Search results

I'm not sure it would amount to much if you did :p Anyway leave us to it we're not harming you, ya big 'orrible troll :D

More dodging. My question was not about one which involved incitement You introduced incitement erroneously In fact you gave an example yourself of the type of speech which I actually described, which is not incitement, and which in case law has been found to be open to legitimate censor by a...

What argument is foolish? Opinion is not Statute. There is nothing foolish about that. Law is a collective noun for all those things. You are trying to separate and isolate Opinion and call it Law.. You are wrong so to do. You flip in and out of Opinion to Statute to Rationale as if to say...

whister, May I just say, you do not need to keep repeating over and over how free speech is constitutionally protected . It is not an answer which deals with my questions to you. If you can't or don't want to deal directly with the issues I tried to raise, it's fine

You like to hurl insult but offer nothing in the way of reasonable argument. Stop waffling jem and face facts. Rationale is not Statute, jurisprudence is not Statute, opinion is not Statute. Important as they may be, they are not Statute. In any event I repeat , the Court states and...

As I say jem, you are too emotional. I did not even suggest the Trinity Case did not make law or precedent. The Trinity Case Opinion did not make Law or Statute. . Because it was part of the Case does not make or turn the Case into Law, If the Trinity Case opinion were never there, the...

whister. I think you are going round in circles .You were given an example of hate speech and you labeled it incitement , not I. You seem to do so because you would not directly deal with the fact that there are lines drawn in case law against what I consider you wrongly describe as the...

The words quoted are not the central support for the ultimate conclusion. So your self- constructed rule fell in on itself. No jem you do no such thing. You generally spew up rhetoric from catholic websites which have already distorted the actual position, then you call that "expert". What the...

Ok you are rattled as you lose an argument but unfounded Insult won't help your position any. and as far as I can tell by what you post, you are doing little else but displaying a self-opinionated religious predjudice and some slightly wacky notions of a political nature. Quite plainly it...

Religious prejudice appears to be conflicting with your reading skills. There is no ban because of their belief system. It is made clear in the link. You may notice the ban on any Commercial adverts is not because of their belif system either.. Since when has a politician or a political...

No jem. This is what I clearly stated to you 1. The sentence you cherry picked your 5 words from does not say what you want it to when read in it's entirety. Neither does the whole paragraph for that matter..In the same way the sentence I chose words from in my obviously unsuccessful...

Bollocks. That's the rhetoric for freedom of tyranny , not freedom of speech. You don't even know what it means. Go back and try to understand what the 1st Amendment is really all about.. You have made it clear that you would defend the right for a student to speak out - to spew hateful...

You can't objectively discuss this jem you never have been able to, because you are too emotionally motivated like a moth to the Christian lamp light. You just keep getting burned. It is also off topic for the thread in case you hadn't noticed.

do you have a shortcut on your keyboard marked "the bleedin' obvious response button" Repeating doesn't help. Try altering the wording instead... Oh dear look, you are doing. Let's see what happens when you only choose the part of a sentence you want to support a biased view. "THIS IS A...

you are moaning because there is a ban on any religious groups including Christians and other secular groups, from advertising in a library ultimately run by politicians, left right or whatever wing . But you want me to "get real" when Blair, a self proclaimed Christian who brought his...

You have a very distorted view of my position jem, but then you usually do . My intent was to request whister, and at often times before - yourself, to examine and query, instead of blindly and unquestioningly accepting what is handed down. to you . I asked straightforward and pertinent...

...."Blair has demonstrated his taste for absolute power with his abuse of the royal prerogative, which he has used to bypass parliament" Ironic, in light of this thread, that a self-declared devout Christian who only recently brought God into his politics, should want to prejudice...

Let me ask you this. A principal of a college decides it is not conducive to good rule and government on his campus to have students holding informal unscheduled 'public' meetings in the quad between lessons . She/he/ finds them to be disruptive and are unsettling to many students and are...

whitster, You may try to wiggle free with your sophistry claim , but that does little to address the core argument and you seem to want to shilly shally around, rather than face it front on. You have used nothing but hyperbole about Law and Courts to dance about the fact that, the...

I thought as much , it is the Christian's persecution complex again. No political and No commercial groups can advertise in the Public forum either. Neither can any other religious groups. No commercial or political theatre groups can adverise so, is it discrimination against commerce...