She knows what she is saying is unconstitutional and would not be accepted by any court in this country.

Because that is precisely what she is talking about. And she is not pandering... and I hope they do it.

Although I won't hold my breath on that. Hate crimes do not cover simple speech. Try again.

says fighting our rights is God's war which is followers must fight. Are you going to prosecute that?
How about Kevin Swanson, who openly calls for gay people to be killed? When does Loretta prosecute that?
Westboro?

See my point here?

There's nothing the federal government can do about it.

If someone gets up on a physical or electronic stump and tries to gather a group of people to attack Muslims, that's quite a different matter.

I don't think it is wise for the US government to be telling groups it has more power than it actually does have. I would guess that later it would lead to misunderstanding and hurt.

Better watch my mouth. She seems serious.

What a fucking joke we've become.

Maybe she should be investigating visa fraud so that mass murderers don't walk into the US instead of investigating European soccer officials.

Good riddance after the next election. Can't come soon enough. Take Ashton Carter and the rest of the buffoons with you on the way out.

Because you can be "anti" any person or group that you want to, in this country, and say so. If you think Catholics are superstitious weirdos who believe in bizarre exorcism rituals and tolerate molestation in their priest ranks and run a gambling racket via bingo, and thus you don't care for them...you can say that. It might be anti-Catholic rhetoric, but you have a right to say it. What you cannot do is harm, incite harm, or infringe upon the rights of those people or groups.

nt

So the DOJ's priority is now to watch people who make anti-Muslim comments?

Someone's priorities seem out of whack. You got militarized police officers beating and killing blacks in the streets and the DOJ does nothing. But someone makes an anti-muslim comment and they threaten prosecution?

Danish cartoons, they could face a justice department investigation?
How would this work, in a country with the first amendment?

To see if the the publisher has done anything else to incite violence. Those cartoons are offensive, and anyone publishing them deserves the scrutiny they would com under. For instance, you cannot publish any cartoons like that on DU. The post would be hidden, and the poster banned.

It is offensive. It's permitted. And DU has not such prohibition.

Post a few cartoons and see what happens. Would you really be that irresponsible?

nt

Thankfully.

while the govt is prevented by the 1st Amendment from suppressing free speech except for very narrow, limited reasons, Loretta Lynch is full of shit if she thinks she can prosecute anti muslim speech and the courts would deliver a swift kick on her rear if she tries to do so.

"It might make someone real mad" is not a rationale by which the government can censor speech.

And having a post hidden on DU is not government censorship. This website belongs to its owners, they can determine the content of what they allow poster here.

As disgusting as they are. And I didn't say they can be censored. But that doesn't mean an investigation into other potential activities shouldn't take place.

It probably happens, but it shouldnt- and its a dangerous precedent to endorse.

Just like the AG said. Sounds like your beef is with her, not me.

And yeah, I think her statement here was badly worded and belies a misunderstanding of the 1A.

.... certainly fall into the category of "anti-Muslim rhetoric"

Apology.

does not put it in the same category as a call to violence.

I'm sorry, but I damn sure will defend the right of people in this country to mock or blaspheme against ANY religion or deity. I can't think of a more core example of why the 1st Amendment is there.

your description of "Anti-Muslim rhetoric"? The lawyers for the shooter's family seems to think so.

http://time.com/4137383/stop-saying-muslim-shooters-farook-family-lawyer-says/?xid=fbshare

I've yet to see evidence that their religious faith (or lack thereof) was a motivating factor in their actions. I heard that Mr. Farook was mocked at work for his beard, and took our his frustrations out on his co-workers. That in no way excuses what he did. It was horrible and cowardly. Yet to me this still leans in the direction of workplace violence.

He had 12 pipe bombs and 6000 rounds of ammo that he didn't bring to his office attack, suggesting that he had something else (probably much bigger) planned. So I have serious doubts that it was simply workplace violence because of Anti-muslim words.

But should those words trigger the federal government into looking through your life?

where the female terrorist posted her allegiance to the ISIS leader...that's certainly evidence of her faith being a motivating factor.

There is no evidence, however, to back up your assertion that the male terrorist participated because he was teased about his beard.

Investigations into legal behavior? Like say, being part of a religion that has extremist elements? I mean, it's just an investigation, about potential activities, so no problem, right?

that are offensive to Muslims. Now, that's protected under the first amendment, so we can't jail you for it. But we are going to start going through your life with a fine tooth comb and see if there is anything we CAN jail you for. Good luck. May the odds be ever in your favor."

illegal is occurring, or will occur, the government cannot harass the speaker in any way, shape or form.

"Incitement" is a VERY narrow exception to the First Amendment, and requires speech "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”

Publishing the Danish cartoons alone, or a even a series of even the most vile and bigoted cartoons and articles, no matter how offensive, would not meet this strict and difficult legal test. Moreover, legal investigation and scrutiny cannot be used to inflict punishment or dissuade people from exercising their right to free speech, no matter how offensive or unpopular.

It's a "heckler's veto" ---- apparently if someone else is willing to get violently mad over an opinion you express, you can be arrested for expressing it.

What can be down on there.

"Piss Christ" (which Christians and Catholics would find offensive), would you thing that person deserves to be investigated as if they committed a crime?

Your contention also seems to say that one of the people murdered Wednesday by Farook and his wife would be facing a justice department investigation for saying anti-Muslim things?

Being offensive isn't a crime. And it's stupid and unconstitutional (not to mention politically tone deaf) for the justice department to investigate people for being offensive.
And DU isn't the US government. It can restrict any speech it want to. But the US government has no right to do so. If someone is saying "Slaughter Muslims (or Jews, or Blacks, or Hispanics, or whites, ect) in the street", yes, that's actually calling for violent action against a certain people.
But a cartoon, more than 2 years old? Sorry. Not going to fly under any interpretation of the Bill of Rights. And given the mood of the country right now after Paris and San Bernardino, presidential candidates are going steer clear of this.

without viewing them.

Anyone on DU is free to disagree with the tenets of Islam, Catholicism, Christianity, Judaism, Mormonism, etc. There are plenty of cartoons and mocking statements published here.

If it devolved to just mindless harassment or broadscale lies, I am sure a jury would hide and moderators would toss.

DU is about ideas. It's a discussion forum. You can't have a discussion forum which doesn't allow discussion. In the process a lot of sacred cows get gored here.

Justice department should investigate me? That would put us on a slippery slope to a police state.

Specifically inciting violence is against the law of course and has always been whether it is directed at Muslims or anyone else. But your suggestion that offense speech needs to be investigated is totally wrong and scary.

and Loretta has not said a thing. Why is that? Keven Swanson for one, Republican candidates were there to validate it. When will Lynch prosecute or otherwise act or even speak against this?

Westboro Baptist picketed hundreds of LGBT funerals, funerals. In all 50 States and for years on end. Where was the DOJ on any of those hundreds of occasions?

She is so full of mediocre shit.

And it makes her sound like she really doesnt understand the 1st amendment.

Particularly, there is a wide chasm between "hateful rhetoric" - which we sure have a lot of in this country - and a direct and actionable threat.

As you can see, already in this thead some people are ecstatic because they think the DOJ is going to start prosecuting people for publishing offensive cartoons.

We all have our issues, I guess.

anti gay hate speech that religions do is not prosecuted because it is fine and dandy. This is reckless verbiage on her part, sending all sorts of messages.

Talk all the time. Muslim kids get protested while singing the anthem. And nothing is being done to prevent those people from protesting thdm.

clear that speech inciting violence will not be tolerated against anyone. As it stands, it sounds as if the administration (DOJ, in particular) are showing preference for Islam with such protections. This administration already has a problem in that regard, P.R.-wise. Also, they need to stop using the phrase, "That's not who we are." It is becoming a point of ridicule in the public.

There is anti muslim talk all around.

Look at the republicans running for president.

To me, it seems like she is implying that they will take action based on speech.

"Edges toward violence?"

No government official is going to look at a threat to kill Muslims, even online, as just "speech". Instead it will get the same treatment as the student who just posted a non-serious threat and shut down the university.

But there's generally not a big spectrum there. You either threaten or you don't. You are either talking about crimes or not.

She seemed to be promising, um, "heightened scrutiny".

The investigator thousands of claims and only had 45 prosecutions come out of it. If I tried something 1000 times only had 45 successes, I would consider that a massive failure.

do you really think they should prosecute everything that is reported ?

... the murderers are dead.

After 9/11 a bunch of Sikhs were attacked including being shot and killed.

These are the type of things she is referring to.

If you want to go to a mosque or other places with muslims and call them terrorists you can still do so.

She's talking about prosecuting acts of violence. The question starts at 48:00 -

http://www.c-span.org/video/?401446-1/attorney-general-loretta-lynch-remarks-muslim-advocates

I did not have to watch the video though. I knew exactly what she was talking about.

She's certainly getting him more votes with these comments.