Texas cartoon contest organizer known for inflammatory rhetoric

[dragonfly94]

One day it may dawn on you that freedom of speech is actually holding the US back on becoming the great country it could be.

it already is great, as are the Texan police

[Linky]

One day it may dawn on you that freedom of speech is actually holding the US back on becoming the great country it could be.

it already is great, as are the Texan police

Well that is for others to decide. Telling yourself you are great and everyone thinks you are great is evidence enough that you are not.

[JDGRUEN]

These apologists may not have been to America.

I could take pictures of the Pope and Obama into a bar, pin them up and get the guys to throw darts at them and no one but the bar owner could stop us. The bar owner could because it's his private business and his rights at his business or property aren't trumped by our rights. He could simply declare that we were trespassing and ask us (require us) to leave if we didn't stop. I can't imagine him asking us to stop, but he'd have the right to.

We'd have to take the darts and pictures out onto the public street or to one of our properties or to a property we'd rented to have a right to express ourselves.

No one would get violent and no one would be in trouble unless some neanderthal wanted to participate in further experiments with Darwin's Law as the stupid Islamists did in Texas.

The question is WHY would you do that. What is the purpose?

If you did it just because you can then your sanity should be questioned.

There is no purpose - and does not have to be... it is not a matter of sanity -- it is a matter of freedom - it is simply an exercise in a demonstration of Freedom of Speech guaranteed to Americans by our Constitution. There is no obligation to justify the action .. People can do what they want on a whim ... It is amazing what non Americans do not understand about our wonderful freedoms and liberties in America

I propose there WAS a pupose. It was done to inflame and antagonise. If anyone in the group had died i would also be blaming the organisers of the event.

Freedom of speech is over rated and causes many problems.

One day it may dawn on you that freedom of speech is actually holding the US back on becoming the great country it could be.

Overrated by someone who is not an American and has no way of understanding what a lifetime of Freedoms of every sort means to us Americans ... I cannot imagine a life as a Muslim in a Muslim country -- okay for them ... I do not want to change their ways ... let them be in their countries.... But a warning -- leave us alone in the USA.

Edited May 6, 2015 by JDGRUEN

[Publicus]

Indeed, and it might be rather embarrassing to anyone who might want to create a listing of the "great countries" that prohibit or substantially deny freedom of speech to their citizens and residents.

The book on that would be two covers and no pages. Empty, same as the thought that freedom of speech as proscribed in the US Constitution and developed by the SCOTUS is self-defeating.

Conversely, the book of countries that prohibit or significantly restrict freedom of speech to their populations would have familiar names to include their leaders and their particular political parties. The chapter on the 20th century alone would include all or almost all of the loser countries of World War One and World War Two. The Soviet Union didn't fare too well either.

Islam would be in every chapter.

[Seastallion]

These apologists may not have been to America.

I could take pictures of the Pope and Obama into a bar, pin them up and get the guys to throw darts at them and no one but the bar owner could stop us. The bar owner could because it's his private business and his rights at his business or property aren't trumped by our rights. He could simply declare that we were trespassing and ask us (require us) to leave if we didn't stop. I can't imagine him asking us to stop, but he'd have the right to.

We'd have to take the darts and pictures out onto the public street or to one of our properties or to a property we'd rented to have a right to express ourselves.

No one would get violent and no one would be in trouble unless some neanderthal wanted to participate in further experiments with Darwin's Law as the stupid Islamists did in Texas.

Do you think nobody would get violent towards me if I walked into a bar in rural Texas, wearing an Islamic flag, and proceeded to desecrate a Bible?

Very likely someone would... however I do not envision the bar patrons going out and getting two AK-47s and finding a Muslim meeting and go in shooting... There have been instances in America where Muslim's rights were abridged by individual actions against them ... and it certainly was not right. Furthermore - I do not know of anyone who would support these type of actions... even rare as they are.

On the other hand only about two - three years ago ... members of a Christian group went into Dearborne Michigan and attempted to preach a Christian message with the intent of persuading people to listen... Toughs came out of the Muslim neighborhood and physically ejected them from public streets. Basically declaring that they were in control of pubic space and Christians were forbidden . This is the modus operandi of Muslims in America - one way street - we can forbid you -- but you cannot forbid us. Dearbornistan reigns

Yes, very likely someone would. And the cartoonist shooting event...that was rare in America too, wasn't it?

The point you and others are missing (in some cases, deliberately it seems) is that nobody denies your freedom of speech. But to do something in the name of freedom of speech but in actuality designed purely to provoke, is certainly and simply antagonistic.

In the name of freedom of speech, I can wear a nazi uniform and stand on a soap box outside a synagogue and preach holocaust denial. Everybody would know I am simply tying to invoke a reaction or nastily trying to offend...or both. Freedom of speech was not granted as a right so that I can set out to offend.

It's the motivation that counts. The cartoon contest was designed to invoke a reaction. It was a trap, sprung by simpleton hotheads who fell for it, and has resulted in what the contest convener wanted all along; greater demonisation of Islam.

[Ulysses G.]

The point you and others are missing (in some cases, deliberately it seems) is that nobody denies your freedom of speech.

The Islamic terrorists who attacked a cartoon contest with assault rifles were denying it and so were ISIS when they took credit for it.

[Seastallion]

The point you and others are missing (in some cases, deliberately it seems) is that nobody denies your freedom of speech.

The Islamic terrorists who attacked a cartoon contest with assault rifles were denying it and so were ISIS when they took credit for it.

Nobody in this discussion...understood by most readers, I imagine.

Being pedantic is not helpful to the discussion.

And case in point...you again miss the point; The Ist Amendment was not designed so that people can set out to offend. Obviously, it allows it, but the Amendment's purpose was not intended for that. It was written in a time where it was unusual to seek to offend.

The contest sought offense. The contest tried to offend. The contest was designed to offend.

I bet the founding fathers are rolling in their graves, wishing they had penned a slightly more restrictive amendment.

[JDGRUEN]

The point you and others are missing (in some cases, deliberately it seems) is that nobody denies your freedom of speech.

The Islamic terrorists who attacked a cartoon contest with assault rifles were denying it and so were ISIS when they took credit for it.

Nobody in this discussion...understood by most readers, I imagine.

Being pedantic is not helpful to the discussion.

And case in point...you again miss the point; The Ist Amendment was not designed so that people can set out to offend. Obviously, it allows it, but the Amendment's purpose was not intended for that. It was written in a time where it was unusual to seek to offend.

The contest sought offense. The contest tried to offend. The contest was designed to offend.

I bet the founding fathers are rolling in their graves, wishing they had penned a slightly more restrictive amendment.

Nothing in the U.S. Constitution shields people from from being offended or insulted. The concept of Fee speech does in fact imply that some speech may be offensive or even provocative -- otherwise it would have been footnoted in the Constitution as prohibited ... The entire gamut of Free Speech in America for 245 years or so has been based on very direct insult - please go take a look at political cartoons of the 1800s and 1900s ... rife with direct insult at all political figures including accusing some presidents of having paramours ...Read the history of Yellow Journalism in America... not a high mark on our history -- but a track record none the less - and an old one too

Edited May 6, 2015 by JDGRUEN

[Ulysses G.]

The point you and others are missing (in some cases, deliberately it seems) is that nobody denies your freedom of speech.

The Islamic terrorists who attacked a cartoon contest with assault rifles were denying it and so were ISIS when they took credit for it.

Nobody in this discussion...understood by most readers, I imagine.

I doubt it, Don't blame me for your lack of articulation.

No matter how you try to spin it, the contest had every right to do what they did and if the founding fathers are "rolling in their graves," it would be because of those trying to defend the actions of Islamic terrorists with AK47s trying to deny Americans of their freedoms.

Edited May 6, 2015 by Ulysses G.

[NeverSure]

The Ist Amendment was not designed so that people can set out to offend.

I bet the founding fathers are rolling in their graves, wishing they had penned a slightly more restrictive amendment.

"The Ist Amendment was not designed so that people can set out to offend."

The hell it wasn't. Are you American and if so did you stay awake in civics class? Can you name the Bill that includes the freedom of speech much less the Amendment that does, off the top of your head? Do you know when and why those Amendments were quickly made by the founders AFTER the country was formed as they began to worry about individual rights?

Freedom of speech is for challenging things which is often offensive. There is also the right to protest. This was a protest. If you come from a puzzy country that has limits on speech and PC laws and are therefore drowning in cultural revolution that's being forced on you that you don't want, then you should understand but you probably don't.

"I bet the founding fathers are rolling in their graves, wishing they had penned a slightly more restrictive amendment."

The hell they are. What do you think they did to the King of England before and during the Revolutionary War? Have you ever heard of The Boston Tea Party which was a protest designed to start a war? Do you know that the King's army was ruling the colonies and the Founders and they rose up and rebelled?

I don't know where you come from but you don't know America.

[JDGRUEN]

These apologists may not have been to America.

I could take pictures of the Pope and Obama into a bar, pin them up and get the guys to throw darts at them and no one but the bar owner could stop us. The bar owner could because it's his private business and his rights at his business or property aren't trumped by our rights. He could simply declare that we were trespassing and ask us (require us) to leave if we didn't stop. I can't imagine him asking us to stop, but he'd have the right to.

We'd have to take the darts and pictures out onto the public street or to one of our properties or to a property we'd rented to have a right to express ourselves.

No one would get violent and no one would be in trouble unless some neanderthal wanted to participate in further experiments with Darwin's Law as the stupid Islamists did in Texas.

Do you think nobody would get violent towards me if I walked into a bar in rural Texas, wearing an Islamic flag, and proceeded to desecrate a Bible?

Very likely someone would... however I do not envision the bar patrons going out and getting two AK-47s and finding a Muslim meeting and go in shooting... There have been instances in America where Muslim's rights were abridged by individual actions against them ... and it certainly was not right. Furthermore - I do not know of anyone who would support these type of actions... even rare as they are.

On the other hand only about two - three years ago ... members of a Christian group went into Dearborne Michigan and attempted to preach a Christian message with the intent of persuading people to listen... Toughs came out of the Muslim neighborhood and physically ejected them from public streets. Basically declaring that they were in control of pubic space and Christians were forbidden . This is the modus operandi of Muslims in America - one way street - we can forbid you -- but you cannot forbid us. Dearbornistan reigns

Yes, very likely someone would. And the cartoonist shooting event...that was rare in America too, wasn't it?

The point you and others are missing (in some cases, deliberately it seems) is that nobody denies your freedom of speech. But to do something in the name of freedom of speech but in actuality designed purely to provoke, is certainly and simply antagonistic.

In the name of freedom of speech, I can wear a nazi uniform and stand on a soap box outside a synagogue and preach holocaust denial. Everybody would know I am simply tying to invoke a reaction or nastily trying to offend...or both. Freedom of speech was not granted as a right so that I can set out to offend.

It's the motivation that counts. The cartoon contest was designed to invoke a reaction. It was a trap, sprung by simpleton hotheads who fell for it, and has resulted in what the contest convener wanted all along; greater demonisation of Islam.

It is the ATTEMPT to deny that is being pushed back ... set the standard -- Islamist are not even going to be allowed to ATTEMPT to deny our freedoms -- not without backlash ... Such transgressions as a group of Islamist - ISIS sponsored or incited or whom ever .. will be stopped in its tracks -- Americans are not going to wait around to try to recover our rights - we are not going to allow them to be trespassed upon even in the slighted... Threaten our Freedom of Speech -- Freedom of Gun ownership - Freedom of Movement,, Freedom of Assembly and such and we will slap back - not threaten back...

Edited May 6, 2015 by JDGRUEN

[Publicus]

These apologists may not have been to America.

I could take pictures of the Pope and Obama into a bar, pin them up and get the guys to throw darts at them and no one but the bar owner could stop us. The bar owner could because it's his private business and his rights at his business or property aren't trumped by our rights. He could simply declare that we were trespassing and ask us (require us) to leave if we didn't stop. I can't imagine him asking us to stop, but he'd have the right to.

We'd have to take the darts and pictures out onto the public street or to one of our properties or to a property we'd rented to have a right to express ourselves.

No one would get violent and no one would be in trouble unless some neanderthal wanted to participate in further experiments with Darwin's Law as the stupid Islamists did in Texas.

Do you think nobody would get violent towards me if I walked into a bar in rural Texas, wearing an Islamic flag, and proceeded to desecrate a Bible?

Very likely someone would... however I do not envision the bar patrons going out and getting two AK-47s and finding a Muslim meeting and go in shooting... There have been instances in America where Muslim's rights were abridged by individual actions against them ... and it certainly was not right. Furthermore - I do not know of anyone who would support these type of actions... even rare as they are.

On the other hand only about two - three years ago ... members of a Christian group went into Dearborne Michigan and attempted to preach a Christian message with the intent of persuading people to listen... Toughs came out of the Muslim neighborhood and physically ejected them from public streets. Basically declaring that they were in control of pubic space and Christians were forbidden . This is the modus operandi of Muslims in America - one way street - we can forbid you -- but you cannot forbid us. Dearbornistan reigns

Yes, very likely someone would. And the cartoonist shooting event...that was rare in America too, wasn't it?

The point you and others are missing (in some cases, deliberately it seems) is that nobody denies your freedom of speech. But to do something in the name of freedom of speech but in actuality designed purely to provoke, is certainly and simply antagonistic.

In the name of freedom of speech, I can wear a nazi uniform and stand on a soap box outside a synagogue and preach holocaust denial. Everybody would know I am simply tying to invoke a reaction or nastily trying to offend...or both. Freedom of speech was not granted as a right so that I can set out to offend.

It's the motivation that counts. The cartoon contest was designed to invoke a reaction. It was a trap, sprung by simpleton hotheads who fell for it, and has resulted in what the contest convener wanted all along; greater demonisation of Islam.

Freedom of speech was not granted as a right so that I can set out to offend.

First and foremost the statement needs to be corrected to say the US Constitution recognizes that freedom of speech is an inalienable right. The Constitution "grants" nothing in respect of freedom of speech. The Constitution recognizes the nature of freedom of speech. Accordingly, those who deny freedom of speech must also deny the whole of the First Amendment, not to mention the Constitution itself.

Freedom of speech was not granted as a right so that I can set out to offend.

The Constitution recognizes freedom of speech to include the great likelihood of offending someone and so does SCOTUS. The two dead guys and a number of others seem to be hypersensitive in this respect. So one might study temperament by reading the Federalist Papers written contemporaneously to the Constitution Convention to articulate a Constitution and also peruse SCOTUS case law on it since 1789.

The only question for the SCOTUS to consider concerning freedom of speech is the reasonable and rational regulating of it in a liberal democracy, which is what the United States has. Indeed, SCOTUS has always recognized that political speech is privileged speech under the First Amendment, which makes the Garland TX event displaying art related to religion and politics a classic event of free speech.

Compare and contrast:

I disagree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

I reject what you are saying so it will be the death of you.

[RickBradford]

Good for PAMELA GELLER. Her methods might be disturbing, but her message needs to be heard.

The Southern Poverty Law Center have made major screw-ups, so not to be taken too seriously. They also described the Family Research Council - a conservative Christian organization - as a '"hate group" , because of their traditional stance on marriage. FRC were attacked by an armed terrorist who admitted he chose his target based on the the Southern Poverty Law Center web site. An affidavit filed in the case stated that the attacker had told the guard of the building that 'I don't like your politics.'

well, its nice to have a clear picture of where you stand on hate speech.

Where I stand on FREE SPEECH. It is protected in USA.

As Geller said in an interview today in answer to a question as to whether she was being deliberately provocative in organising this event:

"Inoffensive speech doesn't need to be protected; it is offensive speech that needs the protection."

[Linky]

Indeed, and it might be rather embarrassing to anyone who might want to create a listing of the "great countries" that prohibit or substantially deny freedom of speech to their citizens and residents.

The book on that would be two covers and no pages. Empty, same as the thought that freedom of speech as proscribed in the US Constitution and developed by the SCOTUS is self-defeating.

Conversely, the book of countries that prohibit or significantly restrict freedom of speech to their populations would have familiar names to include their leaders and their particular political parties. The chapter on the 20th century alone would include all or almost all of the loser countries of World War One and World War Two. The Soviet Union didn't fare too well either.

Islam would be in every chapter.

Wrong. Australia and NZ are but 2 countries that follow the US everywhere and assist when the US begs. Those 2 countries do not have freedom of speech, it is not mentioned in the Oz constitution.

I do believe both countries where on the winning side in both world wars.

[BKKBobby]

These apologists may not have been to America.

I could take pictures of the Pope and Obama into a bar, pin them up and get the guys to throw darts at them and no one but the bar owner could stop us. The bar owner could because it's his private business and his rights at his business or property aren't trumped by our rights. He could simply declare that we were trespassing and ask us (require us) to leave if we didn't stop. I can't imagine him asking us to stop, but he'd have the right to.

We'd have to take the darts and pictures out onto the public street or to one of our properties or to a property we'd rented to have a right to express ourselves.

No one would get violent and no one would be in trouble unless some neanderthal wanted to participate in further experiments with Darwin's Law as the stupid Islamists did in Texas.

The question is WHY would you do that. What is the purpose?

If you did it just because you can then your sanity should be questioned.

There is no purpose - and does not have to be... it is not a matter of sanity -- it is a matter of freedom - it is simply an exercise in a demonstration of Freedom of Speech guaranteed to Americans by our Constitution. There is no obligation to justify the action .. People can do what they want on a whim ... It is amazing what non Americans do not understand about our wonderful freedoms and liberties in America

I propose there WAS a pupose. It was done to inflame and antagonise. If anyone in the group had died i would also be blaming the organisers of the event.

Freedom of speech is over rated and causes many problems.

One day it may dawn on you that freedom of speech is actually holding the US back on becoming the great country it could be.

Overrated by someone who is not an American and has no way of understanding what a lifetime of Freedoms of every sort means to us Americans ... I cannot imagine a life as a Muslim in a Muslim country -- okay for them ... I do not want to change their ways ... let them be in their countries.... But a warning -- leave us alone in the USA.

It seems like it means the most to the Americans that are poor and uneducated. The ones that are proud of themselves dont seem to put as much importance in being owner of freedoms like the one you put in the holster. If you cant take pride in yourself you can always take pride in the flag.

[Ulysses G.]

Indeed, and it might be rather embarrassing to anyone who might want to create a listing of the "great countries" that prohibit or substantially deny freedom of speech to their citizens and residents.

The book on that would be two covers and no pages. Empty, same as the thought that freedom of speech as proscribed in the US Constitution and developed by the SCOTUS is self-defeating.

Conversely, the book of countries that prohibit or significantly restrict freedom of speech to their populations would have familiar names to include their leaders and their particular political parties. The chapter on the 20th century alone would include all or almost all of the loser countries of World War One and World War Two. The Soviet Union didn't fare too well either.

Islam would be in every chapter.

Australia and NZ are but 2 countries that follow the US everywhere and assist when the US begs. Those 2 countries do not have freedom of speech

Wrong as usual:

The High Court of Australia held that a right to freedom of expression, in so far as public and political discussion were concerned, was implied in the Constitution. This right was thought to be an essential requirement of democratic and representative government and thus implied into the Australian Constitution, which had established such a system of government

[Chicog]

Well well, even some of the most right wing commentators agree with me.

I must be careful, I might end up supporting the Republicans.

Bill O’Reilly kicked off his program by repeatedly saying what Geller and the AFDI did was “stupid.”

O’Reilly burnished his own anti-jihadist credentials as he said, “Insulting the entire Muslim world is stupid… It does not advance the cause of liberty or get us any closer to defeating the savage jihad.”

In fact, O’Reilly argued that it actually “hurts the cause” to fight jihad, and Laura Ingraham agreed with him that it isn’t “beneficial.” Neither of them discounted the importance of the free speech, but as far as O’Reilly’s concerned, that’s “not in play” here.

Ingraham also called it “stupid” to intentionally provoke like that, and cited what Pope Francis said about Charlie Hebdo, that it’s “rude [and] unnecessary.” O’Reilly concluded, “Just because you can say it doesn’t mean you should say it.”

[Linky]

Indeed, and it might be rather embarrassing to anyone who might want to create a listing of the "great countries" that prohibit or substantially deny freedom of speech to their citizens and residents.

The book on that would be two covers and no pages. Empty, same as the thought that freedom of speech as proscribed in the US Constitution and developed by the SCOTUS is self-defeating.

Conversely, the book of countries that prohibit or significantly restrict freedom of speech to their populations would have familiar names to include their leaders and their particular political parties. The chapter on the 20th century alone would include all or almost all of the loser countries of World War One and World War Two. The Soviet Union didn't fare too well either.

Islam would be in every chapter.

Australia and NZ are but 2 countries that follow the US everywhere and assist when the US begs. Those 2 countries do not have freedom of speech

Wrong as usual:

The High Court of Australia held that a right to freedom of expression, in so far as public and political discussion were concerned, was implied in the Constitution. This right was thought to be an essential requirement of democratic and representative government and thus implied into the Australian Constitution, which had established such a system of government

My dear fellow. Implied means it is not explicit. Therefore it is NOT in the constitution. Fact: Australia has no freedom of speech. There are some radio anouncers that can attest to that fact. Google Andrew Bolt if you are having trouble.

The courts have continuously fined and jailed people for saying things to incite or demonise others.

So no, there is NO freedom of speech.

[Steely Dan]

These apologists may not have been to America.

I could take pictures of the Pope and Obama into a bar, pin them up and get the guys to throw darts at them and no one but the bar owner could stop us. The bar owner could because it's his private business and his rights at his business or property aren't trumped by our rights. He could simply declare that we were trespassing and ask us (require us) to leave if we didn't stop. I can't imagine him asking us to stop, but he'd have the right to.

We'd have to take the darts and pictures out onto the public street or to one of our properties or to a property we'd rented to have a right to express ourselves.

No one would get violent and no one would be in trouble unless some neanderthal wanted to participate in further experiments with Darwin's Law as the stupid Islamists did in Texas.

The question is WHY would you do that. What is the purpose?

If you did it just because you can then your sanity should be questioned.

Ever since the publication of the Satanic verses political Islam has attempted to change the behavior of everyone to suit its agenda. It has got to the stage where Rushdie himself commented that no publisher would have touched the Satanic verses if it were submitted today. Indeed in an article concerning the shootings the Daily mail blanked out pictures of Mohammad that were shown in a photo of the event. If we give in to intimidation it only increases in its frequency and scope, evil has to be faced down eventually, from the point of view of the U.S the sooner the better before mass Muslim immigration makes it that much more difficult. It is already too late for France and Sweden.

[RickBradford]

But the dark forces behind this hate filled bigot [Geller] should be wary.

Bigot (n) : A word used by Leftists to describe anyone who speaks a truth that the Leftist doesn't like to hear.

Pot calling kettle black

Bigot (one of many definitions) - a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions

And thus applicable to anyone who subscribes to the notion of Political Correctness which holds such sway across the Western world.

[JDGRUEN]

These apologists may not have been to America.

I could take pictures of the Pope and Obama into a bar, pin them up and get the guys to throw darts at them and no one but the bar owner could stop us. The bar owner could because it's his private business and his rights at his business or property aren't trumped by our rights. He could simply declare that we were trespassing and ask us (require us) to leave if we didn't stop. I can't imagine him asking us to stop, but he'd have the right to.

We'd have to take the darts and pictures out onto the public street or to one of our properties or to a property we'd rented to have a right to express ourselves.

No one would get violent and no one would be in trouble unless some neanderthal wanted to participate in further experiments with Darwin's Law as the stupid Islamists did in Texas.

Do you think nobody would get violent towards me if I walked into a bar in rural Texas, wearing an Islamic flag, and proceeded to desecrate a Bible?

Very likely someone would... however I do not envision the bar patrons going out and getting two AK-47s and finding a Muslim meeting and go in shooting... There have been instances in America where Muslim's rights were abridged by individual actions against them ... and it certainly was not right. Furthermore - I do not know of anyone who would support these type of actions... even rare as they are.

On the other hand only about two - three years ago ... members of a Christian group went into Dearborne Michigan and attempted to preach a Christian message with the intent of persuading people to listen... Toughs came out of the Muslim neighborhood and physically ejected them from public streets. Basically declaring that they were in control of pubic space and Christians were forbidden . This is the modus operandi of Muslims in America - one way street - we can forbid you -- but you cannot forbid us. Dearbornistan reigns

Yes, very likely someone would. And the cartoonist shooting event...that was rare in America too, wasn't it?

The point you and others are missing (in some cases, deliberately it seems) is that nobody denies your freedom of speech. But to do something in the name of freedom of speech but in actuality designed purely to provoke, is certainly and simply antagonistic.

In the name of freedom of speech, I can wear a nazi uniform and stand on a soap box outside a synagogue and preach holocaust denial. Everybody would know I am simply tying to invoke a reaction or nastily trying to offend...or both. Freedom of speech was not granted as a right so that I can set out to offend.

It's the motivation that counts. The cartoon contest was designed to invoke a reaction. It was a trap, sprung by simpleton hotheads who fell for it, and has resulted in what the contest convener wanted all along; greater demonisation of Islam.

"Freedom of speech was not granted as a right so that I can set out to offend"... Not so...It certainly can and is used that way - often. And it is allowed. Freedom of Speech in American under our Constitution has no such restrictions implied or otherwise... Free Speech is not governed as to whether is might offend or whether intended to offend ... There is a long history on this... In fact the example you described has actually happened in America more than once. Such actions have upset people -- but it is tolerated ... some may lash out and try to silence the speaker -- but they are in the wrong.. whether emotions come into play or not. The U.S. Constitution has no provisions to prevent people from being offended or to protect anyone from an offensive statement. There are travails in life - one just has to deal with them ...

As a returning Vietnam Veteran - I was spat upon exiting Travis AFB on the way home ... In University - same thing - constantly taunted - told to take off my jungle fatigue jacket ... I certainly didn't like it .. .but had no other choice but to endure it ... because it was allowed - tolerated all over America.

So under your idea of what free speech should be -- should all anti-war protesters be stopped from protesting - just because their speech is offensive to soldiers and was intentionally offensive? Think about that for a minute or two.

[luk AJ]

Yeah, a 'Draw a cartoon Muhammad' is just a normal event in Texas.

A pathetic attempt by bigots to provoke and does absolutely nothing to address the problem of Muslim extremism.

Sure it does... the event exposed Islamic Terrorists for what they are... mindless killers who will attack with intent to kill over a insult of a cartoon.

Everyone already knows what extremist terrorists from any race or religion are.

So what exactly was the purpose of the event? It was simply to antagonise and anger extremists, nothing else.

If any of the attendees had also been killed they too would have got what they deserved.

If you want to get some attention in this world you can do this by chopping off heads or by more civilised means such as organizing a cartoon contest. If nothing is done, the world will be dominated by Islam somewhere in the future. I think it is quite naive to believe this will be achieved by peaceful integration alone. Their intentions are clear, extremists are clearing the space and followers are occuppying. One cannot exist without the other. You really think this problem will just disappear? Ostrich behavior is not a tactic nor a solution. I know the enemy, but honestly I am even more afraid of people who defend these extremists and call this cartoon contest a pathetic attempt!

[Steely Dan]

Typical ploy of those on the Left. Blame the victim. In this case, it's Geller and her event. The cartoon exhibit was legal, peaceful, and in the tradition social/political satire that runs throughout American life. Now, those who wish to stifle, control, and limit speech to officially sanctioned speech are out to attack the victims of an attempted terror/murder attack. SOP for the Left.

As I said on the other thread, this deliberately offensive "cartoon competition" was designed to provoke exactly this response, and the rancid Ms. Geller has got what her and herJewish buddies wanted, a burst of anti-Islamic publicity and the usual rhetoric from the right wing talking heads.

Probably her only sadness about it is that she didn't manage to provoke the killing of an innocent, or then she'd really have something to dramatically wail and gnash her teeth about.

She should crawl back under the rock where she belongs.

Has it ever occurred to you that there would be no campaigning by Pamela Geller, Geert Wilders or the sundry other counter-Jihaddists if there was no jihad problem to counter? Coming to think of it if people thought there governments were doing enough to counter the threat of jihad then I equally doubt there would be any need for an extra-governmental counter jihad movement.

[dexterm]

Dozens of countries have laws against hate speech. Maybe its about time USA did the same.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#By_country

[Chicog]

Yeah, a 'Draw a cartoon Muhammad' is just a normal event in Texas.

A pathetic attempt by bigots to provoke and does absolutely nothing to address the problem of Muslim extremism.

Sure it does... the event exposed Islamic Terrorists for what they are... mindless killers who will attack with intent to kill over a insult of a cartoon.

Everyone already knows what extremist terrorists from any race or religion are.

So what exactly was the purpose of the event? It was simply to antagonise and anger extremists, nothing else.

If any of the attendees had also been killed they too would have got what they deserved.

If you want to get some attention in this world you can do this by chopping off heads or by more civilised means such as organizing a cartoon contest. If nothing is done, the world will be dominated by Islam somewhere in the future. I think it is quite naive to believe this will be achieved by peaceful integration alone. Their intentions are clear, extremists are clearing the space and followers are occuppying. One cannot exist without the other. You really think this problem will just disappear? Ostrich behavior is not a tactic nor a solution. I know the enemy, but honestly I am even more afraid of people who defend these extremists and call this cartoon contest a pathetic attempt!

So you think the solution is to antagonise all Muslims and make them more ripe for recruiting?

C l e v e r.

[luk AJ]

Yeah, a 'Draw a cartoon Muhammad' is just a normal event in Texas.
A pathetic attempt by bigots to provoke and does absolutely nothing to address the problem of Muslim extremism.

Sure it does... the event exposed Islamic Terrorists for what they are... mindless killers who will attack with intent to kill over a insult of a cartoon.

Everyone already knows what extremist terrorists from any race or religion are.

So what exactly was the purpose of the event? It was simply to antagonise and anger extremists, nothing else.

If any of the attendees had also been killed they too would have got what they deserved.

If you want to get some attention in this world you can do this by chopping off heads or by more civilised means such as organizing a cartoon contest. If nothing is done, the world will be dominated by Islam somewhere in the future. I think it is quite naive to believe this will be achieved by peaceful integration alone. Their intentions are clear, extremists are clearing the space and followers are occuppying. One cannot exist without the other. You really think this problem will just disappear? Ostrich behavior is not a tactic nor a solution. I know the enemy, but honestly I am even more afraid of people who defend these extremists and call this cartoon contest a pathetic attempt!

So you think the solution is to antagonise all Muslims and make them more ripe for recruiting?

C l e v e r.

Don't just comment but share your thoughts as well....

[JDGRUEN]

Dozens of countries have laws against hate speech. Maybe its about time USA did the same.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#By_country

No it isn't ... hate speech laws and political correctness laws - imprison minds to be controlled by Government Edict and strong arm pressure groups... i.e. if the citizens of the U.K. minds were not imprisoned by excessive hate speech laws and other political correctness speech restrictions - the real impact of unbridled immigration would be debated in the public arena properly and the citizens would have a say so about what to do about it .. Now it is nearly impossible to debate the situation because the words necessary to define the problem are forbidden to be used under penalty of law... An absolutely insane situation ... Anyone who submits to speech control is a slave to the government and have no rights. One must be able to call a SPADE a SPADE - it is not a club nor a heart...

[Jingthing]

I see it this way.

Americans abroad are now more at risk because of this rabble rousing troublemaker publicity whore lady?

And for what?

Free speech?

That's a stretch.

Free speech to yell fire in a theater?

If Americans are going to stand for something good, that is what we want to stand for ... intentionally pushing a stick into a hornet's nest?

No I don't see this as the same as Charlie Hebdo .. that had literary value and presented sophisticated political satire.

Geller wishes her stunt was at that level ... but it never was.

There are much more worthy things Americans should stand for ... that might be worth being hated about.

To add, I do not agree with or support Muslims who are intolerant of people drawing images of their prophet and I don't think secular societies should have laws that protect such an irrational dogma either.

Some might see a conflict in these positions. I don't. Having laws is one thing. Deliberately making people angry just as a stunt is another.

Edited May 6, 2015 by Jingthing

[thaibeachlovers]

Yeah, a 'Draw a cartoon Muhammad' is just a normal event in Texas.

A pathetic attempt by bigots to provoke and does absolutely nothing to address the problem of Muslim extremism.

Wrong. It brings out the moron jihadists and they will get shot. All good.

There should be a Muhammed cartoon competition in every city of the world, complete with armed security ready to exterminate the jihadists.

[Jingthing]

Yeah, a 'Draw a cartoon Muhammad' is just a normal event in Texas.

A pathetic attempt by bigots to provoke and does absolutely nothing to address the problem of Muslim extremism.

Wrong. It brings out the moron jihadists and they will get shot. All good.

There should be a Muhammed cartoon competition in every city of the world, complete with armed security ready to exterminate the jihadists.

In THIS case, you have a point.

Two murderous Jihadists were taken out.

Who knows, they were motivated to act somewhere else and may have succeeded.

Or they may have succeeded at that event.

But in this case, that is a social benefit.