The Philly 5

Trippy discussions of moral issues, conspiracy theories, the paranormal and other otherworldly phenomenon.

Moderator: Dracofrost

The Philly 5

Postby LarryTGC » Fri Jan 14, 2005 6:25 am

http://www.afa.net/clp/videos/philly11.wmv

The persons in this video were charged under Philadelphia's new "hate crimes" law.

Eight charges were filed: criminal conspiracy, possession of instruments of crime, reckless endangerment of another person, ethnic intimidation, riot, failure to disperse, disorderly conduct and obstructing highways.

The persons in this video face up to 47 years in prision on the felony counts against them.

Yes the persons arrested are Christian.

Yes it happened at a homosexual event.

Question, do you think the charges are warranted?
LarryTGC
Traveler
 
Posts: 34
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 5:43 pm

Postby ChatOmbre » Sat Jan 15, 2005 10:35 pm

I don't have any sound right now, and from watching it for a while I couldn't tell what was going on or even read most of the signs people were holding (other than two words in one of them: "hell" and "God").

Why does it matter that whatever happened involved people who were Christian?
Queen of the PointyShiney

"Too much ink is drawn to describe and define love. Why describe it and define it? Take my hand and let's just take a ride through it. Love is... Love is... Let's just go for awhile, leaving ourselves for each other." --Mike Smith
User avatar
ChatOmbre
Heroic Guard
 
Posts: 3519
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2003 7:41 pm
Location: somewhere over the rainbow

Postby tsian » Sun Jan 16, 2005 5:08 am

As the Snopes website points out, most of the charges have been dropped and those who are still charged will more than likely end up with a suspended sentence. The idiots specifically planned a protest to disrupt a gay pride-type event and probably did border on inciting violence. Idiotic.
Vive le titre de deux.
In an ironic twist, the only trait I find completely appaling is intolerance.
User avatar
tsian
Castle Guard
 
Posts: 683
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 4:19 am
Location: BC, Canada

Postby TerraFrost » Sun Jan 16, 2005 5:58 am

not being too knowledgable on the situation, it seems that their punishment may well have been too harsh, however, that's not to say that they didn't deserve atleast some punishment.

anyway, from the snopes article tsian was refering too...

When they tried to speak, they were surrounded by a group of radical homosexual activists dubbed the Pink Angels. A videotape of the incident shows the Pink Angels interfering with the Christians' movement on the street, holding up large pink symbols of angels to cover up the Christians' messages and blowing high pitched whistles to drown out their preaching.

Rather than arrest the homosexual activists and allow the Christians to exercise their First Amendment rights, the Philadelphia police arrested and jailed the Christians!

why the hell would they arrest the "homosexual activists"? if fundamentalist christians ought to be allowed to disrupt a "homosexual event" why can't "homosexual activists" be allowed to disrupt the disruption?

anyway, here's the snopes article:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/inpublic.asp
TerraFrost
Legendary Guard
 
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 6:37 am

Postby LarryTGC » Sun Jan 16, 2005 9:18 pm

The 'outfest' is in part funded by the goverment. This makes it a public event. During a public event, to my knowledge, all peoples are allowed to attend and the 1rst amendment is alive and well.

Repent Ameica had the right to be there.

According the snopes article:

members of Repent America — with police approval — were preaching near Outfest, a homosexual event, handing out Gospel literature and carrying banners with Biblical messages.


Now,

most of the charges have been dropped and those who are still charged will more than likely end up with a suspended sentence.


Thankfully the charges have been dropped against some. But why not all? Werent they all in a group doing the same thing? Speaking.

Well for a little insight we turn to WND http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/artic ... E_ID=41969

Philadelphia city prosecutor in the case, Charles Ehrlich, attacked the defendants as "hateful" and referred to preaching the Bible as "fighting words," a characterization, the law group says, with which Judge Meehan agreed.

Charges were dropped against the remaining seven Christians, apparently because they were not seen quoting Scripture on the videotape.


So under the 'hate crimes' law, quoting scripture has become criminal...er excuse me, 'hateful, fighting words'.

If the city was only moving forward on the misdemeanor charges no one would have a big problem with this. It is the felony's that are frightening and un-American.

Let us hope that the city of Philly remembers the supreme court has said, ""Speech cannot be punished or banned simply because it might offend a hostile mob."
LarryTGC
Traveler
 
Posts: 34
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 5:43 pm

Postby tsian » Sun Jan 16, 2005 11:36 pm

The 'outfest' is in part funded by the goverment. This makes it a public event. During a public event, to my knowledge, all peoples are allowed to attend and the 1rst amendment is alive and well.


Ever heard of 'Free Speech Zones'. Those happen during 'public events'. What do you think of them?

So under the 'hate crimes' law, quoting scripture has become criminal...er excuse me, 'hateful, fighting words'.


Quoting Scripture, no. Inciting hate and violence, yes. The felonies are disturbing if you disagree with hate-crime legislation, yes.

Let us hope that the city of Philly remembers the supreme court has said, ""Speech cannot be punished or banned simply because it might offend a hostile mob."


No, but free speech isn't absolute. Why do you think you can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre? Why does the FCC have the power to regulate the airwaves? Speech has never been absolutely free.
Vive le titre de deux.
In an ironic twist, the only trait I find completely appaling is intolerance.
User avatar
tsian
Castle Guard
 
Posts: 683
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 4:19 am
Location: BC, Canada

Postby Exalted Ugu » Wed Jan 19, 2005 5:53 am

In an ironic twist, the exact same term used in the bible to 'condemn' homosexuality 'toebah' (abomination) is the same as the one used to condemn the eating of shellfish. When will this group start picketing oyster bars?

-ugu
Exalted Ugu
Townfolk
 
Posts: 102
Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2003 11:18 pm

Postby LarryTGC » Wed Jan 19, 2005 6:50 am

When will this group start picketing oyster bars?


Good question.

Possibly when the get out of jail in 47 years for speaking and quoting scripture.
LarryTGC
Traveler
 
Posts: 34
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 5:43 pm

Postby tsian » Wed Jan 19, 2005 6:53 am

So, you think that they should picket oyster bars with the same tenacity they ridicule and insult gay people? Is that really gods will?

Do you eat Shellfish? ;)


And, as has already been pointed out, they aren't going to jail for 47 years. If you are going to make an flippant statement, it could at least have some relation to the facts at hand.
Vive le titre de deux.
In an ironic twist, the only trait I find completely appaling is intolerance.
User avatar
tsian
Castle Guard
 
Posts: 683
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 4:19 am
Location: BC, Canada

Postby LarryTGC » Wed Jan 19, 2005 7:56 am

And, as has already been pointed out, they aren't going to jail for 47 years.


They better not. They have lost twice in court so far. I believe they have another hearing on Jan.18th (today). Will this end up being a Supreme court case?

The felony charges are Stalinistic. Hate crimes laws that criminalize speech are extremly unAmerican.

The oyster argument is rediculous. This is not about what these people said. It is about what is happening to them for saying it.
LarryTGC
Traveler
 
Posts: 34
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 5:43 pm

Postby tsian » Wed Jan 19, 2005 8:02 am

Hate crimes laws that criminalize speech are extremly unAmerican.


How, fundamentally, are they different from laws which say you can't yell "Fire" in a crowded theatre?

The felony charges are Stalinistic.


In what way? What do you mean by Stalinistic?
Vive le titre de deux.
In an ironic twist, the only trait I find completely appaling is intolerance.
User avatar
tsian
Castle Guard
 
Posts: 683
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 4:19 am
Location: BC, Canada

Postby LarryTGC » Wed Jan 19, 2005 8:33 am

How, fundamentally, are they different from laws which say you can't yell "Fire" in a crowded theatre?


AS far as I know yelling fire in a theatre is not protected by the first amendment.

Political and religious speech is.

or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,


In what way? What do you mean by Stalinistic?


In the way Stalin made religious speech criminal.
LarryTGC
Traveler
 
Posts: 34
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 5:43 pm

Postby tsian » Wed Jan 19, 2005 4:33 pm

prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,


Where, in that quote, do you see that it only applies to political and religious speech? Why have you decided that it doesn't apply to yelling "Fire" in a crowded theatre. It seems to me that not being able to yell "Fire" is prohibiting me from exercising my freedom of speech (note the lack of any qualifiers on that statement above) and is certainly abridging it.
Vive le titre de deux.
In an ironic twist, the only trait I find completely appaling is intolerance.
User avatar
tsian
Castle Guard
 
Posts: 683
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 4:19 am
Location: BC, Canada

Postby LarryTGC » Wed Jan 19, 2005 5:52 pm

Well, I guess I've won this debate if you been forced to use such weak analogies as comparing these peoples arrest to shellfish and yelling fire in a theatre.

:lol
LarryTGC
Traveler
 
Posts: 34
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 5:43 pm

Postby tsian » Wed Jan 19, 2005 6:40 pm

No, you haven't. If I understand your arguement, you are saying Freedom of speech is an absolute right as guaranteed by the constitution and, because of that, these people should never be arrested.

If that is so, how do you justify any infringement on speech when the constitution itself makes no mention of the fact that it only guarantees reliigious and political speech.

Really, dismissing an arguement just because you don't know how to respond to it is rather intellectually dishonest, don't you think?
Vive le titre de deux.
In an ironic twist, the only trait I find completely appaling is intolerance.
User avatar
tsian
Castle Guard
 
Posts: 683
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 4:19 am
Location: BC, Canada

Next

Return to Twilight Zone

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron