Why Do Liberals Keep Trying To Control Speech?

[Carrikature]

Well I am going by a few articles I read, but I can not find the actual order - if you have it please link it.

It's a lot harder to find than it should be. The order is on the ADF's site:

Source: IBID

Plaintiff has established that (1) it is likely to succeed on the merits of its claim that North Carolina State University's Non-Commercial Solicitation policy (including the permit requirement in the policy) facially violates the First Amendment; (2) it is likely to suffer irreparable harm absent preliminary relief; (3) the balance of the equities tips in plaintiff's favor; and ( 4) a preliminary injunction is in the public interest.

© Copyright Original Source

[Carrikature]

I will ask again, did their founder make war and own slaves?

On that basis, you should not be against slave ownership, either.

[seer]

On that basis, you should not be against slave ownership, either.

Sheesh, that is not the point! I'm not arguing for or against slavery, just Ali's or FM's specious reasoning. BTW - I don't think that all forms or slavery are inherently immoral.

[seer]

It's a lot harder to find than it should be. The order is on the ADF's site:

Source: IBID

Plaintiff has established that (1) it is likely to succeed on the merits of its claim that North Carolina State University's Non-Commercial Solicitation policy (including the permit requirement in the policy) facially violates the First Amendment; (2) it is likely to suffer irreparable harm absent preliminary relief; (3) the balance of the equities tips in plaintiff's favor; and ( 4) a preliminary injunction is in the public interest.

© Copyright Original Source

Yes, I just found it too - so it seems that the Judge is agreeing that the policy is a violation of the First Amendment.

[Carrikature]

Sheesh, that is not the point! I'm not arguing for or against slavery, just Ali's or FM's specious reasoning. BTW - I don't think that all forms or slavery are inherently immoral.

It's just as specious reasoning to claim that Ali should be in favor of war or slavery because of the Islam's founder.

[Carrikature]

Yes, I just found it too - so it seems that the Judge is agreeing that the policy is a violation of the First Amendment.

I think that's reading too much into things. That goes back to what I said earlier: the case has merit and it's a significant concern.

[seer]

I think that's reading too much into things. That goes back to what I said earlier: the case has merit and it's a significant concern.

Sheesh Carrikature, he said it was likely a violation. I mean if he didn't think it was he would not have issued the stay.

[seer]

It's just as specious reasoning to claim that Ali should be in favor of war or slavery because of the Islam's founder.

Why? If the founder of your religion is not your example and guide then what is?

[Carrikature]

Sheesh Carrikature, he said it was likely a violation. I mean if he didn't think it was he would not have issued the stay.

Not exactly. There's a difference between having a case and sufficiently arguing the case.

Why? If the founder of your religion is not your example and guide then what is?

Maybe the object of that religion's worship? You know...the deity?

[seer]

Not exactly. There's a difference between having a case and sufficiently arguing the case.

Well the judge did say that the case was "likely" to succeed and on it's face was a violation of the First Amendment. Seems pretty clear to me.

Maybe the object of that religion's worship? You know...the deity?

Ok, but I still see not inherent prohibition against war or slavery.

[Sea of red]

Stop being an idiot, because you are not making any sense. Do you even know what you are saying?

That you're a hypocrite that only cares about his beliefs. If this was a group of Buddhists we wouldn't hear a peep out of ya'.

[Carrikature]

Well the judge did say that the case was "likely" to succeed and on it's face was a violation of the First Amendment. Seems pretty clear to me.

"Likely to succeed" doesn't mean that it will. The judge hasn't ruled yet that it's a violation. Saying otherwise is misleading at best.

He didn't say "on it's face". It's a facial challenge. I provided you information on that in Post #33.

Ok, but I still see not inherent prohibition against war or slavery.

So?

[fm93]

Do you believe that speech codes on campus violate free speech?

If students say something that doesn't constitute slander/plagiarism/fighting words and are arrested for it, then their free speech rights have been violated. Otherwise, no.

And if you allow Johnny to speak but not Joe, you certainly are curtailing Joe's right.

This doesn't warrant more repeated explanation.

I will ask again, did their founder make war and own slaves?

Clearly, not all Muslims follow their founder in this regard.

Thanks for the signature addition, btw.

[seer]

That you're a hypocrite that only cares about his beliefs. If this was a group of Buddhists we wouldn't hear a peep out of ya'.

Sea, you have to be more specific - exactly how have I been hypocritical?

[seer]

"Likely to succeed" doesn't mean that it will. The judge hasn't ruled yet that it's a violation. Saying otherwise is misleading at best.

Again Carrikature, he said it is likely to succeed meaning that the judge does agree that the plaintiffs would win. But win what - the case was presented as a violation of their First Amendment rights.

So?

The point was that Ali used his religion to dodge the draft, but there is no justification inherent in Islam to support his position.