any employee who has authority to take certain personnel actions from discriminating for or against employees or applicants for employment on the bases of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, age or disability. It also provides that certain personnel actions can not be based on attributes or conduct that do not adversely affect employee performance, such as marital status and political affiliation. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has interpreted the prohibition of discrimination based on conduct to include discrimination based on sexual orientation. The CSRA also prohibits reprisal against federal employees or applicants for whistle-blowing, or for exercising an appeal, complaint, or grievance right. The CSRA is enforced by both the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) and the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB).
http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html
peedoffamerican (127915) — 6/4/2013 @ 2:58 ammany states also have laws against poitical discrimination.
http://www.dhrm.state.va.us/hrpolicy/policy/pol2_05EEO.pdf
peedoffamerican (35b482) — 6/4/2013 @ 3:05 amI’m sorry, but I don’t think I’ll be going after all. My employer has no objection to my writing for this blog, it’s just that the event is already turning into too much of a circus. How naive I was to assume that an event being held in Coffee County would be, you know, a Coffee County event.
I’m buddies with Barry West, the Coffee County commissioner whose Facebook post precipitated this whole hoo-hah. Last night he and I were at a high school softball banquet at the conference center, and already the satellite news trucks had begun to arrive. Today I hear that Pamela Geller will be leading a protest, and that the Manchester police have roped off a “protest zone” in front of the building. This morning the Manchester Times textcasted this message: “MPD: threats, violence will not be tolerated at tonight’s Muslim forum @ conference center.” According to an online article at the Times, the police department “has coordinated with the FBI to ensure proper security for the event, which is expected to draw a large crowd.”
Besides the growing circus atmosphere, what I find most offensive is the implication that non-Muslims are somehow a violent threat at this event. Coffee County is what you could safely call a very Christianized area, and as the saying goes, it’s not Christians setting off bombs or hacking off heads. Of course, Coffee County has its share of violent citizens, but I suspect the overwhelming majority of them are not even aware of tonight’s meeting.
I apologize for not reporting on this event as planned. I’ve long been a reader of this blog and was especially sympathetic to the SWATing you endured a while back. I had hoped to do you a small favor for the excellent work you do here, but I just don’t have the energy to devote to a circus. There’s a reason I don’t do national news, and it’s not a lack of reporting skills or writing ability. I’ve simply got other seeds to plant.
It’s beginning to look like tonight’s hoo-hah will get plenty of coverage both locally and nationally. As for me, I plan to spend the evening quietly at home with my wife in Mud Creek.
For what it’s worth, our local paper will be covering the story here: http://www.manchestertimes.com/ .
Milton Stanley (7d9e53) — 6/4/2013 @ 9:32 amEarly coverage. Nothing on content however.
SPQR (768505) — 6/4/2013 @ 7:13 pmIn Colorado, it would be illegal to terminate someone for an expression of political opinion unrelated to one’s employment.
SPQR (768505) — 6/4/2013 @ 7:14 pmit made local TV
http://www.wkrn.com/story/22503524/forum-on-civil-rights-sparks-protest-rally-for-free-speech
covered by twitchy
http://twitchy.com/2013/06/04/protesters-pack-muslim-sponsored-meeting-on-social-media-hate-speech-crackdown/
Nick Temple (661642) — 6/4/2013 @ 10:06 pmThanks, Nick. The FBI guy sounds smart. I’m afraid of smart cops.
nk (875f57) — 6/4/2013 @ 10:26 pmSo much was wrong with this meeting. For starters why Manchester, TN? Well it’s in the middle of nowhere and they are using the facebook post of How to Wink at a Muslim as the reason! They didn’t want, nor anticipate, that many showing up, so good for you! T-shirts were probably unneccessary to the cause though!
A big reason I have a problem with the Muslims, is because IF YOU ARE OFFENDED BY YOUR OWN RELIGION THEN WHY ARE YOU WORSHIPPING IT?
Another thing is why are muslims yelling because they are being “persecuted/blasphemed/bullied” yet THEY are the one’s killing Christians? Basically if they don’t get what they want……then you know happens. They are trying to do that in America. Slowly and silently. I’m glad America is FINALLY waking up to this.
I’m sure this comment will probably be removed (like the gov’t is trying to remove freedom of speech)!
denise (a597c2) — 6/6/2013 @ 7:57 amhttp://americanoverlook.com/obama-backed-muslims-behead-catholic-priest/10766
DMG (60aef4) — 7/1/2013 @ 9:45 am