Thread: MALDEF says we don't have a First Amendment right!!

http://www.truthinimmigration.org/Compl ... spx?sid=13

Does the First Amendment Protect all Speech?

March 18, 2008 On February 4, 2008, Janet Murguia, president and CEO of the National Council of La Raza, appeared on Lou Dobbs Tonight to promote the website, WeCanStopTheHate.Org. During the heated discussion, Dobbs made this accusation:

DOBBS: I’m going to fight you with every resource I have, because you have stepped over the line. And you are trying to tear apart the First Amendment. 1



The First Amendment to the United States Constitution generally prohibits government regulation of speech, even when the speaker’s opinions are reprehensible to the general public. The First Amendment does not, however, protect all speech. It does not, for example, protect speech that leads to illegal activity and/or imminent violence, obscenity, defamation, and libel.

The First Amendment also does not protect speakers from liability for the foreseeable consequences of their speech. In cases where speakers encourage their audience to commit certain illegal or inherently dangerous acts, liability may rest with speakers and the forums that they use.

For example, in 1975, in Weirum v. RKO General, Inc. 539 P.2d 36, the Supreme Court of California held that a radio station was legally liable for holding a broadcast contest that inspired listeners to drive recklessly. Two listeners, in their pursuit of a radio station vehicle that held a reward, negligently forced a car off the road, killing the driver. The Supreme Court of California affirmed a jury’s verdict that the radio station was liable for negligence for the “foreseeable results of a broadcast which created an undue risk of harm . . . .â€

It does not, for example, protect speech that leads to illegal activity and/or imminent violence, obscenity, defamation, and libel.

How about aiding and abetting illegal immigration and jobs for illegal immigrants?

Most states have laws that protect speech that is relevant to current issues. These are commonly known as SLAPP statutes because they protect spirited discussion from lawsuits.

SLAPP stands for Strategic Lawsuit Againt Public Participation---and the statutes are meant to stop those. People who cross the line into inciting violence probably would not be protected.

"Todays undocumented students are America's future leaders" Janet Murguia


Enough of Janet Murguia and the MALDEF's advocacy for amnesty followed by family reunification. I would like to know what sort of effort Janet Murguia has made to create jobs for the Mexicans in Mexico rather than encouraging them to come here illegally. Between Lou Dobbs and Janet Murguia if I were Mexican I would judge the most righteous person to be the one who creates the most jobs in Mexico.

I would like to know what being against illegal immigration has to do with inciting riots and spewing hate. How can uneducated, undocumented people be our future leaders. They can't even lead their own country into a path of prosperity and encourage their own government to clean up their country. We have enough Americans to become our countries leaders.

Originally Posted by MyAmerica

It does not, for example, protect speech that leads to illegal activity and/or imminent violence, obscenity, defamation, and libel.

How about aiding and abetting illegal immigration and jobs for illegal immigrants?

So does this mean Janet's group can be held liable if a citizen is killed by an IA whom Janet's group Aides and Abets ?

La Raza surely has used speech that leads to illegal activity and/or imminent violence, obscenity, defamation, and libel. They encourage millions to break our laws by entering the US illegally. They lie about those of us who insist our laws are followed. I guess its time someone hold them accountable too.

Senora Murguia, LaRaza and company: If the First Amendment guarantee of FREEDOM of SPEECH does NOT apply to the REST of us, it does NOT apply to YOU, either!

Obama's Rev. Wright can spew 20 years of hate speech against white people, and he does not even make the hate speakers' list by SPLC and LaRaza.

LaRaza, MALDEF, MeCHA and even the Jewish Defense League label those of us who have highlighted the lack of enforcement of some of our laws against this invading population as some kind of dangerous force. Speech has never been against the law, but illegal immigration, hiring illegal aliens and aiding and abetting illegal immigrants has always been illegal. Those who are demanding enforcement and border security are somehow guilty of racism. There are many people of many colors who are demanding border security and immigration law enforcement, yet we are all racists - even those legal Mexican-Americans who support security and enforcement.

So it is not at all your color, or even what you say. These sick groups capitalizing on Political Correctness run amock are accusing honest, kind, compassionate, hard-working citizens of integrity and honor because they want existing laws enforced. How silly it would be if these groups decided no one could speak out against another type of crime, like for instance, theft. But not all theft, just theft from people who look Swedish. Theft from any other groups would be safe to demand punishment, but Swedish-looking people suddenly have no right to be safe from those population groups who may wish to take what they have worked to purchase.

This nonsense makes me want to just stand out on a street corner every chance I get with a big sign that says I hate, hate, hate LaRaza.

Where is LaRaz having their convention since they moved it from Kansas City? I think we should have a large protest and march during their convention, I mean a really big protest.