You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #96: You do not know that. Any person can file a lawsuit [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread		 This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
sabrina 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-09-10 10:54 AM
Response to Reply #14
96. You do not know that. Any person can file a lawsuit
if they are directly involved in this.

I see the possibility of a cause of action, definitely. I wonder if the AG and Petraeas made the statements they made to provide material for a lawsuit.

A cause of action would be the endangering of others, the disturbing of the peace eg, caused by his actions.

He could say 'I didn't intend to harm anyone'. But now that both Holder and Petraeus have warned him of the dangers of his book burning, he cannot make that claim.

Lots of ways he can be sued. Not all speech is protected.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
  -Just heard a caller on Randi Rhodes who said he Googled "cross burning illegal" gateley  Sep-08-10 09:31 PM   #0 
  - Yes.  Sinistrous   Sep-08-10 09:33 PM   #1 
  - Actually, no.  Common Sense Party   Sep-08-10 09:50 PM   #8 
     - You're both right.  rucky   Sep-08-10 10:12 PM   #19 
  - From what I gather  Canuckistanian   Sep-08-10 09:36 PM   #2 
  - I guess that makes sense -- but too bad. People can be arrested for other  gateley   Sep-08-10 09:43 PM   #4 
  - It is NOT illegal to burn a cross  mjane   Sep-08-10 11:24 PM   #59 
  - then, I'd love to see him frog marched to jail  WhiteTara   Sep-08-10 10:01 PM   #11 
  - That won't work either  ProgressiveProfessor   Sep-08-10 10:06 PM   #14 
     - You do not know that. Any person can file a lawsuit  sabrina 1   Sep-09-10 10:54 AM   #96 
        - You've really got to stop playing lawyer.  COLGATE4   Sep-09-10 12:26 PM   #97 
           - I'm not playing. Are you? I think this is serious, not a game.  sabrina 1   Sep-09-10 12:38 PM   #98 
  - I hope so. I heard it too, but  Cleita   Sep-08-10 09:37 PM   #3 
  - Check out Canuckistanian's response above. But I'm hoping that maybe they  gateley   Sep-08-10 10:00 PM   #9 
  - Cross burning per se cannot be proscribed by statute  depakid   Sep-08-10 09:47 PM   #5 
  - I caught that part (by Randi) after I posted. Interesting. And, I think pretty  gateley   Sep-08-10 10:02 PM   #12 
  - Well, in the court case the yahoos tried to burn a cross in their African American neighbor's yard  aikoaiko   Sep-08-10 09:48 PM   #6 
  - Someone on TV said that burning crosses  Bitwit1234   Sep-08-10 09:48 PM   #7 
  - I heard the part about him not being able to get a burn permit or something  gateley   Sep-08-10 10:05 PM   #13 
  - Also applies to identifiable groups of people  depakid   Sep-08-10 10:10 PM   #17 
  - True, but without a law banning it per se, there is nothing illegal about what is planned  ProgressiveProfessor   Sep-08-10 10:30 PM   #32 
     - As far as we know...  depakid   Sep-08-10 10:37 PM   #36 
        - Doubtful...this is really about sacrilege, not threats. Its designed to draw a response  ProgressiveProfessor   Sep-08-10 10:40 PM   #40 
        - No, it wouldn't  mjane   Sep-08-10 11:26 PM   #60 
           - Do you actually have an informed viewpoint?  depakid   Sep-08-10 11:32 PM   #65 
              - Mine is based on case law  mjane   Sep-08-10 11:37 PM   #69 
                 - You must have missed the previous posts  depakid   Sep-09-10 12:04 AM   #75 
                    - There is no way  mjane   Sep-09-10 12:10 AM   #76 
                       - No reason whatsoever that flag burning with intent to intimidate couldn't be outlawed!  depakid   Sep-09-10 12:19 AM   #78 
                          - There has to be some nexus  mjane   Sep-09-10 12:26 AM   #80 
                             - Virginia v. Black doesn't mention a nexus  depakid   Sep-09-10 12:33 AM   #82 
                                - Yes it does  mjane   Sep-09-10 12:38 AM   #84 
                                   - There certainly is such a connection in my hypothetical (which you responded to)  depakid   Sep-09-10 12:48 AM   #86 
                                      - ok, i get you now  mjane   Sep-09-10 12:54 AM   #87 
                                         - We don't know if there's a threat or not as the "event" hasn't occurred yet  depakid   Sep-09-10 12:55 AM   #88 
                                            - Yes we do  mjane   Sep-09-10 01:02 AM   #90 
                                               - We have no idea what this guy or any other speaker's going to say or do!  depakid   Sep-09-10 01:08 AM   #91 
                                                  - It would  mjane   Sep-09-10 01:18 AM   #92 
                                                  - Mostly on the same page except that the standard of intent to intimidate  depakid   Sep-09-10 01:31 AM   #94 
  - right. my community doesn't allow leaf burning. i don't know about  orleans   Sep-09-10 12:17 AM   #77 
  - I cannot believe you people want someone arrested for free expression!  Codeine   Sep-08-10 10:00 PM   #10 
  - Maybe YOU can cope with this  Canuckistanian   Sep-08-10 10:06 PM   #15 
  - Then they have a serious fucking problem.  Codeine   Sep-08-10 10:13 PM   #20 
  - What you are arguing for is the heckler's veto, its not a side I would want to be on  ProgressiveProfessor   Sep-08-10 10:18 PM   #23 
  - We can condemn it all we want  mjane   Sep-09-10 12:00 AM   #74 
  - "But the INTERNATIONAL Muslim community CAN'T. And that means a whole lot of hurt for Americans..."  smalll   Sep-09-10 01:30 AM   #93 
  - +100 nt  Skip Intro   Sep-08-10 10:09 PM   #16 
  - I was thinking about the repercussions in the Muslim communities.  gateley   Sep-08-10 10:12 PM   #18 
  - To put it in simple terms, people are going to die over this  Canuckistanian   Sep-08-10 10:17 PM   #22 
     - Book-burning will not cause that.  Codeine   Sep-08-10 10:20 PM   #24 
     - I beleive it will. Its a provacative sacrelidge and intemational islam does not react well to it  ProgressiveProfessor   Sep-08-10 10:28 PM   #28 
     - This isn't a simple "book-burning"  Canuckistanian   Sep-08-10 10:29 PM   #30 
     - Yes it is a simple "book-burning."  Codeine   Sep-08-10 10:34 PM   #33 
     - So, people in other countries should die for your freedoms?  Canuckistanian   Sep-08-10 10:46 PM   # 
     - Blame will be on those commiting the violence, not the Florida nut cases, at least here in the US  ProgressiveProfessor   Sep-08-10 10:49 PM   #47 
     - Oh, I realize that  Canuckistanian   Sep-08-10 11:09 PM   #52 
        - It never was purely an American issue if the nut bags go forward with their plans  ProgressiveProfessor   Sep-08-10 11:18 PM   #55 
     - My freedoms are not really the problem here, are they?  Codeine   Sep-08-10 11:15 PM   #53 
     - I agree 100%  mjane   Sep-08-10 11:29 PM   #62 
     - It seems to me that  verges   Sep-08-10 11:31 PM   #63 
        - Reasonable reactions are one thing.  Codeine   Sep-08-10 11:33 PM   #68 
           - But it is a reasonable assumption that  verges   Sep-08-10 11:53 PM   #72 
              - So you are willing to accept the Heckler's Veto and sacrifice principle in the process?  ProgressiveProfessor   Sep-09-10 10:46 AM   #95 
                 - Heckler Schmeckler.  verges   Sep-09-10 09:51 PM   #99 
     - You are right, its a deliberately provocative sacrilege  ProgressiveProfessor   Sep-08-10 10:35 PM   #35 
     - Targeting and killing Americans  Mz Pip   Sep-08-10 10:38 PM   #38 
        - Look what happened over some cartoons even in countries where they were not published  ProgressiveProfessor   Sep-08-10 10:42 PM   #42 
           - Not lonely. I agree with Mz Pip. nt  riderinthestorm   Sep-08-10 10:54 PM   #49 
           - As do I and many here, but we are not the ones who believe it was intentional  ProgressiveProfessor   Sep-08-10 11:06 PM   #51 
           - I do too.  mjane   Sep-08-10 11:31 PM   #64 
           - Unfortunately extremists  Mz Pip   Sep-08-10 11:00 PM   #50 
     - Its a principle issue and for most Americans, it trumps most other considerations  ProgressiveProfessor   Sep-08-10 10:21 PM   #26 
     - I'm really torn on this one -- as I often am in many situations. My initial, deep  gateley   Sep-08-10 10:30 PM   #31 
     - I agree  Mz Pip   Sep-08-10 10:48 PM   #46 
     - We can give a damn  mjane   Sep-08-10 11:28 PM   #61 
        - Does this mean that  verges   Sep-08-10 11:46 PM   #71 
           - you haven't been reading much here then  mjane   Sep-08-10 11:56 PM   #73 
  - Jayzus, the Nazis in Skokie. I vividly remember that fight.  riderinthestorm   Sep-08-10 10:20 PM   #25 
     - OMG, a voice of friggin reason!  Codeine   Sep-08-10 10:22 PM   #27 
        - The Nazis in Skokie are far more analogous to the Quran burning than anything else  riderinthestorm   Sep-08-10 10:42 PM   #41 
  - No.  TexasObserver   Sep-08-10 10:16 PM   #21 
  - But the city has told the pastor that there is city ordinance regarding fires  Tx4obama   Sep-08-10 10:28 PM   #29 
  - And the FD will be on-site to extinguish--immediately--any fire that is started  pinboy3niner   Sep-08-10 10:34 PM   #34 
  - I doubt it would do any good internationally and I also think that is what he wants  ProgressiveProfessor   Sep-08-10 10:37 PM   #37 
  - I disagree - I think it would make a statement that while his civil rights weren't  gateley   Sep-08-10 10:43 PM   #43 
     - It would be matrydom for him to many in the US  ProgressiveProfessor   Sep-08-10 10:46 PM   #45 
  - That would probably be the best possible outcome. The minute they light the  gateley   Sep-08-10 10:38 PM   #39 
  - And the First Amendment gets thrown out the window?  riderinthestorm   Sep-08-10 10:52 PM   #48 
  - Indeed. Respecting freedom of expression regarding religion is paramount.  TexasObserver   Sep-08-10 11:16 PM   #54 
  - That would be anathema to what America stands for.  Codeine   Sep-08-10 11:18 PM   #56 
  - "unless the starting of a fire itself is a crime" is what I wrote.  TexasObserver   Sep-08-10 10:46 PM   #44 
  - Is it a misdemeanor  mjane   Sep-08-10 11:33 PM   #67 
  - Not only is there no law  mjane   Sep-08-10 11:32 PM   #66 
     - I concur with your constitutional analysis in this thread.  TexasObserver   Sep-09-10 12:21 AM   #79 
        - I think we stand together  mjane   Sep-09-10 12:27 AM   #81 
           - The hysteria to stop him seems oblivious to the constitutional issue.  TexasObserver   Sep-09-10 12:37 AM   #83 
              - Yes, and many countries  mjane   Sep-09-10 12:40 AM   #85 
  - Burning a cross in and of itself is not a crime  Hugabear   Sep-08-10 11:21 PM   #57 
  - The Klan does cross burnings fairly regularly.  Codeine   Sep-08-10 11:23 PM   #58 
  - Err sort of  ProgressiveProfessor   Sep-08-10 11:40 PM   #70 
  - It's illegal to burn them on someone else's yard. If anyone burns a Quran on my yard, I'm  McCamy Taylor   Sep-09-10 12:57 AM   #89 
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC