Free Speech?

Just one more thing, let's assume for the sake of argument that Coulter is doing exactly what you say she is. Your argument is Po Quoque. Your argument once again is fallacious.

In the end what Coulter does really has no bearing on Al-Timimi.
 
RandFan said:
Just one more thing, let's assume for the sake of argument that Coulter is doing exactly what you say she is. Your argument is Po Quoque. Your argument once again is fallacious.

Just because Coulter does something wrong doesn't make it OK for al-Timimi.
Click to expand...

Strawman. I'm not saying that at all.

I am asking why she isn't prosecuted for doing the same as al-Timimi.
 
Diogenes said:
In the eyes of the law, yes.

Are we talking about something else?
Click to expand...

Am I the only one who thinks that there should be a modification of Godwin's Law to include references to OJ as well as Hitler?
 
CFLarsen said:
I didn't ask what he was convicted of. I asked what he had said.

And we don't know. However, we do know what Coulter said.
Click to expand...
And what she said was nothing remotely close to what Al-Timimi was convicted of. Timimi was convicted of telling muslims to go and train and fight along side the Taliban against America. Coulter never even comes close to this.
She has advocated action against American troops (the Muslim ones), precisely what al-Timimi was convicted of (but we don't know what he actually said).
Click to expand...
 She certainly did not. She advocated action against other countries that are Muslim. The only thing you seem to be hanging your hat on is in an answer where she says it would be a start if no one were muslim. Where is the advocated action against American soldiers? You are inventing it out of whole cloth. She advocates intense action against other countries. I don't see any specific actions advocated against any americans or troops.
 
shanek said:
Unless the jury was misinformed about the nature of the speech, or the judge prevented the defense from speaking as to the reasoning behind his speech, or the judge stopped the defense from arguing the defendant's rights as protected by the Constitution, or the jury believed the lie the judge almost certainly told that they didn't have any option to nullify the law...all of which have happened before.
Click to expand...
Without any evidence, I'm not willing to accept that any of that happened. However, even if it ALL happened, the Jury was in a far better position to judge what he did than I am, having heard precisely zero actual testimony. :)
 
Thanz said:
The only thing you seem to be hanging your hat on is in an answer where she says it would be a start if no one were muslim. Where is the advocated action against American soldiers?
Click to expand...

there are only approximately 4,500 Muslims in uniform
Source
Click to expand...

Your call.
 
CFLarsen said:
Your call.
Click to expand...
Thanks! I've made the call. What Coulter said, while remarkably bigoted and idiotic, does not come close to telling people to train and fight against American soldiers in Afganistan.

Now that you have made it my call, I take it you agree?
 
Thanz said:
Thanks! I've made the call. What Coulter said, while remarkably bigoted and idiotic, does not come close to telling people to train and fight against American soldiers in Afganistan.

Now that you have made it my call, I take it you agree?
Click to expand...

Should I check back in Ohhhh..............about 13 pages?

:p
 
Thanz said:
Thanks! I've made the call. What Coulter said, while remarkably bigoted and idiotic, does not come close to telling people to train and fight against American soldiers in Afganistan.

Now that you have made it my call, I take it you agree?
Click to expand...

No.
 
CFLarsen said:
Why isn't Ann Coulter prosecuted?
Click to expand...

She has committed no crime.

If you disagree, please, as a supposed proponent of skepticism, logic and reason, provide the law you believe she has violated and any evidence that illustrates her violation of that law.

Thanks.












I predict crickets and/or obfuscation...
 
RandFan said:
I concede your point. However the law isn't about causing harm but openly advocating harm. Coulter advocated harm to others that could lead to harm to us. Bad, but not treasonous.
Click to expand...
Agreed. I was merely taking a potshot (at the singular most hateful talking head I've ever seen, parenthesized in hopes of not spawning a Coulter, the anti-viagra, diversion). ;)
 
Kodiak said:
She has committed no crime.

If you disagree, please, as a supposed proponent of skepticism, logic and reason, provide the law you believe she has violated and any evidence that illustrates her violation of that law.

Thanks.












I predict crickets and/or obfuscation...
Click to expand...

And I assert that you haven't been paying any attention to anything I have posted in this thread.

I have repeatedly said that I don't think that either Coulter's or al-Timimi's actions are criminal.

If you disagree, please, as a supposed proponent of skepticism, logic and reason, provide the quotes you believe show otherwise and any evidence that illustrates this.

Thanks.
 
CFLarsen said:
And I assert that you haven't been paying any attention to anything I have posted in this thread.

I have repeatedly said that I don't think that either Coulter's or al-Timimi's actions are criminal.

If you disagree, please, as a supposed proponent of skepticism, logic and reason, provide the quotes you believe show otherwise and any evidence that illustrates this.

Thanks.
Click to expand...

I'll take that.

Al-Timimi's guilty because he made a speicfic request to a specific group of people; he told a group of his followers to go and fight US troops. Coulter made a general statement that we should go convert all Muslims in Muslims nations. These slight differences make the two extremely different situations as far as the law of USA is concerned.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom