BREAKING NEWS!!!!! A real shocker

[PredFan]

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.

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.

 

[PredFan]

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.

What does especially now mean? No one denied their right to be assholes so there is no free speech issue involved.

Especially now means that we have Muslims demanding that we give up our free speech.

Where?

So no pending legislation. Thought so.

I never said there was, nit wit.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

This has nothing to do with 'free speech.'

No government is seeking to limit or preempt Geller or her ilk from expressing their ignorance and hate through force of law.

'Free speech' concerns only the relationship between government and those governed, not between and among private citizens and organizations.

Attempts to contrive this into some sort of 'free speech' issue is ignorant idiocy.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

She is not inciting a riot, dumbass. It takes more than saying something offensive to be charged with inciting a riot. You have to actually say things that communicate you want people to right. Things like "burn this mother fucker down!." Drawing a picture of you with a bone through your nose doesn't get it.

 

[Uncensored2008]

No, dingbat.....We were invited by the Saudi Royals (you know the ones that GWB let fly out of the states on 9-11....and the ones who got lots of Bush hugs)......NO ONE is defending the 9-11 attacks...only trying to educate you a bit that Muslims did not out of the blue, decide to hate us.

So, we were not "invited" by the Government of KSA to protect them (in the form of a desperate plea for help?)

You have some brown, viscus matter coming out of your ears..

Secondly, in Iran it was the CIA....our CIA to overthrow Mossadegh under orders of British Petroleum and a couple of US oil companies. Before we installed the Shah, Iran was a sane and secular place......It was our policies that brought forth the crazed Ayatollahs.

Got it, the CIA works under British Petroleum..

{The coup had its roots in a British showdown with Iran, restive under decades of near-colonial British domination.

The prize was Iran's oil fields. Britain occupied Iran in World War II to protect a supply route to its ally, the Soviet Union, and to prevent the oil from falling into the hands of the Nazis - ousting the shah's father, whom it regarded as unmanageable. It retained control over Iran's oil after the war through the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company.

In 1951, Iran's Parliament voted to nationalize the oil industry, and legislators backing the law elected its leading advocate, Dr. Mosaddeq, as prime minister. Britain responded with threats and sanctions.

Dr. Mosaddeq, a European-educated lawyer then in his early 70's, prone to tears and outbursts, refused to back down. In meetings in November and December 1952, the secret history says, British intelligence officials startled their American counterparts with a plan for a joint operation to oust the nettlesome prime minister.

The Americans, who "had not intended to discuss this question at all," agreed to study it, the secret history says. It had attractions. Anti-Communism had risen to a fever pitch in Washington, and officials were worried that Iran might fall under the sway of the Soviet Union, a historical presence there.

In March 1953, an unexpected development pushed the plot forward: the CIA's Tehran station reported that an Iranian general had approached the American Embassy about supporting an army-led coup.

The newly inaugurated Eisenhower administration was intrigued. The coalition that elected Dr. Mosaddeq was splintering, and the Iranian Communist Party, the Tudeh, had become active. - See more at: http://www.iranchamber.com/history/coup53/coup53p1.php#sthash.Mev8zaYM.dpuf}

Or maybe your just a stupid fuck reciting party bullshit with no actual grasp of facts at all..

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

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.

She is not inciting a riot, dumbass. It takes more than saying something offensive to be charged with inciting a riot. You have to actually say things that communicate you want people to right. Things like "burn this mother fucker down!." Drawing a picture of you with a bone through your nose doesn't get it.

Are you going to quote my op and point out precisely where it is wrong or continue to hide like a coward and pick from the low hanging fruit?

4th request boy

 

[SassyIrishLass]

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

Free speech always has consequences. That's the whole point.

Freedom comes with responsibility.

No it DOES not have consequences. Free speech is a CONSTITUTIONAL right. Learn it....then live it

 

[bripat9643]

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

Free speech always has consequences. That's the whole point.

Freedom comes with responsibility.

Getting killed isn't supposed to be one of those consequences.

 

[Uncensored2008]

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.

Geller rioted?

ROFL

You're a desperate turd who has wandered off in the weeds and has no idea how to rationalize your stupidity.

Oh and stupid, again I ask, was MLK inciting a riot by having armed guards?

Your line is EXACTLY the same as the KKK used with Dr. King - well, you are a democrat so ties to the KKK make sense...

 

[PredFan]

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

Free speech always has consequences. That's the whole point.

Freedom comes with responsibility.

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.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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

Free speech always has consequences. That's the whole point.

Freedom comes with responsibility.

No it DOES not have consequences. Free speech is a CONSTITUTIONAL right. Learn it....then live it

Where in the Constitution does it say that "speech shall have no consequences"?

 

[natstew]

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.

Despicable? No not despicable, just cartoons. All Americans who oppose her are gutless cowards who have already surrendered to islam.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

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

Free speech always has consequences. That's the whole point.

Freedom comes with responsibility.

No it DOES not have consequences. Free speech is a CONSTITUTIONAL right. Learn it....then live it

Where in the Constitution does it say that "speech shall have no consequences"?

You're too stupid to deal with, sit down

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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

Free speech always has consequences. That's the whole point.

Freedom comes with responsibility.

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".

 

[g5000]

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.

And yet you fail to condemn the bitch. Your silence is consent.

That is all it takes for hate groups to succeed. Consent by silence.

The next time you find yourself whining that someone failed to condemn a bad act, remember on which side of that line you stood today.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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

Free speech always has consequences. That's the whole point.

Freedom comes with responsibility.

No it DOES not have consequences. Free speech is a CONSTITUTIONAL right. Learn it....then live it

Where in the Constitution does it say that "speech shall have no consequences"?

You're too stupid to deal with, sit down

That's concession if I've ever heard one.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.'

 

[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.

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.

 

[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.

Despicable? No not despicable, just cartoons. All Americans who oppose her are gutless cowards who have already surrendered to islam.

My left nut has your name written all over it. All Americans who question me are gay...

Gee I like this incredibly stupid game you've come up with.

 

[natstew]

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.

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 security guard died, and if one did he died defending America from muslim terrorists.