Religious tolerance and multiculturalism

And of course religious groups should have every right to protest and even threaten pro choice groups.You have every right to burn the Qur'an and those that you offend have every right to protest you behavior.Where is the problem?

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Two different issues.The first is protest including threats. In the US that is a protected speech unless it is possible to show specific examples of incitement to violence.The second is carrying out a threat.It has nothing to do with whether the statements or actions are driven by religion or some other cause.Speech is protected.Acts are not.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

That of course depends on the specific speech. If you say "You are going to hell!" or "I hope you die." or "Do you enjoy killing kids?" then it's protected speech. If you say "I will beat you up." or "I will shoot you." and there is some possibility that you might actually have the capability to carry through on the threat then it might be actionable.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Fortunately in the US is is not only not against the law, it is protected speech.We are fortunate that way.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Well, shot, hung or burned might be considered exciting violence, but it would certainly be unlikely to end in a conviction. If they said "Should burn in hell forever." then it most certainly would be protected speech, thank God.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Quote mining don't work regardless of who is doing it.What I actually said was "Well, shot, hung or burned might be considered exciting violence, but it would certainly be unlikely to end in a conviction."Of course I should have said inciting, but it still works.Of all speech that needs and must be protected, hate speech tops the list.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Speech everyone agrees on does not need protection. It is the very speech we most disagree with that needs protection.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

That is exactly the kind of speech that needs protection.I disagree with it, but I will also support their right to say it.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Yes, it even applies to stuff like that.I was one of the folk that lived through a period here in the US where that was pretty much exactly the speech heard.And we protected such speech and changed the whole culture of the US. I personally think the way we did it was pretty *** and so caused us even more pain in the long run, but at least speech was protected.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Understand, I do not say that people should not protest hate speech, in fact I believe we are under a moral obligation to speak, but I also believe that we must protect the right for even the most abhorrent speech.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Spot them and do what exactly.Do we need Thinkpol now?Edited by jar, : hit wrong button

But should they? What is wrong with having access to weapons?Do you know how easy it is to make a bomb and how many potential bomb components also have very legitimate uses? Do we want to make access to peoples daily actions and financial records even easier?