Trump Camp Responds to Muslim Question Uproar: "Obama is waging war against Christians"

[Cali_Democrat]

Donald Trump got a question at a rally tonight from someone who thinks President Obama‘s a Muslim and wanted to know when we’re gonna get rid of the Muslims. Trump responded by deflecting and saying he’s looking into that and a lot of other things.

In response, the Trump camp issued a statement to multiple news outlets that basically just tried to change the subject entirely:

Trump stmt to WaPo: "The media wants to make this issue about Obama. The bigger issue is that Obama is waging a war against Christians…"
— Robert Costa (@costareports) September 18, 2015

More Trump: "… Christians need support in this country. Their religious liberty is at stake."
— Robert Costa (@costareports) September 18, 2015

Trump camp: "Mr. Trump was referring to the need to protect Christians religious liberties as his previous statement says and nothing more."
— Kailani Koenig (@kailanikm) September 18, 2015

http://www.mediaite.com/online/trump-camp-responds-to-muslim-question-uproar/

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. There's some heavy-duty pandering for ya.

[randys1]

3. Trump is encouraging the idiots to kill liberals, Muslims, etc. Arrest him now.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

4. It's not illegal to be a bigoted asshole.

And arresting people for saying offensive things is kinda not so progressive or liberal.

[smirkymonkey]

14. But is hate speach protected? In some cases, yes. In others, no.

United States[edit]
Constitutional framework[edit]
The 1789 Constitution of the United States of America dealt only with the three heads of power—legislative, executive, and judicial—and sketched the basic outlines of federalism in the last four articles. The protection of civil rights was not written into the original Constitution but was added two years later with the Bill of Rights, implemented as several amendments to the Constitution. The First Amendment, ratified December 15, 1791, states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Although this section is written only to apply to the federal congress (i.e. the legislative branch), the 14th Amendment, ratified on July 9, 1868, works to extend this prohibition to laws of the states as well.

Some state constitutions also have a "free speech" provision, most notably, California.[77]

Supreme Court case law[edit]
Some limits on expression were contemplated by the framers and have been read into the Constitution by the Supreme Court. In 1942, Justice Frank Murphy summarized the case law: "There are certain well-defined and limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise a Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous and the insulting or “fighting” words – those which by their very utterances inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace."[78]

Traditionally, however, if the speech did not fall within one of the above categorical exceptions, it was protected speech. In 1969, the Supreme Court protected a Ku Klux Klan member’s racist and hate-filled speech and created the ‘imminent danger’ test to permit hate speech. The court ruled in Brandenburg v. Ohio that; "The constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a state to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force, or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."[79]

This test has been modified very little from its inception in 1969 and the formulation is still good law in the United States. Only speech that poses an imminent danger of unlawful action, where the speaker has the intention to incite such action and there is the likelihood that this will be the consequence of his or her speech, may be restricted and punished by that law.

In R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, (1992), the issue of freedom to express hatred arose again when a gang of white people burned a cross in the front yard of a black family. The local ordinance in St. Paul, Minnesota, criminalized such racist and hate-filled expressions and the teenager was charged thereunder. Associate justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the Supreme Court, held that the prohibition against hate speech was unconstitutional as it contravened the First Amendment. The Supreme Court struck down the ordinance. Scalia explicated the fighting words exception as follows: “The reason why fighting words are categorically excluded from the protection of the First Amendment is not that their content communicates any particular idea, but that their content embodies a particularly intolerable (and socially unnecessary) mode of expressing whatever idea the speaker wishes to convey”.[80] Because the hate speech ordinance was not concerned with the mode of expression, but with the content of expression, it was a violation of the freedom of speech. Thus, the Supreme Court embraced the idea that hate speech is permissible unless it will lead to imminent hate violence.[81] The opinion noted "This conduct, if proved, might well have violated various Minnesota laws against arson, criminal damage to property", among a number of others, none of which was charged, including threats to any person, not to only protected classes.

In 2011, the Supreme Court issued their ruling on Snyder v. Phelps, which concerned the right of the Westboro Baptist Church to protest with signs found offensive by many Americans. The issue presented was whether the 1st Amendment protected the expressions written on the signs. In an 8-1 decision the court sided with Phelps, the head of Westboro Baptist Church, thereby confirming their historically strong protection of hate speech, so long as it doesn't promote imminent violence. The Court explained, "speech deals with matters of public concern when it can 'be fairly considered as relating to any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community' or when it 'is a subject of general interest and of value and concern to the public." [82]

Societal implementation[edit]
Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, employers may sometimes be prosecuted for tolerating "hate speech" by their employees, if that speech contributes to a broader pattern of harassment resulting in a "hostile or offensive working environment" for other employees.[83][84]

In the 1980s and 1990s, more than 350 public universities adopted "speech codes" regulating discriminatory speech by faculty and students.[85] These codes have not fared well in the courts, where they are frequently overturned as violations of the First Amendment.[86] Debate over restriction of "hate speech" in public universities has resurfaced with the adoption of anti-harassment codes covering discriminatory speech.[87]

NTIA report[edit]
In 1992, Congress directed the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to examine the role of telecommunications, including broadcast radio and television, cable television, public access television, and computer bulletin boards, in advocating or encouraging violent acts and the commission of hate crimes against designated persons and groups. The NTIA study investigated speech that fostered a climate of hatred and prejudice in which hate crimes may occur.[88] The study failed to link telecommunication to hate crimes, but did find that "individuals have used telecommunications to disseminate messages of hate and bigotry to a wide audience." Its recommendation was that the best way to fight hate speech was through additional speech promoting tolerance, as opposed to government regulation.[89][90]

[randys1]

17. If he encourages people to beat or kill others, and he is, what do we do?

Bill O'reilly needs to be arrested next for Tiller.

I suppose I am slightly and intentionally over reacting, but you do know at some point they are going to start killing Brown people and liberals...

If they are encouraged like this, arent they already?

[Tommy_Carcetti]

2. But....you were asked......about...Obama.....nevermind. nt

[hifiguy]

5. tRump is

A Colossal Dick. That is all.

[HooptieWagon]

6. Where is this war?

[GitRDun]

7. Vintage Trump!

As they say, "Sometimes you just have to let art flow over you..."

[B Calm]

8. Never underestimate some Christians need to feel persecuted!

[justhanginon]

9. All 70% of them. This persecution crap is really getting old and fairly

or unfairly I feel is beginning to taint the way many people feel about Christians in general. I really don't see the main stream Christian hierarchy refuting this or any of the other crap the fundamentalists are continually foisting off on the public at large.

[Fred Sanders]

10. Getting back to the topic, Trump wants to eliminate Muslims....and Mexicans? What a fearful man.

[HughBeaumont]

11. A 2.4 BILLION strong entity is being "attacked" somehow?

[Wellstone ruled]

12. Sounding more and more like 1964.

Do recall many of the Hate Black Speeches professed by many of the Southern Democrats and Republicans against African Americans. Nixon's new Southern Strategy,with the help of the Klan,and the Bircher's.

[marmar]

13. And the funny thing is, Trump wouldn't know a bible if he tripped over one.....

..... but demagoguery plays well with a braindead base.

[0rganism]

15. i presume the drone strikes have been extra-stealthy, then

if he's "waging war against Christians" the entire USA would be what bushco called "a target-rich environment".
so where are the reports of hellfire missile strikes?
which Christians have been eliminated in this war?
how do we know if Obama's winning this war?

[GreatGazoo]

16. So says the guy who called the body of Christ "a little cracker"

[Vinca]

18. So Obama is waging war on himself? Now that's a first.

[Johonny]

19. When will Obama free Santa?

[Jamaal510]

20. Right,

the president is at war against ~80% of the population. Whatever you say, chief.

[Rex]

21. NM the FACT that the POTUS goes to a Christian church...

I think the Grand Delusional Party has reached an all-time, fevered pitch since Obama took over control of the country.