Trumps main hate speech issue is about the UK so American constitution means nothing, but there are some types of thing not protected under the constitution since 1942. "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." A case could be made that Trumps words could lead to an immeadiate breach of the peace. Not that it matters because again the majority of his hate speech stuff seems to be more linked to the UK.
@V It remains to be seen. Certainly his hate speech is directed to all Muslims, both here in the U.S. as well as in the U.K. You and kingcalm bring up a good point about whether his speech is protected, based on the potential real violation of the right to life and religion that may be deprived by people, motivated by Trump's hate speech, to physically attack or kill Muslim American citizens. Fortunately, this hasn't happened yet to my knowledge.
Out of curiosity, what does trump hope to do about the homegrown terrorists? He can't shut America off from the Internet, stopping refugees at the border would quite literally achieve nothing.
Why is it people automatically believe things that can quite obviously and very simply be 'created' out of a PC?
I haven't heard any specific plans from him. But so far, every candidate has endorsed direct action against Isis. Isis is an ideology that has been fueld by western intervention the the Middle East, so it only seems logical that continued intervention in the Middle East will only bolster support for Isis and increase the likelihood of further attacks on U.S. soil. Best thing we can do is pull out of the Middle East and impose sanctions on anyone involved with Isis.
While Islamic law allows Muslims to feign loyalty to non-Muslim “infidel” authorities, it bans Muslims from living up to the pretense by actually fighting or killing fellow Muslims on behalf of a non-Muslim entity, such as the United States. The perfectly fitting story of Nidal Hassan—the U.S. army major and “observant Muslim who prayed daily” but then turned murderer—comes to mind and is illustrative. A pious Muslim, Hasan seemed a “regular American,” even if he was leading a double life—American Army major and psychiatrist by day, financial supporter of jihadi groups and associate of terrorists by night. However, when time came for this American soldier to “bear arms on behalf of the United States”—to quote the original Oath of Allegiance—against fellow Muslims, things got ugly: he went on a shooting spree in Fort Hood, killing thirteen Americans, including one pregnant woman in 2009. Much of Hasan’s behavior is grounded in the Islamic doctrine of Loyalty and Enmity. According to this essential teaching, Muslims must always be loyal to Islam and fellow Muslims while having enmity for all non-Islamic things and persons. However, whenever Muslims find themselves under the authority of non-Islamic institutions and persons, they are permitted to feign loyalty—even to the point of cursing Islam and pretending to have abandoned it—with one caveat: Muslims must never take up arms on behalf of “infidels” against fellow Muslims. In other words, their loyalty to non-Muslims must be skin deep. Many are the verses in the Koran that support this divisive doctrine (3:28, 4:89, 4:144, 9:23, and 58:22; the latter simply states that true Muslims do not befriend non-Muslims—“even if they be their fathers, sons, brothers, or kin”). Most germane is Koran 3:28: “Let believers not take for friends and allies infidels rather than believers: and whoever does this shall have no relationship left with Allah—unless you but guard yourselves against them, taking precautions.” The words translated here as “guard” and “precaution” are derived from the Arabic word taqu, from the trilateral root w-q-y—the same root that gives us the word taqiyya, the Islamic doctrine that permits Muslims to deceive non-Muslims whenever under their authority. Ibn Kathir (d. 1373), author of one of the most authoritative commentaries on the Koran, explains taqiyya in the context of verse 3:28 as follows: “Whoever at any time or place fears … evil [from non-Muslims] may protect himself through outward show.” As proof of this, he quotes Muhammad’s close companion Abu Darda, who said, “Let us grin in the face of some people while our hearts curse them.”[1] Muhammad ibn Jarir at-Tabari (d. 923), author of another standard commentary on the Koran, interprets verse 3:28 as follows: If you [Muslims] are under their [non-Muslims'] authority, fearing for yourselves, behave loyally to them with your tongue while harboring inner animosity for them … [know that] God has forbidden believers from being friendly or on intimate terms with the infidels rather than other believers—except when infidels are above them [in authority]. Should that be the case, let them act friendly towards them while preserving their religion.[2] And therein lies the limit of taqiyya: when the deceit, the charade begins to endanger the lives of fellow Muslims—whom, as we have seen, deserve first loyalty—it is forbidden. As al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri puts it in his treatise on Loyalty and Enmity, Muslims may pretend to be friendly and loyal to non-Muslims, so long as they do “not undertake any initiative to support them [non-Muslims], commit sin, or enable [them] through any deed or killing or fighting against Muslims” (The Al Qaeda Reader, p. 75). Thus the idea that Nidal Hasan might be deployed to a Muslim country (Iraq or Afghanistan) was his “worst nightmare.” When he realized that he was about to be deployed, he became “very upset and angry.” The thought that he might injure or kill Muslims “weighed heavily on him.” He also counseled a fellow Muslim not to join the U.S. Army, since “Muslims shouldn’t kill Muslims.” Hassan is not the only Muslim to expose his disloyalty when pushed into fighting fellow Muslims on behalf of the United States. In 2010, Naser Abdo, another Muslim soldier who joined the U.S. Army, demanded to be discharged on the claim that he was a “conscientious objector whose devotion to Islam has suffered since he took an oath to defend the United States against all enemies.” The army agreed, but while processing him, officials found child pornography on his government-issued computer and recommended that he be court-martialed. Abdo went AWOL and later tried to carry out a terrorist attack on a restaurant with the use of weapons of mass destruction. And in April 2005, another Muslim serving in the U.S. Army, Hasan Akbar, was convicted of murder for killing two American soldiers and wounding fourteen in agrenade attack in Kuwait: “He launched the attack because he was concerned U.S. troops would kill fellow Muslims in Iraq.” In short, the first loyalty of any “American Muslim” who follows the Koran is to fellow Muslims, regardless of their nationality—and not to American “infidels,” even if they be their longtime neighbors whom they daily smiled to. Hence why American Muslim Tarik Shah, who was arrested for terrorist-related charges, once boasted: “I could be joking and smiling [with non-Muslims] and then cutting their throats in the next second”—reminiscent of the aforementioned quote by Muhammad’s companion. Source:http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/259690/obama-alters-us-oath-allegiance-compliance-islamic-raymond-ibrahim
Savage you are using 3 cases to justify a rather sweeping and broad generalisation. Maybe better to ask how many Muslim service men and women have died in the line of duty suffered hideous wounds or tirelessly work to help others as medics doctors and care staff at home. There was a case recently in uk of a service man who lost a leg in Afghanistan speaking out against the intolerance and stupidity confronting Muslims he was spoke eloquently to the massive support he an his family had received from Muslims. Also using your own criteria I'd be more worried about angry gun owning white men they seem to kill more Americans than Muslims.
@winter, I don't think savage knows that much about Islam, and I know for a fact he's not that good a writer. I'm 90% sure he plagiarized that entire post. I wouldn't respond to him unless he cites his source.
@Imitation Nope.I took it from a website but it seems that one of the main reason why Trump is getting so much support and hype is that hes not afraid to be politically incorrect and echoes the very sentiment of many Americans.This is a big problem that people like Obama and many others will not acknowledge due to the fear of offending anyone.
Fair enough cheese but still to allow that to pass with out response would be to imply acceptance of his stupidity
Savage to be politically incorrect isn't the same as spreading race hate based on lies. Andrew dice clay was politically incorrect didn't see him advocating banning whole religions from a country meant to embrace diversity and religious freedoms
When you respond to ignorance, you lend it credibility by giving it audience. Ignorance should be treated like the cries of an indignant child - ignored.
Anonymous just DDOS Trump Towers. So many old people on facebook freaking out who know nothing even about technology. Lol. The ones who have their profiles completely public and have everything a Muslim hate spewing bigot would have.
And you know any better about Islam? Whether im a good writer or not is irrelevant,fact of the matter is what are you going to do if a stranger knocks on your door requesting food and shelter would you let him in without hesitation? If you can't answer that you have no place in criticizing Trump or any other Republican candidate for that cause.
Yes cheese but the levels of continued stupidity astound me. If no one ever responds to that others will assume that it's acceptable to be blinded by bigotry and stupidity. That a front runner in the us presidential race spouts such stupidity truly worries people world wide. He screams meaningless phrases without any real ideas behind him. He complains that people have been badly treated while being very much one of the people treating them so. Claims to be one for the common man then said he's self made with a small loan of $1million. That's not a small loan unless you happen to be disgustingly out of touch. He says he wants to fight Isis then spews garbage like banning all Muslims which is EXACTLY the sort of nonsense that radicals will use to invite hate and fear of western ideas.
Yes and have done in the past and I didn't know that much about Islam so I went and read about it. Yes there are aspects of hate in amongst it but also great beauty and love in the Sufi mystics and the words of scholars like Rumi. I prefer to think that more people are moved by a core message of tolerance and love than hate and fear.