BREAKING NEWS!!!!! A real shocker

[Annie]

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.

Ok. You would say that the 'chance of violence' would be cause to deny the venue, if I'm understanding you.

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?

Sure I would host that. I think you fail to understand the first amendment. It means I don't prevent you from speaking your mind. It doesn't mean I have to let you do it in my living room. If I consider what you are doing to be a potential danger to my property, then that is a factor in my decision.

So the bottom line is that you'd shut down any group that was threated by another group with violence. You would be rewarding the violent. Hmm, wonder if that wouldn't be a lesson that we wouldn't want others learning. For instance, those that really believe that Muslims should be destroyed, (not me), would have the incentive to act upon their beliefs.

Several people here have tried to compare Geller with the rioters and looters in Baltimore regarding 'protests' and free speech. False analogy to be sure. Free speech doesn't allow for crimes against people and property. Geller did neither, she did provide additional security due to threats from those that disagreed with the contest being held.

Grandpa seems to be an ardent atheist, thus there's no way he can blaspheme any god or prophet. The charge of blaspheme might come from others, but would be misdirected, only a believer can do so.

Granted the Muslims are well within their rights to be offended, but not to resort to violence, not by US law, which is what rules the us.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

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.

No one's asking you to support it, or at least no one should be. But you SHOULD stand up and defend their right to say it. We have to defend all speech, especially now.

Now and always. If you don't stand for the speech you hate, you stand for nothing at all.

Tough call.

A wise man once said, just because you have the right to speak does not mean you must.

If you self-censor out of fear, and that's what it is, then ISIS has won.

 

[nat4900]

I don't know how to keep on telling you freaking right wingers that I (and others) have NEVER stated that Geller should be SILENCED....so get off your high horse and stop accusing that we are against free speech......

What we ARE stating is that you're silently condoning incendiary actions by a media whore who is probably laughing at your blind and naïve support of her selfish attempts to get notoriety even if its infamy.

While she gloats at all her cable networks appearances, others.....innocent others....will have to pay for her stunts.

Again..>WHY DO WE HAVE LIBEL AND HATE CRIME LAWS???? After ALL BREAKING THOSE LAWS ARE ALSO CURBING "FREE SPEECH"..........

 

[jon_berzerk]

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.

No one's asking you to support it, or at least no one should be. But you SHOULD stand up and defend their right to say it. We have to defend all speech, especially now.

Now and always. If you don't stand for the speech you hate, you stand for nothing at all.

Tough call.

A wise man once said, just because you have the right to speak does not mean you must.

If you self-censor out of fear, and that's what it is, then ISIS has won.

fuck em

 

[Katzndogz]

A right? Yes. But a college kid has the 'right' to stamp all over the US flag in front of a world war 2 vet on Memorial day.

Doesn't mean its even remotely reasonable. Pamela wanted the response she got. A security guard's life was too high a price to pay for it.

No one is saying people who stomp on the flag should be killed. That's the difference you don't seem to understand. Once again, you're saying people who draw Muhammad deserved to be killed.

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.

So you also think she should pay with her life??
Your right there with the real crazies,good job.

That's not exactly my meaning. It's just that a man nobly lost his life to protect an ignoble cause. And the argument resulting from that action seemingly defends an intolerant bigot who would willingly and unjustifiably put other innocent people in front her right to wear blackface in Harlem and escape the direct consequences.

The only ones who died were the terrorists. Are you claiming they were noble?

 

[oldernwiser]

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.

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.

Then why do we revere MLK? He was aware of what the reactions would be to his non-violent movement, he knew the reactions of some would be violence. Why would he have done such a thing?

I disagree. He didn't expect that his actions WOULD cause a violent reaction, only that it COULD. And then there's the SCOTUS reasonable person response - a reasonable person would probably not react with violence if another person petitioned the government for redress or exercised their right to protest. As Justice Murphy put it in Chalinsky v New Hampshire, "The word "offensive" is not to be defined in terms of what a particular addressee thinks. . . . The test is what men of common intelligence would understand would be words likely to cause an average addressee to fight".

 

[oldernwiser]

No one is saying people who stomp on the flag should be killed. That's the difference you don't seem to understand. Once again, you're saying people who draw Muhammad deserved to be killed.

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.

So you also think she should pay with her life??
Your right there with the real crazies,good job.

That's not exactly my meaning. It's just that a man nobly lost his life to protect an ignoble cause. And the argument resulting from that action seemingly defends an intolerant bigot who would willingly and unjustifiably put other innocent people in front her right to wear blackface in Harlem and escape the direct consequences.

The only ones who died were the terrorists. Are you claiming they were noble?

No more than I would claim that Geller's stunt was noble.

 

[Annie]

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.

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.

Then why do we revere MLK? He was aware of what the reactions would be to his non-violent movement, he knew the reactions of some would be violence. Why would he have done such a thing?

I disagree. He didn't expect that his actions WOULD cause a violent reaction, only that it COULD. And then there's the SCOTUS reasonable person response - a reasonable person would probably not react with violence if another person petitioned the government for redress or exercised their right to protest. As Justice Murphy put it in Chalinsky v New Hampshire, "The word "offensive" is not to be defined in terms of what a particular addressee thinks. . . . The test is what men of common intelligence would understand would be words likely to cause an average addressee to fight".

I would remind you of Snyder V. Phelps, most of us would agree that Phelps was one of the larger pricks of our times:

Such speech cannot be restricted simply because it is upsetting or arouses contempt. If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment , it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable. Indeed, “the point of all speech protection … is to shield just those choices of content that in someone’s eyes are misguided, or even hurtful.”

Seriously I've always been with 'the liberals' with the First Amendment, I've argued many times about flag burning and even the very offensive 'works of arts.' To see what is going on today, with the NYT and even here, I find alarming.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/07/opinion/free-speech-vs-hate-speech.html?_r=2

We do not have 'hate language' in the US.

 

[Annie]

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.

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.

Then why do we revere MLK? He was aware of what the reactions would be to his non-violent movement, he knew the reactions of some would be violence. Why would he have done such a thing?

I disagree. He didn't expect that his actions WOULD cause a violent reaction, only that it COULD. And then there's the SCOTUS reasonable person response - a reasonable person would probably not react with violence if another person petitioned the government for redress or exercised their right to protest. As Justice Murphy put it in Chalinsky v New Hampshire, "The word "offensive" is not to be defined in terms of what a particular addressee thinks. . . . The test is what men of common intelligence would understand would be words likely to cause an average addressee to fight".

I might suggest you read MLK's "Letter From Birmingham Jail."

Letter From Birmingham Jail

 

[SuperDemocrat]

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.

Who said they were despicable? Is it any more despicable than how some liberals depict Jesus?

Mohammad is a loser!

 

[Katzndogz]

We have people in this country that would have expression subject to the assassin's veto. That girl who was shot in the head because she went to school knew that going to school was a provocation. How despicable was that? It was a deliberate poke in the eye. Before her, Theo Van Gough was killed for a movie muslims didn't like. An Imam in Australia said that women who didn't wear the veil was a deliberate provocation to rape. He described those women as raw meat left uncovered for the cats to eat. Australia wisely threw him out.

When does someone stand up and say "no more"? Or are Americans really that afraid?

Pamela Geller didn't draw any cartoons. She gave sound to the voice. Good thing too. These two terrorists were planning an attack. Instead of following through with thrir plans they made an abortive attack on this contest. What were they planning, a school, a shopping mall? How many lives were saved by Geller's interruption?

Every city in every state should have draw mohammed contests. Draw the fuckers out instead of letting them turn our streets into Boston race routes.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

So it's OK to piss off nut-jobs if you KNOW they are going to retaliate by murdering innocent people?

Don't tell me that we need to support free speech at all costs, tell the victims families.

The protection of the law exist for everyone equally so it does not matter how upsetting something is.

 

[Katzndogz]

In 2010 a cartoonist named Molly Norris suggested an Everybody Draw Mohammed day. The muslims have been trying to kill her ever since. And she never drew big mo the pedophile.

Every day should be everybody draw mohammed day.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

So it's OK to piss off nut-jobs if you KNOW they are going to retaliate by murdering innocent people?

Don't tell me that we need to support free speech at all costs, tell the victims families.

The protection of the law exist for everyone equally so it does not matter how upsetting something is.

Horse shit. Free speech is so important that discernment with regards to saftey is of no consequence?

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

In 2010 a cartoonist named Molly Norris suggested an Everybody Draw Mohammed day. The muslims have been trying to kill her ever since. And she never drew big mo the pedophile.

Every day should be everybody draw mohammed day.

We don't want you to hate, we want you to love.

 

[Spare_change]

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.

Eat your cake and have it, too?

I can wait to see you support Fred P helps or the kkk or the Nazis then right?

In fact if you are gonna take it to this level I expect to see everyone of you express support for homosexual acts since we have the freedom to do those acts. Right?

Gee --- kinda spun off the track, didn't you?

You're absolutely right --- the KKK and the Westboro Church have every right to say what they say ---- we don't have to like it, we just have to tolerate it.

As for homosexual acts - those aren't Amendment 1 issues. PLEASE do try to stay on track next time.

 

[Spare_change]

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.

No one's asking you to support it, or at least no one should be. But you SHOULD stand up and defend their right to say it. We have to defend all speech, especially now.

Now and always. If you don't stand for the speech you hate, you stand for nothing at all.

Tough call.

A wise man once said, just because you have the right to speak does not mean you must.

A wiser man also said --- I will defend to the death your right to say stupid things.

 

[Nutz]

In 2010 a cartoonist named Molly Norris suggested an Everybody Draw Mohammed day. The muslims have been trying to kill her ever since. And she never drew big mo the pedophile.

Every day should be everybody draw mohammed day.

We don't want you to hate, we want you to love.

Nice.

 

[oldernwiser]

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.

Then why do we revere MLK? He was aware of what the reactions would be to his non-violent movement, he knew the reactions of some would be violence. Why would he have done such a thing?

I disagree. He didn't expect that his actions WOULD cause a violent reaction, only that it COULD. And then there's the SCOTUS reasonable person response - a reasonable person would probably not react with violence if another person petitioned the government for redress or exercised their right to protest. As Justice Murphy put it in Chalinsky v New Hampshire, "The word "offensive" is not to be defined in terms of what a particular addressee thinks. . . . The test is what men of common intelligence would understand would be words likely to cause an average addressee to fight".

I would remind you of Snyder V. Phelps, most of us would agree that Phelps was one of the larger pricks of our times:

Such speech cannot be restricted simply because it is upsetting or arouses contempt. If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment , it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable. Indeed, “the point of all speech protection … is to shield just those choices of content that in someone’s eyes are misguided, or even hurtful.”

Seriously I've always been with 'the liberals' with the First Amendment, I've argued many times about flag burning and even the very offensive 'works of arts.' To see what is going on today, with the NYT and even here, I find alarming.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/07/opinion/free-speech-vs-hate-speech.html?_r=2

We do not have 'hate language' in the US.

Snyder wasn't about whether the WBC had the right to be obnoxious and boorish. It was about whether a jury could assign damages based on how THEY felt about what WBC did versus what the law says. I find it interesting that Justice Roberts chose to phrase his opinion in exactly the same terms that caused the case to be elevated in the first place. Chalinsky is a different matter and directly answered the question of where the boundaries of free expression lie. I think what the court was trying to do was to try to separate opinion from intent. I have the right to voice my opinion, no matter how much you might dislike or even be offended by it. But that right ends when there is reason to believe (by men of common intelligence) that my direct intent was to be offensive and may or may not have constituted my true opinion.

In Geller's case, there was no true sharing of ideas. They assembled for the sole purpose of ridiculing a religious icon. And they were free to do so, but their constitutional protection vanished at that point. I personally don't agree with her decision or motivation for holding the event, but that aside, I can't find a way to agree that she was constitutionally empowered either. I personally don't agree with the Muslim men who armed themselves to stop that nonsense, but I can't find a way to label this as being an attempted violation of her rights.

I keep coming back to J Murphy's quote: "The test is what men of common intelligence would understand would be words likely to cause an average addressee to fight" and wondering if we're just running out of men with common intelligence...

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

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.

Eat your cake and have it, too?

I can wait to see you support Fred P helps or the kkk or the Nazis then right?

In fact if you are gonna take it to this level I expect to see everyone of you express support for homosexual acts since we have the freedom to do those acts. Right?

Gee --- kinda spun off the track, didn't you?

You're absolutely right --- the KKK and the Westboro Church have every right to say what they say ---- we don't have to like it, we just have to tolerate it.

As for homosexual acts - those aren't Amendment 1 issues. PLEASE do try to stay on track next time.

Protected freedom is protected freedom. You can't pick and choose what you think is or isn't. Hence so many hypocrites in the last few days