all of us but here s the question. should this event defikting the prophet mumuhammad should it have taken place in the first place? sfl if you can t tolerate offensive speech then the first amendment doesn t mean anything. there is never a justification for violence against somebody in this country who is expressing their opinion, no matter how obnoxious it is to me or someone else. now what the problem is though we have to understand that our reference for the first amendment doesn t extend across the globe and that there are people who there are laws against blasphemy and all of these other things in other countries. that s where it gets complicated. we have the right of free speech in this country and that goes for words we don t like. no justification for this no matter how provocative this event was. but i do think it s important, wolf that these were two, you
we have outlined for the judge a few issues. number one fundamental at this point o an important public policy debate, the only viewpoint being heard is that of government. you and i know the first amendment doesn t allow that. so with the representation by mccullough that this is what the grand jurors did, this is what they thought, this is what they saw, that s not a complete and accurate picture. we can t have good public policy debates. more importantly, our legislators can t make good public policy decisions without a complete and accurate picture. that is very interesting. you do then as you said have this prosecutor giving his own version of what he says that this grand jury believed and they can t counter it if they disagree with him. one of the other elements of the case presented by the aclu on behalf of this plaintiff was very interesting. this grand jury was in place before they got the darren wilson case. they were hearing other cases. i m going to read a little bit from
are their rights? is that inciting a riot? what do you think, mark? absolutely. the first amendment doesn t allow you to stop commerce, public movement, access to buildings. the first amendment doesn t have anything to do with rocks, cars, bombing, burglarizing, these people are nothing but criminals. and they re talking about spending $500 million to educate police officers? let s educate the community that can t seem to keep themselves straight. well, it seems to me that this is pretty transparent. they re going to have some tough decisions because there s a lot of politics here. i m sure there s a school at thought, oh, don t touch this. now, the st. louis rams did this whole thing, they come out on the field, hands up, don t shoot. okay. here s a problem with their narrative. michael brown s hands weren t up. according to eyewitnesses he was
nearby. she said she was eventually stopped by police and charged. here is what she says about why she did that. the first amendment protects them from government interference. it doesn t protect them from people basically telling them they re idiots. but you assaulted them. assault? i wouldn t necessarily say shoving someone aside and telling them to keep the camera out of my face as assault. mark, she feels bad that she doesn t think that you had the right to tape her and, in fact, oftentimes you folks wear cameras to protect yourself, right? right. she needs a little remedial education on the first amendment. the government has the obligation to protect speech and she doesn t understand that the first amendment doesn t protect her rights to interfere with our right to free speech. so that s the problem. in a public forum, you lose a reasonable right to privacy.
CNN CNN Special Report May 14, 2014 05:59:15 archive.org - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from archive.org Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.