Home › islamists › Maybe Yale University Didn’t Get The Memo Defining Terroristic Threats

Maybe Yale University Didn’t Get The Memo Defining Terroristic Threats

By C. J. Refsland on October 1, 2014 • ( 0 )

“A terroristic threat is defined as a declaration of intent to commit a crime of violence against another with the intent of threatening a person, building, facility, or public or private habitat. Penalties can include restitution, severe fines, and imprisonment with 10-20 years. A federal-level law in the United States prohibits threatening terrorism against the United States.”

Penalties for this does not include honoring one with a gathering of students to listen to your knowledge. And a federal law prohibiting threats of terrorism against the United States carries much stiffer penalties. And when you are in the military or representing the US in any official capacity this is a threat against the country. This is what is wrong with this country. The political correctness of the liberals and left have overtaken what this country was founded on, and they have deliberately put this country and it’s people at risk. Do they truly think that if they feed the alligator it will eat them last, so to speak.

(Pamela Geller) Sheikh Rachid al-Ghannouchi was invited to headline an event this afternoon, despite that he was a member of a group that endorsed the murder of U.S. troops, and he was banned from the U.S. for supporting Hamas.

Muslim speaker Mike Ghouse, of America Together Foundation, and columnist Pamela Geller were on “Hannity” to debate.

“This guy shouldn’t be in our country,” Sean Hannity said, explaining that al-Ghannouchi has called for the death of American soldiers and therefore is at war with the U.S.

Ghouse said he should be allowed to speak in the country because of freedom of speech.

Geller called it “outrageous” and a “travesty” that he was invited to speak at Yale.

“The academic landscape today welcomes radicals, welcomes subversives […] they never invite pro-freedom speakers,” she said.

This is and should be unacceptable for all Americans. Christian children are not allowed to pray in school, they are not allowed to read their Holy Book, the Bible. And if you mention Jesus’ name in public, well let’s just say it’s become unacceptable. But a man who was part of a decree to kill all American Soldiers is allowed to roam free searching new ears to hear his vitriol. This is not freedom of speech.

Freedom Of Speech: Right, as stated in the 1st and 14th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, to express information, ideas, and opinions free of government restrictions based on content. A modern legal test of the legitimacy of proposed restrictions on freedom of speech was stated in the opinion byOliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. in Schenk v. U.S. (1919): a restriction is legitimate only if the speech in question poses a “clear and present danger”—i.e., a risk or threat to safety or to other public interests that is serious and imminent. Many cases involving freedom of speech and of the press also have concerned defamation, obscenity, and prior restraint (see Pentagon Papers). See also censorship.

I think we can safely say that issuing or even supporting a decree that calls for murder is not protected by freedom of speech, and thus terroristic threats should not be placed in a position of honor reserved for scholars in the United States of America.

Commentary by Am Not Ashamed

Resources:

Wikipedia, Meriam Websters Dictionary