Hell For Heroes

[1_21Guns]

Hero soldiers run a gauntlet of hate as Muslin extremists hurl abuse at thier homecoming parade yesterday.
A group calling itself Muslims Against The Crusades waved placecards reading "baby killers" and chanted "murderers" at the 1st Battalion The Royal Anglian Regiment.
A ring of cops surrounded the mob of 40 fanatics, but violence flared when angry locals hit back at the protests.
Riot police had to step in, and two people were arrested.
The ugly scence in Barking, East London, mirrored a similar protest in Luton last year.
Grieving Charlene Byrne, 24 - whose partner was killed while serving with the regiment in Afghanistan - said:
"It's disgusting that extremists hijacked this parade."
Bank worker Mohammed Sohail, 42 - who took the day off to welcome the soldiers home - said "these people are an insukt to Britain and Islam."

Read more at: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3015394/Extremists-insult-to-troops.html

So what do you guys think?
Should it have been allowed?
Should there be concequences?
Or where they right to do this?

personally I think it's out of order... certainly shouldn't have been allowed, but maybe thats just me?

[CaptainObvious]

So what do you guys think?
Should it have been allowed?
Should there be concequences?
Or where they right to do this?

personally I think it's out of order... certainly shouldn't have been allowed, but maybe thats just me?

They can be both wrong in what they're saying and completely entitled to say it. Freedom of speech is too important to sacrifice.

[1_21Guns]

They can be both wrong in what they're saying and completely entitled to say it. Freedom of speech is too important to sacrifice.

True, they clearly have no respect for anybody though, which isn't right.

[Sith Lord 13]

They can be both wrong in what they're saying and completely entitled to say it. Freedom of speech is too important to sacrifice.

I take it you believe freedom of speech covers shouting fire in a crowded building too then?

[CaptainObvious]

I take it you believe freedom of speech covers shouting fire in a crowded building too then?

That is a very bad assumption.

[Sith Lord 13]

That is a very bad assumption.

So you don believe in the clear and present danger rule then?

[CaptainObvious]

So you don believe in the clear and present danger rule then?

That is another very bad assumption. Insofar as I said the last thing was a bad assumption, clearly that indicates my belief in some amount of limitations on speech.

But either way, that particular doctrine has nothing to do with this thread.

[Magus]

I don't know about you people. But I find this as "purely Ironic".

[Sith Lord 13]

That is another very bad assumption. Insofar as I said the last thing was a bad assumption, clearly that indicates my belief in some amount of limitations on speech.

But either way, that particular doctrine has nothing to do with this thread.

I beg to differ. That rally presented a clear and present danger in multiple ways:


It demoralizes soldiers, making them more likely to be injured or killed in the field.
It creates civil unrest, endangering both life and property.
Freedom of speech is limited further in wartime than in peace, legally, due to the necessities of the situation.
It is clearly designed to be inflammatory, and at least borders on if not constitutes hate speech, which is limited, both in its own right, and as it increases danger to the public in general.


Just to be clear, do you believe in the principle of clear and present danger?

[CaptainObvious]

I beg to differ. That rally presented a clear and present danger in multiple ways:

Every item that follows it not a clear and present danger.

It demoralizes soldiers, making them more likely to be injured or killed in the field.

Though that reasoning is tortured, I suppose you could argue that this is a danger directly caused by the rally. However, that's not "clear" and it's most certainly not "present" - "present" means immediate in this context. This point would utterly fail judicial scrutiny.

It creates civil unrest, endangering both life and property.

Possibly, but the burden of civil unrest due to taking issue with speech falls upon them, not upon those uttering the speech, unless the express purpose of such speech is to cause that unrest in the first place (and you can't argue that they "should've known" it would do so; the incitement has to clearly be the primary purpose of the speech).

Freedom of speech is limited further in wartime than in peace, legally, due to the necessities of the situation.

First, that's so vague as to mean nothing. Elucidate those necessities. Second, additional wartime speech limitations must be directly associated with prosecution of the war effort. This is not. Third, why is this a bullet point in a list explaining how this speech was a clear and present danger?

It is clearly designed to be inflammatory, and at least borders on if not constitutes hate speech, which is limited, both in its own right, and as it increases danger to the public in general.

It definitely doesn't constitute hate speech, because hate speech must be aimed at certain specific groups, of which soldiers are not one. As for whether it's "designed" to be inflammatory, that's not the criterion. Lots of speech is inflammatory and also serves a purpose. The criterion is not that its purpose must be to inflame, but its primary purpose must be to inflame. "Abortion doctors are murderers!" is inflammatory, yet its inflammatory nature is secondary to the actual belief it conveys.

Just to be clear, do you believe in the principle of clear and present danger?

Clearly, just as I do not believe that this constitutes such a situation. And neither would anyone who has studied the doctrine of clear and present danger in mroe than a cursory way.