Do we even have freedom of speech anymore?

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**whembly**

Can someone please explain to me how "federal civil rights laws can actually be violated by those who post inflammatory documents aimed at Muslims on social media"?

If I tweeted that the Boston Bombers and the London Killer of that soldier recently that these fething donkey-caves are Islamic terrorist (killing in the name of their religion).

Or, if I mentioned how anti-woman the Muslim Cultures can be...

Or, if I mention how gays are killed for being... gay in some countries...

Will the DoJ be knocking on my door??

You have every right to burn the koran and post it on youtube.

You have every right to create a movie criticizing Islam.

You have every right to draw a mohammed caricature.

As long as we do these peacefully, those actions are protected here in the US.

Maybe someone should ask the DoJ which of the amendments in the Bill of Rights they are willing to uphold.

DOJ: Social Media Posts Trashing Muslims May Violate Civil Rights

In its latest effort to protect followers of Islam in the U.S. the Obama Justice Department warns against using social media to spread information considered inflammatory against Muslims, threatening that it could constitute a violation of civil rights.

The move comes a few years after the administration became the first in history to dispatch a U.S. Attorney General to personally reassure Muslims that the Department of Justice (DOJ) is dedicated to protecting them. In the unprecedented event, Attorney General Eric Holder assured a San Francisco-based organization (Muslim Advocates) that urges members not to cooperate in federal terrorism investigations that the “us versus them” environment created by the U.S. government, law enforcement agents and fellow citizens is unacceptable and inconsistent with what America is all about.

“Muslims and Arab Americans have helped build and strengthen our nation,” Holder said after expressing that he is “grateful” to have Muslims as a partner in promoting tolerance, ensuring public safety and protecting civil rights. He also vowed to strengthen “crucial dialogue” between Muslim and Arab-American communities and law enforcement.

Evidently that was a precursor of sorts for an upcoming Tennessee event (“Public Disclosure in a Diverse Society”) that will feature the region’s top DOJ official, who serves as U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Tennessee, and an FBI representative. The goal is to increase awareness and understanding that American Muslims are not the terrorists some have made them out to be in social media and other circles, according to a local newspaper report. The June 4 powwow is sponsored by the American Muslim Advisory Council of Tennessee.

The area’s top federal prosecutor, Bill Killian, will address a topic that most Americans are likely unfamiliar with, even those well versed on the Constitution; that federal civil rights laws can actually be violated by those who post inflammatory documents aimed at Muslims on social media. “This is an educational effort with civil rights laws as they play into freedom of religion and exercising freedom of religion,” Killian says in the local news story. “This is also to inform the public what federal laws are in effect and what the consequences are.”

The DOJ political appointee adds in the article that the upcoming presentation will also focus on Muslim culture with a special emphasis on the fact that the religion is no different from others, even though some in the faith have committed terrorist acts, Christians have done the same. As an example he offers that the worst terrorist attack in the U.S. prior to 9/11 was committed by American Christians in Oklahoma City. He also mentioned the Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting last year in which another Christian, an American white supremacist, fatally shot six people and wounded four others.

“Some of the finest people I’ve met are Muslims,” Killian said, adding later: “We want to inform everybody about what the law is, but more importantly, we want to provide what the law means to Muslims, Hindus and every other religion in the country. It’s why we came here in the first place. In England, they were using Christianity to further their power in government. That’s why the First Amendment is there.”

Over the years the Obama administration has embarked on a fervent crusade to befriend Muslims by creating a variety of outreach programs at a number of key federal agencies. For instance the nation’s Homeland Security covertly met with a group of extremist Arab, Muslim and Sikh organizations to discuss national security matters and the State Department sent a controversial, anti-America Imam (Feisal Abdul Rauf) to the Middle East to foster greater understanding and outreach among Muslim majority communities.

The Obama Administration has also hired a special Homeland Security adviser (Mohamed Elibiary) who openly supports a radical Islamist theologian and renowned jihadist ideologue and a special Islam envoy that condemns U.S. prosecutions of terrorists as “politically motivated persecutions” and has close ties to radical extremist groups.

The president has even ordered the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to shift its mission from space exploration to Muslim diplomacy and the government started a special service that delivers halal meals, prepared according to Islamic law, to home-bound seniors in Detroit. Who could forget Hillary Clinton’s special order allowing the reentry of two radical Islamic academics whose terrorist ties have long banned them from the U.S.?

**deathholydeath**

The DOJ political appointee adds in the article that the upcoming presentation will also focus on Muslim culture with a special emphasis on the fact that the religion is no different from others, even though some in the faith have committed terrorist acts, Christians have done the same. As an example he offers that the worst terrorist attack in the U.S. prior to 9/11 was committed by American Christians in Oklahoma City. He also mentioned the Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting last year in which another Christian, an American white supremacist, fatally shot six people and wounded four others.

That's a silly soundbite. Neither of those acts were perpetrated "for" Christianity-- though they were perpetrated by people claiming to be Christians-- their motives were unrelated to the faith.

**Dreadclaw69**

The Obama Administration has also hired a special Homeland Security adviser (Mohamed Elibiary) who openly supports a radical Islamist theologian and renowned jihadist ideologue and a special Islam envoy that condemns U.S. prosecutions of terrorists as “politically motivated persecutions” and has close ties to radical extremist groups.

What could possibly go wrong with that idea? May as well start hiring foxes to guard the chickens

**azazel the cat**

deathholydeath wrote:
The DOJ political appointee adds in the article that the upcoming presentation will also focus on Muslim culture with a special emphasis on the fact that the religion is no different from others, even though some in the faith have committed terrorist acts, Christians have done the same. As an example he offers that the worst terrorist attack in the U.S. prior to 9/11 was committed by American Christians in Oklahoma City. He also mentioned the Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting last year in which another Christian, an American white supremacist, fatally shot six people and wounded four others.

That's a silly soundbite. Neither of those acts were perpetrated "for" Christianity-- though they were perpetrated by people claiming to be Christians-- their motives were unrelated to the faith.

Should I bring up the whole bomb-an-abortion-clinic thing, or would you prefer to sit back, put your feet up and revel in your No True Scotsman adventure?

**deathholydeath**

Quick scan pulled this up,

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/crime/federal-us-attorney-bill-killian-suggests-anti-muslim-speech-can-be-punished

"He’s just wrong," said Floyd Abrams, a First Amendment attorney, told Politico.com. "The government may, indeed, play a useful and entirely constitutional role in urging people not to engage in speech that amounts to religious discrimination. But it may not, under the First Amendment, prevent or punish speech even if it may be viewed as hostile to a religion."

Which is what I thought. I thought SCOTUS had long since ruled hate speech was legal unless it might realistically incite violence.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

azazel the cat wrote:
deathholydeath wrote:
The DOJ political appointee adds in the article that the upcoming presentation will also focus on Muslim culture with a special emphasis on the fact that the religion is no different from others, even though some in the faith have committed terrorist acts, Christians have done the same. As an example he offers that the worst terrorist attack in the U.S. prior to 9/11 was committed by American Christians in Oklahoma City. He also mentioned the Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting last year in which another Christian, an American white supremacist, fatally shot six people and wounded four others.

That's a silly soundbite. Neither of those acts were perpetrated "for" Christianity-- though they were perpetrated by people claiming to be Christians-- their motives were unrelated to the faith.

Should I bring up the whole bomb-an-abortion-clinic thing, or would you prefer to sit back, put your feet up and revel in your No True Scotsman adventure?

Don't get snippy. I just don't think those particular cases are good parallels. McVeigh was motivated by paranoid fear of the Federal government, Page by overt racism. Anders Breivik might have been a better example since he actually cited Christian beliefs as a motive. Claiming membership in a religion doesn't mean every action said person performs is "for" (or even in line with) that religion.

**Ahtman**

McVeigh was heavily influenced by the Christian Identity Movement and their ideology. He certainly wasn't a secular humanist, and Christians have decried him representing Christianity at about the same rates as Muslims deny that Bin Laden represents Islam. We just prefer to believe the former more then the latter it seems.

**whembly**

azazel the cat wrote:

Should I bring up the whole bomb-an-abortion-clinic thing, or would you prefer to sit back, put your feet up and revel in your No True Scotsman adventure?

Not talking about those bomb-an-abortion-clinic... that's an obvious violent attack.

I'm talking about using social media... you know... words and letters.

I'm talking about folks in highly influential government positions doing this...

Doesn't this raise an eyebrow?

DoJ official refuses to denounce demands for Saudi-style blasphemy law

President Barack Obama’s top civil rights official repeatedly declined to support religious free speech during a July 27 congressional hearing, despite repeated questioning from Arizona Republican Rep. Trent Franks, who chairs the House’s constitution subcommittee.

Tom Perez, the progressive who runs the Justice Department’s civil rights office, refused to answer the questions posed by Franks.

“Will you tell us… that this administration’s Department of Justice will never entertain or advance a proposal that criminalizes speech against any religion?” Frank asked four times.

Perez refused to answer, saying “it is a hard question, in the sense that when you make threats against someone.” Perez then suggested he would respond to draft legislation from the committee, but again refused to answer Frank’s question about free speech rights.

Franks’ questions were prompted by an October 2011 Daily Caller report, which described a D.C. meeting between Perez and hardcore Islamists, including Mohamed Magid, the Sudan-born, Saudi-trained head of the Islamic Society of North America.

At the end of the public meeting, Perez called more meetings with the Islamists, even though he had watched while Magid called for legal punishment of people who criticize Islamic texts that call for violence against non-Muslims and for the subordination of women to men.

In 2009 a federal judge approved the FBI’s decision to describe the society as an co-conspirator of a group that was convicted of smuggling money to Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood’ affiliate in Palestine. Hamas has repeatedly funded, supported and endorsed attacks on Jews.

During the meeting, Perez also complimented the Islamists for lobbying against airline security measures.

Perez also listened while another Islamist called for the Justice Department to redefine religious free speech as illegal discrimination.

The department’s “civil rights lawyers are top of the line — I say this with utter honesty — I know they can come up with a way” to redefine criticism as discrimination, said Sahar Aziz, a female Egyptian-American lawyer who spoke at the event.

“I’d be willing to give a shot at it,” said Aziz, who spoke for the Institute for Social Policy & Understanding, a Michigan-based advocacy group.

“We must continue to have the open and honest and critical dialogue that you saw in the robust debate,” Perez said just a few minutes after Aziz made her demand for Saudi-style blasphemy laws.

As the meeting session ended, Perez — a Maryland resident, and a former staffer to Sen. Ted Kennedy — climbed the stage to embrace Magid.

When the event was over, Perez refused to answer questions from The Daily Caller.

Dwight Holton, another Justice Department official who spoke at the event, also refused to answer questions from TheDC. Holton even threatened to charge TheDC’s reporter with a crime for following him while asking questions.

Perez’s welcome mat for the Islamists may be part of an administration-wide effort to cultivate 2012 election support among Muslim lobbies, such as Magid’s ISNA.

Most of the immigrants’ lobby groups are Islamist, partly because few non-religious Muslim immigrants participate in Islamic advocacy.

Perez, who worked as a ethnic lobbyist and amnesty supporter in Maryland, is one of President Barack Obama’s most aggressive advocates.

For example, during a October meeting in Alabama intended to rally opponents to the state’s successful enforcement of immigration laws, Perez suggested that Alabama residents score lower on education tests than poorly educated immigrants from Mexico and other Latin American countries.

“State school performance may decline,” he said, because “some of the [illegal immigrant] kids who are leaving [the state] are some of the highest performing kids,” he told reporters.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:
McVeigh was heavily influenced by the Christian Identity Movement and their ideology. He certainly wasn't a secular humanist, and Christians have decried him representing Christianity at about the same rates as Muslims deny that Bin Laden represents Islam. We just prefer to believe the former more then the latter it seems.

Sure... but he didn't announce that he did it for his Christian god. He was, a crazed anti-government whacko.

**Jihadin**

See if ACLU take it up in court....

**Mannahnin**

Sounds like Trent Franks was grandstanding to score political points and attempt to corner Perez into giving definitive answers to broad hypothetical questions.

**Ahtman**

whembly wrote:
Ahtman wrote:
McVeigh was heavily influenced by the Christian Identity Movement and their ideology. He certainly wasn't a secular humanist, and Christians have decried him representing Christianity at about the same rates as Muslims deny that Bin Laden represents Islam. We just prefer to believe the former more then the latter it seems.

Sure... but he didn't announce that he did it for his Christian god. He was, a crazed anti-government whacko.

'Crazed Government whacko' is how you would describe the Christian Identity Movement. Part of the ideology that created the paranoia and hatred is linked to their oddball Christian beliefs. He didn't just hate the government and incidentally agree with the CIM, they are intimately connected. He was only motivated and influenced by extreme Christian ideology to blow up a building, but since he didn't explicitly say 'this one is for Jesus', we can dismiss it altogether as a factor? Not all terrorists have the same modus operandi, so it seems a bit obtuse to say that because a Christian terrorist doesn't act like a Muslim one we can ignore how perverted religious teachings motivated the terrorist act.

**whembly**

Ahtman wrote:
whembly wrote:
Ahtman wrote:
McVeigh was heavily influenced by the Christian Identity Movement and their ideology. He certainly wasn't a secular humanist, and Christians have decried him representing Christianity at about the same rates as Muslims deny that Bin Laden represents Islam. We just prefer to believe the former more then the latter it seems.

Sure... but he didn't announce that he did it for his Christian god. He was, a crazed anti-government whacko.

'Crazed Government whacko' is how you would describe the Christian Identity Movement. Part of the ideology that created the paranoia and hatred is linked to their oddball Christian beliefs. He didn't just hate the government and incidentally agree with the CIM, they are intimately connected. He was only motivated and influenced by extreme Christian ideology to blow up a building, but since he didn't explicitly say 'this one is for Jesus', we can dismiss it altogether as a factor? Not all terrorists have the same modus operandi, so it seems a bit obtuse to say that because a Christian terrorist doesn't act like a Muslim one we can ignore how perverted religious teachings motivated the terrorist act.

Okay... I'll buy it only insofar that he was a Christian fanatic too...

He was also deeply a Union love'n Democrat too? Are you going to pool those group together in the same way you did to his Christian belief?

**Ahtman**

whembly wrote:
Okay... I'll buy it only insofar that he was a Christian fanatic too...

I don't believe anymore was asked to be believed then that.

whembly wrote:
He was also deeply a Union love'n Democrat too? Are you going to pool those group together in the same way you did to his Christian belief?

I don't know, do you pool all Muslims terrorists beliefs together or do you just call them Muslim terrorists? You don't find it odd that you want to pretend they are somehow radically different when both are murdering donkey-cave terrorist? Still, I don't think anyone would accuse McVeigh of being a Democrat, or a Republican for that matter, so it seems a bit odd to interject it. Though if you Google around you can find people on both sides that blame the other for him, but those are all bad people. In just two seconds of searching I found a thread calling him a Republican and others calling him a Democrat. His father was a Union man, and a registered Democrat, so some have said that is what made him all terroristy. Each of the worse elements from either side want to use him to attack their opponents, and the conspiracy theory people have all sorts of nuttiness to add as well. Such as knowing about 9/11 and somehow being connected to Chandra Levy as well.

**whembly**

Ahtman wrote:
whembly wrote:
Okay... I'll buy it only insofar that he was a Christian fanatic too...

I don't believe anymore was asked to be believed then that.

whembly wrote:
He was also deeply a Union love'n Democrat too? Are you going to pool those group together in the same way you did to his Christian belief?

I don't know, do you pool all Muslims terrorists beliefs together or do you just call them Muslim terrorists? You don't find it odd that you want to pretend they are somehow radically different when both are murdering donkey-cave terrorist? Still, I don't think anyone would accuse McVeigh of being a Democrat, or a Republican for that matter, so it seems a bit odd to interject it. Though if you Google around you can find people on both sides that blame the other for him, but those are all bad people. In just two seconds of searching I found a thread calling him a Republican and others calling him a Democrat. His father was a Union man, and a registered Democrat, so some have said that is what made him all terroristy. Each of the worse elements from either side want to use him to attack their opponents, and the conspiracy theory people have all sorts of nuttiness to add as well. Such as knowing about 9/11 and somehow being connected to Chandra Levy as well.

So do you have something to add regarding to the article I posted?

I still don't see how I'd be breaking any civil federal laws if I claim that Islam is ***** or Christianity is ***** or Wiccan is *****, etc...

**Ahtman**

whembly wrote:
I still don't see how I'd be breaking any civil federal laws if I claim that Islam is ***** or Christianity is ***** or Wiccan is *****, etc...

You wouldn't be. Even if it was attempted there would be so many legal groups from all over that would swarm in to take it to court to get it tossed out it would be like a simile that I can't think of that is impressive. I thought that was already well covered.

**whembly**

Ahtman wrote:
whembly wrote:
I still don't see how I'd be breaking any civil federal laws if I claim that Islam is ***** or Christianity is ***** or Wiccan is *****, etc...

You wouldn't be. Even if it was attempted there would be so many legal groups from all over that would swarm in to take it to court to get it tossed out it would be like a simile that I can't think of that is impressive. I thought that was already well covered.

Okay... cool.

Just curious why a DoJ attorney would say such a thing. I mean, other than that, I really don't have a problem with everything else.. (the open forum, etc).

**Hordini**

whembly wrote:
Ahtman wrote:
whembly wrote:
I still don't see how I'd be breaking any civil federal laws if I claim that Islam is ***** or Christianity is ***** or Wiccan is *****, etc...

You wouldn't be. Even if it was attempted there would be so many legal groups from all over that would swarm in to take it to court to get it tossed out it would be like a simile that I can't think of that is impressive. I thought that was already well covered.

Okay... cool.

Just curious why a DoJ attorney would say such a thing. I mean, other than that, I really don't have a problem with everything else.. (the open forum, etc).

Maybe he knows it's ridiculous but is just trying to ruffle some feathers?

**H.B.M.C.**

Why does Islam get to be politically protected?

**whembly**

Hordini wrote:
whembly wrote:
Ahtman wrote:
whembly wrote:
I still don't see how I'd be breaking any civil federal laws if I claim that Islam is ***** or Christianity is ***** or Wiccan is *****, etc...

You wouldn't be. Even if it was attempted there would be so many legal groups from all over that would swarm in to take it to court to get it tossed out it would be like a simile that I can't think of that is impressive. I thought that was already well covered.

Okay... cool.

Just curious why a DoJ attorney would say such a thing. I mean, other than that, I really don't have a problem with everything else.. (the open forum, etc).

Maybe he knows it's ridiculous but is just trying to ruffle some feathers?

I can't think of any reason why to ruffle some feathers... just seems to be a contradictory method to educate the public.

**Hordini**

whembly wrote:
Hordini wrote:
whembly wrote:
Ahtman wrote:
whembly wrote:
I still don't see how I'd be breaking any civil federal laws if I claim that Islam is ***** or Christianity is ***** or Wiccan is *****, etc...

You wouldn't be. Even if it was attempted there would be so many legal groups from all over that would swarm in to take it to court to get it tossed out it would be like a simile that I can't think of that is impressive. I thought that was already well covered.

Okay... cool.

Just curious why a DoJ attorney would say such a thing. I mean, other than that, I really don't have a problem with everything else.. (the open forum, etc).

Maybe he knows it's ridiculous but is just trying to ruffle some feathers?

I can't think of any reason why to ruffle some feathers... just seems to be a contradictory method to educate the public.

Maybe he's just trying to prevent people from doing it so he makes a bogus claim about how it "might" be against federal civil rights laws. A lot of people won't question it since it comes from the DOJ and they'll be afraid to say anything mean. I really don't know...I'm trying to figure it out myself. It seems ridiculous.

**dogma**

whembly wrote:

I still don't see how I'd be breaking any civil federal laws if I claim that Islam is ***** or Christianity is ***** or Wiccan is *****, etc...

Well, off the top of my head, if a place of business were to announce via social media that it would not serve members of religion X there could be grounds for investigation.

Also, you should note that the bit you quoted was a direct quote from the article, rather than from Bill Killian. I'm still trying to find Killian's entire statement, but sifting through reposts of the article you posted is taking some time.

**dogma**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
The Obama Administration has also hired a special Homeland Security adviser (Mohamed Elibiary) who openly supports a radical Islamist theologian and renowned jihadist ideologue and a special Islam envoy that condemns U.S. prosecutions of terrorists as “politically motivated persecutions” and has close ties to radical extremist groups.

What could possibly go wrong with that idea? May as well start hiring foxes to guard the chickens

Which theologian does he support? Surely if there is only one he could have been mentioned by name, rather than force the reader to accept the assessment of the article's author. Though in this instance it appears the original author did very little research, as the phrase "...who supports a radical Islamic theologian and renowned jidhadist ideologue." appears in this article posted in February of last year.

So, basically, the author of the article in the OP added the word "openly" and cribbed the original conclusion from another source without citing it, or verifying it.

Addendum: I've found a source that attempts explain Elibiary's alleged support for radical Muslim theologians, but it basically amount to "Lol, he doesn't blindly hate the people we blindly hate!"

**Firehead158**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
Why does Islam get to be politically protected?

Because western society has become too tolerant of a religion/people who have done nothing for the world, but harbor radicalism/protect their own, and create problems with civilized countries.

Edited: I was a little too hateful, and my opinion isn't gospel, so you don't need to hear it all.

**H.B.M.C.**

This came up this week here in Oz. A University newspaper was doing a series of articles poking fun at various religions. They'd done Christianity, Scientology, Judaism, Buddhist, Mormonism and maybe even Hinduism as well, yet they got their collective plugs pulled when they went to do one about Islam.

So it's ok to poke fun (and that's all it was - poking fun, not a mean-spirited tear-down or anything like that) at everyone else, just not Islam.

I don't get it. And I don't get why when someone speaks out about this bleating morons jump in to scream "Islamophile" or, more hilariously, "Racist" (as though "Muslim" were a race, which it isn't).

**deathholydeath**

The closest thing I can find to the actual statement is the Tullahoma News article which references Killian speaking to The News. http://www.tullahomanews.com/?p=15360
Unfortunately, I can't find out which The News he spoke to.

**dogma**

H.B.M.C. wrote:

I don't get it. And I don't get why when someone speaks out about this bleating morons jump in to scream "Islamophile" or, more hilariously, "Racist" (as though "Muslim" were a race, which it isn't).

I agree, it is hilarious when people jump in to scream "Islamophile" or "racist".

I realize you meant "Islamophobe" but, at least in the US, both "accusations" are leveled with near equal frequency; depending on the topic at hand. For example, the controversy surrounding Park51 saw both concepts hurled about.

deathholydeath wrote:
The closest thing I can find to the actual statement is the Tullahoma News article which references Killian speaking to The News. http://www.tullahomanews.com/?p=15360
Unfortunately, I can't find out which The News he spoke to.

That's the best I could find as well, somehow I skipped over the fact that it was a statement to The News (most likely the Tullahoma News), and I doubt a full transcript is available absent request.

Also, let's be clear, the post Killian cited was made by a government official, not a private citizen:

Yeah.

**Ouze**

This article is interesting, in how it makes a lot of inferences but offers little actually concrete if you dig into it.

DOJ: Social Media Posts Trashing Muslims May Violate Civil Rights

Who said this, exactly? The article never says.

Evidently that was a precursor of sorts for an upcoming Tennessee event (“Public Disclosure in a Diverse Society”) that will feature the region’s top DOJ official, who serves as U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Tennessee, and an FBI representative.

So this hasn't happened yet? Who said social media posts might be a civil rights violation?

The area’s top federal prosecutor, Bill Killian, will address a topic that most Americans are likely unfamiliar with, even those well versed on the Constitution; that federal civil rights laws can actually be violated by those who post inflammatory documents aimed at Muslims on social media. “This is an educational effort with civil rights laws as they play into freedom of religion and exercising freedom of religion,” Killian says in the local news story. “This is also to inform the public what federal laws are in effect and what the consequences are.”

The first sentence doesn't exactly match what he said in the second. Where is the original story? I'm not saying it's not true, but I'd sure like to read it. Is he just saying that, like, posting death threats on Facebook is not protected speech? Because it's not. I mean, the second sentence never even addresses social media at all.

IMO, this is sort of a bad summary of what might be a very newsworthy article, but they larded it up with poor sourcing and unrelated trollbait in the first and last thirds of the article. I'd love to read the actual article this was paraphrasing, although as of this writing it looks like it's still out of pocket.

**H.B.M.C.**

I guess it's one of those "speculative fiction" articles then. Sort of a "OMG! This might happen [but actually hasn't yet]! OMG!"

**deathholydeath**

Ouze wrote:

So this hasn't happened yet? Who said social media posts might be a civil rights violation?

The Tullahoma News article has this:

Killian said Internet postings that violate civil rights are subject to federal jurisdiction.

But that's still very vague. The quotations from the article are simply too disjointed to draw much from. We may have to wait until the actual conference for a clear view.
I cycled through a few dozen pages of search results looking for the original statement, but couldn't find anything beyond the usual blog copy/paste extravaganza.

**Ouze**

unrelated: hello kitty cthulu? Pimp.

**deathholydeath**

Ouze wrote:
unrelated: hello kitty cthulu? Pimp.

Why, thank you!