What are you talking about? The guy can say anything he wants. But he is just totally inaccurate. You say "liberals...etc"....meanwhile this guy is saying people who question policies belong in jail. And he is labeling people as guilty of sedition for no reason. If you are a democrat, you should be in jail? All I said was that I did not hear of any americans, no matter what party they are registered with supporting the enemy. There is a big difference between questioning policy and providiing aid and comfort to the enemy. Read what was said! This is almost too funny to reply to. You couldn't have picked a worse example to make your point. "Pro Life" fanatics bomb abortion clinics and murder doctors. How about an example of "Pro-choice" people doing anything at all violent, let alone this kind of psychotic stuff? BTW, give an example of a "violent marxist and anti-american demonstration". Just curious, 'cause I don't know of any that have happened on american soil. You and Mondo Trader the same person? Just make up stuff and expect to be taken seriously? You both make statements and can't site an example. Scary, both of you!!
rs7, I'll stick to facts and leave out the invective. Aid and comfort quote? How about chrissie Hynde, who was quoted as saying she hoped the "Muslims won" and that the US needed to be bombed. Plenty of other Hollywood deepthinkers have said roughly same thing, equated Bush with Saddam, etc. "Violent marxist and antiamerican demonstrations"? Ever heard of Seattle so-called anti-globalization riots. Same crowd, same story in Washington, DC. Sure, some antiiabortion extremists have acted violently. Just as some eco-terrorists have. I don't see anyone saying we should jail environmental activists. Liberals love to quote all that First Amendment religion about protecting speech you don't like, but it always seems to be in defense of speech or conduct they do like and the mainstream finds offensive or repulsive. When the shoe is on the other foot, very few liberals are prepared to do or say much. Of course, the best example is campus speech codes, a very marxist method of shutting up those who have better fact-based arguments. Where are all the liberals in protesting that obscene violation of free speech?
"peaceable assembly" is open to interpretation, but at least in the context of nonviolent demonstrations, there are times when the legislative process doesn't work - prime example again being the civil rights movement of the '60's, where the only way to be effectively heard was to stage demonstrations. and the inconvenience of marches is far outweighed by the danger in restricting speech, imo. obviously, this should not apply to violence or rioting, nor does it. I hope you're not directing the 'left wing crowd' comment at my post - as far as I know, the First Amendment applies to everyone, and pro-life demonstrations are just as valid and socially beneficial as pro-abortion demonstrations.
This is the sort of thing we heard in the sixties. Only then it was the democrats. Anybody remember Chicago? --Db
Madison, I'm not directing my comments at you personally. And frankly, I have never liked demonstrations at abortion clinics. I think the record is quite clear however that many of the same politicians, lawyers and judges who would bend over bacvkwards to protect the rights of civil rights demonstrators are at best callous about the treatment handed out to pro-life demonstrators. My main point however is that the right to free speech is not coextensive with the right to assemble or petition the government. I think one of the more unfortunate aspects of the civil rights movement was that well-meaning judges grossly enlarged the protections given to conduct, eg. street protests, because they sympathized with the message. When you say street protests helped them get their message across, of course you are correct, but that is another way of saying the end justifies the means. The next group that takes to the streets may not be as well-intentioned. I think we take a very dangerous step when we start making public policy on the basis of who can turn out the most demonstrators. It is a short step from there to mob rule, and I fear we are quite far along that way. Plenty of court cases have been tainted by mob violence or the threat thereof, such as the Rodney King prosecutions.
its funny how simply posting a law can send super liberals into a frenzy! It shows the true level of desperation they have reached. The clock is ticking on the extreme left in america and on sadam.....tick...tick....tick
Beware the Sedition Act. The government is monitoring the internet to find out who the enemies and traitors are. You can say what you want before the war, but once the war starts SHUT UP.
Aside from the fact that I am pretty sure she is not an American (not positive), so what? There are nuts all over. Do you mean to imply that Chirssie Hynde speaks for "liberal" or "democrats" or any real group? Not sure what the point of this is....which side of the issue you are looking at. But in Chicago, the police went berserk and beat on the demonstrators. And then there was a trial And at this trial, the Judge, old Julius Hoffman, a "renowned liberal" (LOL) certainly "bent over backward" to protect the rights of" peacefully assembled demonstrators. This is, again, some VERY funny stuff. As far as the contention that environmentalists are given a free hand, and are not punished, that is completely off the wall. I like to think of myself as an "environmentalist"...at least relative to the polluters and oil industry guys that want to drill in national parks. But the "activist" environmentalists that spike trees are criminals in my book too. Just as are the abortion clinic bombers. I believe in the freedom of speech. I think our right to debate topics of all kinds makes America great. But resorting to violence is not justified by any cause. Those that do, no matter what issue they use to justify their acts, are criminals. Plain and simple. If you want to argue that this is wrong, go ahead. Tell me that it matters if you are a "liberal" or a "conservative". Crime is crime. There can be a difference of opinion about just about any issue. But words are permissible. Violence is not. My wife used to work for a civil rights organization. She had to butt heads with the ACLU plenty of times. Because the ACLU backed the right of hate groups to assemble. Did this mean she did not believe in the ACLU? No, she did not believe in the hate groups. But in our country, they have the right to assemble and freedom of speech too. As unfortunate as that is. And so the ACLU stood behind their rights. And believe me, they did not WANT to....they just felt they HAD to. Because we really all have the same rights. No system is perfect. Sometimes the slime slips through and gets the rights of the righteous. Peace, Rs7
The time for opposition is before the war, not during the war. I hope the FBI is monitoring everything on the internet right now, there are some people that don't deserve to live in this country.
"Protesters say they hope to impose economic, social and political costs until the war with Iraq stops." http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?Date=20030320&Category=APN&ArtNo=303200826&Ref=AR