Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ok. You would say that the 'chance of violence' would be cause to deny the venue, if I'm understanding you.Free speech MUST carry a measure of responsibility.....
Keep in mind that we were fortunate that only those 2 would-be-terrorists were killed....but it could have been different. Bear in mind that Geller had a phalanx of security EXPECTING (and even luring) a terrorist act.
Unfortunately it's NOT over and innocent Americans will bear the blunt of retaliation for Geller's stunt..while she safely prances to the nearest bank to collect her "just rewards" for being a hate monger.
Should these types of exhibits be prohibited?
No. However, if I were a convention center I'd sure think twice about allowing it in my facility.
What about this? Muslim Leaders to Hold Stand with the Prophet Rally in Texas Washington Free Beacon thousands turned out to protest, but no fear of violence. Would you host? The school district did.
If one, then what about the other? If access is denied because one side resorts to violence, but the other just follows the right to protest-speak, what about the 1st amendment?
Let's try this from another angle then. The SCOTUS recently decided that 1st amendment protections could be conveyed onto tangible items (such as political fundraising donations). One could then pose the argument that the response to Geller's ignorance would also be so protected.I agree with that 100%. She walked into that event knowing full well and with ample evidence to support a reasonable expectation that it would cause the irrational crazies to come out.
I fully support free speech, but she should be held culpable at least and maybe even legally liable for the results of her ignorance and intolerance. Sure, I have the right to walk through the streets of Oakland in blackface. Is there any doubt that someone wouldn't add a little blue and red to it? Maybe the real tragedy here is that a security guard caught a bullet that should have found Pamela - at least then she would have been held personally accountable for her insanity.
Complete and utter bull shit. If free speech is curtailed for any reason then we don't have free speech. If I walk down the street in black face, NO ONE has the right to lay a finger on me.
If I decide to draw a picture of Mohammed giving blow jobs to pigs the n I gave that right and no one has a right to shoot me. Nor should they receive sympathy from freedom loving people.
Here's something that isn't bullshit: if you showed up in Oakland wearing blackface and were hospitalized for 2 weeks after a gang beating, do you really think that people would be carrying signs denouncing your beating as a violation of your 1st amendment rights or would it be more credible that people would simply shake their heads, call you a fool, and decide you got what was coming to you? Sure - they had no RIGHT to beat you up, but you had no REASON to expect anything different.
They should not. If you did it, I would come to your defense. People who would shake their heads and blame you are cowards who don't deserve their freedoms.
I'd believe that only if I saw it. Common sense has to trump individual rights - otherwise it would perfectly fine to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater. Your freedom ends when it impinges on someone else. This is why the Muslim's right to expression by shooting and bombing or flying planes into buildings isn't supported. Yet, if you have a reasonable expectation of that outcome - and Geller surely did as seen by her forethought in providing a large security detail - why poke someone in the eye if not to simply provoke such an action? This isn't an exercise in free speech so much as one in thumbing one's nose at another's moral base. That, to me, is inexcusable.
The reason to poke Islam in the eye, is that Islam deserves to be poked in the eye. And if Islam doesn't like being poked int he eye, then Islam can rise up and do something about it.
And in THAT, you find the reason that Geller is taking her stand. She and everyone else has a right to criticize, condemn and demean Islam. We, the Americans... are sick and tired of being told that Islam is some fragile child, OR ELSE.
Islam is the embodiment of pure evil and that fact is validated by the evil that is the ideological Left supporting it...
We have fought Islam blindfolded, with our hands and feet tied... The time is coming when Islam will be engaged by every measure and it will be annihilated... burned from the heart of humanity and erased from the face of the earth.
Let's try this from another angle then. The SCOTUS recently decided that 1st amendment protections could be conveyed onto tangible items (such as political fundraising donations). One could then pose the argument that the response to Geller's ignorance would also be so protected.Complete and utter bull shit. If free speech is curtailed for any reason then we don't have free speech. If I walk down the street in black face, NO ONE has the right to lay a finger on me.
If I decide to draw a picture of Mohammed giving blow jobs to pigs the n I gave that right and no one has a right to shoot me. Nor should they receive sympathy from freedom loving people.
Here's something that isn't bullshit: if you showed up in Oakland wearing blackface and were hospitalized for 2 weeks after a gang beating, do you really think that people would be carrying signs denouncing your beating as a violation of your 1st amendment rights or would it be more credible that people would simply shake their heads, call you a fool, and decide you got what was coming to you? Sure - they had no RIGHT to beat you up, but you had no REASON to expect anything different.
They should not. If you did it, I would come to your defense. People who would shake their heads and blame you are cowards who don't deserve their freedoms.
I'd believe that only if I saw it. Common sense has to trump individual rights - otherwise it would perfectly fine to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater. Your freedom ends when it impinges on someone else. This is why the Muslim's right to expression by shooting and bombing or flying planes into buildings isn't supported. Yet, if you have a reasonable expectation of that outcome - and Geller surely did as seen by her forethought in providing a large security detail - why poke someone in the eye if not to simply provoke such an action? This isn't an exercise in free speech so much as one in thumbing one's nose at another's moral base. That, to me, is inexcusable.
The reason to poke Islam in the eye, is that Islam deserves to be poked in the eye. And if Islam doesn't like being poked int he eye, then Islam can rise up and do something about it.
And in THAT, you find the reason that Geller is taking her stand. She and everyone else has a right to criticize, condemn and demean Islam. We, the Americans... are sick and tired of being told that Islam is some fragile child, OR ELSE.
Islam is the embodiment of pure evil and that fact is validated by the evil that is the ideological Left supporting it...
We have fought Islam blindfolded, with our hands and feet tied... The time is coming when Islam will be engaged by every measure and it will be annihilated... burned from the heart of humanity and erased from the face of the earth.
But we Americans never seem to tire of pushing everyone's buttons until they break and then trying to hide behind a 200+ year old document as all the justification we need for being boorish. We do not respect our own ideologies enough to be able to respect those of other cultures. America isn't the entire world's culture, and we have no right - on a global scale - to treat the rest of the globe like they were bound by our own contrived and possibly flawed ideology. We certainly have no right, moral or otherwise, to engage all Islam, nor do we even have the means.
And yes, I am quite liberal when the situation calls for it. I'd say that when hot heads get rolling, liberal values the only thing to keep you from being steamrolled into oblivion. You don't have to thank us, your continued existence is all we need. Who else could we argue with?
Let's try this from another angle then. The SCOTUS recently decided that 1st amendment protections could be conveyed onto tangible items (such as political fundraising donations). One could then pose the argument that the response to Geller's ignorance would also be so protected.Complete and utter bull shit. If free speech is curtailed for any reason then we don't have free speech. If I walk down the street in black face, NO ONE has the right to lay a finger on me.
If I decide to draw a picture of Mohammed giving blow jobs to pigs the n I gave that right and no one has a right to shoot me. Nor should they receive sympathy from freedom loving people.
Here's something that isn't bullshit: if you showed up in Oakland wearing blackface and were hospitalized for 2 weeks after a gang beating, do you really think that people would be carrying signs denouncing your beating as a violation of your 1st amendment rights or would it be more credible that people would simply shake their heads, call you a fool, and decide you got what was coming to you? Sure - they had no RIGHT to beat you up, but you had no REASON to expect anything different.
They should not. If you did it, I would come to your defense. People who would shake their heads and blame you are cowards who don't deserve their freedoms.
I'd believe that only if I saw it. Common sense has to trump individual rights - otherwise it would perfectly fine to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater. Your freedom ends when it impinges on someone else. This is why the Muslim's right to expression by shooting and bombing or flying planes into buildings isn't supported. Yet, if you have a reasonable expectation of that outcome - and Geller surely did as seen by her forethought in providing a large security detail - why poke someone in the eye if not to simply provoke such an action? This isn't an exercise in free speech so much as one in thumbing one's nose at another's moral base. That, to me, is inexcusable.
The reason to poke Islam in the eye, is that Islam deserves to be poked in the eye. And if Islam doesn't like being poked int he eye, then Islam can rise up and do something about it.
And in THAT, you find the reason that Geller is taking her stand. She and everyone else has a right to criticize, condemn and demean Islam. We, the Americans... are sick and tired of being told that Islam is some fragile child, OR ELSE.
Islam is the embodiment of pure evil and that fact is validated by the evil that is the ideological Left supporting it...
We have fought Islam blindfolded, with our hands and feet tied... The time is coming when Islam will be engaged by every measure and it will be annihilated... burned from the heart of humanity and erased from the face of the earth.
But we Americans never seem to tire of pushing everyone's buttons until they break and then trying to hide behind a 200+ year old document as all the justification we need for being boorish. We do not respect our own ideologies enough to be able to respect those of other cultures. America isn't the entire world's culture, and we have no right - on a global scale - to treat the rest of the globe like they were bound by our own contrived and possibly flawed ideology. We certainly have no right, moral or otherwise, to engage all Islam, nor do we even have the means.
And yes, I am quite liberal when the situation calls for it. I'd say that when hot heads get rolling, liberal values the only thing to keep you from being steamrolled into oblivion. You don't have to thank us, your continued existence is all we need. Who else could we argue with?
But we Americans never seem to tire of pushing everyone's buttons until they break and then trying to hide behind a 200+ year old document as all the justification we need for being boorish. We do not respect our own ideologies enough to be able to respect those of other cultures. America isn't the entire world's culture, and we have no right - on a global scale - to treat the rest of the globe like they were bound by our own contrived and possibly flawed ideology. We certainly have no right, moral or otherwise, to engage all Islam, nor do we even have the means.
I am getting the feeling you think you are somehow important here.
You are not.
Now, you can say stupid stuff like "Sit down you low info buffoon" all you want - but no one is going to obey. Because you are unimportant.
So, please, keep on being as stupid as possible. We are enjoying this.
Let's try this from another angle then. The SCOTUS recently decided that 1st amendment protections could be conveyed onto tangible items (such as political fundraising donations). One could then pose the argument that the response to Geller's ignorance would also be so protected.
Here's something that isn't bullshit: if you showed up in Oakland wearing blackface and were hospitalized for 2 weeks after a gang beating, do you really think that people would be carrying signs denouncing your beating as a violation of your 1st amendment rights or would it be more credible that people would simply shake their heads, call you a fool, and decide you got what was coming to you? Sure - they had no RIGHT to beat you up, but you had no REASON to expect anything different.
They should not. If you did it, I would come to your defense. People who would shake their heads and blame you are cowards who don't deserve their freedoms.
I'd believe that only if I saw it. Common sense has to trump individual rights - otherwise it would perfectly fine to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater. Your freedom ends when it impinges on someone else. This is why the Muslim's right to expression by shooting and bombing or flying planes into buildings isn't supported. Yet, if you have a reasonable expectation of that outcome - and Geller surely did as seen by her forethought in providing a large security detail - why poke someone in the eye if not to simply provoke such an action? This isn't an exercise in free speech so much as one in thumbing one's nose at another's moral base. That, to me, is inexcusable.
The reason to poke Islam in the eye, is that Islam deserves to be poked in the eye. And if Islam doesn't like being poked int he eye, then Islam can rise up and do something about it.
And in THAT, you find the reason that Geller is taking her stand. She and everyone else has a right to criticize, condemn and demean Islam. We, the Americans... are sick and tired of being told that Islam is some fragile child, OR ELSE.
Islam is the embodiment of pure evil and that fact is validated by the evil that is the ideological Left supporting it...
We have fought Islam blindfolded, with our hands and feet tied... The time is coming when Islam will be engaged by every measure and it will be annihilated... burned from the heart of humanity and erased from the face of the earth.
But we Americans never seem to tire of pushing everyone's buttons until they break and then trying to hide behind a 200+ year old document as all the justification we need for being boorish. We do not respect our own ideologies enough to be able to respect those of other cultures. America isn't the entire world's culture, and we have no right - on a global scale - to treat the rest of the globe like they were bound by our own contrived and possibly flawed ideology. We certainly have no right, moral or otherwise, to engage all Islam, nor do we even have the means.
And yes, I am quite liberal when the situation calls for it. I'd say that when hot heads get rolling, liberal values the only thing to keep you from being steamrolled into oblivion. You don't have to thank us, your continued existence is all we need. Who else could we argue with?
Americans aren't hiding behind anything...
Americans are standing up against Islam because it is our duty to do so... and we're telling them in no uncertain terms that they can either figure out how freedom works, or we will stomp their ass.
They're free to do their best or their worst... and we're free to do the same.
Don't pretend that Islam is the victim here. We have sat by and watched that cult make a menace of themselves all over the planet for 40 years... and enough is enough.
This isn't Palestine, friend and we aren't Israel who depends upon the good graces of the US and the UN for its survival. FIre a rocket into our neighborhood and we'll erase your ass.
And we neither give a dam' about the UN, the Euro-peons say about it, nor do we care about what the lowest order of the society, residing within the Ideological Left, have to say about it.
If this were 1979 and day 6 of "America Held Hostage", I'd agree that we shouldn't judge an entire Religion on the Ranting of an entire city in an irrelevant Islamic shit-hole.
The time to judge Islam is long since passed and Islam is judged for what it is: The Embodiment of Pure Evil.
And understand this if nothing else: There are no "liberal values"... Liberalism is a lie, from top to bottom, front to back. You're here defending Islam, because you are every bit as evil as those you defend, making you every BIT as much the problem as Islam. And when the fight starts in earnest, you and your cult will be counted as Islam.
They should not. If you did it, I would come to your defense. People who would shake their heads and blame you are cowards who don't deserve their freedoms.
I'd believe that only if I saw it. Common sense has to trump individual rights - otherwise it would perfectly fine to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater. Your freedom ends when it impinges on someone else. This is why the Muslim's right to expression by shooting and bombing or flying planes into buildings isn't supported. Yet, if you have a reasonable expectation of that outcome - and Geller surely did as seen by her forethought in providing a large security detail - why poke someone in the eye if not to simply provoke such an action? This isn't an exercise in free speech so much as one in thumbing one's nose at another's moral base. That, to me, is inexcusable.
The reason to poke Islam in the eye, is that Islam deserves to be poked in the eye. And if Islam doesn't like being poked int he eye, then Islam can rise up and do something about it.
And in THAT, you find the reason that Geller is taking her stand. She and everyone else has a right to criticize, condemn and demean Islam. We, the Americans... are sick and tired of being told that Islam is some fragile child, OR ELSE.
Islam is the embodiment of pure evil and that fact is validated by the evil that is the ideological Left supporting it...
We have fought Islam blindfolded, with our hands and feet tied... The time is coming when Islam will be engaged by every measure and it will be annihilated... burned from the heart of humanity and erased from the face of the earth.
But we Americans never seem to tire of pushing everyone's buttons until they break and then trying to hide behind a 200+ year old document as all the justification we need for being boorish. We do not respect our own ideologies enough to be able to respect those of other cultures. America isn't the entire world's culture, and we have no right - on a global scale - to treat the rest of the globe like they were bound by our own contrived and possibly flawed ideology. We certainly have no right, moral or otherwise, to engage all Islam, nor do we even have the means.
And yes, I am quite liberal when the situation calls for it. I'd say that when hot heads get rolling, liberal values the only thing to keep you from being steamrolled into oblivion. You don't have to thank us, your continued existence is all we need. Who else could we argue with?
Americans aren't hiding behind anything...
Americans are standing up against Islam because it is our duty to do so... and we're telling them in no uncertain terms that they can either figure out how freedom works, or we will stomp their ass.
They're free to do their best or their worst... and we're free to do the same.
Don't pretend that Islam is the victim here. We have sat by and watched that cult make a menace of themselves all over the planet for 40 years... and enough is enough.
This isn't Palestine, friend and we aren't Israel who depends upon the good graces of the US and the UN for its survival. FIre a rocket into our neighborhood and we'll erase your ass.
And we neither give a dam' about the UN, the Euro-peons say about it, nor do we care about what the lowest order of the society, residing within the Ideological Left, have to say about it.
If this were 1979 and day 6 of "America Held Hostage", I'd agree that we shouldn't judge an entire Religion on the Ranting of an entire city in an irrelevant Islamic shit-hole.
The time to judge Islam is long since passed and Islam is judged for what it is: The Embodiment of Pure Evil.
And understand this if nothing else: There are no "liberal values"... Liberalism is a lie, from top to bottom, front to back. You're here defending Islam, because you are every bit as evil as those you defend, making you every BIT as much the problem as Islam. And when the fight starts in earnest, you and your cult will be counted as Islam.
Strong words indeed. Let me know when the revolution starts.
I prefer to think of myself as a person who has accumulated a little common sense and tolerance towards people who have a different culture than I. But that's just me. If you want to draw cartoons of Mohammed after Charlie Hebdo and Geller's stunt, we can write on your headstone how you had the constitutional right to do so.
What on earth would make you think you have common sense?
Pissing yourself in fear of offending the democrats beloved terrorists is cowardice - the opposite of common sense.
"Allowing the broadest scope to the language and purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment, it is well understood that the right of free speech is not absolute at all times and under all circumstances. There are certain well defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting" words -- those which, by their very utterance, inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality. "
You can support the right of people to believe in the occult if they want without supporting what they think is their right to force those occult beliefs on you.You can support free speech without supporting the morons that abuse it.
Pamela had every right to draw despicable cartoons of another religions prophet. Doesn't make it a cause I have to support.
The only thing the right feels responsible for are the successes of the left. Like taking out Bin Laden."Allowing the broadest scope to the language and purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment, it is well understood that the right of free speech is not absolute at all times and under all circumstances. There are certain well defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting" words -- those which, by their very utterance, inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality. "
As I stated earlier, we DO have libel and hate-crime laws to castigate irresponsible "free speech" and the right wing nitwits on here just can't get it through their half-brains that free speech carries considerable responsibility.
Agreed, anyone who intentionally causes someone to be murdered by taunting known killers shares culpability in their deaths. The person flapping his gums should be sued at the very least.
If I call some woman with a very abusive husband, knowing full well that he might harm her, I would be guilty of negligence.
So, we should coddle violent sociopaths, but punish those who are peaceful and law abiding?
Say, you voted for Obama, dinja?
WTF are you babbling about now retard?You can support the right of people to believe in the occult if they want without supporting what they think is their right to force those occult beliefs on you.You can support free speech without supporting the morons that abuse it.
Pamela had every right to draw despicable cartoons of another religions prophet. Doesn't make it a cause I have to support.
The people protesting in Baltimore, before and after the riots, had every right to do so. Those that rioted were not exercising free speech, but committing crimes. There's a difference.Should these types of exhibits be prohibited?
obviously not, and people who disagree with exhibits can feel free to object without resorting to violence.
to equate what Geller did to MLK and civil disobedience is ridiculous...Actually not ridiculous in the least. Actions that may result in reactions are to be expected, and often illuminating. We can see early historical results of MLK's actions; the Geller actions are too recent.
In both cases they took actions to highlight injustices and real problems in our society.
so did you support the violence in Baltimore which illuminated police brutality??
Rioting and destroying property is now free speech? Sit down you low info buffoon
You're much too dumb to understand, I guess....You conclusion is a stupid as you surely are...
What I AM stating is that what starts out as free speech has consequences as one then shouting, "let's break into a drugstore."
Geller is basically inciting a riot THROUGH her free speech and had she NOT surrounded herself with 50 armed guards, the murderous riot by those crazed terrorists could have turned out a lot different.
Idiot, free speech should never have "consequences", it's a given right. Sit down, commie
She's a reckless demagogue and comprehensively ignorant:You are entitled to your opinion. Seems to me she's asking the right questions and putting out the correct predictions:Actually not ridiculous in the least. Actions that may result in reactions are to be expected, and often illuminating. We can see early historical results of MLK's actions; the Geller actions are too recent.
In both cases they took actions to highlight injustices and real problems in our society.
Geller has illuminated nothing... Charlie Hebdo she is not.
she is a delusional attention whore much like manifold thinking he is some sort of hero for calling women ***** on the internet...
Pamela Geller A Response to My Critics This Is a War - TIME
“The attack in Garland showed that everything my colleagues and I have been warning about regarding the threat of jihad, and the ways in which it threatens our liberties, is true. Islamic law, Sharia, with its death penalty for blasphemy, today constitutes a unique threat to the freedom of speech and liberty in general.”
There is no 'threat' from 'jihad,' there is no 'threat' from 'Sharia,' and there is no 'threat' to freedom of speech or liberty. These are blatant lies, completely unfounded, and irresponsible fear-mongering.
“Freedom of speech is the foundation of a free society. Without it, a tyrant can wreak havoc unopposed, while his opponents are silenced.”
More ignorance and stupidity.
Again, this is not a 'free speech' issue; no one seeks through force of law to preempt or prohibit Geller from expressing her ignorance and hate, or engaging in her ridiculous, childish 'cartoon contests' – she's free to associate with whomever she wishes, say what she wishes, absent any restrictions by government.
Now, if a member of Congress were to propose legislation making it illegal to be critical of Islam, then she's have a free speech argument – but absent any such action from government, it's ignorant nonsense to make claims free speech is in 'jeopardy.'
Let's try this from another angle then. The SCOTUS recently decided that 1st amendment protections could be conveyed onto tangible items (such as political fundraising donations). One could then pose the argument that the response to Geller's ignorance would also be so protected.I'm all too aware of the difference. The dead security guard's corpse is lying in it. And violence is exactly the kind of reaction Pamela was trying to provoke.
Its unreasonable and foolish to intentionally try and provoke folks to violence.
I agree with that 100%. She walked into that event knowing full well and with ample evidence to support a reasonable expectation that it would cause the irrational crazies to come out.
I fully support free speech, but she should be held culpable at least and maybe even legally liable for the results of her ignorance and intolerance. Sure, I have the right to walk through the streets of Oakland in blackface. Is there any doubt that someone wouldn't add a little blue and red to it? Maybe the real tragedy here is that a security guard caught a bullet that should have found Pamela - at least then she would have been held personally accountable for her insanity.
Complete and utter bull shit. If free speech is curtailed for any reason then we don't have free speech. If I walk down the street in black face, NO ONE has the right to lay a finger on me.
If I decide to draw a picture of Mohammed giving blow jobs to pigs the n I gave that right and no one has a right to shoot me. Nor should they receive sympathy from freedom loving people.
Here's something that isn't bullshit: if you showed up in Oakland wearing blackface and were hospitalized for 2 weeks after a gang beating, do you really think that people would be carrying signs denouncing your beating as a violation of your 1st amendment rights or would it be more credible that people would simply shake their heads, call you a fool, and decide you got what was coming to you? Sure - they had no RIGHT to beat you up, but you had no REASON to expect anything different.
They should not. If you did it, I would come to your defense. People who would shake their heads and blame you are cowards who don't deserve their freedoms.
I'd believe that only if I saw it. Common sense has to trump individual rights - otherwise it would perfectly fine to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater. Your freedom ends when it impinges on someone else. This is why the Muslim's right to expression by shooting and bombing or flying planes into buildings isn't supported. Yet, if you have a reasonable expectation of that outcome - and Geller surely did as seen by her forethought in providing a large security detail - why poke someone in the eye if not to simply provoke such an action? This isn't an exercise in free speech so much as one in thumbing one's nose at another's moral base. That, to me, is inexcusable.
