Journalism school dean: The First Amendment ends at insulting Mohammed

[Delta4Embassy]

Muslims riot at the drop of a hat because by and large the ones rioting and getting violent don't need much of an excuse. When your life sucks any way and you exist in a tribal world, if the tribe says riot you riot. You probably don't care much about the why and wouldn't know YouTUbe or a computer if it fell on your head. So what triggers avrious Mslim uprisings is more likely as simple as their chieftains told them to than they happened to read something or view something.

 

[Iceweasel]

I think it is important to counter the doublethink from the nutty pseudo-cons who champion Goldberg's fallacy.

If he made a liberal unhappy he must have been right.

 

[Iceweasel]

Just a month ago or so you people were claiming the first Amendment ended where the protestors in NYC supposedly incited a man to kill 2 policemen.

Which is it? You people flip flop more than a boated fish.

The flipflop is between your ears. Inciting riots or murder isn't a protected right. Shouting fire in a crowded theater isn't a 1st Amendment right. Your rights are not supreme, they cannot trample someone else's right. That's something a fifth grader would know.

So if mocking Muhammed incites murders, or terrorism, it's outside the 1st amendment?

If mocking Muhammed incites murder the problem is with the murderers just like it would be for mocking Jesus.

edit: oops, look like someone brought that up. Waiting for an answer.

You say that right after you said this:

"Inciting riots or murder isn't a protected right."

So which is it? If mocking Muhammed incites murder is a protected right or not?

WOW. You are super DENSE. Making fun of someone isn't inciting murder. I can't break it down any smaller for you, sorry.

 

[BlindBoo]

I think it is important to counter the doublethink from the nutty pseudo-cons who champion Goldberg's fallacy.

If he made a liberal unhappy he must have been right.

It made a lot of them laugh as it appears to have lower the collective IQ of the Rabid Right.

 

[teapartysamurai]

Yea if libtards had their way they would ban talk radio, fox news and the blaze

They have tried.

 

[teapartysamurai]

Typical fascist liberal against free speech. No surprises here.

legal limits on their own profession. When the New York Times refuses to run a cartoon goofing on Islam, they don’t want the reason to be government censorship. They prefer to be censored by more sympathetic agents, like violent Muslim radicals.

To be precise here, though, DeWayne Hickham, the dean of Morgan State’s J-school, isn’t demanding a “Mohammed exception” to the First Amendment. He’s demanding an exception for all speech that would make the audience so angry that they might react violently — exactly the sort of slippery slope on censorship that people like you and me worry about when images of Mohammed are suppressed. Actual line from this op-ed, regarding the new cover of Charlie Hebdo: “The once little-known French satirical news weekly crossed the line that separates free speech from toxic talk.”

Journalism school dean The First Amendment ends at insulting Mohammed Hot Air

And, OF COURSE, what constitutes "toxic talk" with a liberal is ANYTHING that might offend their constant butthurt world, or make them take to their "tolerence smelling salts."

You ever notice liberal cries for tolerance, NEVER include the tolerance of speech they don't like?????

So, this is typical. If they had their way, they would re-write the 1st Amendment to suit them, which would mean they can talk all they want, but anyone who says something they disagree with, would be jailed.

Liberalism = Fascism.

He's right. The First Amendment isn't absolute. You can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre either. And if mocking Mohammed results pretty predictably and assuredly in riots globally, that's even worse than shouting "Fire!"

Thank you for proving what fascists liberals are.

Same arguments could have been made for opposing Hitler before WWII or even during. "It might make them mad and cause violence."

Instead of blaming the little fascists trying to stop free speech, the liberal solution is appease the little fascists and use them as an excuse to stop free speech.

No surprise, that's the way you would think.

 

[teapartysamurai]

Just a month ago or so you people were claiming the first Amendment ended where the protestors in NYC supposedly incited a man to kill 2 policemen.

Which is it? You people flip flop more than a boated fish.

If you can quote me saying that, please let me know.

But there is a HUGE difference between inciting a riot, ala "burn this bitch down," and simply insulting Mohammed.

One is a open call for violence, arson and possible murder. The other is CLEARLY religious and political free speech.

If you liberals are going to say insulting Mohammed is not free speech, then you can't insult Christianity or Jesus, either, because IT'S THE SAME THING.

You fascists can't have it both ways.

 

[teapartysamurai]

It's a crime in France to mock Jews, but you won't see the Islamophobes bitching about that.

It's a crime in France to mock Jews, but you won't see the Islamophobes bitching about that.

We are not talking about France, Constitutional moron. This is the UNITED STATES of AMERICA. Agreed, this is reference to Charlie Hebdo, but this College Prof is talking about the 1ST AMENDMENT. Ergo, he means this should apply to what WE in the United States can do or say, NOT what they can do or say in France.

 

[teapartysamurai]

Typical fascist liberal against free speech. No surprises here.

Liberalism = Fascism.

You really shouldn't use words you don't understand.
Please educate yourself.



fascism
/ˈfæʃɪzəm/
noun (sometimes capital)
1.
any ideology or movement inspired by Italian Fascism, such as German National Socialism; any right-wing nationalist ideology or movement with an authoritarian and hierarchical structure that is fundamentally opposed to democracy and liberalism
2.
any ideology, movement, programme, tendency, etc, that may be characterized as right-wing, chauvinist, authoritarian, etc

Yeah, why don't you try again, liar!

fas·cism
noun\ˈfa-ˌshi-zəm also ˈfa-ˌsi-\
: a way of organizing a society in which a government ruled by a dictator controls the lives of the people and in which people are not allowed to disagree with the government

: very harsh control or authority

Fascism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

And that's MERRIAM WEBSTER!

If that doesn't fit Obama and his ilk to a "T" I don't know what does!

 

[teapartysamurai]

Just a month ago or so you people were claiming the first Amendment ended where the protestors in NYC supposedly incited a man to kill 2 policemen.

Which is it? You people flip flop more than a boated fish.

Yep. We also saw a lot of them saying people should not be allowed to protest. Some of them don't know the difference between protests and rioting. And some have said equal rights should not be extended to those of color.

Indeed, the wish for INequality is pretty much all we read coming from the RWs here. Marriage equality, equal pay, vote suppression and more.

Its the hallmark of the right wing.

Um, yeah when you can quote me saying people should not be allowed to protest, do let me know.

But, there is a HUGE difference between protesting and trashing and burning your city down.

Funny, that liberals are all for riots in Ferguson but if the Tea Party marches they scream it's "violent."

Typical left wing phoniness.

 

[teapartysamurai]

Just wondering, as a public service to the liberal left, does free speech now also stop at mocking Jesus?

Don't tempt fate. I got some zingers handy for mocking Jesus, and the other guy.

But, we can't mock Mohammed?

Hypocrite!

 

[Paperman299]

Totally ludicrous. The right to mock is what makes America great.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Just a month ago or so you people were claiming the first Amendment ended where the protestors in NYC supposedly incited a man to kill 2 policemen.

Which is it? You people flip flop more than a boated fish.

If you can quote me saying that, please let me know.

But there is a HUGE difference between inciting a riot, ala "burn this bitch down," and simply insulting Mohammed.

One is a open call for violence, arson and possible murder. The other is CLEARLY religious and political free speech.

If you liberals are going to say insulting Mohammed is not free speech, then you can't insult Christianity or Jesus, either, because IT'S THE SAME THING.

You fascists can't have it both ways.

In case you missed it, in your perpetual fog, the accusations that the protestors were to blame for cops getting killed was not limited to any individuals saying 'burn this bitch down'.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Just wondering, as a public service to the liberal left, does free speech now also stop at mocking Jesus?

Don't tempt fate. I got some zingers handy for mocking Jesus, and the other guy.

But, we can't mock Mohammed?

Hypocrite!

Have you been stopped from mocking Muhammed? By who?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Just wondering, as a public service to the liberal left, does free speech now also stop at mocking Jesus?

Don't tempt fate. I got some zingers handy for mocking Jesus, and the other guy.

But, we can't mock Mohammed?

Hypocrite!

Are you willing to admit that for centuries the Catholic Church, for example, was wrong to punish people for heresy and blasphemy?

 

[9thIDdoc]

He's right. The First Amendment isn't absolute. You can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre either. And if mocking Mohammed results pretty predictably and assuredly in riots globally, that's even worse than shouting "Fire!"

Cute. But stupid.
Avoiding unnecessary panic is entirely different from threatening to throw a violent temper tantrum if you don't get your way.
Giving in to idiotic threats only empowers terrorism and results in more terrorists.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Muslims riot at the drop of a hat because by and large the ones rioting and getting violent don't need much of an excuse. When your life sucks any way and you exist in a tribal world, if the tribe says riot you riot. You probably don't care much about the why and wouldn't know YouTUbe or a computer if it fell on your head. So what triggers avrious Mslim uprisings is more likely as simple as their chieftains told them to than they happened to read something or view something.

So we are back to not being allowed to speak out about only one religion because its followers are violent. All the rest are fair game for any attack at all. And you actually think that is acceptable? Lets be more specific shall we? When is the last time American's rioted because of cartoons?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Just wondering, as a public service to the liberal left, does free speech now also stop at mocking Jesus?

Don't tempt fate. I got some zingers handy for mocking Jesus, and the other guy.

But, we can't mock Mohammed?

Hypocrite!

Are you willing to admit that for centuries the Catholic Church, for example, was wrong to punish people for heresy and blasphemy?

Be specific, when is the LAST time the Catholic Church was able to punish people for heresy and blasphemy?

 

[Kondor3]

Typical fascist liberal against free speech. No surprises here.

legal limits on their own profession. When the New York Times refuses to run a cartoon goofing on Islam, they don’t want the reason to be government censorship. They prefer to be censored by more sympathetic agents, like violent Muslim radicals.

To be precise here, though, DeWayne Hickham, the dean of Morgan State’s J-school, isn’t demanding a “Mohammed exception” to the First Amendment. He’s demanding an exception for all speech that would make the audience so angry that they might react violently — exactly the sort of slippery slope on censorship that people like you and me worry about when images of Mohammed are suppressed. Actual line from this op-ed, regarding the new cover of Charlie Hebdo: “The once little-known French satirical news weekly crossed the line that separates free speech from toxic talk.”

Journalism school dean The First Amendment ends at insulting Mohammed Hot Air

And, OF COURSE, what constitutes "toxic talk" with a liberal is ANYTHING that might offend their constant butthurt world, or make them take to their "tolerence smelling salts."

You ever notice liberal cries for tolerance, NEVER include the tolerance of speech they don't like?????

So, this is typical. If they had their way, they would re-write the 1st Amendment to suit them, which would mean they can talk all they want, but anyone who says something they disagree with, would be jailed.

Liberalism = Fascism.

He's right. The First Amendment isn't absolute. You can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre either. And if mocking Mohammed results pretty predictably and assuredly in riots globally, that's even worse than shouting "Fire!"

If mocking Muhammed results pretty predictably and assuredly in riots globally, then surrendering to their savage tendencies is doubly unwise, and anathema.

More balls to resist, and less appeasement and accommodation for, savage, alien belief systems.

 

[ScienceRocks]

What is so special about Mohammed that you can't insult him, but you can Jesus?