Re: the Koran burning, the skateboarder who prevented one, and freedom of expression, a question.

[Skip Intro]

Poll question: Re: the Koran burning, the skateboarder who prevented one, and freedom of expression, a question.

I've seen many here wonder how the preacher in FL could be stopped, and some currently cheering the skateboarder in Amarillo who stole a Koran from someone before he could burn it. Threads about the latter are right here in GD and LBN.

The question is as follows: does an individual, in the United States of America, have the right to burn the Koran, or any other book, or flag, etc?

[woo me with science]

1. This isn't a matter of opinion.

It is a right protected by the Constitution.

[Skip Intro]

2. I agree. There seem to be many here who disagree. I'm trying to guage the pulse of DU via this poll.

[johnaries]

3. It's hate speech. Hate speech is not protected. nt

[Skip Intro]

4. How is it hate speech? And for the record, could you define illegal hate speech.

Danke.

[Ter]

72. In this country, it is

No so in Canada or most of Europe, but it is here.

[Warren DeMontague]

79. Um, what?

Yeah, actually, it is.

[Codeine]

101. Lol wut?

Of course hate speech is protected. See the Skokie case.

[Bonobo]

5. Yes, but they also have to accept the ramifications.

Like getting punched, spit on or having their property appropriated by skateboard riders.

Tough tittie said the kitty but the milk's still good.

[Skip Intro]

7. But those things are not constitutionally protected. They are crimes.

There are no freedoms that give anyone the right to assault or steal.

[Tunkamerica]

17. and the skateboarder prevented an international incident

AND deserves to go to a court that will decide his fate. Shoplifting is usually community service.

[Skip Intro]

22. Well maybe we should take South Park off the air in deference to those offended?

Maybe we should get a list of acceptable thoughts and actions from the Taliban, or the Christian fundies, or some other group, and adhere to those? Maybe you should rewrite the constitution to limit thought and expression to whatever you think it should be? Seriously, sorry for the sarcasm, but I just don't get where you're coming from. Our freedom trumps every other argument out there, imho. What are we without it?

:eyes:

[Bonobo]

31. "Our freedom trumps every other argument out there"

Yeah, but law and freedom are not the same thing.

They may have the legal right to do something, but good luck patting yourself on the back about your "freedoms" when you're spitting up teeth.

See what I mean?

Common sense is the law.

So is being able to defend yourself.

The rest is bullshit.

You are no free, pal.

As FZ said: "Freedom is when you don't have to pay for nuthin; or do nuthin'. I want to be free."

[Skip Intro]

43. Should have said "the freedoms we have" then. Spitting up teeth?

That indicates a breech of my freedoms. No one has a right to attack anyone. We're talking about freedom of expression. Christ in a bottle of piss. Fuck America. Fuck God. All that. Koran burning falls into that spectrum, as would Bible burning, flag burning, etc.

Assault? Not so much.

[Bonobo]

27. Who said anything about laws?

The law of karma is a hell of a lot more significant and undeniable than pissy laws like what you're talking about.

Nazis can march in front of me too, but they better be wearing armor and face shields.

See what I'm getting at?

[Skip Intro]

44. Yeah, I get your point. I'm talking about constitutionally protected rights.

[WinkyDink]

92. And the perpetrator of such "ramifications" will "have to accept" being ARRESTED.

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. Depends

Virginia V Black comes to mind.

And I fear we should have this tested in the courts...

After all, until Virginia V Black you could burn a cross anywhere you wanted to regardless of intent.

I know... nuance and shades of gray don't do well 'round these parts.

[Skip Intro]

9. Not familiar with that case. Burning a cross in my front yard surely isn't illegal.

Burning a cross in my neighbor's yard surely is.

This seems an apple and orange comparison.

[nadinbrzezinski]

11. It is a question of intent

in that case (2003) the courts found that if you want to burn a cross for fun, sure it is protected speech, as distasteful as you may think it is.

If the intent is to scare or browbeat... it enters the territory of hate speech.

So in this case as precedent, the intent of the preacher in Florida was to "show radical Islam a lesson," does it fit Virginia V Black? Why I was hoping somebody would take it to court. And yes I KNOW the ACLU would have come to defend it... so be it...

As I said shades of gray. I know there are limits to all rights... and in the real world... traveling abroad this week will be all kinds of fun... ah TSA will be more friendly and frisky than usual...

[Skip Intro]

14. The ruling didn't outlaw burning the Koran anymore than it outlawed the burning of the American flag

-----------
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor delivered the opinion stating, "a state, consistent with the First Amendment, may ban cross burning carried out with the attempt to intimidate." In so doing, the Court created a new area of constitutionally unprotected speech for "true threats." Under that carve-out, "a State may choose to prohibit only those forms of intimidation that are most likely to inspire fear of bodily harm."

The Court did, however, strike down the provision in Virginia's statute which stated "Any such burning of a cross shall be prima facie evidence of an intent to intimidate a person or group of persons," holding that the provision was facially unconstitutional because of its "indiscriminate coverage." The state, therefore, must prove intent to intimidate.
------------

That isn't applicable in this case, unless you can prove the intent was to intimidate. The mere act of burning the Koran does not prove intent to intimidate. It is free expression, free speech. Just as burning any other book, or any flag, or any other symbol sacred to anyone.

[nadinbrzezinski]

16. The state, therefore, must prove intent to intimidate.

That is the standard...

Why I said I wish this went to the courts in a way.

And if you are burnign the flag to intimidate, it is no longer protected speech. Same goes for burning the holy books of Harry Potter... or the Quoran, or whatever.

Realize given Western history, desecrating a holy book can be seen to have an intent to intimidate. Burning the holy books of Harry Potter, not so much.

[Skip Intro]

25. Again, the mere act does not prove intent to intimidate. nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

33. But the statements from the preacher do

and he made plenty of them.

As I said, I WISH this ended up in a court of law...

Why I said, shades of gray... I am not a binary thinker. Never have been.

[Skip Intro]

41. Neither am I but there are lines.

There are lines that shouldn't be crossed. I know you've been around for DU for a long time. I'm sure you were amongst us who wailed about the Patriot Act, the arrests of protesters, Ari saying Americans should watch what they say.

If I said fuck gwbush while he was president, or even now, if I said I hate him, if I said someone should attempt to arrest him, if I put those thoughts on a sign and carried it around, could that not be judged hate speech? An attempt to intimidate? What if I burned a flag on the steps of the Capital right after 9*11 while chanting, "you'll burn in hell, bush?" Free speech? Free expression?

What about Marylin Manson glorifying drugs? Doe he have a right to do that?

I'm not a binary thinker either, and several times find myself opposed to the conventional wisdom of DU, but damn, we're talking about our rights here.

[nadinbrzezinski]

50. I went beyond just railing against the Patriot Act

but in my view the statements from that preacher, especially in the beginning where he was talking of a demonic religion... they changed later on, fit Virgina V Black. Why I wish it went to court. Also from history of the western world, desecration of a religious text IS meant to intimidate. It is just a long history of that. It does not matter if this is a cross, a Talmud, a Tora... or far more rarely a Christian bible. Yes the piss crucifix is usually brought up, and while disgusting... the intent was to make fun, not intimidate.

Now preferably the press, our press, should have ignored this guy from word go, and NOT given him his 15, or is it now 60 minutes of fame. That is the OTHER choice to deal with things like this. Make them a non-event, essentially.

But I wish somebody filed, and I AM sure the ACLU would have come to the defense. Mostly I want to know the limits of that USSC decision. Why? There are actual limits to rights, and I really want to know if he crossed those limits. And in this case, it is because of the consequences of the act. TO be blunt, is his right to free speech and to intimidate superior to my right to life? Why do you think there is a global travel alert? It is not because this preacher was singing Kumbaya.

And the only way to find this in a legal way... is in a court of law. But meeting the standard of intent to intimidate, given Western History, in this case... IMO, would be damn easy to prove, or as easy as you can get in a court of law.

[FirstLight]

66. +1000

while distasteful, I to agree it was meant to intimidate. I agree with free speech, but the intimidation of a race or religion is just too close to nazism to me.. i agree, it should have become a legal matter... and it probably will since there's plenty more freaks out there willing to do this over & over.

what galls me is the obvious lack of thought for those overseas in danger ... the teabaggers want to be seen as such patriots, but they endanger our troops with this bullshit

[nadinbrzezinski]

69. And every American citizen who travels abroad

me, back to the usual... I am not from the US mantra...

[Tunkamerica]

19. Uncle Sam always gets so scared when anarchists burn the flag.

[Skip Intro]

46. But he doesn't stop it. And neither should anyone else. nt

[Pithlet]

82. "and neither should anyone else"

See, that's the issue. Now, the polite thing to do is to allow others their speech. But it isn't a fundamental right. Yes, the 1st amendment says the government has to let you speak. It doesn't say we all have to be polite to each other. We can counterspeak. This is where I think everyone is having problems. There are some that are getting all indignant that this skater dude did what he did. It was so wrong! See. I don't think it was. Sometimes it's the right and proper thing to do to talk back. The government never said we couldn't do that.

[Politicalboi]

86. Burning a cross in a park would be against the law.

This guy wasn't at his house. He was in a park. He has no right to use the grill for the burning. Those grills are for cooking food, not book burning. I would think on a cold day if someone lit a fire in the grill just to keep warm, that would be illegal. He was threatening Muslims by doing this. This is not freedom of speech.

[Statistical]

8. 77% of people (at the time of posting) support civil liberties.

Sorry just because something is distasteful doesn't mean it still isn't protected speech (expression).

[Skip Intro]

10. More than I thougt it would be after reading some of the posts here the last few days.

Still, not as much as I'd have hoped for.

[EFerrari]

13. How in the world do you figure that?

Yes, the hatemonger has the right to burn that book.

But that guy had the freedom to steal it. He may face consequences for that theft. That's what happens when people are allowed a choice. Sometimes they choose something you don't like.

Good grief. There is no "supporting civil liberties" in this poll. If you recognize the man's right to burn the book, you must also recognize the thief's freedom to steal the book and take his punishment.

[Statistical]

15. weak. Rights are actions which are protect (i.e govt can't punish)

I mean your position taken to the logical extreme means nothing and everything is a right.

"But that guy had the freedom to steal it. He may face consequences for that theft." If he can be punished then it isn't a right.

It would be like saying you have a "right" (your vague meaningless definition of a right) to murder someone, you just might be punished for exercising that right. Obviously you have no right to murder someone. You also have no right to steal another persons property.

Theft = crime.
Burning a book = free expression.

The govt has no prohibition on punishing stealing.
The govt DOES have prohibition & restrictions on punishing/infringing free expression.

[Skip Intro]

18. replied to wrong post, again

sorry, I'm a little passionate

[EFerrari]

37. Before you take my position anywhere maybe you should read it

as many times as you need to in order to understand it.

Have a good night. :)

[The Northerner]

12. Offensive and disagreeable speech is still free speech and we must defend it

or else we shred the meaning of the 1st Amendment and become a country of selective free speech.


In the words of Beatrice Hall (thought wrongly attributed to Voltaire): "I disapprove of what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it what it."

[Skip Intro]

20. +1

[joshcryer]

21. Can theft be considered expression?

[Skip Intro]

24. Not legal expression. nt

[joshcryer]

30. It is perfectly legal expression.

[Skip Intro]

34. Wait, theft is legal? Is that what you're saying? nt

[joshcryer]

38. Theft as expression is.

Union workers taking over a factory that they don't have title to, for instance, is a perfectly legal action.

[Skip Intro]

48. Can I come express myself at your house?

[joshcryer]

54. I have few possessions.

But I doubt your theft of those possessions would be remotely anything like the political action that the young skateboarder committed.

(I probably wouldn't care either way because I'm not a material oriented capitalist pig.)

[Skip Intro]

62. But your possessions are yours, not mine. What gives me the right to take them from you?

Not the constitution.

[WinkyDink]

93. Theft, by definition, is a crime. FYI: Crimes are illegal acts.

[Statistical]

26. It certainly can be however it is also a crime.

Committing a crime and calling it free expression doesn't nullify the crime.

I mean if I killed you and said I did it to draw attention to a political issue should my actions be immune?

Of course not. The expression is protected but the action isn't. Likewise if the freeper stole someone elses book to burn the underlying theft would be protected.

[Skip Intro]

28. replied to wrong post

[Statistical]

35. Do you understand how the reply function works?

This is the second time you replied to my response to another person and in both times you showed a complete misunderstanding of the statement.

The person I responded to ask.
Is stealing a form of expression.

My response:
Yes but it is also a crime.

Via deduction the CRIME is the stealing.

Might I suggest slowing down and looking what post is in response to what post. It might help.

[Skip Intro]

49. You are correct. My mistake. Sorry.

[joshcryer]

29. It is only a crime if one presses charges.

One can see the act of theft as expression and chose not to press charges.

[Skip Intro]

32. I'm pretty sure theft is illegal whether or not charges are pressed. Rape, for example.

If a woman, for whatever reason, decides not to press charges, it does not mean a crime has not occurred.

[joshcryer]

39. Yes, you're mincing words and using absurd analogies.

[Skip Intro]

51. Theft is a crime. How is that miincing words?

[joshcryer]

53. So is taking over a factory. Legality has nothing to do with it, and in the end...

...you may get off scott free, without conviction. I was annoyed with the continued rape comparisons because they're utterly different.

If the kid physically assaulted the guy burning the book it'd be an entirely different discussion.

[Skip Intro]

57. The comparison was to make a point. If I stole your car, and called it expression, would it be legal

[joshcryer]

58. If it was a political statement, possibly.

If you were a big wig SUV dealer and I and a few buddies stole one of your SUVs and made a big deal out of it, the SUV dealer may or may not press charges. A successful statement would compel said dealer not to press charges since it would look bad on them.

Unless they had "progressives" who are clearly talking against expression defending them and their big gas guzzlers.

[Skip Intro]

60. Tell me what kind of car you drive and I'll craft a political reason to take it.

[joshcryer]

61. And I probably won't press charges if you can pull that off.

[Skip Intro]

63. It would still be a crime.

[WinkyDink]

96. The crime would still have occurred, PROSECUTION NOTWITHSTANDING.

Or do you not think Bush and co. are guilty of any war crimes?

[WinkyDink]

95. You have a bee in your bonnet over "unions taking over a factory." WHY?

[Statistical]

40. splitting hairs but still completely wrong. prosecution or lack there of doesn't detemrine a crime.

A crime is a violation of the law. If violation occurs then a crime has been committed. Not all crimes are prosecuted but they don't magically become non-crimes or lawful just because they weren't prosecuted.

Florida code:

812.014 Theft.--

(1) A person commits theft if he or she knowingly obtains or uses, or endeavors to obtain or to use, the property of another with intent to, either temporarily or permanently:

(a) Deprive the other person of a right to the property or a benefit from the property.

(b) Appropriate the property to his or her own use or to the use of any person not entitled to the use of the property.

....

(3)(a) Theft of any property not specified in subsection (2) is petit theft of the second degree and a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083, and as provided in subsection (5), as applicable.

Since value is likely under $100 and the item falls into no "special" class the most applicable charge would be petit theft of the second degree.

[joshcryer]

42. I suppose you support union busting when they take over property they don't own.

[Statistical]

45. I don't support it however please show me a cite where a crime becomes non-crime

because of expression.

Is it a valid tactic for union to take over a factory/shop? Sure.

Can they be prosecuted? Of course.

Is it magically "non-crime" because free expression was involved? Of course not.

[joshcryer]

52. Because something is illegal that shouldn't magically make it wrong to do.

And if I am using the word correctly you are not a criminal until you are convicted of a crime.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

59. You're not using the word correctly.

Ted Bundy was a criminal even before they caught him. The two men who murdered Emmett Till were criminals even though they got away with it and were never convicted.

The state shouldn't *treat* someone as a criminal until they're convicted of a crime, but that's not the same thing at all.

[El Prezidente Kaboom]

65. Noone is entitled to the right to burn non-food items in a public park's BBQ grill.

No "right to the property or a benefit from the property" could be misconstrued as to include the right to commit a crime with said property.

Put it this way....if some guy starts bashing your head in with a bat...and I take it from him to stop a crime from taking place, you know, him killing you....I'm behaving like a Good Citizen, I'm not a bat thief.

Likewise, if I see you spray painting the statue in the town square, and I happen to walk up and take your spray paint, when you're not looking, or even just right out of your hands, I'm not a spray paint thief.

The skateboarder was not a Koran thief, he was a Good Citizen protecting the public's property from abuse and misappropriation. The public park's BBQ grill is for people to cook food, not burn books. And I applaud him standing up against people trying to take a dump on his city.

[WinkyDink]

94. Guess again.

[mmonk]

23. One's freedom of expression isn't necessarily sacred when it can

endanger or intimidate and prevent others from living a normal and peaceful life.

[The Northerner]

36. Wow, I can't believe that this thread has currently been unrecced to 0

What issues do some people have with the 1st Amendment?

Offensive speech is still considered free speech under the 1st Amendment regardless of one's opposition to that speech.

[Skip Intro]

47. Crazy ain't it? nt

[El Prezidente Kaboom]

55. Freedom of Speech does not include the right to abuse or misappropriate the use of a public good.

Today, the would be Koran burner was attempting to burn the Koran in an unlawful manner...in a public park's BBQ grill...the Skateboarder...stopped a crime from occurring by taking the Koran. And as it would be unreasonable to give it back to its owner, who had demonstrated his willingness to break the law, it was right and proper that he turned over said property to a third party for safe keeping, as he had no interest in keeping the property for himself.

[The Northerner]

56. So there are limits to how someone can express his/her right to free speech now?

[mmonk]

67. There are limits such as clear and present danger, malice, or defamation.

[nadinbrzezinski]

68. Yes, the best known is

YOU and I cannot scream fire in a crowded theater UNLESS there is an actual fire...

The reason behind that one is that your right to scream fire is superseded by the right of others to life.

No society has absolute rights...

I got to read some really fascinating books on the subject oh back in the day... perhaps you should read them too. I particularly remember one from Justice Black where he went on for several chapters on that issue, and how on the surface that is a violation of free speech. Usually those limits come when your rights come in direct conflict with mine. And not on minor things, but usually major things like oh life.

[Pithlet]

74. As far as I'm concerned it's hate speech.

It was designed to inflame and terrorize a population of people. It's also an act that could also very well endanger a lot of people. I'm fine with what that skater did Whether it was legal or not doesn't concern me legal isn't always a matter of right or wrong. I'm sure that's a matter the skater took into consideration himself. Good for him. If anyone's a hero, he is. I'm certainly not going to make attempted the Quaran burner a hero for 1st amendment rights. Edit oops I meant for this to be in answer to the OP.

[nadinbrzezinski]

99. While I agree with you

this should have gone to a court. We need to know if Virginia V Black applies (in my readying of the decision it does)...

Problem is many Americans do believe rights are absolute... and they are not.

[Pithlet]

70. Uh, yes. There always has been.

The right to free speech has never been absolute.

[El Prezidente Kaboom]

73. 'Free speech' is unlimited. But there are limits to what constitutes 'free-speech.'

What the public park-BBQ grilling Koran burner was trying to do was not an expression of 'free speech'...The BBQ grill was put there for people to cook food, not books. And the misappropriated use of a public good is not protected by 'free-speech.' And the skateboarder committed no theft, as it was not his intention to deprive the man of his ability to read the book, but to prevent him from doing something unlawful with the book, like setting it on fire in an unreasonable manner on public property and with a public good provided for by the city.

[emilyg]

64. k r

[blogslut]

71. The book was not stolen

It was abandoned.

Grisham chose not to burn the Qu'ran because protesters put their hands over the grill on which he intended to burn the book.

Now, were those protesters wrong or were they not also exercising their right to free speech?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9124061

[El Prezidente Kaboom]

76. I don't know about abandonment. Although it's possible.

More to the point, though, were the intentions of the skateboarder, coupled with the unlawful intent of the Koran burner, who had no right to burn a book on a bbq grill put there by the city for people to cook food on.

You know if somebody was beating me up with a bat, and you took the bat from the attacker, I would not call you a bat thief.

[Pithlet]

75. As far as I'm concerned, it's hate speech.

It was designed to inflame and terrorize a population of people. It's also an act that could also very well endanger a lot of people. I'm fine with what that skater did Whether it was legal or not doesn't concern me legal isn't always a matter of right or wrong. I'm sure that's a matter the skater took into consideration himself. Good for him. If anyone's a hero, he is. I'm certainly not going to make theattempted Qu'ran burner a hero for 1st amendment rights.

[MrModerate]

77. Freedom of expression goes both ways. Here's a phrase I've used a lot today:

"Public opprobrium." It's the great leveler. If your public expression is so obnoxious that society despises you, then that opprobrium can take forms that may shock you.

That's the case here, IMO. The snotball's right to free expression intersected with the skateboard dude's right to express public scorn.

Actions have consequences. And snotballs seem to scream the loudest when that fact is tossed in their faces.

[Pithlet]

78. Yes! Exactly.

Since when did the 1st amendment mean freedom to act like an asshole without consequences? Some are so outraged that people here liked what skater dude did, and acting like we're all freedom haters. Skater dude isn't the government. How is this even a 1st amendment issue?

[MrModerate]

80. I've noticed a lot of people have trouble distinguishing . . .

between censorship and disgust.

Education in Civics is at an all-time low. Sadly, it'll go even lower when the latest round of dumbed-down Texas textbooks are distributed to Texas and other states.

[Pithlet]

81. It's total insanity anymore.

Yes, the 1st amendment is very important, but get a frigging grip. Actually learn a little something about the very thing you seem to go bug nuts flame war insane over on the internets.

[notesdev]

83. Theft is not a freedom

The skateboarder had the right, if he so chose, to heckle to his heart's content.

Once he took something that was not his he violated the rights of another person (that would be property rights). The moment he absconded what was not his he became a thief.

Since he was dumb enough to do it in TX, he will almost certainly (and deservedly) get some sort of criminal penalty for the act.

The legal and proper way to counter speech one doesn't like is with more speech, not an act of violence (which theft is).

[Pithlet]

84. Oh, come on. It's not grand theft we're talking about.

People who are choosing to get outraged at his actions because they want to defend terrorizing hero guy are just harping on that fact, but who really wants a fuel soaked damaged Qu'ran? What value does it have now? Harping on the fact that it was theft is just nit picking. He wasn't stealing it because it was an item he wanted and he was taking it from a person that wanted to keep that item, and those who are howling "thief" are just being disingenuous.. He was stopping the act. He was making a statement himself. If he even gets prosecuted for it, he won't likely see a day of jail for it, and he knew it at the time. He likely took that into consideration if he even thought of it at all.

[notesdev]

85. That just makes it worse

If the purpose was theft it would be a very petty theft (Class C misdemeanor in TX).

However, since the purpose was to deny another person his right to free expression, that's a civil rights violation and a far, far more severe crime.

Violations of 18 USC 241 are a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison. The penalty is not that severe by accident. It is severe because it's damn important in this country not to let people deprive others of their rights.

This used to be an important issue to the Democratic Party. Sure as hell was when I checked the party affiliation box on my first voter registration form.

[MrModerate]

88. Wow, that's some pretty serious overreaching! Color me gobsmacked.

[blogslut]

89. The skater preveted nothing

Grisham had already decided to forgo burning the Qu'ran before the young man removed it from the grill. It was Grisham himself who chose not to follow through with his plan. Protesters put their hands over the grill and Grisham didn't want to set those hands on fire.

Now, are you going to argue that those protesters bullied Grisham out of expressing his right to free speech? Or were they not also exercising their right to express their views as well as risking bodily harm in the name of their beliefs?

[MrModerate]

87. Early reports are that the police aren't viewing it as a theft.

I'm not a lawyer or a peace officer, so I'm not even going to pretend I can speak to the theft or non-theft.

However, a judgment appears to have been made . . .

[Douglas Carpenter]

90. if someone yells n-word, n-word at an African-American in a public city park

- and a police officer happens to be hear it - should they intervene to stop the name-calling or should they if necessary intervene to protect the free speech rights of those doing the name calling?

[WinkyDink]

98. They can intervene on "disturbing the peace."

[stellanoir]

91. other

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=9094859

[WinkyDink]

97. Laws pertaining to "hate speech" IN THE U.S.:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/homhatcon.htm
"In the U.S., hate speech is legal protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Otherwise a famous teleminister would have been charged when he advocated stoning Pagans to death, and a Baptist minister in Texas would have been charged for advocating that the U.S. Army round up Wiccans and napalm them to death."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/12/us/12hate.html

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:XXXPzYVGbCIJ:www.answers.com/topic/hate-speech+U.S.+%22hate+speech%22+laws&cd=11&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

[felix_numinous]

100. Teabaggers and neo con stunts are bringing up Constitutional and civil rights issues

by carrying rifles to public events, burning holy books, picketing soldier funerals, while corporations with civil rights are allowed to break laws and flaunt their immunity. They harass women outside abortion clinics, gay people are openly insulted, and a bigoted religious dogma saturates the rhetoric.

These events are publicized with little context, in the form of propaganda. Propaganda is legal, as is masquerading information as news (Fox). These events would be better tolerated if we had a fair media that actually presented all points of view so that the country as a whole could make informed decisions.

I am not discussing legal terms here directly, but implying that these acts are meant to push the envelope of the laws of the land. Many dominionists and neo cons have openly declared disdain for the civil rights of minorities, while turning a blind eye toward international and corporate crime.