Speech does not kill.Not an acceptable part. Human lives are worth more than human rights eg: a woman's right to choose doesn't trump a baby's right to life
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Speech does not kill.Not an acceptable part. Human lives are worth more than human rights eg: a woman's right to choose doesn't trump a baby's right to life
Sometimes they make terrible witnesses. Sometimes they make wonderful witnesses. They quite often make good informants.And as a lawyer I know in both theory and from experience that liars make the worst witnesses
If I shout "Fire!" in a crowded theatre it does. If I encourage someone to commit suicide it doesSpeech does not kill.
UntrustworthySometimes they make terrible witnesses. Sometimes they make wonderful witnesses. They quite often make good informants.
The first instance is not a protected form of speech. The latter does not kill.If I shout "Fire!" in a crowded theatre it does. If I encourage someone to commit suicide it does
Verify, verify verify.Untrustworthy
Wilful ignorance is still ignorance
I don't know much about the character of Robinson. I honestly don't care. He seems kind of like your version of David Duke. No matter how vile Duke's speech was, it was and is protected. When the govt gets to decide what can and can not be said, that is far more dangerous than protected hate speech.Not an acceptable part. Human lives are worth more than human rights eg: a woman's right to choose doesn't trump a baby's right to life
I don't know much about the character of Robinson. I honestly don't care. He seems kind of like your version of David Duke. No matter how vile Duke's speech was, it was and is protected. When the govt gets to decide what can and can not be said, that is far more dangerous than protected hate speech.
Why not?The first instance is not a protected form of speech.
Neither does the first on that reasoning, yet you admit that the first is not protectedThe latter does not kill.
Yes he is. Here's a sample from just one of his tweets: "What do you call a paki that dont (sic) smell? Asif."Robinson is not a racist.
The first is not speech in any protected sense. Reasoning is because it is a deliberate false alarm. If someone saw smoke coming from behind a counter and shouted fire, it would be protected because they believed what they were saying to be true. It would be protected even if the smoke were from harmless overcooked popcorn.Why not? Neither does the first on that reasoning, yet you admit that the first is not protected
Yes he is. Here's a sample from just one of his tweets: "What do you call a paki that dont (sic) smell? Asif."
Yes he is. Here's a sample from just one of his tweets: "What do you call a paki that dont (sic) smell? Asif."