Jail people for attending radical speeches?

[ugonow]

Lol...If Obama made a slip up like this, the media would be all over it.---- "Rand Paul, Supposed Defender Of Civil Liberties, Calls For Jailing People Who Attend ‘Radical Political Speeches’
By Alex Seitz-Wald on May 31, 2011 at 8:00 pm

Libertarian-leaning Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) made headlines last week for single-handedly obstructing the renewal of the Patriot Act, calling the law an unconstitutional infringement on civil liberties. His demand to insert a series of amendments to weaken the law nearly allowed it to lapse and put the country at “risk,” but Paul said it was worth it to prevent the government from continuing to “blatantly ignor[e] the Constitution.” But when Paul went on Fox News host Sean Hannity’s radio show Friday to discuss his opposition to the national security law, he suggested implementing a far more serious infringement on civil liberties. While discussing profiling at airports, Paul called for the criminalization of speech:

PAUL: I’m not for profiling people on the color of their skin, or on their religion, but I would take into account where they’ve been traveling and perhaps, you might have to indirectly take into account whether or not they’ve been going to radical political speeches by religious leaders. It wouldn’t be that they are Islamic. But if someone is attending speeches from someone who is promoting the violent overthrow of our government, that’s really an offense that we should be going after — they should be deported or put in prison.

Listen here:



Paul’s suggestion that people be imprisoned or deported for merely attending a political speech would be a fairly egregious violation on the First Amendment, not to mention due process. What if someone attended a radical speech as a curious bystander? Should they too be thrown in prison? And who defines what is considered so “radical” that it is worth imprisonment? "thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/05/31/232182/rand-paul-criminalize-speech/

[Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ]

Could be for inciting a riot.

[ugonow]

I think Angle calling for secondamendment solutions might qualify. lol I don't think he really meant it, but can't believe the media did not jump on it.If Obama utterd these words it would be front page news.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

I've said it before and I'll say it again- sedition, inciting a riot, fomenting revolution are not protected speech.

[❤ mollymouser ❤]

peaceful public assembly ~ protected.

inciting riots ~ not protected.
violating curfews ~ not protected.
protesting without a permit where one is required ~ not protected.
protesting in violation of a restraining order ~ not protected.
protesting on private property ~ not protected.

[ugonow]

Attending political speeches?

[ugonow]

So when Rand Paul spoke at the militia meeting that advocated overthrowing the government,he should have been jailed?----barefootandprogressive.blogspot.com/2011/05/rand-paul-calls-for-putting-himself-in.html How about his friends?-----barefootandprogressive.blogspot.com/2010/04/closer-look-at-rand-pauls-militia.html

[reasonfreedom]

He said profiling based on people going to radical speeches. I am just curious on how we know which people are Al qaeda without profiling. He also said if they promote a violent over throw that they should be deported or in prison. Just so you know that promoting a violent overthrow would not be supported under the freedom of speech since it can inflict massive harm, hence not violating any liberties.

"And who defines what is considered so "radical" that it is worth imprisonment". When he mentioned "radical' he was talking about the profiling. We profile criminals all of the time, are we violating there rights? Profiling doesn't mean accusing or arresting, it is just a way to help determine an outcome.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jun 3, 2011 13:04:28 GMT -5 ugonow said:

So when Rand Paul spoke at the militia meeting that advocated overthrowing the government,he should have been jailed?----barefootandprogressive.blogspot.com/2011/05/rand-paul-calls-for-putting-himself-in.html

Restoring lawful government- taking back the government from the illegal revolutionary movement now attempting to upend it is not inciting revolution, it is the duty of fighting in the counterrevolution.

And we're not talking about violence, here-- we're talking about taking it over via the lawful process and dismantling the unlawful, overreaching parts of the government.

[ugonow]

So gun toting militias advocating an overthrow of the government like our founding fathers did would not fit the criteria?barefootandprogressive.blogspot.com/2010/04/closer-look-at-rand-pauls-militia.html What do you suppose is meant when they and people like Sharon Angle mean by 2nd amendment solutions? JMO, but it seems to me him speaking at these militia rallys would fall under his imprisonment criteria...or is it just for muslims?

[Deleted]