Obama may make criticism of Islam illegal

[Mr.Canada]

The DOJ for President Obama will not guarantee protection of free speech in the criticism of Islam leaving the door open that it may propose to make any speech critical of Islam illegal.

I have been asked repeatedly by Michael hardner to clarify my statements and have done so in this new thread I created for just that purpose.

[Michael Hardner]

The DOJ for President Obama will not guarantee protection of free speech in the criticism of Islam leaving the door open that it may propose to make any speech critical of Islam illegal.

I have been asked repeatedly by Michael hardner to clarify my statements and have done so in this new thread I created for just that purpose.

Ok - thanks for providing that. But they didn't mention anything about Islam so where did you get your opinion exactly ?

[Mr.Canada]

Ok - thanks for providing that. But they didn't mention anything about Islam so where did you get your opinion exactly ?

Criticism of any religion would include Islam.

[bush_cheney2004]

President Obama's DOJ policies would be short lived compared to the US Constitution and Supreme Court. No worries.....

[Michael Hardner]

Criticism of any religion would include Islam.

Ok... well, as BC has posted, not really a threat at this point. The vaunted 'banning of criticism of Islam' has turned into a question asked by some guy to some other guy and the US Constitution still exists in the current form. Again, thanks for providing the reasons behind your thinking.

[Mr.Canada]

Ok... well, as BC has posted, not really a threat at this point. The vaunted 'banning of criticism of Islam' has turned into a question asked by some guy to some other guy and the US Constitution still exists in the current form. Again, thanks for providing the reasons behind your thinking.

There is also the right to keep and bear arms in the Constitution yet restrictions are in place as to what type of weapons may not be kept. I don't see why a similar provision couldn't be a reality as well in the free speech right of the Constitution.

[bush_cheney2004]

The US Supreme Court has recently struck down many such restrictions to gun ownership, notably in Washington D.C.

[Guest]

If Stephen Harper advanced a law that, let's say, banned homosexual acts, the fact that the Supreme Court would strike it down rather quickly would not excuse Harper from a barrage of criticism.

I find that official's obfuscation repulsive, and would find the same any effort by the Obama administration to censor freedom of speech.

Regardless of what the courts would do.

[Mr.Canada]

The US Supreme Court has recently struck down many such restrictions to gun ownership, notably in Washington D.C.

Many restrictions remain in place regardless. Is it so hard to admit that I have a point here? Sheesh.

[bush_cheney2004]

Many restrictions remain in place regardless. Is it so hard to admit that I have a point here? Sheesh.

Such restrictions ban ownership of particular types of guns and associated military applications, not the right to own firearms. Free speech rights would be even more difficult to infringe.

[Sleipnir]

The DOJ for President Obama will not guarantee protection of free speech in the criticism of Islam leaving the door open that it may propose to make any speech critical of Islam illegal.

Such legislation would never survive a court challenge.

[Michael Hardner]

I find that official's obfuscation repulsive, and would find the same any effort by the Obama administration to censor freedom of speech.

Maybe - but then again the question was pretty general and how much leeway could that person have to speak for the administration so generally ?

[bush_cheney2004]

Maybe - but then again the question was pretty general and how much leeway could that person have to speak for the administration so generally ?

The question and response were pure political theatre for the Congressional record. Such an idea is completely without merit in the U.S. Maybe in Canada, which already has "hate speech" laws.

[Guest]

Maybe - but then again the question was pretty general and how much leeway could that person have to speak for the administration so generally ?

That's where we differ. I think it was pretty specific. The question of freedom of speech is so basic he should have been able to answer it in one word.

[Guest]

The question and response were pure political theatre for the Congressional record. Such an idea is completely without merit in the U.S. Maybe in Canada, which already has "hate speech" laws.

Sadly so.

[Moonlight Graham]

Good luck to anyone amending the US constitution and limiting free speech in this way. If by an absolute miracle they did then people would storm the gates of the White House and throw Obama into the Potomac.

[Guest American Woman]

The text for the video states that it was posted on Jul 26, 2012, in reference to "a Constitution Subcommittee hearing yesterday..." and this is what Obama said to the U.N. the end of September, iow, after the hearing in the video, in regards to the Muhammad video:

I know there are some who ask why we don’t just ban such a video. And the answer is enshrined in our laws: Our Constitution protects the right to practice free speech.

Here in the United States, countless publications provoke offense. Like me, the majority of Americans are Christian, and yet we do not ban blasphemy against our most sacred beliefs. As President of our country and Commander-in-Chief of our military, I accept that people are going to call me awful things every day -- (laughter) -- and I will always defend their right to do so.

Americans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to express their views, even views that we profoundly disagree with. We do not do so because we support hateful speech, but because our founders understood that without such protections, the capacity of each individual to express their own views and practice their own faith may be threatened. We do so because in a diverse society, efforts to restrict speech can quickly become a tool to silence critics and oppress minorities.

We do so because given the power of faith in our lives, and the passion that religious differences can inflame, the strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression; it is more speech -- the voices of tolerance that rally against bigotry and blasphemy, and lift up the values of understanding and mutual respect.

http://www.nytimes.c...wanted=all&_r=0

He hardly comes across as someone who wants to make criticism of religion illegal.

[Michael Hardner]

Maybe in Canada, which already has "hate speech" laws.

Good point. That's a topic that I sometimes cross over to the dark side on because I do feel that our system allows for unfair treatment of religion/religions.

[Guest]

Good point. That's a topic that I sometimes cross over to the dark side on because I do feel that our system allows for unfair treatment of religion/religions.

Beating them up?

[Michael Hardner]

That's where we differ. I think it was pretty specific.

It could be applied to a whole field of legislation, so it's general.

[Michael Hardner]

Beating them up?

I don't understand the question, sorry.

[Guest]

I was wondering what you meant by unfair treatment of religions.

[Michael Hardner]

I was wondering what you meant by unfair treatment of religions.

We have some oddities and some incongruities. In Ontario, the public funding of religious schools is one area that has led to some legislative oddities such as the government telling religion what it can or can't teach.

[DogOnPorch]

Good point. That's a topic that I sometimes cross over to the dark side on because I do feel that our system allows for unfair treatment of religion/religions.

Our system identifies the Chinese as a minority. All 1 billion plus...if they come to Canada.

[Michael Hardner]

Our system identifies the Chinese as a minority. All 1 billion plus...if they come to Canada.

Really ? I thought the Charter referred to 'identifiable groups' which is even more open to interpretation than that.