Rusty, this isn't about art. The point of that event was "Lets go pick a fight with Muslims". It's obvious to everyone that the attackers deserved what they got - nobody needs to point this out. Once we get beyond the concept that murder is unacceptable, then we should shift our focus on raising our own expectations on how to become better people. It might be legal, but it's not ok to deliberately insult and offend a religion with hate speech. It's just not. Why don't all Americans feel this way? This is about wanting Americans to be a classier society.
But conservatives make this about "free speech". The problem with conservatives is that they never call out their own wackos. Cliven Bundy was celebrated as a hero, yet he organized a team of people to aim weapons at police. Geller incites hatred for one of the largest religions, and she is celebrated. They are both wackos, yet we hear nothing but crickets from conservatives. And they are the first ones to scream that Muslim leaders don't speak out enough against terrorism.
The reason people like me focus more on the instigators rather than the criminal, is because it's more shocking that a law-abiding citizen would intentionally get tangled up in such a dangerous situation. We all know there is evil out there. The event was foolish, in the same manner as challenging the toughest city gang to a fight.
The left is no longer liberal. The hard left which derives from Marxism has never supported free expression or dissent.
Shut up.
Tough luck. You know free speech and all that? Or maybe you don't.
You are still a liberal. Unfortunately many on the left side of the spectrum no longer are.
Can you name some of those many people and explain why their left is your right?
No. It's pretty clear who they are.
No. We lose our freedoms when we support those who believe in restraint of expression rather than the free exercise of it
Until someone stands a few inches from your mailbox and screams profanities in front of your family. If that happens, I bet you'd be singing a different tune.
Feel free to condemn Geller for her substance. The second you say she had it coming because violent Islamists have intimidated us into silence you are part of the problem. And if you don't get that? Well you know...what you said.
Who's to say who is "intimidated into silence"? I know I'm not. The only ones who would believe they are "intimidated into silence", are those that feel angry and have a need to pick a fight. I don't judge those who feel that way, because the Lord knows I've been there plenty. But I can assure you that holding an event like this is probably the worst way to confront your issues.
That's your opinion. Others feel differently. Martin Luther King was also told this. He felt differently. As for your ridiculous above point somene screaming profanities directly at me and my family is a form of assault and is not protected speech. The problem is that Muslims (and you apparently) see a contest drawing Mohammed as the equivalent of that. By no legitimate standard can it be so considered.
Let's get somethign straight. Westboro is not dangerous and irresponsible because no one is going to harm them as a result of what they do. They are just hateful and awful.
Luckily. There are several stories of bike gangs showing up at their protests to keep things in order. Why create that scene?
What Geller does is in NO WAY comparable to what Westboro does. In NO WAY. And I will not treat them the same.
the primary differemce is Geller's actions seem dangerous and irresponsible solely because ISLAMISTS are violent and dangerous.
So then by your logic, Geller is also hateful and awful, like the WBC. The only difference is that our military and homosexuals are not violent people. Is that correct?
As I said, I don't think Geller is the equivalent of that. She is a provacateur but hardly the equivalent of someone protesting at funerals against gays. Nevertheless, let's say she is. Yes the difference is that our military and homosexuals are not likely to murder anyone over the actions of the Westboro Church. The second you say, well she shouldn't do that or they shouldn't do that because it might make the Muslims mad, well then we have lost.
There are limitations of free speech. Maybe "Mohammed cartoon contests" should be one of them. It was no surprise this attack occurred -- from FoxNews.com:
" Local police, a SWAT team, FBI and ATF agents were on hand for the event, attended by 75 people, which authorities anticipated could anger Muslim hardliners. "
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/05/04/police-shooting-at-muhammad-cartoon-contest-in-texas/That is a ton of law enforcement resources for 75 people putting themselves in danger so these people can not only exercise their right to free speech (which I fully support), but also thumb their noses at all Muslims who take offense to this free speech.
Maybe this could be considered incitement. Maybe law enforcement agencies will "opt-out" of securing these types of events in the future. I don't know how the law would hold up if put to the challenge. It would be interesting to see topic this go before a high court.
As bhawk stated, many issues at play here. Very complicated, and perhaps ultimately not as protected by the Constitution as we would hope.
Great idea. Let's amend the Constitution to exempt Mohammed Cartoon Contests from 1st Amendment protection.
0/10 reading comprehension
0/10 Constitutional lawYelling fire in a crowded movie theater, threatening the President's life, etc. Lots of exceptions to truly free speech, none are mentioned specifically aanywhere in the Constitution.
So you see, wise guy, no amending necessary.
[Edited on 5/6/2015 by PerryBoynton]
But you see wiseguy no interpretation of the Constitution would EVER permit the government to ban what Geller did. The decision would be 9-0 10,000 times. ANd thank God for that. So for your plan to come to fruition the Constitution WOULD have to be amended to specifically exclude it.
But I can assure you that holding an event like this is probably the worst way to confront your issues.
___________________________________________
No, all you can do is mow your own lawn.
I'm not sure what you mean.
I don't understand why some people feel they must fully support the event organizers as some type of heroes or champions of freedom, in order to proclaim their opposition to terrorism. You don't have to do one to do the other.
I don't propose making laws to ban certain types of events....but where's the public condemnation of these event organizers? We Americans should speak out against poor behavior of all kinds. We should strive to behave more maturely than that. No laws needed, but for anyone to champion the event only does a disservice to the country, IMO.
And it's funny that the ones defending the ignorance of event in order to preserve the "protection of Constitutional rights", are the first ones to condemn the poor behavior of those abusing government assistance. Those people are condemned for weakening our country....all while exercising their Constitutional right to those benefits. It's ok to blame those who abuse the welfare program, but those who abuse the 1st Amendment are heroes.
If we are going to expect Muslim leaders to not only speak out against terrorism, but take action to change that culture, then we should be expected to do the same. If there was a news story about a man who screams profanities at children as they get off a school bus, we would all condemn it, as we should.
[Edited on 5/6/2015 by BoytonBrother]
I do not support her as a "champion of freedom." I support her right to do what she did and unequivocally condemn as anti-American anyone that suggests that provacative and even hateful speech should be banned because it might offend or cause an extreme reaction. Do you understand that?
Nobody is blaming the event organizers? Someone hasn't been watching much of the coverage.
You're passing off your personal opinion of the cartoonists, but I'm not really all that interested in what you think about them. They could be awful individuals for all we know, but I will still defend their right to express themselves. That's what the 1st Amendment is all about. It's not designed to protect only neutral, Pollyanna, or non-controversial topics.
The is the United States. If violence erupts over protected matter, we don't blame the speaker. We chose a different course.
That's my United States and yours but I'm not sure a lot of people agree with us anymore.
We are so fortunate to live in a country that affords us rights that are obviously taken for granted by many.
Yes, we allow anybody to speak their minds on any subject. The KKK, Nazis, Skinheads, Westboro a$$holes - all of those guys get the same opportunity to stand on their soapbox and spew whatever they feel. All they have to do is go down to their local courthouse and apply for a permit. I'm sure the organizers of the Draw Muhammed contest did the same.
Bluedad use to include a quote from the late Hubert Humphrey on his posts: "Your right to free speech doesn't include the right to be taken seriously" (or words to that effect).
Sure, criticize the intelligence of those who dare to stage or put on a display of ignorance or stoopidity, but save just a little indignation for those who react most inappropriately. Some of the posts on this thread reflect greater disdain for someone who held an exhibit of art (certainly questionable in taste and class) than a for a couple of folks who got out of their beds, loaded guns and drove to the exhibit site with the intention of MURDERING other human beings. Yeah, it's all a matter of taste and perception, I guess.
I dabble in art. I'm a hack, but I draw, paint, sculpt and make films. I even play a little music. It's a way that I express myself.
I also enjoy reading and studying art history and various art movements.
As I stated earlier, so much of art is in the eyes of the creator and beholder. Art can run from absurd to grotesque. Some styles reflect beauty in a natural and literal way, while other schools of thought require some serious studying. Often, one might wonder just what the artist was thinking about when they sat down to create.
On the surface (and I'm sure literally) it seems the organizers of the Draw Muhammed event might only (probably did) have intended to create controversy. If you approach the idea from a purely artistic stance (which they probably did not do) the concept makes for a great artistic statement. Think about it. Draw Muhammed ... a cultural/religious figure whose very tenets prohibit such a depiction. Controversy? That's often a huge part of artistic expression!
It's a little like asking someone to paint the wind. Or like Col Bruce Hampton telling a drummer to play a one-handed solo. I even joked with Billy about the idea of someone imagining Muhammed's image in their mind. Would this mere act of imagination create offense or controversy? If I stage an event with 100 people sitting in chairs - all imagining Muhammed's likeness ... would this be as offensive? Sounds kinda Yoko-ish to me!
Some of you seem to invite government regulation of free thought and expression. Personally, this scares and worries the hell out of me. Somewhere along the line, SOMEBODY will decide what can be said or expressed and what cannot. I have a big problem with that.
Beautifully put. The thing that is worrisone is that the people who are doing what you say int he above paragraph either don't seem to understand they are doing it or don't care. Not sure what is worse.
Nobody is blaming the event organizers? Someone hasn't been watching much of the coverage.
You're passing off your personal opinion of the cartoonists, but I'm not really all that interested in what you think about them. They could be awful individuals for all we know, but I will still defend their right to express themselves. That's what the 1st Amendment is all about. It's not designed to protect only neutral, Pollyanna, or non-controversial topics.
The is the United States. If violence erupts over protected matter, we don't blame the speaker. We chose a different course.
That's my United States and yours but I'm not sure a lot of people agree with us anymore.
I agree in general. I disagree if/when the speaker or the event organizer is knowingly trying to incite such a reaction. Intent matters. Like I have said many times before, having a right to do something does not make it right. And condemning the speaker/organizer for their actions is NOT the same as arguing that they did not have the right to do it, and THAT is what many people don't seem to understand.
I do not support her as a "champion of freedom." I support her right to do what she did and unequivocally condemn as anti-American anyone that suggests that provacative and even hateful speech should be banned because it might offend or cause an extreme reaction. Do you understand that?
Yes, and I agree. I support her right to hold the event as well, and I would never support a law to ban the event. What I expect, is if we are going to expect Muslim leaders to speak out and work hard to change their culture of violence, then we should be expected to speak out against our own wackos, and improve as well, and stop deliberate provocation. We should raise our own bar. No laws needed.....lets just hear some conservative voices telling Geller to stop being a jerk. And yes, liberals should do more to speak out against leftist wackos too.....how about we all start now and tell Geller to cool it, and find more productive avenues of expression.
Rusty, this isn't about art. The point of that event was "Lets go pick a fight with Muslims". It's obvious to everyone that the attackers deserved what they got - nobody needs to point this out. Once we get beyond the concept that murder is unacceptable, then we should shift our focus on raising our own expectations on how to become better people. It might be legal, but it's not ok to deliberately insult and offend a religion with hate speech. It's just not. Why don't all Americans feel this way? This is about wanting Americans to be a classier society.
But conservatives make this about "free speech". The problem with conservatives is that they never call out their own wackos. Cliven Bundy was celebrated as a hero, yet he organized a team of people to aim weapons at police. Geller incites hatred for one of the largest religions, and she is celebrated. They are both wackos, yet we hear nothing but crickets from conservatives. And they are the first ones to scream that Muslim leaders don't speak out enough against terrorism.
The reason people like me focus more on the instigators rather than the criminal, is because it's more shocking that a law-abiding citizen would intentionally get tangled up in such a dangerous situation. We all know there is evil out there. The event was foolish, in the same manner as challenging the toughest city gang to a fight.
I guess people consider me a conservative. I don't think Cliven Bundy was a hero. Talk about stereotyping. Let me ask you a question. This is about the 10th time you've compared Pamela Geller to pure hate mongers. How familiar are you with who she is and what she has to say to make that assertion. Please provide quotes and links. It is certainly not an accepted truism as much as you think it is.
Second, again you do the very thing that betrays your lack of commitment to free expression. WHY because Muslims are dangerously oversensitive should we refrain from criticizing or satirizing them? If Christians shot up the artist who created Piss Christ would you say that was an unwise thing to do? What about if Jewish extremists attacked someone who was bashing Israel? What if a conservative got sick of being accused of hating the poor and burned down the NY Times? Are you suggesting that we here int he U.S. ought to refrain from all provocative speech? Or is it just speech that bother Muslims because they are so dangerous? Do you really think a cartoon contest is something that could reasonably be expected to provoke violence? Do you really think the best way to handle that is to attack the expression? Has Pam Geller ever threatened anyone with violence? But she is hateful. The Muslim extremists? Well it's to be expected. I mean come on. The way to respond to speech is with more speech.
I support her right to do what she did and unequivocally condemn as anti-American anyone that suggests that provacative and even hateful speech should be banned because it might offend or cause an extreme reaction.
Who specifically has said that such speech should be "banned?" Who? Where?
Questioning the wisdom of someone else saying or doing something something is not the equivalent of wishing that person to be silenced by law.
Question: "Why would she hold such an event?" Answer: "Because she can!" <---I really don't see anyone disputing that at face value.
Now, questioning behavioral motive? People do that all the time every day in countless ways, and no one's right to free expression is in any danger in any way.
To me, there could be 1,000 cartoon contests a day in every major city and I'm fine with that. I'm also ok with anyone questioning the motive.
Now, that same person says that such contests should be banned by law, then, well, it might be the first time ever you and I would stand side by side on the same side.
Can't anyone actually believe that the KKK had the right to march in Skokie and still hold the view they wish they would not have? They chose Skokie for a reason. Can't someone have the view that this event was of course entirely legal and yet at the same time still think the event was asinine?
Let me ask you a question. This is about the 10th time you've compared Pamela Geller to pure hate mongers. How familiar are you with who she is and what she has to say to make that assertion. Please provide quotes and links. It is certainly not an accepted truism as much as you think it is.
Is this the woman who organized the cartoon event? Based on the interview I saw with her, by her own words, the comparison fits IMO. Maybe its not fair to for me to judge her based on one interview, but I don't really care enough about her or her cause to research it beyond that. Does that make me un-American in some way? Keep in mind that I have never once suggested she should be silenced nor her event be banned by any government imposed rule or law. That said, I am fine if she is silenced by the marketplace, i.e. she can't find an audience/market for her message because of people and/or organizations who are exercising their first amendment rights to tell her and anyone else who will listen that she is wrong.
[Edited on 5/7/2015 by gondicar]
This is about the 10th time you've compared Pamela Geller to pure hate mongers. How familiar are you with who she is and what she has to say to make that assertion. Please provide quotes and links. It is certainly not an accepted truism as much as you think it is.
A quick wikipedia read shows plenty of hate, IMO. Co-founder of "Stop the Islamitization of America"??? Please. I think the better route is for you to post examples of her NOT being a hate-mongers. Here's some quotes from this peaceful hero, and the sources are clearly noted on the wikipedia page:
Geller has said that "Islam is the most antisemitic, genocidal ideology in the world." She holds the view that radical Islam is a bona fide variant of Islam, which she describes in a number of ways: "Muslim terrorists were practicing pure Islam, original Islam." Terrorists don't spring from "perversions of Islam but from the religion itself". "I believe in the idea of a moderate Muslim. I do not believe in the idea of a moderate Islam. ... I think a moderate Muslim is a secular Muslim."
Aside from these quotes, I only need to refer to the cartoon event, as this is enough of a blunder to illustrate my point.
Second, again you do the very thing that betrays your lack of commitment to free expression. WHY because Muslims are dangerously oversensitive should we refrain from criticizing or satirizing them?
We should never refrain from sincere criticism or thought-provoking satire, but that's not what Geller's event was about. Her event was to deliberately insult and instigate a fight. Big difference.
If Christians shot up the artist who created Piss Christ would you say that was an unwise thing to do?
Yes. And the attackers in Texas were pretty stupid too. I've stated this many many times in this thread.
What about if Jewish extremists attacked someone who was bashing Israel?
They should be charged and convicted for their crimes.
What if a conservative got sick of being accused of hating the poor and burned down the NY Times?
They should be charged and convicted for their crimes.
Are you suggesting that we here int he U.S. ought to refrain from all provocative speech? Or is it just speech that bother Muslims because they are so dangerous?
No, we should not refrain from all provocative speech. But we should refrain from deliberate insults and instigating fights, just because it's a nice way to be.
Do you really think a cartoon contest is something that could reasonably be expected to provoke violence?
Not a cartoon contest on who can draw the best Batman, but this particular Geller event? Yes, and Geller herself admitted to expecting it, which is why they had all that security. Do you disagree with Geller on that one?
Do you really think the best way to handle that is to attack the expression?
Of course not.
The way to respond to speech is with more speech.
Then why are there so many fist fights taking place every day in just about every town? Kids at school fight, there are street fights, and there are bar fights constantly...everywhere. Why does that happen?
It seems pretty obvious that while the shooters were scum and deserved what they got, the event organizers behaved pretty poorly too. Why do you equate an expectation for better behavior from one side, as excusing the other from any wrongdoing?
Because this is the United States of America, where the freedom to draw cartoons about anything we desire is protected. Perhaps the two who were killed over reacted; they didn't have to respond. Perhaps in their country, under their laws your argument would hold water. And you are correct about one thing, the shooters were scum and they received their due, good riddance. And "wrongdoing"?...please...
What laws did these "wrong doers" break?...Take your time. And spare us the "We should be above this" Bullsh*t. Screw them.
Because this is the United States of America, where the freedom to draw cartoons about anything we desire is protected. Perhaps the two who were killed over reacted; they didn't have to respond. Perhaps in their country, under their laws your argument would hold water. And you are correct about one thing, the shooters were scum and they received their due, good riddance. And "wrongdoing"?...please...
What laws did these "wrong doers" break?...Take your time. And spare us the "We should be above this" Bullsh*t. Screw them.
Huh?? Bizarre post. I labeled the shooters as the "wrong doers", and the event organizers as behaving poorly. Anyway, you clearly didn't read anything I posted, or else you wouldn't be so fixated on laws.
Because this is the United States of America, where the freedom to draw cartoons about anything we desire is protected. Perhaps the two who were killed over reacted; they didn't have to respond. Perhaps in their country, under their laws your argument would hold water. And you are correct about one thing, the shooters were scum and they received their due, good riddance. And "wrongdoing"?...please...
What laws did these "wrong doers" break?...Take your time. And spare us the "We should be above this" Bullsh*t. Screw them.
Huh?? Bizarre post. I labeled the shooters as the "wrong doers", and the event organizers as behaving poorly. Anyway, you clearly didn't read anything I posted, or else you wouldn't be so fixated on laws.
I've read everything you've posted. You are fixated on the "wrong doings" of the event organizers...and I'm asking you what laws they broke.
Because this is the United States of America, where the freedom to draw cartoons about anything we desire is protected. Perhaps the two who were killed over reacted; they didn't have to respond. Perhaps in their country, under their laws your argument would hold water. And you are correct about one thing, the shooters were scum and they received their due, good riddance. And "wrongdoing"?...please...
What laws did these "wrong doers" break?...Take your time. And spare us the "We should be above this" Bullsh*t. Screw them.
Huh?? Bizarre post. I labeled the shooters as the "wrong doers", and the event organizers as behaving poorly. Anyway, you clearly didn't read anything I posted, or else you wouldn't be so fixated on laws.
I've read everything you've posted. You are fixated on the "wrong doings" of the event organizers...and I'm asking you what laws they broke.
There are lots of "wrong doings" that are not illegal. Just because we have a right to do something, doesn't make it the right thing to do.
Once we get beyond the concept that murder is unacceptable
Newsflash! It is not merely a "concept" it is a crime punishable in this country by Life imprisonment and in some cases Death. "Unacceptable"?..."concept"? Terrorists who wish to silence us may not see it that way, but I'm pretty sure most here sure do.
then we should shift our focus on raising our own expectations on how to become better people. It might be legal, but it's not ok to deliberately insult and offend a religion with hate speech. It's just not. Why don't all Americans feel this way? This is about wanting Americans to be a classier society.
A "classier society"? I am satisfied with being a Free society. With Freedom, come behaviors and belief systems that some will find disturbing, tough. There are some around the globe who wish to ruin us simply because of this fact, that is their issue. Me? I don't give a rat's behind what they think.
I've read everything you've posted. You are fixated on the "wrong doings" of the event organizers...and I'm asking you what laws they broke.
There are lots of "wrong doings" that are not illegal. Just because we have a right to do something, doesn't make it the right thing to do.
No doubt. But I have zero sympathy for these two a** clowns whose intent was to kill, they didn't have to take the bait. What will offend them next time?
I've read everything you've posted. You are fixated on the "wrong doings" of the event organizers...and I'm asking you what laws they broke.
Then you are misunderstanding what I write. I never said the event organizers were the "wrong doers".....I said that about the shooters. I said the event organizers behaved poorly, which is true IMO.
A "classier society"? I am satisfied with being a Free society. With Freedom, come behaviors and belief systems that some will find disturbing, tough.
And just as you criticize those who legally abuse the welfare program, I am going to criticize angry, counter-productive, instigators like Geller. I guess we both have the right to do that.
[Edited on 5/7/2015 by BoytonBrother]
With Freedom, come behaviors and belief systems that some will find disturbing, tough.
And that same freedom allows any of us to condemn, in no uncertain terms, any behaviors, speech, etc. that we find disturbing.
This might be the biggest "everyone is talking past each other" thread in the history of the WP.
That's no easy task. 😛
I've read everything you've posted. You are fixated on the "wrong doings" of the event organizers...and I'm asking you what laws they broke.
There are lots of "wrong doings" that are not illegal. Just because we have a right to do something, doesn't make it the right thing to do.
No doubt. But I have zero sympathy for these two a** clowns whose intent was to kill, they didn't have to take the bait. What will offend them next time?
LOL nothing, they are dead.
This might be the biggest "everyone is talking past each other" thread in the history of the WP.
That's no easy task. 😛
LOL yup
And just as you criticize those who legally abuse the welfare program, I am going to criticize angry, counter-productive, instigators like Geller. I guess we both have the right to do that.
And that same freedom allows any of us to condemn, in no uncertain terms, any behaviors, speech, etc. that we find disturbing.
Fair enough on both counts
Maybe I can sum up all my comments.....if you know someone is violent, immoral, and evil, why would you choose to initiate a deliberate insult toward them?
Maybe I can sum up all my comments.....if you know someone is violent, immoral, and evil, why would you choose to initiate a deliberate insult toward them?
Because "wrong doings" are your thing?
😛
