In response to those who use Kirk's assassination as an excuse for more violence in revenge

 On another social media site to which I belong, I was shocked by some whose response to the assassination of Charlie Kirk was revenge against those they hated...Obama, Pelosi, Soros, and a whole list of political adversaries...and said it was time for a CIVIL WAR (yes, in caps). I hear there are those on the lib side" who also vowed violence, though none on the social media sites I follow.. The lunatics on both sides are the enemies to our ability to pursue a goal and rights "granted by our Creator" we all should share, in the words of the Declaration of Independence, of life, liberty, and happiness. I was heartened by those who said political violence was a blow against democracy. Democracy is still the best way to achieve such lofty and universal aspirations.

I realize some do not give a twit about democracy. They are so bound up by either ignorance of what the alternatives are or those who feel the only way that counts is their way and seek a government that only rules on their behalf, the rest of the country and world be damned. Those who do not march in lock step with them should be beaten down and suppressed using whatever means they have, including violence.. To those who think that, all I can say is what goes around comes around, and the circle of violence only expands and accelerates until there are more and more victims in the grave on both sides. There are no happy endings in history, as even the victors or the governments they espoused based on hate, violence, and suppression eventually fall victim to themselves, either in suicide in a bunker or hanged by those they once suppressed. That should be the lesson we learned from the last century of world wars and revolutions, from the rise of totalitarianism (dictatorial control over governmental power, everyday life, thought, and culture) to Bosnia's war of ethnic cleansing. It may take years for this to unfold, but the old adage "those who live with the sword, die with the sword" has some truth.  So few of us have lived or experienced this. Too few of us know the history of what we have not seen with our own eyes. We are condemned to repeat it. Democracy's greatest asset is that it provides a plan and way for humans to pursue life, liberty, and happiness without violent conflict, instead.

To perpetuate the unending circle of political violence, the leader in chief of revenge on political adversaries is our own president, Donald Trump, who was quick to beat the drums of hate and retribution in the wake of the Kirk assassination. But there were also some on "the other side" who did likewise. Or, as New York Times opinion writer, David French, noted:" there are monsters in your midst, too". The exact count of who has the most monsters, red or blue? The libertarian CATO institute has some figures. After the 9/11 foreign terrorists, the right is in second place in the count of those perpetrating political violence in the US. Politically Motivated Violence Is Rare in the United States | Cato at Liberty Blog

Trump Escalates Attacks on Political Opponents After Charlie Kirk’s Killing - The New York Times   

   MUFTIC FORUM BLOG: Trump fans the flames of violence, yet calls himself the law and order president updated

"To get past this dreadful moment, more and more Americans are going to have to face a painful fact. Evil isn’t confined to one side of the American divide. There are monsters in your midst, too. Opinion | There Are Monsters in Your Midst, Too - The New York Times

Trump Puts Democrat Senator in His Place for Rejecting God-Given Rights. The pertinent question in the USA is not who gives the rights, but what rights our nation should support. Cain is right in one regard: if you do not have a government that supports those rights given by God, you do not have those rights. The government plays a role in supporting or subverting those rights, whether in the USA or abroad, as do the theologians in power in their respective countries. Trump is correct in one respect: our founders saw rights as those granted by God, but on the other hand, he seeks to oppress those upholding those rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as listed in the Declaration. He uses or supports violence, military force, and all the power of the federal executive, which he can abuse to punish and suppress those who write, advocate, and support his political enemies. Our founders protected rights from being taken away in the Bill of Rights. 

The founders also viewed government as an instrument for granting rights they had identified as inalienable. That was their unique contribution used to offset a too powerful federal government, as well as the separation and balance of powers. I draw heavily on this conclusion from https://www.thriftbooks.com/w/first-principles-what-americas-founders-learned-from-the-greeks-and-romans-and-how-that-shaped-our-country_thomas-e-ricks/

Pam Bondi ignited a firestorm within her own party when she appeared to promote DOJ action against those who indulge in "hate speech".  Later clarification by her better defined what hate speech was: that which exhorted violence.  I have a suggestion that Pam Bondi, as her first act of prosecution against hate speech, should target what influenced the Evergreen High School shooter. It is reported that He had spent much time on a neo nazi site. If that site advocated the use of violence and murder, that is not far from the famous standard of what is free speech and what is not: falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater is not free speech. This country has "monsters among us" and is a tinder box of extreme partisanship and wide gulfs in opinions. Social media is full of those who howl for violence and death to their opponents and who ignite deranged minds to act out what they see urged in such sites. We, the onlookers and the audience, independent, non-partisan, or partisan, are the victims in the crowded theater, bewildered about who to believe, and some are panicked to make a run for it, even though many are trampled into the debris.

Charlie Kirk's widow,Erika, speaks from a very different viewpoint than Bondi and Trump. It is a beautiful speech, a sermon, that reflects a different and a more fundamental and profound compass of traditional Christianity than what is in vogue now.. FULL SPEECH: Erika Kirk speaks at Charlie Kirk memorial service. That did not mean I agree with  Kirk's application of his faith on every issue facing America and dividing America, but he had represented something very important: the willingness in a democracy to engage in debate freely, and it is that that Bondi and Trump want to destroy and recreate to only reflect their version of truth and convey only news that benefits their regime with no debate to give other viewpoints. I admire Erika's ability to speak her truth and faith so soon after the horrific death of her most beloved. I was unable to do so after my late husband's passing. I was dumbstruck by the emotion. 

oops. DOJ Deletes Its Own Study From Website Showing ‘Far More’ Domestic Terrorism Committed by ‘Far-Right Extremists’

Oh, but wait, in the lexicon of MAGA's leader, there are some fine people in the neo nazi movement. Do not hold your breath for Bondi to take action against violence advocated by the extreme right. They are part of the red team. In the Trump regime, what is "falsely" is also subject to partisan definition. January 6 rioters were responding to what the courts have ruled is a false claim: the 2020 election was stolen. The most violent of them were freed from prison by Trump's pardons, and one who was killed in the mob actions was declared a national hero. Stay tuned.

Lessons from Uvalde, Buffalo, and Boulder: extreme gun permissiveness mean and warped

 Update: 12/22 Colorado breaks mass shooting record (cpr.org)  This is a record of shame. The Colorado Springs Q night club mass shooting puts Colorado at the top for mass shooting. In fact, Columbine took place in Colorado and became an ikon, the template for many more mass killers. On a social media FB, I just saw an example of the rationale extremists use to promote denying any sensible gun legislation. It depicted the report of a  woman who had a pistol in her purse putting down a wannabe mass killer with a AR 15. She was lucky she was not in Uvalde or in Buffalo, or in Boulder. In Colorado, you can get a concealed weapon permit, and if local city/county laws permit it, open carry. You can defend your home under the "castle doctrine".  But why should she or anyone have to have been put in the position to have to defend themselves against a war weapon, anyway? In Uvalde, cops refused to pull their pistols on a mass killer armed with weapons of war.; in Buffalo, the guard pulled his pistol and was shot dead by the mass killer armed with a war weapon.  In Boulder, a police officer's first response was shot dead by a war weapon armed shooter who went on to take 9 more lives.  Those opposing any constraints on the purchase of weapons of war weapon are extreme and mean, with warped priorities, pitting their absolutist versions of their rights against the rights to life of kids, shoppers, concert, movie, and churchgoers. .  .Here was my response to that FB posting:

The warped minds are the extreme gun rightists. They want no restraints on guns, period.  Their unrestricted rights are more important than kids and supermarket shoppers. . That is mean and extreme with very warped values and priorities.  Rights to gun use are not unlimited, and state, local, and federal case laws restricting access have been ruled and upheld in courts when are challenged  Heller, the Supreme Court ruling, does only protects handguns and shotguns to protect home It is no blank check to permit every right to own and use guns, no matter what the NRA says. Nothing is likely to pass Congress that would keep someone 21 and older from buying non-weapons of war. Colorado has some of the most stringent controls in the nation, but it does not forbid purchases of weapons of war by those 18 and older because all neighboring states are an easier purchase where rules are laxer. The age limit is a federal matter for that reason and is useless in Colorado alone.  I support the federal age limit raised to 21 for gun purchases for that reason. FYI. I am a gun owner.

.  However, when law enforcement is outgunned by school shooters and will not sacrifice their lives to save kids in a classroom, that is both a moral and practical dilemma, but why put law enforcement in that bind, anyway?. To argue forbidding their 18-to21-year-old son or an older guy on the way to settle a score with a doctor just as he would stop by McDonald's, no background check, no waiting period, then that too needs to be addressed both locally and federally. To give the reason for permitting kids 18 to be able to buy a AR 15 to kill praise dogs instead of shotguns,. and not caring about mass killings of people and kids is an example of outrageously warped priorities. The use of a weapon of war as the only way to get rid of varmints is not essential.  Shotguns have served that purpose for years out here in the West. 

What is s true in Colorado, there is a cooling-off period in buying a handgun, but not in buying weapons of war that can decapitate a child in one blast.  One of my first jobs was in a Denver DA's office, leading an investigative unit into cases of white-collar crimes in the 1970s.  There had been a rash of murders of individuals by those who bought a pistol in a fit of the passion or hate and killed a spouse or a rival shortly thereafter. The DA at the time, Dale Tooley, went on a crusade against these "Saturday night specials," and sales became locally regulated and later State regulated: purchasers must be 21 years old and subject to background checks. Denver bans the sale of weapons of war and the size of clips, with stricter requirements than some of the State laws. One of my second jobs was as Denver's city clerk, who sat through city council meetings and heard testimony from law officers who complained they were outgunned by weapons by gang members that used large clips  Large clips over 15 rounds are now banned in the state and in Denver.  My sympathy was and is with the cops. All of this gained new urgency personally when a grandson was in the closest school to Sandy Hook and spent the hours under his desk sheltering in place. The following is also included in a June 13 posting)  It became even more urgent when a granddaughter was in the next classroom in a Denver suburb, Centennial when a school shooter at Arapahoe High took his own life.  It was then I became acutely aware the survivors of gun violence have wounds, too. Some never heal. She has been seeking professional mental health services ever since and was diagnosed with PTSD.  So has her mother, a teacher in the Columbine school district, who witnessed her daughter in another suburban district led by police officers out of the school building.  The wounds of survivors and their families can last a lifetime.   The Arapahoe High School shooting did result in a law passed in Colorado to hold the school responsible for taking action when they knew or suspected a student was a potential danger, as it was in this case, but the law had flaws.  School Administrators Unsure How To Protect Students Under New Law | Colorado Public Radio (cpr.org)  Report: Arapahoe High School staff ignored warning signs before 2013 shooting - CBS News     Kendrick Castillo's parents sue STEM School Highlands Ranch over 2019 shooting in possible first test of Claire Davis Act (denverpost.com)

Arapahoe High shooting reports detail 3 major failures in procedures – The Denver Post

Excellent source of Denver and Colorado gun laws: Gun Laws in Colorado And The City of Denver (What Is Legal?) (denvercocriminaldefenselawyer.com)

Source of Colorado gun laws     :9 questions about gun laws in Colorado, answered | Colorado Public Radio (cpr.org)       including recent laws passed in 2022 in the wake of a super market mass shooting in Boulder "Colorado has passed a number of laws within the last decade aimed at addressing gun violence, often in response to mass shootings. Voters in the state chose to close the so-called ‘gun show loophole’ after the Columbine massacre in 1999, requiring background checks for purchases at trade shows.......Colorado does not have a waiting period for gun purchases. It also does not have any specific age restrictions and instead defaults to the federal rules: A person must be at least 18 years old to purchase rifles and other long guns, and 21 to buy handguns.

Coloradans 21 years and older can get a permit for concealed carry, issued through the local sheriff’s office; the state does not require gun owners to give a reason for wanting one. It also honors permits from most other states. No permit is needed to carry openly, although some cities, like Denver, ban it. State law bans the creation of any sort of firearms registry by the government.

The state has a ‘castle doctrine’ allowing people to use deadly force in their own homes, without a duty to retreat..

Suspect Charged With 10 Counts of Murder in Boulder, Colo., Shooting - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

More recent gun laws in the Colorado include:

• Universal background checks for all sales, including private sales.
• A ban on magazines that hold more than 15 rounds.
• Restrictions on gun ownership for certain domestic violence offenders.
• A Red Flag Law that allows a family member or law enforcement to petition a court to temporarily remove someone’s firearms if they’re deemed a danger to themselves or others. These are known as Extreme Risk Protection Orders.
• A requirement that gun owners securely store their firearms when not in use.
• A requirement that gun owners report to law enforcement any lost or stolen weapons.
• Allowing cities and counties to pass stricter gun laws than the state.
• Preventing people convicted of certain violent misdemeanors from buying a gun for five years.
• Closing the so-called ‘Charleston loophole’ that allowed gun dealers to finish a transaction without a background check if the check wasn’t completed in three days.
• The ‘Vote Without Fear Act,’ which bars the open carry of firearms within 100 feet of a polling location.
• Creating an Office of Gun Violence Prevention.
• 
  

July 9, 2022 update:  The role of hate speech in fomenting violence and mass killings is explored in this  USA Today article:

Border invasion to grooming children: How GOP uses 'dangerous' words (usatoday.com)

Thank the Pilgrims who began America’s quest for religious freedom updated November 27, 2020

A version of this was publlished in the Sky Hi News, 11/20-21/2018

https://www.skyhinews.com/news/opinion/opinion-muftic-thank-the-pilgrims-who-began-americas-quest-for-religious-freedom/

Summary:

The Pilgrims got the ball rolling but it was only the beginning. They saw freedom of religion freedom from a government run religion that persecuted them. It was not freedom for others...but after the colonies provided a rocky start of hanging heretics and hunting witches, the Constitution gave all of us freedom of religion. Application of that First Amendment is still a work in progress.

________________________________________________________________________________
This Thanksgiving we should give our thanks to the Pilgrims who have become an icon of what made the New World so unique in the civilizations that preceded them.. They left England and the old world to seek freedom to practice their own religion, free from a government backed state religion that oppressed them.  It was a beginning.  There was a rocky road ahead to laws guaranteeing religious freedom for everyone, not just one group.

 Some colonies adopted laws with limited forms of freedom of religion while others established state sponsored religions, hung heretics, and launched witch hunts.  Pennsylvania and Virginia   had enacted their own laws effectively protecting freedom of religion. The Constitution authors adopted those concepts in the First Amendment, ““Congress shalll make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." Congress  later passed  civil rights and hate crimes legislation that protected religious practitioners and punished those who interfered with their practice.

So, disconcerting in 2018 is that many seem to have forgotten the lessons leaned from experience, traditions, and history. So heartening in the 2018 midterms is that many more Americans rejected an Oval Office leadership condoning and even promoting hate and fear of “others”, including Donald Trump's attempted immigration ban of anyone who was a Muslim, .

In 2016 this country had given the reins of power to Donald Trump whose soaring oratory appealed to the worst of human nature. He set the example. It was alright to be uncivil, no longer to be politically correct, to denigrate and disrespect’ others”, especially people of color and women, and to express such feelings publicly. His inflammatory words have continued in rallies and tweets to this day.

 While protected by the Constitution, words of hate have deadly consequences. That was brought home shortly before the 2018 midterms by the Pittsburgh Synagogue massacre. While Donald Trump did not target his hateful words toward the Jewish community, he tolerated and promoted intolerance. Our President opined about the neo-Nazi demonstrators in Charlottesville in 2017 that there some were “fine people” among them. The tiki torch bearing marchers shouted anti-Semitic slogans in German while raising arms in the Nazi salute.  

 An atmosphere of permissive hatred does not confine itself to specific targets.  It is infectious and even if originally unintended, it can spread to harm other targets, including religious ones. In 2017, the year after the election of Trump, the FBI reported a 37% spike in anti-Jewish hate crimes over 2016, and the Anti-Defamation League found the number of anti-Semitic incidents, mostly vandalism, was nearly 60 percent higher in 2017 than 2016, the largest single-year increase on record.

 Alt- right conspiracy theorists and Trump friendly media inspired the Pittsburgh synagogue killer. The shooter posted on his social media that a Jewish immigration group was bringing in immigrants to kill “his people”. Reviving references to the international Jewish conspiracy theories, other alt right proponents claimed a wealthy liberal Jewish-American-immigrant philanthropist, George Soros, was funding the “caravans” of central Americans storming our southern border. Numerous fact checkers found that false. Others before had claimed Soros paid “mobs” of women protesting the confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. Fact checkers: Soros paid none of the demonstrators. Last week In Baltimore, attendees of the performance of Fiddler on the Roof, the musical about Russian persecution of Jews, were still on edge from the mass killing in Pittsburgh. They panicked when a man in the audience shouted, “Heil Hitler, Heil Trump”, fearing it signaled another anti-Semitic mass murder attack. Fortunately, no one was hurt running to the exits. The man apologized later, said he was trying to compare Trump to Hitler but said it the wrong way, and he had been drinking before the performance and claimed protection of free speech. Note: The Supreme Court ruled many years ago shouting fire in a crowded theater is not protected speech. (Schenck v United States: Oliver Wendell Holmes crowded theater reference)
________________________________________________________________________________2018 rulings by the Supreme Court  concerning  freedom or religion set no precedents that altered the underlining intent of the First Amendment or related laws.

The “muslim ban”, halting practitioners of one of the world’s greatest religions from entering the US simply because of their religious affiliation, was rejected by the courts, requiring a total rewrite of rules to comply by those facing extreme vetting to enter the US, now based on selected countries that harbor terrorists and not all had a Muslim majority . It was even retitled as a "travel ban"
 https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/26/supreme-court-rules-in-trump-muslim-travel-ban-case.html

If the tilting of the Supreme Court to the far right indicates that henceforth "religious freedom" means those who open the doors to the public can now discriminate against doing business with those of whom their religion disapproves, the answer should be nationwide and local boycotts of merchants who "exercise their religious freedom" to violate the rights of others. Nothing like causing them to lose the almighty buck to make a point. For those who oppose discrimination against any group, and especially the LGBTQ community and their supporters, it is in their right to use their freedoms to inform the community and to support those who are friendly to all and welcome their business. There are many more who do not discriminate than the narrow-minded holier than thou intolerant who do.

POLITICO.COM

Major shift at Supreme Court on Covid-19 orders

The Supreme Court voted 5-4 to bar New York state from reimposing

The Supreme Court recently ruled in favor of a cakemaker who refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple because it violated his religious beliefs...however, the ruling set no precedent because it based it on the specific  hostility of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/04/politics/masterpiece-colorado-gay-marriage-cake-supreme-court/index.html
Kim Clark, the Kentucky county clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses to a gay couple because of her religious beliefs, spent jail time over it in 2015 and was defeated in her attempt to be re-elected in 2018. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/26/supreme-court-rules-in-trump-muslim-travel-ban-case.html

A number of Evangelical Christian ministers have recently proclaimed that the US is a "Christian nation".  It is not a state one per the Constitution, nor is the Evangelical brand of Christianity (full disclosure..I am a Mainstream  Protestant Christian) even the majority of the population.  Per a recent Pew Research study, Evangelicals are 25% of the population.  http://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/

Evangelicals have had an impact, though, in exemptions of  employers providing ACA coverage of reproductive rights based on religious beliefs, first in the Obama administration and more so   under the Trump administration. The battle yet to be fought is over further proposed  restrictions on  birth control  insurance accessibility coverage. https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/fact-sheet-religious-exemptions-and-accommodations-for-coverage.pdf     https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/17/us/politics/trump-birth-control.html
Roe v Wade will also face challenges in the very conservative tilt in the Supreme Court    As a public policy regardless of religious affiliation, 71% of Americans polled oppose overturning Roe v Wade, https://www.wsj.com/articles/record-71-of-voters-oppose-overturning-roe-v-wade-1532379600
and 72% support birth control as basic health issue    https://powertodecide.org/about-us/newsroom/new-polling-shows-strong-support-for-birth-control-basic-part-womens-health-care
The backlash to religious restrictions on reproductive rights was palapable in 2018. The womens' marches and demonstrations against  confirmation of pro life anti birth control Justice Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court and the doubling of the women gender gap to 19% of the voters were certainly contributors to the Democrats turning the House blue.

Right wing attempts to get around the separation of church and state issue in the funding of education have not gotten far. Once again Colorado was the focus when the Douglas County School Board thought issuing vouchers to students to attend any school of their choice, including a faith based school, was rebuffed by the Colorado Supreme Court. https://www.denverpost.com/2015/06/29/colorado-supreme-court-rejects-douglas-county-voucher-program/   Betsy DeVos, Donald Trump's secretary of education has long been a supporter of tax payer money funding faith based schools through vouchers , and has set about issuing executive orders to chip away at the regulations forbidding public funds for religious schools. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/09/us/politics/betsy-devos-religious-christian-education-federal-aid.html

 Following US right wing efforts to alter the protection of freedom of religion,   in Europe and South America forces desiring to persecute and discriminate against  religious  minorities are raising their ugly heads. In Brazil, a fascist government was just elected, vowing to turn that country comprised of centuries of immigrants and native population, into a Christian nation.  In Europe a long list of countries electing very right wing, anti- Muslim immigrant governments are being elected to political leadership. http://www.pewresearch.org/topics/restrictions-on-religion/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion#United_States

https://www.adl.org/news/press-releases/anti-semitic-incidents-surged-nearly-60-in-2017-according-to-new-adl-report

https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/bs-md-ci-hippodrome-follow-20181116-story.html

https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/14/opinions/fbi-hate-crimes-data-whats-missing-berry-wiggins/index.html

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/oct/22/fact-check-trumps-claims-migrant-caravan

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/10/robert-bowers-suspected-synagogue-shooter-believes-migrant-caravan-is-jewish-conspiracy.html

https://www.thedenverchannel.com/newsy/factchecking-the-suggestion-george-soros-paid-kavanaugh-protesters

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/28/us/gab-robert-bowers-pittsburgh-synagogue-shootings.html
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/documenting-hate-new-american-nazis/

If the tilting of the Supreme Court to the far right indicates that henceforth "religious freedom" means those who open the doors to the public can now discriminate against doing business with those of whom their religion disapproves, the answer should be nationwide and local boycotts of merchants who "exercise their religious freedom" to violate the rights of others. Nothing like causing them to lose the almighty buck to make a point. For those who oppose discrimination against any group, and especially the LGBTQ community and their supporters, it is in their right to use their freedoms to inform the community and to support those who are friendly to all and welcome their business. There are many more who do not discriminate than the narrow-minded holier than thou intolerant who do. .

POLITICO.COM

Major shift at Supreme Court on Covid-19 orders

The Supreme Court voted 5-4 to bar New York state from reimposing

Understanding the concept of free speech in the US

I have been asked by some of my European friends, how is it that hate speech against Jews is called anti-Semitic, hate speech against African Americans is called racism, but the hateful film about Mohammed that caused the violence in the Arab world is called by Americans   “free speech”.

They are all hate speech. However, anti Semitic literature and racial slurs are considered free speech, too, in the US, even if  those who utter it are verbally condemned by their fellow citizens.  Most of the world does not understand the US concept of free speech because it is quite different than what the rest of the world assumes it is .

 To understand the US version, our European friends should separate public and political  expression of  personal or official opinion from government action.  The key is: what does the government do when hate is uttered.  In some countries, the speaker is thrown into jail.  In others, students are forbidden to wear any form of religious preference…a head scarf, a star of David, a cross.   In the US, you are not prosecuted by any government for wearing any of these symbols of religious belief.  Such expression is protected by the US Constitution.  Even if you have a swastika on your T shirt, you may get dirty looks, but you will not go to jail for it. What people say when accusing   someone of  uttering hate, such as calling someone anti Semitic  or a gay basher  is  tolerated even if saying so  is offensive to others. 

There is a limit to free speech:  The  US Supreme Court’s ultimate test is “shouting fire in a crowded theater” is not free speech.  People panic and get hurt as they rush to the exits. Rallying a group to demonstrate violently…setting cars on fire, smashing windows..etc..will also lead to prosecution by the government.  If police determine a demonstration is violating the law, such as blocking a street without a permit, that is against the law and if the group refuses to obey police orders to stop such actions, they too are subject to arrest and prosecution. Such happened in anti Wall Street demonstrations in Denver this summer.   When the demonstrators failed to move their tents and barriers from the street, they were arrested and spent the night in jail or got a citation and were released.

 Another kind of limit has been placed  into law recently:  if the motivation of a person to commit a crime such as vandalism, arson or assault or even murder is   hate against a religion, sexual preference, or ethnic or racial person or group,  the crime is considered a federal one and penalties are far greater  than just the usual ones for those crimes.   If  a mosque is firebombed,  that is investigated as a hate crime.  If a synagogue is firebombed, it is also investigated as a hate crime. If a gay person is attacked by someone, and that attacker either says something or has indicated somewhere else that they have hate against gays, they will also be subject to investigation for a hate crimes. If they are found guilty, the penalties will be more severe than if they were not motivated by hate.

Here  is why the film that insulted Mohammed, put together by someone who appears to be a Coptic Christian in California, did not result in his arrest.  He was a prior convicted fraudster and might be imprisoned for violating terms of his release from prison time later, but imprisonment  would not be due to the film.  One could say he shouted fire, and someone in the Middle East  resorted to violence against US embassies, but there were those in the Middle East who also translated  and  used the hateful words as a way to incite  violent protests, too.  That the violence resulted because of third party use of the film muddies the water of guilt  and the violence that resulted was not committed in the US or  subject to US laws, so  the US Constitution could not be invoked. In fact, few ever saw the film until someone posted a trailer on the internet.

 Regardless of that, as US officials said, peaceful protests are justified  but violent protests should not be tolerated and the  killers of the US ambassador and 3 other US officials will be brought to justice.  It appears the Libyans are prepared to be the ones to do it.   What US officials, both Hillary Clinton and Pres. Obama  have said firmly is that the film does not represent the US policies and they  roundly condemned the film  as disgusting and hateful.    As an individual, I am invoking my right to  free speech to condemn it, too.