If rights cannot be freely exercised without fear of violence then they don't really exist. And that is the point.
This is patently ridiculous. To completely eliminate the fear of violence when expressing whatever in whatever fashion would require a total police state, which paradoxically would probably not allow free speech !
Ok, just for a test to see how much freedom of speech you have: Walk through downtown Atlanta at 3 a.m. wearing a KKK suit and waving a Confederate flag, just to make a point, a harmless bit of street theater. Then we'll talk about rights and responsibility.
The fact that you are srriously comparing a Mohammed Cartoon contest (not done in front of a mosque or within the perview of Muslims) is the equivalent of me going through a black neighborhood wearing klan garb shows just how far the Muslim radicals have gone in creating a valid hecklers veto for themselves (but not for others of course. They feel very free to keep calling Jews pigs and apes). It's pathetic.
If rights cannot be freely exercised without fear of violence then they don't really exist. And that is the point.
B o o m !
Fear is not a way to judge freedom, IMO. Fear is an individual thing. What scares you might not scare someone else. Pamela Geller and Jim Ritzheimer were obviously not afraid to exercise their rights, but I'm betting not everyone who share their views about Islam would put themselves out there in the same way, does that mean their rights don't exist? Sorry, not buying it.
In late Weimar Germany, when the Nazis were rising, they had a habit of physically beating up anyone who spoke out against them. Some weren't afraid but many were. It helped them take power and bring about the Third Reich. The main purpose of the state,s ome would say the only purpose, is to protect rights, freedom and the rule of law. If the state cannot create an atmosphere where people can speak out without fear of harm to themselves the state has fundamentally failed. I don't see why this is so difficult to understand.
You lost me with this. Are you saying that is what happened here?
One should not have to worry, or hope for, a violent response to free expression in the US. That is against the law here.
Lots of things are against the law here, but they still happen.
This is the two main points in this discussion that keep whooshing past each other.
Gun control laws don't keep guns out of the hands of people that shouldn't have them, murder laws don't keep people from killing people, theft laws don't keep people from stealing...etc. Laws set recourse for committed actions, and it is, of course, the assumption of the mantle of obeying the law that maintains an orderly society.
The rights of law and human rights grant me the freedom of expression, an illegal response to my expression may still happen. I got to say what I wanted to say, though. Making an observation of that reality shouldn't be taken as me condoning such an illegal action, however.
It's, you know, the right thing to do vs. the right thing to do.
Now, are of some parts of this conversation framed somewhat by feelings and biases towards certain religions? I think that's pretty obvious and perfectly fine. Everyone has their own biases, even when they think they don't.
Totally agree Bhawk. And without the rule of law, and the subsequent enforcement of that law by law enforcement on those who would break the law, we quickly descend into violence and chaos. It is the role of law enforcement to respond and enforce the law when the laws are broken. I'm all for anyone who has an axe to grind or a point to make to make it within the bounds of the law. In this case, if the representatives of Islam had staged a peaceful protest denouncing Geller's "contest" as disrespectful and hateful, odds are there are no dead people and many more people would be focused on the hateful actions of Geller rather than the violent response by "extremists".
Exactly.
If rights cannot be freely exercised without fear of violence then they don't really exist. And that is the point.
This is patently ridiculous. To completely eliminate the fear of violence when expressing whatever in whatever fashion would require a total police state, which paradoxically would probably not allow free speech !
Ok, just for a test to see how much freedom of speech you have: Walk through downtown Atlanta at 3 a.m. wearing a KKK suit and waving a Confederate flag, just to make a point, a harmless bit of street theater. Then we'll talk about rights and responsibility.
The fact that you are srriously comparing a Mohammed Cartoon contest (not done in front of a mosque or within the perview of Muslims) is the equivalent of me going through a black neighborhood wearing klan garb shows just how far the Muslim radicals have gone in creating a valid hecklers veto for themselves (but not for others of course. They feel very free to keep calling Jews pigs and apes). It's pathetic.
Seems to me that he wasn't making that comparison at all, rather he was responding to "If rights cannot be freely exercised without fear of violence then they don't really exist. And that is the point." Not the cartoon contest.
Then again, free speech is free speech, which is an absolute right in this country (albeit with some reasonable restrictions) whether being exercised in the middle of the day in freedom-loving Garland, Texas or in the wee hours in a rough Atlanta neighborhood.
One should not have to worry, or hope for, a violent response to free expression in the US. That is against the law here.
Lots of things are against the law here, but they still happen.
This is the two main points in this discussion that keep whooshing past each other.
Gun control laws don't keep guns out of the hands of people that shouldn't have them, murder laws don't keep people from killing people, theft laws don't keep people from stealing...etc. Laws set recourse for committed actions, and it is, of course, the assumption of the mantle of obeying the law that maintains an orderly society.
The rights of law and human rights grant me the freedom of expression, an illegal response to my expression may still happen. I got to say what I wanted to say, though. Making an observation of that reality shouldn't be taken as me condoning such an illegal action, however.
It's, you know, the right thing to do vs. the right thing to do.
Now, are of some parts of this conversation framed somewhat by feelings and biases towards certain religions? I think that's pretty obvious and perfectly fine. Everyone has their own biases, even when they think they don't.
Totally agree Bhawk. And without the rule of law, and the subsequent enforcement of that law by law enforcement on those who would break the law, we quickly descend into violence and chaos. It is the role of law enforcement to respond and enforce the law when the laws are broken. I'm all for anyone who has an axe to grind or a point to make to make it within the bounds of the law. In this case, if the representatives of Islam had staged a peaceful protest denouncing Geller's "contest" as disrespectful and hateful, odds are there are no dead people and many more people would be focused on the hateful actions of Geller rather than the violent response by "extremists".
Exactly.
In case you missed it, Doug...
That's exactly what happened in Arizona, and worth nothing that the Anti-Defamation League was a participant.
Arizona mosque, site of anti-Islam protest, holds 'love not hate' event
An Arizona mosque where hundreds gathered last week for an anti-Islam demonstration, with counter-protesters shouting "Go home, Nazis," was the site of a "love not hate" event on Monday to promote peace and inclusiveness, participants said.
The Islamic Community Center of Phoenix said it was hosting a gathering that includes a multi-faith prayer service and speakers to "show that when one of us is mistreated, our community responds with a message of Love and Not Hate."
"We ask that you bring a FLOWER as a symbol of love and care," the event organizers said on Facebook. "We are better together, and together we are strong." (here)
Monday's event, organized by more than 20 groups, comes four days after an anti-Muslim event held outside the mosque drew more than 200 protesters, some armed, who berated Islam and its Prophet Mohammed.]
The rally was held at the mosque in part because two Texas gunmen who opened fire outside an anti-Muslim event in Texas last month had worshipped there, said rally organizer Jon Ritzheimer, an Iraq war veteran.
As that event unfolded, demonstrators on both sides screamed obscenities at each other as police in riot gear separated the two groups.
On Monday evening, about 200 participants filed into the mosque, some carrying roses, tulips and daisies.
"There's been a lot of effort to divide the faith community and set us apart from one another and we want to demonstrate a strong message of togetherness," Reverend Erin Tamayo, executive director of Arizona Faith Network, which helped to organize the event, said. "I am praying we don't get any negative response."
Most of those who attended had left by Monday night with no reports of violent flare-ups or arrests.
Among other co-sponsors of Monday's were the Islamic Speakers Bureau of Arizona, Arizona Interfaith Movement and the Anti-Defamation League, according to the Facebook posting.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/02/us-usa-islam-mosque-arizona-idUSKBN0OI06820150602
If rights cannot be freely exercised without fear of violence then they don't really exist. And that is the point.
This is patently ridiculous. To completely eliminate the fear of violence when expressing whatever in whatever fashion would require a total police state, which paradoxically would probably not allow free speech !
Ok, just for a test to see how much freedom of speech you have: Walk through downtown Atlanta at 3 a.m. wearing a KKK suit and waving a Confederate flag, just to make a point, a harmless bit of street theater. Then we'll talk about rights and responsibility.
The fact that you are srriously comparing a Mohammed Cartoon contest (not done in front of a mosque or within the perview of Muslims) is the equivalent of me going through a black neighborhood wearing klan garb shows just how far the Muslim radicals have gone in creating a valid hecklers veto for themselves (but not for others of course. They feel very free to keep calling Jews pigs and apes). It's pathetic.
All due respect, I think you're missing that particular point illustrated by that example. It's not a comparison.
You can have all the laws you want guaranteeing anything you like. You are well within your rights to express yourself in any way possible without threat or harm, but that doesn't mean someone won't harm you anyway, laws be damned.
DougMac, you aren't looking hard enough then - there are plenty of comments that support her in this thread. One poster refused to call her actions reckless or irresponsible.....that my friend, is defense.
Doughron, just as you dismiss any comparisons made about Geller, can you really compare her to Rushdie? Getting past the evil that is Islamic terrorism, I will defend a true artists' sincere attempt to satirize or criticize anything. Rushdie is fully excused in my book because he was making a genuine sincere attempt to create discussion, debate, and controversy. We should defend that at all costs. But it is grotesque to insinuate that Geller is similar to Rushdie, in motive and sincerity. I know where we stand on this issue, but can you at least admit that Geller is not even close to making a sincere genuine attempt to create dialogue....she is ONLY trying to insult....nothing more, nothing less. Rushdie's book was much more than that, don't you agree?
DougMac, you aren't looking hard enough then - there are plenty of comments that support her in this thread. One poster refused to call her actions reckless or irresponsible.....that my friend, is defense.
Looked plenty hard enough and still can't find anybody defending or supporting her opinions, only her right to have them and express them.
DougMac, the way I see it, by staying silent and refusing to condemn her, and pressure her into raising her standards, it falls into the defense category, for me. If we don't condemn our own low-class ignorance, then we aren't really getting anywhere.
DougMac, the way I see it, by staying silent and refusing to condemn her, and pressure her into raising her standards, it falls into the defense category, for me. If we don't condemn our own low-class ignorance, then we aren't really getting anywhere.
I've said repeatedly, as have many others throughout this thread, I don't agree with her opinions, and find them vile and hateful. I doubt she cares, and I don't see how I could justify "condemning" her because I disagree with her opinion. If she doesn't care about my opinion, how do I pressure her into "raising her standards"? I'm not sure what you mean by condemn in this context. If you mean speaking out against ignorance, I'm all for it, and someone's mind somewhere along the way might be changed. if you mean denying someone their rights because I disagree with them, I'n not on board in any way.
Then it appears as though we are on the same page. By condemning, I don't specifically mean here on the website, just in general in our everyday lives. Surely these conversations take place at work and at home, and we're going to have people taking sides, just like here. But it shouldn't be that way. Why aren't we all saying, "wow, what an ignorant jerk she is." But some refuse, and that's what confuses me. Because if the target was any other minority, that's what we'd all be saying.
Maybe the word "target" is a little too strong. That would denote some harm or
hostility might have taken place place.
IT WAS A CARTOON CONTEST!
ever hear the phrase "the target of ridicule"?
ever hear the phrase "the target of ridicule"?
Of course, but does a cartoon contest qualify as ridicule?
Geller's contest qualified as ridicule. I know you know it was.
If rights cannot be freely exercised without fear of violence then they don't really exist. And that is the point.
B o o m !
Fear is not a way to judge freedom, IMO. Fear is an individual thing. What scares you might not scare someone else. Pamela Geller and Jim Ritzheimer were obviously not afraid to exercise their rights, but I'm betting not everyone who share their views about Islam would put themselves out there in the same way, does that mean their rights don't exist? Sorry, not buying it.
In late Weimar Germany, when the Nazis were rising, they had a habit of physically beating up anyone who spoke out against them. Some weren't afraid but many were. It helped them take power and bring about the Third Reich. The main purpose of the state,s ome would say the only purpose, is to protect rights, freedom and the rule of law. If the state cannot create an atmosphere where people can speak out without fear of harm to themselves the state has fundamentally failed. I don't see why this is so difficult to understand.
You lost me with this. Are you saying that is what happened here?
No. I'm saying this is what could happen here.
If rights cannot be freely exercised without fear of violence then they don't really exist. And that is the point.
This is patently ridiculous. To completely eliminate the fear of violence when expressing whatever in whatever fashion would require a total police state, which paradoxically would probably not allow free speech !
Ok, just for a test to see how much freedom of speech you have: Walk through downtown Atlanta at 3 a.m. wearing a KKK suit and waving a Confederate flag, just to make a point, a harmless bit of street theater. Then we'll talk about rights and responsibility.
The fact that you are srriously comparing a Mohammed Cartoon contest (not done in front of a mosque or within the perview of Muslims) is the equivalent of me going through a black neighborhood wearing klan garb shows just how far the Muslim radicals have gone in creating a valid hecklers veto for themselves (but not for others of course. They feel very free to keep calling Jews pigs and apes). It's pathetic.
All due respect, I think you're missing that particular point illustrated by that example. It's not a comparison.
You can have all the laws you want guaranteeing anything you like. You are well within your rights to express yourself in any way possible without threat or harm, but that doesn't mean someone won't harm you anyway, laws be damned.
Obviously. But the proper response is not "Well what do you expect when you say that to someone?" The proper response is to stand with free expression and condemn without equivcation the violence and the heckler's veto which has no place in an open society. Of course we see it more and more in many contexts, not just Islam. Just google colleges and the term "micro aggression". I have alkways been an optimist but really for the first time I fear for the future of this country.
DougMac, you aren't looking hard enough then - there are plenty of comments that support her in this thread. One poster refused to call her actions reckless or irresponsible.....that my friend, is defense.
Doughron, just as you dismiss any comparisons made about Geller, can you really compare her to Rushdie? Getting past the evil that is Islamic terrorism, I will defend a true artists' sincere attempt to satirize or criticize anything. Rushdie is fully excused in my book because he was making a genuine sincere attempt to create discussion, debate, and controversy. We should defend that at all costs. But it is grotesque to insinuate that Geller is similar to Rushdie, in motive and sincerity. I know where we stand on this issue, but can you at least admit that Geller is not even close to making a sincere genuine attempt to create dialogue....she is ONLY trying to insult....nothing more, nothing less. Rushdie's book was much more than that, don't you agree?
Seriously. Do you understand that in a free society, value judgments on content have NO PLACE. Who are you to say that Rushdie has value and others don't? Where do you draw the line? I doubt many Christians feel that dipping a crucifix in urine has any artistic merit and yet it was displayed in a major art museum.
With due respect every one of these comments you make leads me to believe you value free expression but only on your terms.
ever hear the phrase "the target of ridicule"?
Yes. For example in 1941 Disney made a short called "The Fuher's Face". They targetted Hitler for ridicule.
If you don't like Geller, you can target her for ridicule. As Doug M says, I doubt she cares.
Geller's contest qualified as ridicule. I know you know it was.
Ridicule has a tried and true place in a free society. Ever heard of Jonathan Swift? Tom Tomorrow's Cartoons are frequently posted here in the Whipping Post. I think that is riducle no? You act as if ridicule is a bad thing in a free and pen society.
"Free speech is the right to shout 'Theater!' in a crowded fire." -Abbie Hoffman 😛
Richard Pierce said he attended a counter-protest Saturday expecting that all would remain peaceful when members of the Westboro Baptist Church picketed former Attorney General Beau Biden's funeral in Wilmington.
But when the 64-year-old former Marine and Vietnam veteran saw one of the Westboro protesters dragging and stepping on the American flag, Pierce said something inside of him "snapped."
"It was not my intention to cause a problem," Pierce told The News Journal. "However, when I saw the young lady walking across the highway, dragging our flag under her feet, I lost my temper and the only way that I could demonstrate that is spill my coffee on them."
no offense meant, really, but gotta say every time I see Warren Haynes now I think he is doughron
If rights cannot be freely exercised without fear of violence then they don't really exist. And that is the point.
This is patently ridiculous. To completely eliminate the fear of violence when expressing whatever in whatever fashion would require a total police state, which paradoxically would probably not allow free speech !
Ok, just for a test to see how much freedom of speech you have: Walk through downtown Atlanta at 3 a.m. wearing a KKK suit and waving a Confederate flag, just to make a point, a harmless bit of street theater. Then we'll talk about rights and responsibility.
The fact that you are srriously comparing a Mohammed Cartoon contest (not done in front of a mosque or within the perview of Muslims) is the equivalent of me going through a black neighborhood wearing klan garb shows just how far the Muslim radicals have gone in creating a valid hecklers veto for themselves (but not for others of course. They feel very free to keep calling Jews pigs and apes). It's pathetic.
All due respect, I think you're missing that particular point illustrated by that example. It's not a comparison.
You can have all the laws you want guaranteeing anything you like. You are well within your rights to express yourself in any way possible without threat or harm, but that doesn't mean someone won't harm you anyway, laws be damned.
Obviously. But the proper response is not "Well what do you expect when you say that to someone?" The proper response is to stand with free expression and condemn without equivcation the violence and the heckler's veto which has no place in an open society. Of course we see it more and more in many contexts, not just Islam. Just google colleges and the term "micro aggression". I have alkways been an optimist but really for the first time I fear for the future of this country.
I condemn without equivocation the violence. That doesn't mean bad things won't happen anyway.
I'm familiar with the micro aggression phenomenon and often wonder just what it is that Americans have to be so angry about, but that's a whole 'nother thread.
Seriously. Do you understand that in a free society, value judgments on content have NO PLACE. Who are you to say that Rushdie has value and others don't? Where do you draw the line? I doubt many Christians feel that dipping a crucifix in urine has any artistic merit and yet it was displayed in a major art museum.
With due respect every one of these comments you make leads me to believe you value free expression but only on your terms.
Sorry, but that is weak. You just described everyone. Besides that, I can't decide how much I value certain content? Why not?
I don't get you....my only point this whole time is that I think Geller is a jerk, and I think more people would feel that way. Where's the problem with that?
Ridicule has a tried and true place in a free society. Ever heard of Jonathan Swift? Tom Tomorrow's Cartoons are frequently posted here in the Whipping Post. I think that is riducle no? You act as if ridicule is a bad thing in a free and pen society.
I'm not familiar with them, but I'll look them up. I just highly doubt the intent of the artists is similar to Geller's.
Anyway, bottom line is that I think those who ridicule for no apparent reason other than to pick a fight, I find them to be complete jerk offs. There's nothing more to it than that.....just as you find people like Mel Gibson to be jerk offs. We all have our targets of ridicule, ironically.
Seriously. Do you understand that in a free society, value judgments on content have NO PLACE. Who are you to say that Rushdie has value and others don't? Where do you draw the line? I doubt many Christians feel that dipping a crucifix in urine has any artistic merit and yet it was displayed in a major art museum.
With due respect every one of these comments you make leads me to believe you value free expression but only on your terms.
Sorry, but that is weak. You just described everyone. Besides that, I can't decide how much I value certain content? Why not?
I don't get you....my only point this whole time is that I think Geller is a jerk, and I think more people would feel that way. Where's the problem with that?
Ridicule has a tried and true place in a free society. Ever heard of Jonathan Swift? Tom Tomorrow's Cartoons are frequently posted here in the Whipping Post. I think that is riducle no? You act as if ridicule is a bad thing in a free and pen society.
I'm not familiar with them, but I'll look them up. I just highly doubt the intent of the artists is similar to Geller's.
Anyway, bottom line is that I think those who ridicule for no apparent reason other than to pick a fight, I find them to be complete jerk offs. There's nothing more to it than that.....just as you find people like Mel Gibson to be jerk offs. We all have our targets of ridicule, ironically.
You have every right to criticize Geller and think she is a jerk off. And she has every right to criticize Islam, to riducle it, to make fun of it, to call Muslims whatever she wantsna dn most especially to draw Mohammed. If "pro-Geller thugs" threatened you for attacking her it would be the unequivocal duty of society to protect you so that your right to expression is not chilled. And the same goes for her. Why is that so difficult to agree with? It seems axiomatic.
Seriously. Do you understand that in a free society, value judgments on content have NO PLACE. Who are you to say that Rushdie has value and others don't? Where do you draw the line? I doubt many Christians feel that dipping a crucifix in urine has any artistic merit and yet it was displayed in a major art museum.
With due respect every one of these comments you make leads me to believe you value free expression but only on your terms.
Sorry, but that is weak. You just described everyone. Besides that, I can't decide how much I value certain content? Why not?
I don't get you....my only point this whole time is that I think Geller is a jerk, and I think more people would feel that way. Where's the problem with that?
Ridicule has a tried and true place in a free society. Ever heard of Jonathan Swift? Tom Tomorrow's Cartoons are frequently posted here in the Whipping Post. I think that is riducle no? You act as if ridicule is a bad thing in a free and pen society.
I'm not familiar with them, but I'll look them up. I just highly doubt the intent of the artists is similar to Geller's.
Anyway, bottom line is that I think those who ridicule for no apparent reason other than to pick a fight, I find them to be complete jerk offs. There's nothing more to it than that.....just as you find people like Mel Gibson to be jerk offs. We all have our targets of ridicule, ironically.
You have every right to criticize Geller and think she is a jerk off. And she has every right to criticize Islam, to riducle it, to make fun of it, to call Muslims whatever she wantsna dn most especially to draw Mohammed. If "pro-Geller thugs" threatened you for attacking her it would be the unequivocal duty of society to protect you so that your right to expression is not chilled. And the same goes for her. Why is that so difficult to agree with? It seems axiomatic.
Just for the sake or argument, I'm wondering if for no apparent reason a group of people started picketing your house, using a megaphone screaming bad things about you and your family. Maybe it was someone who thought you wronged them in a trial or something. They are expressing their free-speech. What if this continued day after day for weeks? All night long keeping you awake. Maybe they are baiting you you try to get you to throw a punch so that they can sue you. Is it societies duty to protect that ass that is making your life miserable? Maybe it is, but they are not getting my sympathy if you decide to throw a punch.
You have every right to criticize Geller and think she is a jerk off. And she has every right to criticize Islam, to riducle it, to make fun of it, to call Muslims whatever she wantsna dn most especially to draw Mohammed. If "pro-Geller thugs" threatened you for attacking her it would be the unequivocal duty of society to protect you so that your right to expression is not chilled. And the same goes for her. Why is that so difficult to agree with? It seems axiomatic.
I agree with all of this - why do you keep bringing up rights? What's difficult for me is that some people, mostly conservative, seem to believe that if they criticize her or call her a jerk-off, that they are some how siding with terrorism. It's also difficult to accept that many people don't realize how counter-productive she is. Yes, I understand it's just my opinion, but once emotion is taken out of it, I bet most would agree that it is indeed counter-productive to the end goal.
"I don't get you....my only point this whole time is that I think Geller is a jerk, and I think more people would feel that way. Where's the problem with that?"
I would agree Geller is a jerk, but it seems you have a much broader point you are trying to make, To wit:
If it's anti white, jew, or Christian, it's bigotry and ignorance. When it's anti-Muslim, it's freedom of expression.
It's sad that many here don't have the courage of their convictions about their anti-Muslim feelings, and choose to instead hide behind their "freedom of expression". I'm not anti-gay, I just believe in the Bible. I'm not anti-Muslim, I just believe in freedom of expression - please. Stop with the b.s., stop being a bunch of p*ssies. Stop hiding.
Will any of the geller supporters have the courage to admit they simply don't like Muslims? Will any of the traditional marriage supporters admit to being bigoted towards gays? Or will they hide behind freedoms of expression and religion?
Your right to express that kind of opinion, but how is it productive?
____________________
Ask not for whom the bell tolls
Seriously. Do you understand that in a free society, value judgments on content have NO PLACE. Who are you to say that Rushdie has value and others don't? Where do you draw the line? I doubt many Christians feel that dipping a crucifix in urine has any artistic merit and yet it was displayed in a major art museum.
With due respect every one of these comments you make leads me to believe you value free expression but only on your terms.
Sorry, but that is weak. You just described everyone. Besides that, I can't decide how much I value certain content? Why not?
I don't get you....my only point this whole time is that I think Geller is a jerk, and I think more people would feel that way. Where's the problem with that?
Ridicule has a tried and true place in a free society. Ever heard of Jonathan Swift? Tom Tomorrow's Cartoons are frequently posted here in the Whipping Post. I think that is riducle no? You act as if ridicule is a bad thing in a free and pen society.
I'm not familiar with them, but I'll look them up. I just highly doubt the intent of the artists is similar to Geller's.
Anyway, bottom line is that I think those who ridicule for no apparent reason other than to pick a fight, I find them to be complete jerk offs. There's nothing more to it than that.....just as you find people like Mel Gibson to be jerk offs. We all have our targets of ridicule, ironically.
You have every right to criticize Geller and think she is a jerk off. And she has every right to criticize Islam, to riducle it, to make fun of it, to call Muslims whatever she wantsna dn most especially to draw Mohammed. If "pro-Geller thugs" threatened you for attacking her it would be the unequivocal duty of society to protect you so that your right to expression is not chilled. And the same goes for her. Why is that so difficult to agree with? It seems axiomatic.
Just for the sake or argument, I'm wondering if for no apparent reason a group of people started picketing your house, using a megaphone screaming bad things about you and your family. Maybe it was someone who thought you wronged them in a trial or something. They are expressing their free-speech. What if this continued day after day for weeks? All night long keeping you awake. Maybe they are baiting you you try to get you to throw a punch so that they can sue you. Is it societies duty to protect that ass that is making your life miserable? Maybe it is, but they are not getting my sympathy if you decide to throw a punch.
Are you aware that the Constitution allows the government to set reasonable time and place (but not content based) restrictions? That's why the government can require a parade permit. Do you SERIOUSLY not see a distinction between someone screaming in a megaphone outside my house (which is a crime) and holding a Mohammed drawing contest? Or writing a book that satirizes Islam? Or making a statement on television? Or holding a rally downtown? Do you really not see a distinction or are you just being provocative?
