"Not Showing Up To Riot" Is A Failed Conservative Policy

Thank the US founders for the 2nd amendment which ensures protection of the 1st.

I'm sure that this idiotic statement regarding limits on the 1st amendment because of "incitement to violence" won't be ignored by defense lawyers who will argue that their client, accused of rape, only engaged in said act as the woman wasn't wearing a burka.

The fact that a moron has articulated this statement about limits on the 1st amendment would imply that muslims are incapable of co-existing in a free dynamic society and should be subject to the same regulations that one applies to rabid dogs (as well as the same disposition). Then there's all of the political speech that's come out of the Obozo administration that is an incitement to violence. Most people who would just love to see Obozo have a fatal golfing accident or be "accidentally" targeted by one of his beloved predator drones have thus far acted on their homicidal impulses by putting a few rounds through their TV during especially repugnant statements by the TOTUS. Now, given that the constitution specifies equal treatment under the law, a large number of people might suddenly decide that if islamofascists can get unpleasant speech declared illegal, then they could shut up the TOTUS and fellow moonbats by reacting violently.

The US 1st amendment is something that needs to be defended violently from those who would seek to place limits on discourse. Truth is always an absolute defense, and in the matter of a primitive 7th century death cult started by a homicidal epileptic psychotic pedophile, truth is the last thing that its adherents want to hear.

Free speech detractors forget the following: anything one says or does can be considered offensive and that Muslims find everything and anything offensive, will riot over it, make demands and then find something else they don't like the next day.

Buck up, West. Now.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

I can understand the part about yelling fire in a theatre but pissing off savages who are looking for any excuse to be pissed off hardly meets the standard for chucking out the first amendment. People better tread carefully or they may get what they wish for.

These governments better be careful in stirring up the masses. It might not go the way they want.

I think that China may be regretting stirring up the masses with Anti Japanese rhetoric. The riots and protests are continuing, and some of the loud mouths in the military are jawing away too. If this continues in China, All this may drive them to act. It may be a short, victorious war, but for whom?

China will not know their adversaries. What will Japan, US and Taiwan do? Even if the US does not support Japan; and Japan loses control of the islands, China will lose in the long run, as Japan will probably decide to go nuclear and Taiwan will follow suit. Either of these countries could enter the nuclear club in months if they really desire it.

A country like Egypt cannot afford to anger the world when it cannot feed itself and it has no trade.

Don't these experts know the definition of incite? To incite to riot or murder you have to actively encourage the criminal acts. Any violence that results because Arabs are upset by what a film states about their religion is the fault of those who committed the violent acts.

Rights mean nothing if they are not absolute as the 'reasonable limits' will grow, one precedent or compromise at a time until the right is no more.

Who do they think they are? Canadians? Ha! Again the CHRC oafs are wrong. Free speech 'used' to be an American concept.

Yea, what everybody else said.
,