Ranger7374 Loc: Arizona, 40 miles from the border in the DMZ

Phil Robertson stated to the press a statement wrapped up in the writings of St. Paul.

Almost immediately the GLBT were offended and sued the Christians for promoting h**e speech.

Well I h**e to admit it but this is the area that Christians will be attacked next so it must be declared what is h**e speech and what is not h**e speech.

In 1942, Justice Frank Murphy summarized the case law: "There are certain well-defined and limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise a Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous and the insulting or “fighting” words – those which by their very utterances inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace."

Traditionally, however, if the speech did not fall within one of the above categorical exceptions, it was protected speech. In 1969, the Supreme Court protected a Ku Klux Klan member’s r****t and h**e-filled speech and created the ‘imminent danger’ test to permit h**e speech. The court ruled in Brandenburg v. Ohio that; "The constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a state to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force, or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."

This test has been modified very little from its inception in 1969 and the formulation is still good law in the United States. Only speech that poses an imminent danger of unlawful action, where the speaker has the intention to incite such action and there is the likelihood that this will be the consequence of his or her speech, may be restricted and punished by that law.

In R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, (1992), the issue of freedom to express hatred arose again when a gang of white people burned a cross in the front yard of a black family. The local ordinance in St. Paul, Minnesota, criminalized such r****t and h**e-filled expressions and the teenager was charged thereunder. Associate justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the Supreme Court, held that the prohibition against h**e speech was unconstitutional as it contravened the First Amendment. The Supreme Court struck down the ordinance. Scalia explicated the fighting words exception as follows: “The reason why fighting words are categorically excluded from the protection of the First Amendment is not that their content communicates any particular idea, but that their content embodies a particularly intolerable (and socially unnecessary) mode of expressing wh**ever idea the speaker wishes to convey”. Because the h**e speech ordinance was not concerned with the mode of expression, but with the content of expression, it was a violation of the freedom of speech. Thus, the Supreme Court embraced the idea that h**e speech is permissible unless it will lead to imminent h**e violence. The opinion noted "This conduct, if proved, might well have violated various Minnesota laws against arson, criminal damage to property", among a number of others, none of which was charged, including threats to any person, not to only protected classes.

In 2011, the Supreme Court issued their ruling on Snyder v. Phelps, which concerned the right of the Westboro Baptist Church to protest with signs found offensive by many Americans. The issue presented was whether the 1st Amendment protected the expressions written on the signs. In an 8-1 decision the court sided with Phelps, the head of Westboro Baptist Church, thereby confirming their historically strong protection of h**e speech, so long as it doesn't promote imminent violence. The Court explained, "speech deals with matters of public concern when it can 'be fairly considered as relating to any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community' or when it 'is a subject of general interest and of value and concern to the public."

Now this is the test for h**e speech and the reasoning behind it. Therefore, if a Christian in defense of his faith, uses the bible as a warrant against sin, should not be considered h**e speech, for the expression has the warrant to evangelize for the saving of souls. This is not h**e but love. Although I am against the methods of the Westboro Baptist Church, the fact of the matter is that their protest is within the compliance of the first amendment.

"Fighting words and expression" can be applied to the burning of the American f**g as a protest against the Government of the United States, but as the first amendment protects against Government interference during a legal protest against the Government, and can be protected by the use of the Second Amendment, it is justified and allowable. However, it is an extreme example of "fighting words." For as a veteran, I am offended that anyone should have the gaul to burn the f**g, however it is the persons right, and I must protect the right over the f**g.

In the same manner, and I expect the homosexuals to conduct themselves with the same discipline, if I were to protest this Supreme Court ruling on same sex marriages, if I were to quote Leviticus 20:13 they should show the same restraint, as I show for those who burn the f**g in protest.

Expression of the Christian faith in accordance with a free conscience, and Christian forbearance should be protected. And if this right is not protected, then it should be protected with the use of the second Amendment. For if the Amendment is not protected then the government has reverted to tyranny and therefore, the purpose of the second amendment is to keep the government honest, in respect to these inalienable rights.

Therefore, h**e speech is any speech that turns a peaceful situation into a violent situation. It is this speech that is unlawful. Should a Christian use the Bible in a manner that provokes violence, then that Christian should be arrested and tried as the law states. However, if the Christian is evangelizing, which the government cannot prohibit, then it follows that the government must protect the individual from needless violence that comes upon the person because of the disagreeing view points.

Let those who are wise, listen.

Therefore, I caution all Christians when evangelizing to keep the discipline of our Lord Jesus Christ in mind. Use temperance, and self-restraint, however, what is written is written, and was written for love and not for h**e. Therefore we must exercise the greatest power of our love towards our countrymen however we must chastise the ones who err, it is here that there should be no offense, unless they do not live up to self-control.

If the homosexuals cannot use self-control when the faithful exercise their right, then the homosexuals should stay home. But if they come out to counter protest the faithful, then it is to be expected that the government protect both people. Should the government fail in this manner then blood would be shed. And for that matter all are guilty, not of h**e speech but of murder.

All it would take is a look from one side or another to spark a r**t. But both sides have a right to their views and their speech. My fellow Christians be careful with these foreign ideals. For we are in a slippery slope between saving souls and sinning ourselves.

May God help us in this struggle. Amen.

SeniorVerdad

As we both know my brother, God loves the sinner but h**es the sin because it(the sin) separates the doer from God Himself. That's how it was for 1000's of years until Jesus came and redeemed man back to the Father. Sin still separates but repentance brings forgiveness and redemption.

Ranger7374 Loc: Arizona, 40 miles from the border in the DMZ

Yes that is correct! Yes! I firmly agree with you! However it is the legislation of the Supreme Court that must be checked by the people, the states, and the other branches of government. Good Post! I Soooo agree with your statement! :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

dwallace2015

I will have you know that I will h**e anyone I choose, not at random, but with good reason. Some people are inherently h**eful because of those reasons. Take Obama for example. He is a t*****r to the country, the people and the Constitution and Bill of Rights. It is not because he is half black. It is because as a Muslim (Islamic) he is a sworn and avowed enemy of America in particular and any free system of government in general. He is diligently trying to bring America into destruction, and thus deserves all the h**e he can collect.

Ranger7374 Loc: Arizona, 40 miles from the border in the DMZ

I don't h**e anyone but I believe everyone has to answer for their actions and be held accountable and responsible for their actions. Every person on earth should be chastised for the bad they do and rewarded for the good they do. In the case of Obama, I have yet to see the good he has done, however there is a forest of trees that were k**led and electrons working overtime to record the bad he has done, and it is time that the American public do what their representatives have failed to do and chastise the t*****r, according to justice. But hey that is just my opinion. That is not h**e but accusing the responsible party for their crime.

Steve700

Especially with Political Correctness: Welcome To The Last Days Where The T***h Is The New H**e Speech. The plan for us to be acclimated into the New World order is that our guns and our free speech must be taken away. I think you will find the events of September will likely be their key to begin the enabling of the process.

"REMEMBER This Coming SEPTEMBER"

DamnYANKEE

IMPEACH the RINOS and LIBTURD DEMS

no propaganda please Loc: moon orbiting the third rock from the sun

Wise words well spoken,and well received by those who understand, but the words themselves constitute h**e speech to the progressive dictators with their religion of Marxist ideas. Careful, you will be arrested shortly. I have your bail ready!!!.

Ranger7374 Loc: Arizona, 40 miles from the border in the DMZ

Thank you oh so very much, in these days I feel like Elijah or Elisha, but they still don't understand this statement.

SeniorVerdad

Love the Val Kilmer pic. Loved that movie. VK's portrayal of Doc Holiday was one of the best acting performances I have ever seen! My opinion, of course.

Ranger7374 Loc: Arizona, 40 miles from the border in the DMZ

Which is shared by me and many others.....