BREAKING NEWS!!!!! A real shocker

[Statistikhengst]

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.

Well stated, but WAY over the heads of right wing idiots who have found a "cause" to wrap themselves in the Constitution as if they understood that free speech carries responsibilities....

Why do we have libel laws? Why do we have laws against hate crimes?

Its just the same bullshit from right wingers who like to "talk" like they're patriots but have no concept of responsibility or the capacity to know the difference.

nat4900 oldernwiser

Indeed, it's just the same old rehashed RWNJ bullshit about absolute, unfettered free-speech without even a smidge of responsibility for what one says.

You are not going to change barbaric islamic behavior - and it IS very barbaric, by brandishing a club at them. Common sense should make that prediction very, very apparent. Common sense predicts that that tactic will bring them even more into their completely illogical rage. You change barbaric islamic behavior by turning off the tap and not doing trade with them, by robbing them of the oxygen they want every time they are in the room. You change islamic barbarism by laughing at the crazy shit they say, for instance, that we Jews are dogs and pigs and that Christians only have a right to life as long as they pay lots and lots of Jizya. You change islamic barbarism by cutting off all relations with lands that have oppressive islamic regimes and watch their economies take a massive hit.

Again, I strongly support Mrs. Geller's right to say anything she wants to say. It IS free speech, but that doesn't mean she should say it. If she had just a lick of common sense in her head, she wouldn't. But as long as she is making $$$ off of unwitting sops willing to support her "cause", as long as the tap is not turned off, she will keep on doing what she is doing, because for her, it is working. It's that simple.

Many Righties really don't understand that even free speech has some self-imposed limits. For 7 years straight, they have been proving that they don't understand this at all. Once the butthurt train pulled out of the station, it's been on a high-speed track to nowhere with no stopping in sight. Choo choo, choo choo, the little train that thought it could....

Not even to mention that most Righties are complete pussies about this. Just criticize them a tad for their content and they go Godwin in very short order.

Rightie: "he's a fucking muslim plant, born in Kenya, loves to suck dick, is destroying America, his wife fucks him at night cuz she's really a man, Dimcraps are destroying everything, they all need to be eliminated, neeeegro racists blah blah blah blah /&%$&§"%""%&%R&)(((?=/=)%&$§"§"§."

Leftie: "the only problem with your argument is that not one of your 'facts' is real."

Rightie: "you goddamned fucking Hitlerite fascist, always taking aways peoples raaaahts to their opinion and their guns. Fuck you."*

*Oh, and if the Rightie is Stephanie: "OMG OMG frikken frikken Demcrap slitten-sizm cant talke a little crzisism (*belch* *fart* *shart* *burb* *slobber*) their doin in agian thayv gawt to gow Guhns GAWD frikken frikken"

People who use their 1st amendment rights most effectively are also the people who use them most judiciously.

But most Righties are not going to understand that, because for them, this posting of mine is already way too long for them, their eyes glazed over after about the 7th word because their concentration span is roughly 1/3 of a second long and the pain of their knuckles, having dragged along the pavement all day long, is more on their minds than my posting will ever be. It's karma, and I cannot do anything about that. And I find that to be totally fun!

Wash.
Rinse.
Repeat.

 

[Statistikhengst]

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.

Did someone hit you over the head?

Indeed

WITH A BRILLIANT STICK!

who are you, and what did the aliens do with pops?!?!?!?!?

 

[Statistikhengst]

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.

Indeed, the irishdingbat is an old "friend" well-known for her vulgar, trashy and most of all moronic posts...Just a harmless and powerless sorry human being.

Whackos like her think they are this:

When in reality they are this:

(cough, cough)

 

[Statistikhengst]

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.

Oh, I see you have met Keys. At the Sunny Dales Sanitorium, they let him take a walk once a day after his gets his lemon jello spiked with all sorts of cool meds.

Since he has no teeth, he cannot bite. Just pat him on the head and go on.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Nonsense.

Geller is about propagating ignorance and hate concerning Islam, and an unwarranted hostility toward Muslims.

And when private citizens appropriately and correctly reject her ignorance and hate, denouncing her bigotry and stupidity, she attempts to hide behind the lie that her 'free speech' is being 'violated,' when nothing could be further from the truth.

Geller has the right to express her ignorance and hate concerning Islam, and no one is seeking to deny her that right through force of law, but Geller does not have the right to play the 'free speech' card in an effort to intimidate and silence her critics.

 

[Annie]

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...

If you don't think that Phelps brought out visceral reactions by men of commonsense, I don't know what to say. Truth is, the 'men of commonsense' worked with fire, police, and motorcycle clubs to protect family and friends from the words, without shutting down Phelps right to be a jerk.

The SCOTUS ruling on KKK march in Skokie certainly caused 'men of commonsense' to prepare for violence, yet when faced with the 'right to march' the KKK backed out.

When looking at the Piss Christ work, there was no purpose other than offending Christians. The Holy Mother Mary piece was solely to offend Catholics in particular.

Indeed, in the past 20 years one could argue that the groups not 'protected' by the left are Christians.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

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.

It's why we have to piss off nut jobs.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

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...

You are entitled to your opinion. Seems to me she's asking the right questions and putting out the correct predictions:

Pamela Geller A Response to My Critics This Is a War - TIME

She's a reckless demagogue and comprehensively ignorant:

“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.'

Actually it does have to do with the first amendment, every bit as much as MLK actions resulted in violence as he knew they would. As much as the KKK being allowed to march in Skokie, regardless of the pain they caused to Holocaust survivors. Just as the Muslims had the right to hold their 'Stand Up For the Prophet' rally. As much as people have the right to burn their own US flag. As much as 'artists' have to display other religious figures or icons being degraded.

In all of the above there were people that were offended by someone else's actions. Those folks had the right to protest, but not to resort to violence against the people or their property.

There it is, everyone is going to be offended by something or someone, prohibiting or silencing each other isn't the answer, tolerance is. We are all different have have different beliefs when one group is silenced or attempted to be with violence and threats it becomes tyranny

 

[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.

It's why we have to piss off nut jobs.

Then by all means, let's allow people to shout "fire" in movie theaters.

Hey, it's free speech...

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

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

Am I allowed to crank call the police? Call in bom b threats to Burger King? Can I tell people on a plane that I have dynamite? It seems that there are limits on free speech. Why not here?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

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

Am I allowed to crank call the police? Call in bom b threats to Burger King? Can I tell people on a plane that I have dynamite? It seems that there are limits on free speech. Why not here?

Threats of violence is not free speech.

 

[nat4900]

You are not going to change barbaric islamic behavior - and it IS very barbaric, by brandishing a club at them. Common sense should make that prediction very, very apparent. Common sense predicts that that tactic will bring them even more into their completely illogical rage. You change barbaric islamic behavior by turning off the tap

Above is the most salient point within a well composed post.....

We have all seen the "oh, yeah, make me" between 2 bullies in the playgrounds of our elementary schools.....and both bullies ARE exercising free speech.
However, now the stakes are much higher with lots of blood being spilled for all those "oh, yeah, make me(s)."

It is foolish to think that Islamist intolerants would EVER truly stifle our free speech and expression.........and it is EQUALLY foolish to think that the Geller's stunts are some way to curb Islamic extremism.......For the Gellers and their backers of this world the stunt is for self-notoriety and for the would-be terrorists of this world it is done for some moronic religious zealotry....

BOTH are wrong.

 

[PredFan]

Sure but death, death threats or bodily harm should not be one of them. You don't get to break the law because someone insulted you. And before you deny you are saying that, you are blaming the victim and the result is the same.

Ummm.

I have made exactly two posts in this thread. It should not be too hard for you to find where I've "blamed the victims".

Well, you supported the post of someone who is blaming the victim.

I did? How so?

As far as I'm concerned, my only actions in this thread have been to reply to a single, asinine post. I don't believe that I have "supported" anything.

Really? You don't see it even if you read this line of discussion again?

Of course I don't "see" it, it's not there. You're seeing what you want to see.

The only thing that I have said in this thread is that the idea that "speech doesn't have consequences" is simply ludicrous.

I have not even mentioned anything about the events at the "cartoon contest", or anything close to it.

No? Well I can't help you then.

 

[PredFan]

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.

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.

Also correct.

 

[PredFan]

You left wing quivering cowards are defending a religion that murders innocent people, violates human right constantly, and has at its core the tenet that all people should be converted or killed. It is barbaric, misogynistic, and homophobic.

It deserves to be mocked by all rational, civilized and intelligent people.

You people should be ashamed of yourselves. Cowards.

 

[nat4900]

You left wing quivering cowards are defending a religion that murders innocent people, violates human right constantly, and has at its core the tenet that all people should be converted or killed. It is barbaric, misogynistic, and homophobic.

It deserves to be mocked by all rational, civilized and intelligent people.

You people should be ashamed of yourselves. Cowards.

If the above is ALL you got from what we on the left have been stating, go back and try to "graduate" from junior high school.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

You left wing quivering cowards are defending a religion that murders innocent people, violates human right constantly, and has at its core the tenet that all people should be converted or killed. It is barbaric, misogynistic, and homophobic.

It deserves to be mocked by all rational, civilized and intelligent people.

You people should be ashamed of yourselves. Cowards.

If the above is ALL you got from what we on the left have been stating, go back and try to "graduate" from junior high school.

You need to cease with your petty insults

 

[PratchettFan]

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.

No, that is not the bottom line. The bottom line is that your right to free speech does not give you possession of my property. The KKK has the right to burn a cross, that is free speech, but I don't have to let them do it on my front lawn.

 

[nat4900]

You need to cease with your petty insults

I'll let much smarter people than you sassy, determine WHO was the "insulting" poster.

 

[Theowl32]

I support her right to do it, but in reality it is very stupid.

It is no different if I were to wear a sign like Bruce Willis did in Die Hard.

If anyone did that in Harlem, there is a very distinct possibility you will die. Perfectly legal, I think. Free speech.

Or what if I yelled with a bull horn about the mafia and their illegal actions?

Just saying.

The part that pisses me off is how the fucking left wing morons act all offended when that religion is mocked but laugh giggle and support anyone that insults Christianity.

As I maintain, the left does not stand for anything, except for anyone that insults white Christian conservative Americans. That, is all they know. That is it, and that is all.