action and word of however free or not of hang .. carry consequence….. at this rate and approach -- the only way to ultimately "win" the war on terror may be by planetary escape… this one has a scent of staging
The City of Santa Monica CA has cancelled an annual Christmas Nativity Scene Display the city has held in Palisades Park since the 1950s because Atheist activists secured most of the display spaces and put up displays mocking Christianity. The displays were cancelled rather than allow this mockery to continue. What I find really disturbing is that the LA Times has cheered Atheists activists promoted their freedom of speech promoting their anti-Christian beliefs. Many of the displays were as bigoted against Christians as anything the Anti-Islamic groups have ever put up in public yet no one condemned this. The LA Times cheered it.
It seems to me that the LA Times and NY Times only support the free speech of groups they agree with politically. Jewish groups, liberal groups, they get free speech. Right wing Christians? They are to say quiet as their religion is mocked and ridiculed. Christians who complain are told that they are infringing on the rights of Atheists. Mormons, Catholics and Evangelicals are fair game for mockery and ridicule but the same treatment of Muslims is unacceptable. I believe this is not about free speech but politics- plain and simple.
It seems to me that the LA Times and NY Times only support the free speech of groups they agree with politically. Jewish groups, liberal groups, they get free speech. Right wing Christians? They are to say quiet as their religion is mocked and ridiculed. Christians who complain are told that they are infringing on the rights of Atheists. Mormons, Catholics and Evangelicals are fair game for mockery and ridicule but the same treatment of Muslims is unacceptable. I believe this is not about free speech but politics- plain and simple.
4
It's true, that freedom defends the things we find most objectionable.
Some religions have no humor or flexibility. It's inherently dangerous whenever any differing opinion or criticism is considered an attack on the religion itself. Under no circumstance should we undermine our freedom of speech.
Some religions have no humor or flexibility. It's inherently dangerous whenever any differing opinion or criticism is considered an attack on the religion itself. Under no circumstance should we undermine our freedom of speech.
5
Its depressing seeing how many people condemn the group that organized the event & not the gunmen. i think the left is lost in this country. Political correctness used to be seen as a negative thing, now conformity is championed.
10
Free societies protect the rights even of people youd never want to share a dinner table with.
Lenny Bruce wasn't a lovely human being. Salman Rushdie is pompous and self-centered. Cartoonists are a notoriously neurotic and annoying species. Bill Maher can be a real jerk.
But all of them let daylight in to cauterize some of our most stinking sores. It hurts like heck but we need the medicine.
Sometimes the message can be right even when carried by someone whos wrong 99 percent of the time. Pam Geller is a disgusting person with a hideous agenda, but Id say cartoon contests like this should have been held in every free community after the massacre at Charlie Hebdo. Our freedom was hard fought-for and needs constant defending.
Lenny Bruce wasn't a lovely human being. Salman Rushdie is pompous and self-centered. Cartoonists are a notoriously neurotic and annoying species. Bill Maher can be a real jerk.
But all of them let daylight in to cauterize some of our most stinking sores. It hurts like heck but we need the medicine.
Sometimes the message can be right even when carried by someone whos wrong 99 percent of the time. Pam Geller is a disgusting person with a hideous agenda, but Id say cartoon contests like this should have been held in every free community after the massacre at Charlie Hebdo. Our freedom was hard fought-for and needs constant defending.
6
The Human Rights Declaration gives us the right on Free Expression, but also determines that “all human beings should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood”.
It speaks also of “promoting understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups”, and these represent values that limit Freedom of Expression, something that the West is conveniently ignoring, and it is ignoring it, because today’s Westerners are totally accustomed to the absurd right to misbehave; to be uncivilized, stupid, whatever.
The First Amendment was made in a different world, where people normally acted in a civilized way because they were educated, at home and at school, by the good old traditional principles. So in those days, nobody would even think of the possibility of people hide behind it to offend others. In today’s Western world, the First Amendment is an absurdity.
It speaks also of “promoting understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups”, and these represent values that limit Freedom of Expression, something that the West is conveniently ignoring, and it is ignoring it, because today’s Westerners are totally accustomed to the absurd right to misbehave; to be uncivilized, stupid, whatever.
The First Amendment was made in a different world, where people normally acted in a civilized way because they were educated, at home and at school, by the good old traditional principles. So in those days, nobody would even think of the possibility of people hide behind it to offend others. In today’s Western world, the First Amendment is an absurdity.
Which explains why non-Westerners are jumping into boats to escape their "understanding, tolerant, and friendly" countries?
The first world West and third world East are incompatible. Let's just stop pretending, shall we?
The first world West and third world East are incompatible. Let's just stop pretending, shall we?
7
I don't necessarily want Nationhood advice from that bastion of tolerance and civil rights, Brazil.
4
Your country should be so lucky to have a Bill of Rights and First Amendment. Go fix the massive problems, corruption and poverty back home before you start lecturing us on the First Amendment.
2
I attended the event. I thank the Garland police for saving my life and I thank the first amendment for allowing me to see what the fuss was all about. The speakers were interesting and informative, and the art was top notch and very well produced. It did what serious art has done since cave paintings, which is to provoke thought and make a point. Thomas Nast did the same thing to Boss Tweed and Tammany Hall and he's considered a national treasure.
I wanted to hear what the speakers had to say. Should I have not been allowed to hear them? Who decides what I can and what I can't be allowed to see and hear and read? People who threaten violence if you don't do what they say? To that, I say...."Welcome to planet earth, prepare to be offended." Personally, I find almost being murdered because I chose to view some art and listen to a few speeches very offensive indeed.
I wanted to hear what the speakers had to say. Should I have not been allowed to hear them? Who decides what I can and what I can't be allowed to see and hear and read? People who threaten violence if you don't do what they say? To that, I say...."Welcome to planet earth, prepare to be offended." Personally, I find almost being murdered because I chose to view some art and listen to a few speeches very offensive indeed.
19
I hope she takes the show on the road around the country. I think there will be long lines to attend to show those intolerant terrorists what real Americans think of them. Ms. Geller, bring the show down to South Florida.
10
I know I am not the only one who feels sad when things like this happen. I wonder if it will ever get better or if we will ever just get along. I may be in high school and still have a long life ahead of me, but it scares me to wonder if the person sitting next to me is pretending to be the person they are now or if they are just masking an angry person with a mission to kill. In the article it says they were business owners living a normal life. I guess not. I am glad that no one was hurt other than the gunmen, but wonder what drives people to that point.
The other thing that seriously bothers me about this situation is the quote by Pamela Geller - the organizer. "Muslims had become a "special class" that Americans were no longer allowed to offend." I get freedom of speech and am glad we have it, but since when is it a goal or a mission to offend and make others feel bad for fun? If they had to hire so many police and security officers knowing there would be the need...then maybe it was not worth provoking the situation. Just my thoughts and how I was raised I guess. I know these things are going to happen...it is just what the world has come to I guess...by why encourage it?
The other thing that seriously bothers me about this situation is the quote by Pamela Geller - the organizer. "Muslims had become a "special class" that Americans were no longer allowed to offend." I get freedom of speech and am glad we have it, but since when is it a goal or a mission to offend and make others feel bad for fun? If they had to hire so many police and security officers knowing there would be the need...then maybe it was not worth provoking the situation. Just my thoughts and how I was raised I guess. I know these things are going to happen...it is just what the world has come to I guess...by why encourage it?
3
@Jessica: "The other thing that seriously bothers me about this situation is the quote by Pamela Geller - the organizer. "
The Times is *paraphrasing* Ms. Geller[1], and paraphrases are unavoidably misleading.
[1] '[Ms. Geller] said that Muslims had become a “special class” that Americans were no longer allowed to offend.'
The Times is *paraphrasing* Ms. Geller[1], and paraphrases are unavoidably misleading.
[1] '[Ms. Geller] said that Muslims had become a “special class” that Americans were no longer allowed to offend.'
3
I attended the event. I thank the garland police for saving my life and I thank the first amendment for allowing me to see what the fuss was all about. The speakers were interesting and informative, and the art was top notch and very well produced. It did what serious art has done since cave paintings, which is to provoke thought and make a point. Thomas Nast did the same thing to Boss Tweed and he's considered a national treasure.
I wanted to hear what the speakers had to say. Should I have not been allowed to hear them? Who decides what and what I can't be allowed to see and hear and read? People who threaten violence if you don't do what they say? To that, I say.."Welcome to planet earth, prepare to be offended".
I wanted to hear what the speakers had to say. Should I have not been allowed to hear them? Who decides what and what I can't be allowed to see and hear and read? People who threaten violence if you don't do what they say? To that, I say.."Welcome to planet earth, prepare to be offended".
5
"If a nation expects to remain ignorant AND "free",it expects what never was and never will be." Thomas Jefferson
The so-called "freedom of speech" has been limited for years for ALL public employees. Likewise, lives have been"Killed" for many who have "dared" to confront "Authority Figures" in the work-force(maybe not physically, but with devastation to careers and economic freedom.
At a time when we are questioning the state of our Union, why are we defending so strongly only one part of the lst ammendment> In addition to freedom of speech is the "right to bear arms". My point being is that this entire Texas incident serves only to incite the "need " for more policing, as well as the right to Kill without any evidence. Where are the cameras?
The so-called "freedom of speech" has been limited for years for ALL public employees. Likewise, lives have been"Killed" for many who have "dared" to confront "Authority Figures" in the work-force(maybe not physically, but with devastation to careers and economic freedom.
At a time when we are questioning the state of our Union, why are we defending so strongly only one part of the lst ammendment> In addition to freedom of speech is the "right to bear arms". My point being is that this entire Texas incident serves only to incite the "need " for more policing, as well as the right to Kill without any evidence. Where are the cameras?
While I have absolutely no problem with the shooting of these men, I am getting just a bit tired of all this "free speech" nonsense. Does no one realize there is a difference between free speech and stupid speech, just as there is a difference between lawful and moral? Pamela Geller has essentially added two corpses to her resume.
2
So you get to decide what's stupid? Tell me what's near and dear to your heart, and I'll attack it as stupid speech and try to censor you. After that experience, we can discuss the free speech nonsense. Oh, no we can't, because your speech, deemed by me as "stupid," won't be protected.
12
The fact you're trying to pin the deaths of two murderous psychopaths on the organizer of an event is disgusting.
Those corpses are in the state they are currently in by their own hands, by their own actions, by their own choices. They made their decisions, no one forced then to do that. They wanted another Charlie Hedbo, but by some miracle, thankfully got bullets to the brain instead.
If one reads between the lines of your statement they'll find that you are essentially attempting to justify their actions by saying the organizers were asking for it. That's thoroughly despicable.
Those corpses are in the state they are currently in by their own hands, by their own actions, by their own choices. They made their decisions, no one forced then to do that. They wanted another Charlie Hedbo, but by some miracle, thankfully got bullets to the brain instead.
If one reads between the lines of your statement they'll find that you are essentially attempting to justify their actions by saying the organizers were asking for it. That's thoroughly despicable.
11
Hate speech is still protected as free speech. "Hate" often simply stands for "critical of my ideology".
Free speech is more fundamental to democracy than free elections. No totalitarian regime can survive if it allows free expression.
And how is this not a free speech issue? Free speech is not only protected in relation to the government. The government must protect all citizens from violence resulting from free expression. That does not mean that the government must force anybody to offer a platform for hate speech, of course. Many leftists here are conflating these two issues.
When tables turn, your critical speech will be "hate speech" to someone else. Then don't complain when Christian fundamentalists, for example, start suppressing YOUR speech.
And don't say you do not condone the terrorist attack, it is obvious that you do. You are just to cowardly to admit it.
Free speech is more fundamental to democracy than free elections. No totalitarian regime can survive if it allows free expression.
And how is this not a free speech issue? Free speech is not only protected in relation to the government. The government must protect all citizens from violence resulting from free expression. That does not mean that the government must force anybody to offer a platform for hate speech, of course. Many leftists here are conflating these two issues.
When tables turn, your critical speech will be "hate speech" to someone else. Then don't complain when Christian fundamentalists, for example, start suppressing YOUR speech.
And don't say you do not condone the terrorist attack, it is obvious that you do. You are just to cowardly to admit it.
10
I condemn violence, extremism & terrorism everywhere: whether in Paris,Kopenhagen,Texas, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine or in any part of the United States.
Enough is enough! Live and let live.
It's not a topic to be made fun of any religious belief. It is simply provocative.
"Free expression?". drawing Mohammed naked is not freedom of expression. What if it was mocking Judaism,Abraham or Moses for example?
Enough is enough! Live and let live.
It's not a topic to be made fun of any religious belief. It is simply provocative.
"Free expression?". drawing Mohammed naked is not freedom of expression. What if it was mocking Judaism,Abraham or Moses for example?
2
Tony, you are missing the point, free Americans HAVE to be alright with mocking Judaism or Christianity, that view is what allows us to live in the greatest country now, or ever, on Earth. Your darn right there is something to be said for American exceptionalism and what I say above is a cornerstone of that belief. If and when we succumb to political correctness, you can start the clock on the demise of this country.
8
Amendment I:
Freedom of speech means speech that doesn't anger crazy people.
Freedom of speech means speech that doesn't anger crazy people.
1
religions, the lot of them, exploit one of the most volitile aspects of the human spirit, passion, and in these cases (from muslim assassins to christian crusaders) the investment of passion in faith.
it does no good to call the bad guys extremists or renegades; if they are using articles of faith, scripture or doctrine, no matter how twisted, it is up to the clergy, the shepherds of the faith, to respond both pro- and retro- actively.
indifference, silence or rebuke, is tantamount to assent, the pain and confusion of those stressed by discontent, whether driven by social or personal circumstances are easy prey for exploitation, their rages and, likely, ignorance make them explosive, insofar as they can be identified (often not difficult) they need tending, guidance and enlightenment, (yes, holy folk, get off your soapboxes and do some heavy lifting), and perhaps more rigorous and closely overseen early religious education, can preclude any possibility that the faith, whichever one, can ever be taken as license from its preachers or a command from god to kill.
it does no good to call the bad guys extremists or renegades; if they are using articles of faith, scripture or doctrine, no matter how twisted, it is up to the clergy, the shepherds of the faith, to respond both pro- and retro- actively.
indifference, silence or rebuke, is tantamount to assent, the pain and confusion of those stressed by discontent, whether driven by social or personal circumstances are easy prey for exploitation, their rages and, likely, ignorance make them explosive, insofar as they can be identified (often not difficult) they need tending, guidance and enlightenment, (yes, holy folk, get off your soapboxes and do some heavy lifting), and perhaps more rigorous and closely overseen early religious education, can preclude any possibility that the faith, whichever one, can ever be taken as license from its preachers or a command from god to kill.
1
The best way to deal with a bully is to hit them in the mouth. Geller is doing this, while the rest of us vex about being called "islamophobic" (whatever that means), and saying "oooohhh-you shouldn't have done THAT . . . "
The West is weak and doubts itself. The terrorists are determined.
Let us continue to cower within our own borders. Perhaps the bully will appreciate our tolerance and leave us alone.
The West is weak and doubts itself. The terrorists are determined.
Let us continue to cower within our own borders. Perhaps the bully will appreciate our tolerance and leave us alone.
9
Do Muslim women deserved to be stoned because they've incited that violence?
6
yet another case of my tax money being wasted to prevent morons travelling to sign up for Jihad. A better use of my tax dollar: buying jihadists the plane ticket, letting them get there, and then putting them on the "no fly list". BTW, the politically correct crowd sticking up for the jihadists on this board should, in my view, also partake of the above offer.
14
THIS IS NOT FREEDOM SPEECH. IT IS CLEARLY HATE SPEECH.
This sad event of Kopenhagen, Paris and Texas could be avoided if those irresponsible Cartoonists did not mock Prophet Mohamed.
If it is Free Speech, why didn´t they show their courage bashing or mocking Jesus,Abraham,or even the Pope?
Laws that ban hate speech and anti-Semitism fail to prevent insults and provocations directed at Muslims.
This sad event of Kopenhagen, Paris and Texas could be avoided if those irresponsible Cartoonists did not mock Prophet Mohamed.
If it is Free Speech, why didn´t they show their courage bashing or mocking Jesus,Abraham,or even the Pope?
Laws that ban hate speech and anti-Semitism fail to prevent insults and provocations directed at Muslims.
2
As a Muslim African-American citizen and author of the book "We Fundamentalists" we are aware that free speech does not mean slander, libel, or even malicious cartooning with the intent to incite violence! It is in the worst manner of ignorance and arrogance to say that no one has the right to attack any gathering of humans with a gun! My country America has done this and tried to justified this to nations of people with bombs, drones, guns, and atom bombs for the last 75 years! So called civilize nations as well as peoples pick up a weapon to attack all kinds of gatherings of humans for all kinds of so called reasons! As a jihad Salafi Muslim American I believe in freedom of speech. What`s shocking, in this new age of information is that flagrant abuse of the universal right to free speech! There are no fatwa`s against free speech! You just pay in full the consequences of what you say! So, it came as no surprise to me that two Muslim men here in America wish to avenge our prophet Muhammad of such insults! I do care who those organizers are, do they have a right to slander, libel, and lampoon peoples religious beliefs...as long as they are willing to pay the consequences of what they say! The rules are simple respect, and tolerance. This is a true measure of progress in these Dark Ages between peoples that are secular, pagan, atheist, and monotheist in their constitution. Keeping it real-whether mankind likes it or not freedom of speech is a true measuer of our survival!
2
Excellent post.
But what is an honest Freedom of expression? Here's a little test...'t read it."
When they include speakers ad cartoons from holocaust deniers. If it’s not ok to offend one religion but ok to offend another one, then it’s not freedom of speech, its hypocrisy.
But what is an honest Freedom of expression? Here's a little test...'t read it."
When they include speakers ad cartoons from holocaust deniers. If it’s not ok to offend one religion but ok to offend another one, then it’s not freedom of speech, its hypocrisy.
1
Enlightening.
You are giving me a license, as an American Christian, to seek revenge against all those who slander my religion.
Let's see: Broadway (for Jesus Christ Superstar), Conan O'Brien (for mockery of Jesus in skits), and Matt Damon for starters. And frankly, you have offended me with your post.
You are giving me a license, as an American Christian, to seek revenge against all those who slander my religion.
Let's see: Broadway (for Jesus Christ Superstar), Conan O'Brien (for mockery of Jesus in skits), and Matt Damon for starters. And frankly, you have offended me with your post.
8
there are no fatwas against free speech? As long as you do not criticize the teachings of the prophet that exhort his followers to destroy the infidels? My Christian faith has been ridiculed since it began; I have never been moved to violence by the comments of atheistic, animist, vulgar comedians or muslims? I reckon , what they do not know, or chose not to believe, is only their loss. What is your problem Muhammed? Avenge the Prophet Muhammad--give me a break--you think he is rolling around in heaven somewhere raging in anger that his self inflated ego is being called into question here on earth?
Geller is a bad joke and a tasteless exploiter of hatred. c'est la vie. She has a right under the Constitution to be ugly and aggressive in her speech. Get over it. How about you start praying for enlightenment among your people to stop using their religion as a pretext for violence.
Geller is a bad joke and a tasteless exploiter of hatred. c'est la vie. She has a right under the Constitution to be ugly and aggressive in her speech. Get over it. How about you start praying for enlightenment among your people to stop using their religion as a pretext for violence.
6
of course violence is never the answer, and I have nothing but condemnation for the gunmen. But on the other hand, perhaps unbeknownst to many of the commenters here, Ms. Geller's anti-Muslim record has not been limited to such childish and silly events as this one. She was instrumental in shutting down a plan to build a mosque in downtown manhattan, and in getting a Muslim woman fired for starting an Arabic language program at a school. What if it was a church that she had prevented being built, or a Jewish teacher she had gotten fired for starting a Hebrew language program? of course-- and I repeat of course -- that doesn't make the violence right under any circumstances, but this background information is important to understanding why Muslims feel marginalized, angry, and might lash out. Unfortunately, it's a vicious cycle, but it is our responsibility to stop it by ceasing to stereotype and resort to bigotry as I see so many commenters doing now. That only increases feelings of marginalization among young Muslims, which likely leads to more violence.
2
Fortunately, the vast populace of NYC was in agreement that the mosque should not be built across the street from Ground Zero.
11
latest Mohammed cover: Pouring oil on fire
Publishing the cartoon, “doesn’t help for peaceful coexistence,” as the image “is an act of mockery.”
Publishing the cartoon, “doesn’t help for peaceful coexistence,” as the image “is an act of mockery.”
2
Lash out? Is that was the Boston Marathon was. a hissy fit? 9/11? Ft. Worth? These two guys?
Litmus test: Was Tim McVeigh lashing out, too?
Litmus test: Was Tim McVeigh lashing out, too?
3
Why isn't the event that provoked this carnage the equivalent of yelling fire in a crowded movie theater?
2
Because the event was a display of cartoons, and no one was required to attend. The speech isn't the problem. The terrorists are. Your argument is that any speech that could lead to violence should be unprotected. That gives groups (whether it be environmentalists, abortionists, pro-lifers, etc.) an incentive to start spraying bullets at political opponents.
6
If a Muslim woman yells fire, does that justify her stoning?
5
Because it apparently fills the need of some powerful person.
The Supreme Court ruled almost 40 years ago that neo-Nazis had a cognizable First Amendment argument concerning their annouced intention to march in Skokie, Illinois, a location specifically chosen because of its then-high number of Holocaust survivors living there. So it's well-settled that unpopular views (the word "noxious" would be more accurate in that case), by themselves, are protected forms of expression in this country. If you don't like them, you can try your luck in court, as the ACLU did in the Skokie case. Thus, debating whether the cartoonists were doing things someone else didn't like is entirely beside the point. But once you pick up a firearm to silence speech, you're an outlaw, and deserve what you get. If religious extremists don't like our pluralistic society, they can either leave, or be ready to meet their maker, ahead of schedule. Because the First Amendment belongs to all of us, and we're not giving it up without a fight.
18
Just be sure you understand what the First Ammendment is all about!
The AFDI was provoking insane people who happened to considered themselves Muslims. The religiously-mad and the amorously-mad have much in common in this regard as both are wont to claim that another person has power over their life, over their ability to live/die, on the basis of certain idiosyncratically volatilizing words, etc., to which the aggrieved responds: “If you leave me I will die,” “If you leave me I will die and so will you,” “If you leave me we both will die but will be united in heaven!;” “If you draw this image you will die,” “If you draw this image I will die too,” “If you draw this image we both will die and I will be rewarded with love in heaven!”
Provoking demented people, whose mania involves an obsession with the gorier aspects of Islamic history, is of a well-established genre, one whose common (and dangerous) dynamics implicate a topic that has come to define an age, to the level of mania, with the most literally susceptible to mania responding as literal maniacs, i.e. illogically, impetuously, and often violently, without regard to their own or others’ well-being. Most people only come closest to encountering such dynamics, if at all, in sexual-affective relationships; but if one indefatigably seeks them out and sticks one’s neck out in a superfluity of other contexts (especially in those that have been mediatized ad nauseam and naturally have come to populate the imaginations of the already insane) one will not fail to find them.
Provoking demented people, whose mania involves an obsession with the gorier aspects of Islamic history, is of a well-established genre, one whose common (and dangerous) dynamics implicate a topic that has come to define an age, to the level of mania, with the most literally susceptible to mania responding as literal maniacs, i.e. illogically, impetuously, and often violently, without regard to their own or others’ well-being. Most people only come closest to encountering such dynamics, if at all, in sexual-affective relationships; but if one indefatigably seeks them out and sticks one’s neck out in a superfluity of other contexts (especially in those that have been mediatized ad nauseam and naturally have come to populate the imaginations of the already insane) one will not fail to find them.
1
Where are American moral values and respect to human life?
Where is the Converge and comments about The three young Muslim students killed in cold blood?
I want to see protests, I want to see news coverage , I want to see marches, I want to see the same outrage expressed in France.
Sorry, I know that this post has nothing to this article.
Where is the Converge and comments about The three young Muslim students killed in cold blood?
I want to see protests, I want to see news coverage , I want to see marches, I want to see the same outrage expressed in France.
Sorry, I know that this post has nothing to this article.
1
At this point we all know that a certain group of Muslims intent on Jihad have completely perverted the Quran. We can probably agree that most of these terrorists are psychopaths. Its not about religion. Its about killing.
We also know that people who attend Mohammad cartoon Festivals in Texas are also somewhat crazy. That's how you spend an afternoon? I can only imagine what great literature they must read during the rest of the week.
Why don't we move both groups--and any nutball groups that are even semi attached- to some distant place and let them fight it out ... Mars, The Moon, Alaska, the interior deserts of Saudi Arabia....go ahead just knock each other off.
Just send the people who want to kill and ridicule and attack and provoke and do as many violent and thoughtless things they can... FAR AWAY. They all deserve each other. The rest of us can live in peace.
We also know that people who attend Mohammad cartoon Festivals in Texas are also somewhat crazy. That's how you spend an afternoon? I can only imagine what great literature they must read during the rest of the week.
Why don't we move both groups--and any nutball groups that are even semi attached- to some distant place and let them fight it out ... Mars, The Moon, Alaska, the interior deserts of Saudi Arabia....go ahead just knock each other off.
Just send the people who want to kill and ridicule and attack and provoke and do as many violent and thoughtless things they can... FAR AWAY. They all deserve each other. The rest of us can live in peace.
2
Proof this president can not keep us safe.
5
Proof that if you keep poking a snake it will bite. This is a case of stupidity meeting equal stupidity.
3
A case of free speech and expression meeting intolerance and violence and totalitarian thinking.
1
How did a rich Jewish woman, who grew up in Hewlett Harbor, one of the wealthiest towns in the country, get involved in this? Long Island is not exactly a hotbed of Islamic radicalism. About the only inconvenience people like Ms. Geller experience is if the parking lot is too full at Roosevelt Field Mall.
I think she is looking for attention.
I think she is looking for attention.
8
John: You get the Understatement of the Year award...
4
I can tell you that in my humble opinion, the cop that did the shooting is a hero and I welcome he and his family to Houston for free dinners anytime they wish to bless our city with their presence.
12
So, If I say you tried to kill me, I am justified in killing you without any proof? That's quite the civilization that we have become? Certainly not in keeping with our Constitution.
People who are calling this hate are mind bogglingly naive and simple - they are painting a picture - and this is a million, a billion miles away from saying "I hate..." The organizer may be doing this for the wrong reasons - but I'm sorry as a secular American I find the fact "God" aka made up magical male in the sky is even mentioned anywhere in any official capacity in my government. Now I support peoples right to worship what ever nonsense )nonsense to me at least) that they want and to disagree and find me foolish as they want. But drawing a picture? And not even an obscene one? No, that is childish and downright insane. If drawing a picture makes you a target for murder then your religion has no place in America, and even les value than Scientology.
11
Where is this county going?
Where religious "freedom" justifies your bosses religion nosing in your
bedroom (Hobby Lobby) or your "freedom" is used to offend what millions
of people hold dear, resulting in tragic events. Freedom liberates, freedom
doesn't divide people.
Where religious "freedom" justifies your bosses religion nosing in your
bedroom (Hobby Lobby) or your "freedom" is used to offend what millions
of people hold dear, resulting in tragic events. Freedom liberates, freedom
doesn't divide people.
4
I am happy I live in a democracy with free speech. If your free speech insults Jews, you are an anti semite. You can't even criticize Israel's policies without being called one. This event in Texas was aimed at Muslims, and led by an organization known as a Hate Group with Jewish leader. Insulting Muslims....the reality is that we can insult whoever we want and they can take us to court. But trying to kill others for their points of view has to be stopped, here and now. Then again, there was the provocation.
2
And if you criticize a Muslim, you are considered in this PC world to be an Islamophobe. By your reasoning, criticizing the mass killing by Muslims of (mainly) Muslims in the ME would make anyone doing so an Islamophobe. Guess it's ok to protest being called an anti-semite, but not an Islamophobe when criticizing the behavior of those in the ME?
3
Mock Christianity and your an artist!!! Mock Islam and you've commited an immoral hateful thought crime. The irony just oozes out of the comments here.
18
To the left, politics is religion, and there is none more sacred that the "other." Why aren't progressives outraged by the stoning of women in the Middle East? Why are progressives attacking Ms. Geller?
Its quite simple. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." Terrorists are attacking the West; the imperial, colonial evil capitalists. Anyone attending college in the past 50 years knows that the U.S. and its western minions spread hate and racism throughout the world.
So to progressives, two freedom fighters just lost their lives.
Its quite simple. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." Terrorists are attacking the West; the imperial, colonial evil capitalists. Anyone attending college in the past 50 years knows that the U.S. and its western minions spread hate and racism throughout the world.
So to progressives, two freedom fighters just lost their lives.
6
Be careful!! To speak Truth is becoming close to treason!!!!
People are not thinking and so are easily led.
People are not thinking and so are easily led.
1
The take away: they know how to shoot down in Texas.
12
It may be that we Americans are now so modern and sensitive that we can't handle being offended.
Perhaps we can find a Great Leader who will make sure we aren't exposed to troubling ideas or mean-spirited speech.
Its for our own good, after all.
Perhaps we can find a Great Leader who will make sure we aren't exposed to troubling ideas or mean-spirited speech.
Its for our own good, after all.
12
"It immediately set off a heated debate over art and activism...."
But no debate about guns, the NRA, the continuing slaughter of thousands of Americans every year?
But no debate about guns, the NRA, the continuing slaughter of thousands of Americans every year?
9
I'm sure the terrorists' guns have been arrested and will be given a fair trial.
By the way, is the NRA now in Paris?
By the way, is the NRA now in Paris?
7
"But no debate about guns, the NRA, the continuing slaughter of thousands of Americans every year?"
We've had and are continuing that debate, over and over and over. Right now, those that think the Second Amendment right is important outnumber those that don't. But the NRA isn't advocating that those opposed to the Second Amendment be killed. Nor are lone wolf NRA members hunting down members of MAIG or The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. Because the vast majority of good-citizen gun owners value the Bill of Rights, including the right to speak offensively.
We've had and are continuing that debate, over and over and over. Right now, those that think the Second Amendment right is important outnumber those that don't. But the NRA isn't advocating that those opposed to the Second Amendment be killed. Nor are lone wolf NRA members hunting down members of MAIG or The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. Because the vast majority of good-citizen gun owners value the Bill of Rights, including the right to speak offensively.
4
That's because a terrorist would not be considered a lawful firearm owner.
4
Hate was answered with hate. Why is there surprise/outrage?
8
Less than four months have passed since the world united, with the exception of the US in Paris chanting "Je suis Charlie". The writers, editors and cartoonists were massacred by Jihadists for exercising their freedom of expression, practicing their profession and exercising their right.
The first amendment of the Bill of Rights protects a persons right to freedom of expression which allows open discussion and debate on public issues such as evidenced herein. It also protects freedom of religion AND free speech. One may be a Muslim, Christian or Jew and one may speak against religions like an atheist.
Pamela Geller is a heroine willing to stand up for those rights, whether they be popular or not. Those who would attempt to limit those rights or worse terminate them via death and mass murder are the villains. Individuals are free to express their religious beliefs. When the expression of that belief espouses death and mass murder in the name of such religion it is no longer a religion it is death and mass murder.
If people like Pamela Geller fail to stand for their beliefs , which is their right, like it or not, then we have lost our freedom and lost our country. The Jihadist will have won which is their goal. Which side are you on?
The first amendment of the Bill of Rights protects a persons right to freedom of expression which allows open discussion and debate on public issues such as evidenced herein. It also protects freedom of religion AND free speech. One may be a Muslim, Christian or Jew and one may speak against religions like an atheist.
Pamela Geller is a heroine willing to stand up for those rights, whether they be popular or not. Those who would attempt to limit those rights or worse terminate them via death and mass murder are the villains. Individuals are free to express their religious beliefs. When the expression of that belief espouses death and mass murder in the name of such religion it is no longer a religion it is death and mass murder.
If people like Pamela Geller fail to stand for their beliefs , which is their right, like it or not, then we have lost our freedom and lost our country. The Jihadist will have won which is their goal. Which side are you on?
17
If the First Amendment means anything, it means you have the right to be wrong. I don't agree with efforts to satirize any religious icons in vulgar or offensive ways. But there seems to be too many in the US who are willing to say that people who violate tenets of Islam are asking to be killed by violent extremists. I don't see it that way. Artists have long expressed themselves in offensive ways. We should defend their right to be offensive, not just when it suits our own personal values.
13
Yes, like the Westborough church demonstrations at funerals. Highly offensive but their right to do it is that what you are saying? However Muslim extremists don't see it that way and they are totally prepared to kill people who offend Mohammed. They have destroyed antiquities, the remains of an ancient settlement because it is pre-Islam. And they have followers who are totally prepared to do the same. Something has to be done to prevent these acts no matter how much one believes in freedom. They don't.
1
How can anyone in our country that has"due process" for all in its Constitution condone "killing" anyone. Where is the proof of any of the actions of these two young men that have been called"gunmen" etc. ?
It is hard to believe that someone actually held a cartoon contest like this... you're just begging for a trouble....
8
Looks like the JV (ISIS) have become the varsity.
6
There are factions in Islam, perhaps way more than we know, that attack, torture, and hate us. Why can't we attack back, through art and conversation?
I may not like Gellar's style/self-promotion, but I support her choice to be vocal about a perceived threat.
I may not like Gellar's style/self-promotion, but I support her choice to be vocal about a perceived threat.
16
"Why can't we attack back, through art and conversation?"
Why can't we attack back with tactical, or even strategic, nuclear weapons?
Why can't we attack back with tactical, or even strategic, nuclear weapons?
1
Charles - not where I was going. At all. I think art and conversation have the potential to inform, enlighten, change people. It's a take on the old "wage peace" idea, but more art as protest (which is not new). Weapons without due provocation (as in life or death) means we are just like them.
It's amazing how the left is condoning Islamic violence and making the freedom of speech a far right issue. But they feel entitled to mock Christians when they oppose gay marriage and complain about their religious freedom. To be sure, all religions and ideologies should be a fair game. But I am sure that the same people who are apologists for religious violence here were also voting up the comments attacking Christian fundamentalists, last week, over the wedding cake issue.
15
I believe that the flag of the United States is a powerful symbol of the things that bind this country together, not the least of which is the blood of hundreds of thousands of American who have fought, died in horrible ways or been brutally maimed in defending it. I would never burn or desecrate an American flag because I see that as a direct insult to the sacrifice of those who suffered so awfully to give me the right to do so.
But, no matter how offensive I might find burning a flag, I still support the right of someone to do so. Free speech is the only legitimate non-violent way to fight against the tyranny of power - whether it is in the form of government, or religion, or repressive ethnic majorities, or those who would use their wealth to influence politics.
Regardless of what you think of Geller et al., you need to ask yourself what the alternative is to allowing them to speak. You want to stop them? How? Pass laws against limiting their speech? Let those in power decide what is acceptable speech and what isn't?
Or, if you don't like what Geller et al. have to say, speak against them. Call them cowards. Point out their falsehoods. Speak out against them in the comments section of the NY Times.
But the moment you pick up a gun, you have acknowledged the failure of your own argument. You have said, in effect, I can't argue against you so I will kill you. And in doing so, you hurt your cause more than you help it.
But, no matter how offensive I might find burning a flag, I still support the right of someone to do so. Free speech is the only legitimate non-violent way to fight against the tyranny of power - whether it is in the form of government, or religion, or repressive ethnic majorities, or those who would use their wealth to influence politics.
Regardless of what you think of Geller et al., you need to ask yourself what the alternative is to allowing them to speak. You want to stop them? How? Pass laws against limiting their speech? Let those in power decide what is acceptable speech and what isn't?
Or, if you don't like what Geller et al. have to say, speak against them. Call them cowards. Point out their falsehoods. Speak out against them in the comments section of the NY Times.
But the moment you pick up a gun, you have acknowledged the failure of your own argument. You have said, in effect, I can't argue against you so I will kill you. And in doing so, you hurt your cause more than you help it.
27
ARe you really aware of all the decisions the Supreme Court has made regarding freedom of speech?
I think the folks who call this event 'baiting' radical Islam are as misguided as the terrorists. In the US we have a right to express our views, any views, without fear of violent retribution.
14
What is one of the great dividing lines between faith and fanaticism? The understanding that one cannot offend God with words or pictures. God doesn't need defending, nor do people claiming or given the mantle of prophethood.
People of genuine faith aren't harmed or threatened by free and secular societies. They dont need to *protect the institution of marriage* or outlaw *blasphemy.*
If one can ridicule Christian fundamentalists terrified that two men united in matrimony will bring hellfire and brimstone down upon all of us, we can ridicule people who get hysterical if one mocks their prophet.
Jewish groups have very effectively countered Holocaust deniers in this and other countries by sending actual survivors into schools and civic centers to tell their own stories. Muslim groups in this country are free to refute anything they consider an untruthful portrayal of Islam.
But you have to take the initiative. An idiot like Geller holds a contest like this? Hold an exhibition surveying Islamic art through the centuries, explaining why calligraphy became such an important tool of expression. And be truthful enough to include examples where prophets were indeed pictured, too.
It aint so hard. But it takes a little maturity to do it...
People of genuine faith aren't harmed or threatened by free and secular societies. They dont need to *protect the institution of marriage* or outlaw *blasphemy.*
If one can ridicule Christian fundamentalists terrified that two men united in matrimony will bring hellfire and brimstone down upon all of us, we can ridicule people who get hysterical if one mocks their prophet.
Jewish groups have very effectively countered Holocaust deniers in this and other countries by sending actual survivors into schools and civic centers to tell their own stories. Muslim groups in this country are free to refute anything they consider an untruthful portrayal of Islam.
But you have to take the initiative. An idiot like Geller holds a contest like this? Hold an exhibition surveying Islamic art through the centuries, explaining why calligraphy became such an important tool of expression. And be truthful enough to include examples where prophets were indeed pictured, too.
It aint so hard. But it takes a little maturity to do it...
8
Considering how provocative this had to have been known to be such that security was specifically beefed up on the great likelihood of this attack happening, weren't these men basically set up to be gunned down, just to add the kind of perverse drama Pamela Geller craves in order to peddle her bigotry to the rabid masses.
Today's misappropriators of "free speech" are likely to be the very ones who cause the right to be lost for all of us due to their wanton and selfish abuse of that which others respect and use intelligently for positive good.
Not only did Geller bring about the death of these two men, she and her self-serving cause is stealing from all of us as well. Inciting hatred not only destroys those that raise it, but all those innocent around as well caught in the fire.
Today's misappropriators of "free speech" are likely to be the very ones who cause the right to be lost for all of us due to their wanton and selfish abuse of that which others respect and use intelligently for positive good.
Not only did Geller bring about the death of these two men, she and her self-serving cause is stealing from all of us as well. Inciting hatred not only destroys those that raise it, but all those innocent around as well caught in the fire.
11
Geller set them up to be gunned down? Two murderous terrorists are dead, so I'll save the Kleenex. But more to the point, do you view these men as mindless animals, unable to make decisions for themselves? Or does Geller control their actions, as their goddess?
10
So what's your take on the destruction in Baltimore? Any inciting hatred going on?
4
"weren't these men basically set up to be gunned down"
So the two men which put on body armor and grabbed assault rifles were somehow forced to start shooting at this event? The responsibility for the violence is on the individuals who have no self control and resort to violence when they are offended.
So the two men which put on body armor and grabbed assault rifles were somehow forced to start shooting at this event? The responsibility for the violence is on the individuals who have no self control and resort to violence when they are offended.
5
Looks like Ms. Geller got exactly what she was hoping for- lots of publicity and 2 dead terrorists.
Looks like the terrorists got what they deserved since they were in fact terrorists.
Like all terrorists, these guys were easily manipulated into doing violence- first by their handlers and second by Geller. No one said terrorists were smart.
Looks like the terrorists got what they deserved since they were in fact terrorists.
Like all terrorists, these guys were easily manipulated into doing violence- first by their handlers and second by Geller. No one said terrorists were smart.
8
Killing innocents cannot prove the rightness of a religion. It only shows the irrationality behind the people who believe this is the only way to protect their religion. A real martyr of a religion only dies for protecting innocents to show the greatest teaching from the religion.
5
Isn't it amazing how bright that Texas group is... dhow could they ever have thought that if you poke someone in the eye they might get angry and react the only way they know how (given the gun culture of this country).
5
Then why wasn't Robert Mapplethorpe shot?
7
It seems to me that there is no other reason to host a gathering of this nature than to hope to incite dissension and probable violence. Besides being obviously insensitive, self promoting bigots, I think that the organizers are guilty as accessories to this violence and should a be charged as such.
6
By blaming the putative victim of physical violence, Ms. Geller, those promoting the destruction of anything outside their own narrow frame of reference likely hope to blind the impartial observer to the fact they are, in essence, advocating on behalf of an absurd denial of basic human freedom.
4
I do not support Pamela Geller or her agenda, but I fear that she has crossed the Rubicon and should attend to her personal safety now. The two perpetrators in Garland, Texas were amateurs who wound up committing suicide by traffic officer. Any idiot in Texas, apparently, can obtain access to body armor and assault rifles, even while under F.B.I. investigation. But the professionals who carried out the murderous rampage at Charlie Hebdo in Paris are well organized, patient and methodical. If they should target Ms. Geller and her allies over this, they are going to do something really ugly. (For this reason, let's let this be the last such gathering in a public school building. ) Ms. Geller can say anything she wants, in accord with the First Amendment. But all the security in the world cannot prevent attacks by a determined enemy. I sincerely hope this does not happen, and I do not condone it, but from what we have seen in the last decade I am afraid that it is going to happen.
1
This contest was an absurd provocation to those willing to exercise violent means to insist on the appropriate respect for their religion. The contest does not reflect what America is supposed to represent. It encourages racists and anti-religious rights advocates. Instead, we should be promoting education regarding the Muslim faith and encouraging those elements within that faith to participate in events which promote solidarity. Individuals who claim they are simply exercising their freedom of speech need to consider how they would respond if their belief system were the target not only of some cartoon exhibit, but also daily suspicion and prejudice. On a daily basis, many minorities already feel targeted and sensitized while simply attempting to enjoy the promise that is afforded by the Bill of Rights and our Constitution. What is happening in the world that despite the abundance and the freedoms available here there is so much antagonism and suspicion between groups? Can't the leadership of these communities focus some creativity towards organizing events which promote understanding and cooperation on common concerns despite our differences? Working together despite our differences is what has made the US the most influential country in the world! Let's not forget that!!!
6
Denigrating another's religion does not raise the stature of your own. Nor, if you have full faith in your religion you should not have to harm others in its defense. It will stand the test of time.
3
We have the right to vote, and turnout is pathetic. We have the right to bear arms, and we display weapons to intimidate and display our mutual fear. We have a right to speak and our current test is to blaspheme the very religion we desperately need to join to battle an intractable foe. ISIS. the Taliban, Al Qaeda have never blasphemed Jesus, wisdom as it is. I have fought these bad guys for 15 years, and I have no doubt that we cannot defeat them as long as America continues its bigotry, stereotyped blasphemies and pure apathy. Let these noble defenders of their so called right to free speech go to Ferguson or West Baltimore and shout racist slogans. HAve we come so far that we can only find our rights embedded in this sterile hatred? Texas Muslim community, and muslims nationwide respected the Garland sham for what it was and ignored it. But I find it ominous that here, two young men on a suicide mission dodged the FBI net, openly defined their purpose, carried weapons acquired under their right to bear arms, and nearly killed an auditorium of ignorant rabble. Gerland was not a matter of exercising rights, it was the role of agent provocateur. Muslims nationwide have to embrace our purpose, and here in Garland they showed a respect not granted to them. Who are we as a people if this is what we claim as our heritage?
4
Prudence and common decency dictate that one should avoid needless offense
to those of another culture. Ms. Gelder sought this confrontation and, were she
a Catholic instead of a Jew, she would be deemed by the Church as having
committed a mortal sin. She needlessly put in harms way a large gathering of
people. She ought not be praised but rather shunned for what she did. She is a truly evil person. She might consider emigrating to Israel, for the Likud
Party would praise her for her action.
The American military rescued thousands of Yazidis from annihilation by
ISIL. The Yazidis actually worship Satan and as such are as far as it gets
from Christianity. Nevertheless this Christian American nation risked much
to rescue them from being murdered.
to those of another culture. Ms. Gelder sought this confrontation and, were she
a Catholic instead of a Jew, she would be deemed by the Church as having
committed a mortal sin. She needlessly put in harms way a large gathering of
people. She ought not be praised but rather shunned for what she did. She is a truly evil person. She might consider emigrating to Israel, for the Likud
Party would praise her for her action.
The American military rescued thousands of Yazidis from annihilation by
ISIL. The Yazidis actually worship Satan and as such are as far as it gets
from Christianity. Nevertheless this Christian American nation risked much
to rescue them from being murdered.
1
If only CNN reporters would read a loud this article on air, and then move on. The absurd story lines this station now develops when covering terrorists attacks and plan crashes is a testament to what happens when the media is consumed with ratings.
1
I wonder if those on the left who are arguing provocation will feel the same when Muslim "peacemakers" attack abortion doctors and cllinics, gay and lesbian conferences, etc., etc..
Kinda of a slippery slope to argue that someone else's exercise of American freedoms is no better than the right to use violence to shut down an activity they disagree with strongly.
Kinda of a slippery slope to argue that someone else's exercise of American freedoms is no better than the right to use violence to shut down an activity they disagree with strongly.
22
Ms. Geller has specifically tried to deny rights to other Americans. I'm glad this situation turned out as it did, but next time innocents may get killed. Freedom of speech for all was the last thing on her mind. Read her web page: "The descent of the mainstream media into out-and-out pro-jihad agitation is complete" is nearly psychotic and meant to incite people against each other. No one "on the left" condones the violence of Mr. Simpson and Soofi.
http://pamelageller.com/#sthash.6Jk2RvAf.dpuf
http://pamelageller.com/#sthash.6Jk2RvAf.dpuf
1
Thus, if the message is not popular, politically correct to the smallest groups, the messenger and the message is flawed, or you simply disagree with the movement, violence and death is an acceptable response. I see, I must have woken up in a prior era.
1
Perhaps the organizers of future "events" would do well to make a positive statement to the world and their own children? Why not do a little bit to make Garland TX or anywhere else a better place? Help instead of hate?
These are dangerous times and the wise do not openly insult. If stupidity were a crime, the organizers of this little contest would be on death row. As it is they seemed to be doomed to a life sentence of hate and misery.
It is not limited to Muslims either. Hatred is universal as is extreme reactions to actions perceived as insults. March through Belfast a few years ago with a "I hate (Catholics or Protestants - your choice) type sign and see how long you would have lasted.
These are dangerous times and the wise do not openly insult. If stupidity were a crime, the organizers of this little contest would be on death row. As it is they seemed to be doomed to a life sentence of hate and misery.
It is not limited to Muslims either. Hatred is universal as is extreme reactions to actions perceived as insults. March through Belfast a few years ago with a "I hate (Catholics or Protestants - your choice) type sign and see how long you would have lasted.
6
This is nothing more that a calculated propaganda gambit on the part of Geller et. al. She, and her band of zealots, threw out the bait and predictably, another group of zealots swallowed it hook, line and sinker. The rest of us, unwitting pawns in this macabre ballet, were fortunate that only one set of fanatics lost their lives. To Geller and her ilk, I would say this: there is a reason why a bull fights one and only one fight in its lifetime, and that is because, if the bull fights a second time, the guy waving the reg flag may end up on the wrong end of the bull's horns. This response to Geller's Muslim baiting was inept, we may not be so lucky next time.
21
Geller could have just as easily been preaching that Sharia'h law was a threat to women's rights the world over, and needed to be defied. Would that have made her a fanatic deserving of death? Is your point that we should all bow and cower like slaves, and abandon our own principles, so as to avoid giving offense. There is only one side in the wrong here (hint: it's the one that used words, not bullets)
7
Tragically, she apparently has the support of some "billionaire" who is using her to take attention away from what ever is really going on in our country.
Unless people start taking responsibility for knowing what is actually happening in the world they will be "told"what is happening by our billionaire -owned TV stations.
Unless people start taking responsibility for knowing what is actually happening in the world they will be "told"what is happening by our billionaire -owned TV stations.
1
that's 'liberty'....but victory works as a result.
2
This incident is all about HATE. The hate and venom and stupidity that this minority of hate-mongers display towards one another, while the rest of us sit on the sidelines and are forced to endure their violence and malevolence. ISIS is disgusting and a source of pain and anguish to the billion or so Muslims in the world. These haters do not represent Muslims, they represent ignorance and intolerance. Pamela Geller is equally disgusting, especially to real Americans. We Americans that understand that our country was built on tolerance and acceptance.
What is particularly offensive to me as an American, is how these HATE groups, e.g. The American Freedom Defense Initiative, hide behind the cloak of the Constitution to do their bidding and spread their venom. If you want to know who Pamela Geller really is then read this:
www.nytimes.com/2010/10/10/nyregion/10geller.html?pagewanted=all
Geller is no different than the terrorist groups she pretends to hate so much, with the difference being that she is savvy to the ways of Western style "diplomacy" while spreading her hatred. Instead of weapons she uses social media to cast destruction, inflame bigotry, and prey on ignorance and a lack of education. Geller then hides behind the Constitution and pretends she is doing all of us some big favor. Please, Pam, you caused this violent incident and then wear it proudly like a badge of honor, heck, you even profit from it - DISGUSTING.
What is particularly offensive to me as an American, is how these HATE groups, e.g. The American Freedom Defense Initiative, hide behind the cloak of the Constitution to do their bidding and spread their venom. If you want to know who Pamela Geller really is then read this:
www.nytimes.com/2010/10/10/nyregion/10geller.html?pagewanted=all
Geller is no different than the terrorist groups she pretends to hate so much, with the difference being that she is savvy to the ways of Western style "diplomacy" while spreading her hatred. Instead of weapons she uses social media to cast destruction, inflame bigotry, and prey on ignorance and a lack of education. Geller then hides behind the Constitution and pretends she is doing all of us some big favor. Please, Pam, you caused this violent incident and then wear it proudly like a badge of honor, heck, you even profit from it - DISGUSTING.
12
Free speech does NOT include yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater. If another culture tells us that certain speech is extremely offensive then engaging in that speech sounds incendiary, on par with endangering people's well being. I'm shocked that a local law enforcement agency would provide security for an event that, at its very best. was mean spirited and knowingly inflammatory. As if somehow the participants in this event had some undeniable need to express themselves through caricature art that was about to boil over if they couldn't let it out. This is sad.
16
In this case, Mr. Soofi and Mr. Simpson yelled "Fire!" in the crowded theater of their own minds--a theater full of perceived but not actual threats and offenses. One cannot possibly know or anticipate all possible offense that all other people may take at the words they speak or actions they take, and so engage in perpetual self-censorship. In this country, religious speech and practice is protected, but speech and practice critical of religion is equally protected.
2
So if any culture in our vast multi-cultural society has some deep seated sensitivity we should have a school district sponsor an event and expect our law enforcement agencies to police a "piling on" to that sensitivity to show the people in that culture a valuable lesson in free speech? Welcome to America! And furthermore we should be shocked if the least of them react violently.
1
Thanks to brave officer who defended out freedom to peacefully express ourselves. On the other hand any ideology (including religion) which incite its followers to kill somebody not abiding their rules or believes better be outlawed. I do not care it this is politically incorrect. If their an KKK clubs where they brainwash their young or a mosque or church, which preach hatred to nonbelievers - we need to stop brewing killers inside our society.
8
I think the officer who shot the bad guys should form a complete record of what transpired and make it available to every officer with a gun in this country. Everyone who is licensed to use a firearm in the course of public protection should know how these activities transpire for the best outcomes.
5
Pamela Geller is a vicious and negative influence but nobody has the right to shoot up an event. I'm sorry Geller did what she did. I am a Jew and that woman doesn't represent my views but I am also an American and I refuse to live in fear even if she loves causing people to act badly. I think those of us who are Jews have to stand up to Geller' ugliness just as Muslims have to stand up to their extremists and say "Enough!!!" If someone is crude enough to mock Muhammad, leave him or her to Allah's justice and move on.
7
That's great, except Muslims have not stood up to their extremists, and I wouldn't hold my breath. Their silence speaks volumes.
They drove from Phoenix well armed with body armor and killed on one. It makes me think that the police were expecting this to happen. They had to be tipped off.
1
Hey folks, this was an attack sanctioned by ISIS (http://edition.cnn.com/2015/05/05/us/garland-texas-prophet-mohammed-cont..., not the work of two random, 'disillusioned' men. Just wait until the beheadings start on U.S. soil. I'm sure most here will blame those on Ms. Geller, too. None so blind as those that will not see.
8
Why isn't the offending winning cartoon on the front page of every media outlet. I know it is unprofitable to offend anyone but have you forgotten that the inciting cartoon is the news?
9
The organizers of this event are proving to be effective tools in the ISIS PR effort, presenting hate-mongers as the face of the US. I suspect that unlike many American families, they have no relatives on the front lines.
5
They are not 'hate-mongers'. Stop blaming the victim. You know nothing whatsoever about these people, but you feel fine in smearing them? What no anger at the idiots that tried to kill them. I'm not a follower of Geller, but the free flow of ideas is what's important, not whether you like the ideas. You people are obtuse.
Why didn't this hate monger Geller have this contest in NYC? I'll tell you why. She knew that if she had it in Texas, she'd be preaching to the choir. She's a coward.
8
Yes, offending terrorists is cowardly, while posting insults anonymously on the Internet is the definition of courageous.
1
The choir is the USA. If its not, God help us all.
1
MSNBC seems to endorse the shootings!! Blaming the event as islamaphobia !!
They seem to parallel the Vietnam war protests and civil rights ideology !!
In addition there was an event at the same venue promoting Islam and their agenda. Disgraceful..
They seem to parallel the Vietnam war protests and civil rights ideology !!
In addition there was an event at the same venue promoting Islam and their agenda. Disgraceful..
4
I know this is somewhat off-topic, but, the handgun skills of the traffic cop must be very high. Two body armoured suspects with assault rifles taking cover behind a car, and he killed both before any fatal casualties could be inflicted. Amazing.
45
"I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it!"
Unfortunately many NY Times readers no longer understand free speech.
Unfortunately many NY Times readers no longer understand free speech.
13
He(Muhammad) took the sword and removed(destroyed) Pagan gods idols, the paintings, no room for though of visual of God. He waged wars, forced others to embrace(converted) to his new found religion otherwise it's his sword that will speak.
Will have wait and watch when, Iran release the film on (He), Non-Muslims watch the drama that will unfold.
Will have wait and watch when, Iran release the film on (He), Non-Muslims watch the drama that will unfold.
1
The right to free speech means nothing if it does not protect offensive speech.
12
Don't mess with Texas.
5
The gunmen got out of the car and started shooting, using the back of the car as a shield and were quickly killed by the traffic officer. Why is the back of the black car smashed?
Kudos to the cops who took down the two maniacs! Good shooting!!
8
Geller said that "Muslims had become a “special class” that Americans were no longer allowed to offend." And are we now allowed to offend Jews with anti-semitic hate speech and holocaust denial? Imagine if someone held a contest to come up with the vilest Jewish caricature, a la, the Völkischer Beobachter. Would anyone consider that free speech or base provocation and incitement to hatred? Pamela Geller is a hate monger deliberately stirring up animosity and civil strife. I am surprised this woman is not being denounced by the NY Times and other responsible publications.
5
"And are we now allowed to offend Jews with anti-semitic hate speech and holocaust denial?" Recently, a Iranian cartoon contest with the theme, Holocaust denial, as has happened once before. Cash prizes included. http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/01/the-hypocrisy-o...
3
The difference "Birch", is that someone could do those things you described without being gunned down by Jewish extremists. Can you not see the difference?
3
Satire is protected under our Constitution, no matter what Shariah Law demands. Misogynistic and violent rap lyrics, blasphemous depictions of Jesus and cartoons of muhammed are all protected by the First Amendment. It is the responsibility of other citizens to not react violently. No excuses...
Je suis Garland / Charli Hebdo!
Je suis Garland / Charli Hebdo!
11
The issue which must be addressed is the monitoring of suspected terrorist. In this case it failed completely. They acquired assault rifles and explosives and planned an attack while being monitored. When is the FBI going to comment on their lack of initiative and plans to address domestic terrorist.
7
This is a case of the awful shooting at the awful.
On this particular night, one side used guns to show their ridiculous hatred and the other side used a pen to show theirs. I don't believe for a moment, however, that the side with the pen is above switching to a gun at a moment's notice.
It's repugnant, start to finish. It brings shame upon our entire species.
On this particular night, one side used guns to show their ridiculous hatred and the other side used a pen to show theirs. I don't believe for a moment, however, that the side with the pen is above switching to a gun at a moment's notice.
It's repugnant, start to finish. It brings shame upon our entire species.
3
No CS, it isn't. Its a case of the "evil" shooting at Americans. Your way of thinking is the first step Islam has hoped for.
It's pretty simple: If Geller & Co. can't organize their event, the terrorists have already won. So we have to stand with Geller.
What's more disturbing than the contest is that idea that among us, at any moment, there could be, and probably will be, an attack by these believers who masquerade as American citizens. It seems you can't be both, Muslim and American. Sorry, but once again -- where is the collective outrage from American muslims?
What's more disturbing than the contest is that idea that among us, at any moment, there could be, and probably will be, an attack by these believers who masquerade as American citizens. It seems you can't be both, Muslim and American. Sorry, but once again -- where is the collective outrage from American muslims?
10
There is no collective outrage, because they are not outraged. Its just that simple. if it walks like a duck..........
1
Free speech has no prerequisite of noble purpose.
8
Images of the prophet Muhammad have been produced over the last 1,000 years by Muslims and for Muslims.
However the so called "art exhibit" in Garland TX. appears to have no purpose except to promote religious bigotry and perhaps incite the kind of attacks we see here.
However the so called "art exhibit" in Garland TX. appears to have no purpose except to promote religious bigotry and perhaps incite the kind of attacks we see here.
2
Religion is an idea and ideas are open to ridicule. Geller is ALMOST as fanatical as those who went to harm her, but she has never killed any Muslims, so who had more hate in this situation? The fanatics who arrived with guns.
8
For some: The Prophet Muhammad.
For some: Their prophet, Muhammad.
For all: Do the laws of the US grant wide latitude in belief and expression.
For none: Do the laws of the US protect from consequences.
No matter how much in poor taste, disrespectful or despicable an opinion is perceived to be, it is never sufficiently so to point a gun and blast away, not here.
For some: Their prophet, Muhammad.
For all: Do the laws of the US grant wide latitude in belief and expression.
For none: Do the laws of the US protect from consequences.
No matter how much in poor taste, disrespectful or despicable an opinion is perceived to be, it is never sufficiently so to point a gun and blast away, not here.
7
In this heated debate, let's not confuse anti-Islamism with racism.
5
Free speech is a right and with every right comes responsibility. Refuse to acknowledge your responsibility but demand your right and there goes civilization.
5
No. We have the right to say what we think regardless of whether anyone or everyone agrees with us. Our civilization is thriving because of this.
2
Fighting terrorism is a great challenge, and repeatedly trying to antagonize people seen as holding opposing religious and political views only widens the emotional gulf.
I think that the open-hearted poems of the mystical Persian poet, Rumi, can function like emissaries, helping to nurture peace among people who may still hold at least a glimmer of hope for finding common ground.
I recommend - "goodreads.com - Rumi - Quotes"
Mostly from translations of Rumi's poems by Coleman Barks - "The Essential Rumi" and other books - Excerpts -
"Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing, there is a field.
I'll meet you there."
"I will soothe you and heal you,
I will bring you roses.
I too have been covered with thorns."
"Lovers find secret places inside this violent world where they make transactions with beauty."
"Be certain that in the religion of Love there are no believers and unbelievers. Love embraces all."
"What? Are you still pretending you are separate from the Beloved?"
"Wherever you stand, be the Soul of that place."
"Love is the religion, and the universe is the book."
"I am morning mist and the breathing of evening."
"Your misconceptions veil the holy."
"Dawn comes up like a beautiful meal."
"What are 'I' and 'You'?
Just lattices in the niches of a lamp through which the One Light radiates."
"Poems ... derive from a slow and powerful root that we can't see ..."
"The words that made the rose bloom were also said to me."
I think that the open-hearted poems of the mystical Persian poet, Rumi, can function like emissaries, helping to nurture peace among people who may still hold at least a glimmer of hope for finding common ground.
I recommend - "goodreads.com - Rumi - Quotes"
Mostly from translations of Rumi's poems by Coleman Barks - "The Essential Rumi" and other books - Excerpts -
"Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing, there is a field.
I'll meet you there."
"I will soothe you and heal you,
I will bring you roses.
I too have been covered with thorns."
"Lovers find secret places inside this violent world where they make transactions with beauty."
"Be certain that in the religion of Love there are no believers and unbelievers. Love embraces all."
"What? Are you still pretending you are separate from the Beloved?"
"Wherever you stand, be the Soul of that place."
"Love is the religion, and the universe is the book."
"I am morning mist and the breathing of evening."
"Your misconceptions veil the holy."
"Dawn comes up like a beautiful meal."
"What are 'I' and 'You'?
Just lattices in the niches of a lamp through which the One Light radiates."
"Poems ... derive from a slow and powerful root that we can't see ..."
"The words that made the rose bloom were also said to me."
2
These Officers faced an incredible amount of courage under fire! I'm so proud of them for not hesitating on these terrorist.
6
The police should be quite pleased. They finally got their man. Seems to be a pretty workable method for weeding out would be terrorists. Organize an event to get them riled up, wait for them to show up, and shoot them dead. Only next time ensure there is no one in harm's way.
7
Anybody else find it strange that two suspects dressed in body armor launch a surprise attack firing assault rifles and are both shot to death by a local traffic control police officer with only one other being injured? Remind me never to tick off a Texas cop. Exactly how much do those guys go to weapons practice? Handgun against assault rifles and body armor and the handgun wins. Really?
11
Yet another instance of the FBI and other US law enforcement agencies identifying and then dropping an actual terrorist. Despite this recurring pattern of bungling (or malfeasance, if you prefer), the government demands yet more warrantless general surveillance, both domestically and worldwide. Just what will be done with this information? Hard to say, since not a single case has been primarily identified by this technique. However, it is a "job creator"!
5
Any Western school of thought that equates cartoonists with would be murderers is doomed to, at the least, political extinction.
Because any prohibition for drawing images of a human being under penalty of death, or any penalty, really, is simply the promotion of medieval barbarism.
Because any prohibition for drawing images of a human being under penalty of death, or any penalty, really, is simply the promotion of medieval barbarism.
12
This so called "contest" to caricature the Prophet Muhammed was designed to provoke, a thumb in the eye, an indecent guise to promote free speech. Ms.Geller has a reputation that has earned her group the status of being nothing less than a hate group, a well deserved title.
This is nothing short of abusing one's rights to free speech in an America that promotes the free practice and expression of religion.
It has become fashionable to ridicule Islam, some of it deserved, because of events in the Middle East.
With full knowledge of what transpired in France, Ms. Gellers' cartoon contest was a premeditated challenge to sensitive muslims to "bring it on", and two disillusioned men took it upon themselves to accept the challenge.
That she put the lives of some 200 visitors to the contest at risk does not seem to have bothered her one bit.
This is nothing short of abusing one's rights to free speech in an America that promotes the free practice and expression of religion.
It has become fashionable to ridicule Islam, some of it deserved, because of events in the Middle East.
With full knowledge of what transpired in France, Ms. Gellers' cartoon contest was a premeditated challenge to sensitive muslims to "bring it on", and two disillusioned men took it upon themselves to accept the challenge.
That she put the lives of some 200 visitors to the contest at risk does not seem to have bothered her one bit.
9
This is a problem I face with people today. Suddenly freedom of speech is unquestionably inciting violence when we have a cartoon contest that happens to involve a religious leader. I'm sure most of you have seen Family Guy and it's portrayal of Jesus Christ? Where is the (keyword) violent outrage there?
I understand there have been extremist attacks on the same outlets in the past, however as a society do we cater to terrorism and censor ourselves so that we do nothing further to offend the 10% of religious extremists, who quite frankly probably would have orchestrated an attack on the West even if this event was not held?
I'm all for peace and love and smelling the roses but we have a serious problem with a serious group of people who would still continue violently attacking the West even if we decided to lie down and cater to their agendas.
I for one do not see the merit of the event outside of a political statement, however the statement I do see is a strong one and I support the cause to not bend the knee to every aggressor who wants to censor our freedoms.
I understand there have been extremist attacks on the same outlets in the past, however as a society do we cater to terrorism and censor ourselves so that we do nothing further to offend the 10% of religious extremists, who quite frankly probably would have orchestrated an attack on the West even if this event was not held?
I'm all for peace and love and smelling the roses but we have a serious problem with a serious group of people who would still continue violently attacking the West even if we decided to lie down and cater to their agendas.
I for one do not see the merit of the event outside of a political statement, however the statement I do see is a strong one and I support the cause to not bend the knee to every aggressor who wants to censor our freedoms.
1
You don't seem to get it. The people that were there were knew the danger, but they actually believe in free speech. Unlike many others.
1
Islam may well be a religion, but it has not gone through the historical process that other religions have, which is adjusting to this world, the role of government in maintaining peace and order, and freedom of non-believers. Islam is stuck in the 8th century in a part of the world that was not particularly culturally advanced at that time. that culture has been codified and sanctified by a special book.
because Islam is a 'religion', and because this is the West, as a religion that would prefer to see our civilization disappear or be subjugated, it is granted special privileges. Those privileges are a weak spot for us, just as criminals can get a fair trail. Some see that as a weakness too, others see it as a strength.
because Islam is a 'religion', and because this is the West, as a religion that would prefer to see our civilization disappear or be subjugated, it is granted special privileges. Those privileges are a weak spot for us, just as criminals can get a fair trail. Some see that as a weakness too, others see it as a strength.
6
The comparison here, in order to understand just how provocative this conference was, is not to drawing Jesus cartoons, since that religion has no restrictions on such a thing. It's more appropriate to consider, as a thought-experiment, a convention praising abortions - late-term abortions, pregnancies for the sake of experiencing an abortion, workshops on how to start your own abortion clinic, lists of all the merits and values of having an abortion, awards for the doctor who has completed the most abortions, etc. This would certainly fall inside lawful activity, but if promoted the way that Geller sells her events to provocateurs, it could absolutely enrage far right Christians to take action.
In fact, we don't have to speculate what would happen. We can instead look to the long history of protests, blockades, gunmen, murders, etc, that surround abortion clinics. Would anyone even consider hosting an abortion-praise conference, knowing that it would provoke radicalized Christians? I don't think so.
In fact, we don't have to speculate what would happen. We can instead look to the long history of protests, blockades, gunmen, murders, etc, that surround abortion clinics. Would anyone even consider hosting an abortion-praise conference, knowing that it would provoke radicalized Christians? I don't think so.
8
What rock do you live under? It's done just about every day. The only protests that turn violent are when pro-lifers try to have an eXhibition. I'm not a Christian, but trying to equate them with this is specious. Yes, many counter protest, but that's what you do in a free society. Killings? Yes, some people have killed, but they were never held up as an eXample of the faithful or eXtolled for their virtue. People like you just don't get it. Christians are not the problem, not in this country and not in the rest of the World. If I wish to go to the Campus of UT Austin and get on a soapboX and denounce Mohammed for whatever reason I should be able to do so without the threat of harm. This is not possible now and there is only one reason for it.
There are lots of fringe ideas that could be conventions. Just because no one would host one doesn't mean they are not free to do so. And should a far-right Christian come in with guns drawn, s/he too would be shot. You don't shoot up a meeting just because you find the topic offensive. I understand the analogy, but it's still free speech.
"It is still not entirely clear what led the two men"
The fact I have to watch this statement be regurgitated each time an atrocity occurs be it in space US, Australia, Kenya. Nigeria, Syria, Pakistan, The Philippines. Malaysia, Thailand, ..... or be it across time up through middle Europe across Africa, in China .... is quite sickening when Plato told us thousands of years ago, a Chinese Emperor knew quite clearly and we have no qualms about determining it applies to a certain well known secular cultural codex.
If a cultural codex (textual and exemplar (messianic) template) has an iniquitous construct be it regards Other or in particular women it will be played out within the Public Square if the ideology which contain these iniquitous constructs are allowed to flourish within our Public Square.
As Plato said along with the Chinese Emperor unless these cultural codex iniquitous constructs are removed from the Public Square they will be reflected within the behavioral variance of the culture concerned.
The 'few' are created and sustained by the 'many' otherwise they would not exist and it would be my view the greater the relative degree of inequity the Ideology informs regards Other and women the greater the need to have an violent enforcement mechanism to enforce its acceptance internal and external. For who accepts such constructs willingly?
Is that clear enough.
The fact I have to watch this statement be regurgitated each time an atrocity occurs be it in space US, Australia, Kenya. Nigeria, Syria, Pakistan, The Philippines. Malaysia, Thailand, ..... or be it across time up through middle Europe across Africa, in China .... is quite sickening when Plato told us thousands of years ago, a Chinese Emperor knew quite clearly and we have no qualms about determining it applies to a certain well known secular cultural codex.
If a cultural codex (textual and exemplar (messianic) template) has an iniquitous construct be it regards Other or in particular women it will be played out within the Public Square if the ideology which contain these iniquitous constructs are allowed to flourish within our Public Square.
As Plato said along with the Chinese Emperor unless these cultural codex iniquitous constructs are removed from the Public Square they will be reflected within the behavioral variance of the culture concerned.
The 'few' are created and sustained by the 'many' otherwise they would not exist and it would be my view the greater the relative degree of inequity the Ideology informs regards Other and women the greater the need to have an violent enforcement mechanism to enforce its acceptance internal and external. For who accepts such constructs willingly?
Is that clear enough.
1
Murdering someone in the name of religion has a long and bloody history, and Islam isn't special or unique in this regard, they are simply the most recent to use senseless violence against those that would not hold their views. What this entire episode demonstrates is the complete stupidity and uselessness of religion in general. Replace Muhammed with Jesus or your favorite deity, it is still killing each other over your favorite imaginary friend. Remove religion and you remove the needless death of a person and you remove the vile murderer, and the equally vile organizer of this pointless event. Sorry, I think the outcome here was the point of the event. These murderers played into Geller's hands and gave her the justification for her hate-filled event. Well done on all sides.
2
Remove religion? Hmm - and replace it with what? The Nazis, Stalin, our own new religion of worshipping junk at the Mall on Saturday and Sunday instead of taking an hour out of the consumer feeding frenzy to pray and think about how the world might look if we treated others as we would like to be treated. We might even take another hour out of watching sports and join the group of religious people who volunteer at soup kitchens and homeless shelters around the country every day as we try to put those Saturday or Sunday lessons into action.
To make fun of a person's prophet will offend them if they personally identify with that figure, but it may help others escape the mental prison of another person's vision and think for themselves. Prophets are for emotionally, mentally, or spiritually stunted people afraid to think and seek God on their own. If the society is bullied in giving deference to any religions purported prophet, fewer people will find the courage to free themselves. God created free minds. Men imprison them.
7
Those of you who argue that we should not mock Mohammed because it offends Muslims what then? What if Muslims make other demands? What if they decide we should not allow women to walk around with their hair uncovered because they find it offensive? Where does it end?
14
I hope this points out that our gun laws are so lax that individuals investigated by the FBI as potential terrorists are easily able to purchase assault weapons and body armor. We need gun control laws now. As always it was a law enforcement officer that stopped them, not some idiot open carry gun fiddler.
3
Nice try. Just like the strict gun laws in France did wonders to prevent terrorists from obtaining the weapons they wanted.
Not only don't I think there was anything wrong with the gathering to draw cartoons of Mohamed, I think there should be more of them. There should be hundreds of events all over the freedom loving western world. It would show radical Islam that their demented notions have no place in our society. And every time some one holds back a cartoon, or comment, or depiction of the prophet for fear of 'offending' someone's religion, they subtly condone radical Islam and all they stand for. This isn't bigotry (though the people doing it may be bigots). This our our freedom of expression in its truest form.
9
I feel some people label this art display "provocative", "hate speech" and the shooting appropriate out of some sense of fear and self censorship.
I know I don't believe this art display is provocative or unique because I have seen many work and speeches mocking Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, Jews, Chinese, Russian and women. South Park and Family Guy mocking just about anything that can move. However, if I am at a public place where I know there are, or potentially there are Muslim present, I would change my tone and say it is "provocative".
To me, I am concerned what if someone told someone and that person, like the two shooters here, is crazy and decided to harm me. The chances are slim as most Muslim will never turn crazy but why take that chance? An instance of freedom-of-speech isn't worth getting stabbed.
I feel there is a sense of fear in the US and we are censoring ourselves and others trying to keep everyone safe. We will even attack those provoking the crazies because we might be the unintended casualty.
I know I don't believe this art display is provocative or unique because I have seen many work and speeches mocking Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, Jews, Chinese, Russian and women. South Park and Family Guy mocking just about anything that can move. However, if I am at a public place where I know there are, or potentially there are Muslim present, I would change my tone and say it is "provocative".
To me, I am concerned what if someone told someone and that person, like the two shooters here, is crazy and decided to harm me. The chances are slim as most Muslim will never turn crazy but why take that chance? An instance of freedom-of-speech isn't worth getting stabbed.
I feel there is a sense of fear in the US and we are censoring ourselves and others trying to keep everyone safe. We will even attack those provoking the crazies because we might be the unintended casualty.
2
Chances are slim? On what planet?
Next time there is a anti-Muslim contest for caricatures of a Holy Prophet, let's all make sure it's not in a building owned and operated by an independent school district.
Which administrator thought this was a good idea to open a school up this risk?
It nauseates me to think someone approved this to take place not near a Walmart, but near a school.
Which administrator thought this was a good idea to open a school up this risk?
It nauseates me to think someone approved this to take place not near a Walmart, but near a school.
3
Weller should not be confused with free speech advocates or Charlie Hebdo. For example, Charlie Hebdo is all inclusive with Jesus, Le Pen, Hollande, Bush...all and sundry.
Geller and her "associates" are racist xenophobes that salute the three blitzes on Gaza, the colonization of the Occupied Territories, expulsion of Palestinians in Israel proper. It is a hate-speech enterprise, it is the new KKK but the press and politicians soft-pedal; e.g., the disgraceful comments of Congressman Faul from where else? from Israel, on another AIPAC-financed junket.
Geller and her "associates" are racist xenophobes that salute the three blitzes on Gaza, the colonization of the Occupied Territories, expulsion of Palestinians in Israel proper. It is a hate-speech enterprise, it is the new KKK but the press and politicians soft-pedal; e.g., the disgraceful comments of Congressman Faul from where else? from Israel, on another AIPAC-financed junket.
5
Pot meet kettle. You can't have it both ways.
Many comments have been made about this, yet another, gun tragedy in the heartland of the homeland. What astonishes me is that the gratuitous anti-Muslim hate-fest was hosted in a Garland TX public school facility.
The school district's lame excuse was that it does not discriminate against groups based on their beliefs. Fair enough, but this event had "hate speech" written all over it long before the event occurred.
No public facility is prohibited from barring hate speech. A school district, of all places, should keep hate as far away from its doors as it possibly can.
The school district's lame excuse was that it does not discriminate against groups based on their beliefs. Fair enough, but this event had "hate speech" written all over it long before the event occurred.
No public facility is prohibited from barring hate speech. A school district, of all places, should keep hate as far away from its doors as it possibly can.
22
People who defend Islam should try living in their land .
3
You miss the point entirely, arish. Elements of various faiths, including Christianity, use religion as cover for their own hateful bigotry. For example, Terry Jones channeling Jesus Christ? I don't think so.
1
How do you know if this was "hate speech"? Have you seen a single drawing? I haven't. And only in the twisted moral world of the left would the deaths of two attempted mass murderers be called a "tragedy." Unreal.
2
Another reason open carry is stupid and Strict gun control is needed.
4
The attackers did not carry their AK-47s openly until the moment of attack.
Right...A place where only the state and the criminals, like there's a difference, are allowed to possess weapons. Yes, that sounds like a great place to live!
1
America, the Beautiful(ly confused)
Group one perverts the privilege of the First Amendment to provoke.
Group two perverts the privilege of the second amendment to kill.
We all need to stop hiding behind perverse interpretations of our Constitution and show some human dignity, kindness, and restraint no matter what we beleive is our inalienable right. The pursuit of Happiness is at stake every time.
Group one perverts the privilege of the First Amendment to provoke.
Group two perverts the privilege of the second amendment to kill.
We all need to stop hiding behind perverse interpretations of our Constitution and show some human dignity, kindness, and restraint no matter what we beleive is our inalienable right. The pursuit of Happiness is at stake every time.
11
Oh the hypocrisy of the politically correct crowd here.. This crowd encourages the ridicule of Christians, calls it art work and says deal with it. But cartoon a Muslim and you've incited violence.
Deal with it.
Deal with it.
21
This just stupid. A deliberate provocation that in fact provokes an attack proves nothing about the greater issues of freedom of speech that are at stake for us all. And to stage a provocation in a school facility? What was anyone thinking (or were they just hoping for the most violent possible attack)?
10
Piss Christ was exhibited at a public museum. Should that have been banned?
The event wasn't staged at a school facility. The Curtis Culwell Center is a convention center.
Crazy people who claim to be inspired defenders of religion shooting up crazy bigots who claim to be inspired defenders of freedom of speech. Slap the "Islamic terror" label on the incident and invoke the name of ISIS to get stupid people all worked up spewing gibberish about how the homeland must be defended against the Caliphate sailing up the Hudson.
All you end up with is the perpetual fear-mongering that enables profiteering by the security-intelligence-defense-industrial-political-media-entertainment complex. That is the true outrage of the pretext of fighting terrorism.
All you end up with is the perpetual fear-mongering that enables profiteering by the security-intelligence-defense-industrial-political-media-entertainment complex. That is the true outrage of the pretext of fighting terrorism.
12
You are pretty dense.
Free Speech in the press and film needs to go hand in hand with social responsibility. We cannot ban horrific violence on the screen; though some researchers believe these films desensitize viewers. The USA is the most violent industrialized country in the world. A reminder to those who hold such powers to please act as a positive model for those voices who don't carry.
1
Geller and one of her cohorts were banned from entering Britain to prevent them from stirring the right wing anti Muslim pot there.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-23064355
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-23064355
6
I can't imagine anyone sincerely arguing that any religion should be given special status in our society. If we can ridicule political leaders, the know-it-all wealthy, the obnoxiously smug celebrities---people with whose deeds we're familiar---then surely we can say and do whatever we want regarding a 7th-century self-styled religious fanatic/shepherd. Certainly people may believe whatever nonsense they want to believe, but they can't punish others for not believing. Punishing others for not sharing a religious belief crosses the line from civilized to barbaric behavior and there is no place in our society for barbarism. Either play by the rules of a democracy that protects and promotes man's human rights, including free will, or leave. All are welcome to come to our country legally to share in our admittedly flawed society, but no one may come here, legally or otherwise, to change our society by imposing religious restrictions on everyone. To fail to grasp that is to embrace a foolhardy enterprise.
21
I'm not even remotely religious, let alone Muslim, and I find your words highly offensive and denigrating. That 7th century religious fanatic / shepherd you talk about is at the heart of many people's strong beliefs, much like that 1st century religious fanatic / carpenter named Jesus. You called an entire religion "nonsense". These people went even farther in order to provoke deep feelings in Muslims whom they don't understand, and whom they hate unnecessarily.
No one was "punished" for not sharing a religion. Two young men with extreme feelings of faith and morality were outraged that people actively attacked their prophet for sport, and they saw this a provocation to violence. The gunmen were wrong. Violence is wrong. Any group or radical religious sect that "justifies" violence is wrong.
But I take strong issue with your characterization of the United States. It is a place that is supposed to encourage not assimilation, which you describe, but tolerance of diversity. It is a place where each person shares a responsibility to make others feel welcome, even if they are gay, black, of another religion or no religion at all, or in any way different from you. A place that says "become like me or leave" is no different from so many restrictive societies around the world.
No one was "punished" for not sharing a religion. Two young men with extreme feelings of faith and morality were outraged that people actively attacked their prophet for sport, and they saw this a provocation to violence. The gunmen were wrong. Violence is wrong. Any group or radical religious sect that "justifies" violence is wrong.
But I take strong issue with your characterization of the United States. It is a place that is supposed to encourage not assimilation, which you describe, but tolerance of diversity. It is a place where each person shares a responsibility to make others feel welcome, even if they are gay, black, of another religion or no religion at all, or in any way different from you. A place that says "become like me or leave" is no different from so many restrictive societies around the world.
1
I've resided in four Muslim countries, including four times in Afghanistan. Devout Muslims, not to be confused with extremist muslims, are in the main, hard working, peaceful, law abiding and family oriented. In Afghanistan, for example, only 10% of the population supports the Taliban. The crazies, like those killed in Garland, Texas, no more represent mainstream Muslim faith, than the Ku Klux Klan represents true Christianity.
14
Yes and it's the crazies that we want to continue to reveal and swiftly deal with.
Anyone who has has the extremely distubing experience of seeing (and reading) German antisemitic propaganda from the 1930's to 40's,as well as that produced by the USSR in the 1950's through the 1980's would note similarities to anti-Moslem material being produced today. There is a legitimate "free speech" issue involved but there are also issues of racism, incitement, and bigoted prejudice that should not be ignored. The problem is where to draw the line,and NOT if the line should be there.
10
Not in America. There is no line. If you don't like that, don't live here.
Where did they get the assault rifles? We make it way too easy for people for someone to obtain military grade weapons which then can be used in these assaults.
15
The outcome proves the point often made by the anti-gun ban lobby that the particular weapon is scarcely relevant to anything.
A convocation of the unstable, unable to differentiate between ideology and reality, attempted to be attacked by the unstable, unable to differentiate between ideology and reality. They earn front page news throughout the country and the lead story in The New York Times online. My question is, who is more unstable?
6
Bravo to PD Garland TX. Things like this make me proud to be Texan, where we know what to do with thugs and don't quail from doing it.
15
Very well said, nice to read some sanity.
Let me just say this as someone from a Muslim background: I condemn the violence of these two Islamist men, or anyone who would take up arms against another human being in an attempt to silence their free speech. Even if their free speech was hate speech, which in this case it was not. Just dumb people wanting to draw and look at provocative cartoons offensive to most Muslims.
It's frustrating that these two Islamist men carried out their attack--because it now speaking out against the dumb cartoon drawings could appear as if one is supporting violence towards dumb cartoon makers and their nearly equally dumb audience. And I was so looking forward to pointing out how dumb at all was.
It's frustrating that these two Islamist men carried out their attack--because it now speaking out against the dumb cartoon drawings could appear as if one is supporting violence towards dumb cartoon makers and their nearly equally dumb audience. And I was so looking forward to pointing out how dumb at all was.
11
Why are cartoons dumb? Or are you only talking about the ones that "offend" you?
5
I find many cartoon dumb, however I don't try to kill the artists whose cartoons I don't like. The two morons are where they belong- in the ground.
1
As the "contest" was purely for the purpose of taunting people who would respond violently, it was not for expression of an idea. It was to incite violence.
19
What violence did "piss Christ" incite? Oh... There's a difference, eh?
2
No it was not.
1
Geller and these guys are part of a toxic package. They deserve each other. But if we aren't smart, they'll take us down with them.
14
You are very close to accuracy. Societies have a way of balancing themselves out. When you have a president that condones illegal immigration and supports rioters you will see citizens who do not carry out the opposite kind of behavior- like has happened in Garland Texas. The extraordinary permissiveness and lack of "protection" that is common place while the leftists progressives are in office will unfortunately spawn much more of this kind of behavior. The remedy is strong leadership and we will never have that with a man like Obama in the White House.
In a time where Muslims are being slaughtered by war mongers like Geller, this is more than a rally. Astounding that America ONLY cares (that is America media only cares) when it can be used to stoke the fires of hate against Muslims. The seeds we are planting of hate around the world will reap such trouble for our children for centuries to come.
3
Muslims are killing Muslims and Christians and any other person that they don't like. Geller isn't a 'war monger', she has never killed or threatened a Muslim. More Muslims are killed by members of their own religion than by anyone else. The only hate in this world is coming from them.
It is beginning to resemble one of those 'sting' operations the FBI is known for - encourage a young malcontent Muslim, then, using an FBI handler, provide the means and wherewithal to commit a violent act....only in this case going awry.
If he was 'known' then they knew he had weaopons....or if not ...how did he purchase?
On the other hand,just think how many crazies would have attacked the festival if it had been a Jesus or Moses Cartoon Festival. You think the Bikers for God or some other rifgt-wing pro Christ(ian) or some rep from the Jewish Defense League group that killed 27 Muslims at prayer wouldn't have attacked......
But, a big BUT, such an event would probably NOT have been allowed since it would offend some Fundamental Christian sects or AIPAC or the Israel Embassy.
Funny how the thought of a 'Jesus(or Moses) Cartoon Festival is anathema in our society, but a 'Muhammed Cartoon Festival' is OK and considered by many to free speech.
Violence is always wrong....even in Islam. The prophet Muhammed himself loved jokes and when asked about those ridiculing hm...said something to the order of 'Ignore them' as I understand.
If he was 'known' then they knew he had weaopons....or if not ...how did he purchase?
On the other hand,just think how many crazies would have attacked the festival if it had been a Jesus or Moses Cartoon Festival. You think the Bikers for God or some other rifgt-wing pro Christ(ian) or some rep from the Jewish Defense League group that killed 27 Muslims at prayer wouldn't have attacked......
But, a big BUT, such an event would probably NOT have been allowed since it would offend some Fundamental Christian sects or AIPAC or the Israel Embassy.
Funny how the thought of a 'Jesus(or Moses) Cartoon Festival is anathema in our society, but a 'Muhammed Cartoon Festival' is OK and considered by many to free speech.
Violence is always wrong....even in Islam. The prophet Muhammed himself loved jokes and when asked about those ridiculing hm...said something to the order of 'Ignore them' as I understand.
2
This really has nothing to do with free speech. The merits of Ms. Geller's exhibition are irrelevant. The only thing that matters is that these Islamic extremist gunmen tried to kill those who were engaged in lawful activity. If you condone that, civilization is over. The gunmen got what they richly deserved.
22
Comments such as as these must be cries for attention or something, since no one who is sane could condone what the jihadists did. Can we stop the constant repetition of this nonsense? Please?
Under the guise of free speech, we are seeing an increase in hate speech against Christians and what they believe. It may be legal, but it is not noble or praiseworthy.
2
Criticism of Islam and Christianity has a long and noble history.
What I'm curious about is if Ms. Geller would award that 10 grand prize to a caricature of Mohammed which included an caricature of Jesus in the background drawn by an atheist/agnostic.
3
Draw one and submit it for next year's prize. Then you will be able to stop "wondering".
2
A plague on both sides. A new law of political physics: A stupid hateful action produces an even stupider and and more hateful reaction.
10
The people who organized the event knew that this event would stir up Muslims, and more specifically "jihadis". Why would they organize it in the first place and make it about "free speech"? Couldn't they find other means of free speech to discuss rather than making it about religion?
I am in utter disgust and awe at both the organizers and participants for supporting such an event. Although the actions of the shooters are not justifiable, the responsibility remains to lie on organizing this event in the first place. Prophet Muhammad is the most important person in Islam and for them to mock him is unfair. I have never seen an instance in which Muslims mocked any religion in any way.
I am in utter disgust and awe at both the organizers and participants for supporting such an event. Although the actions of the shooters are not justifiable, the responsibility remains to lie on organizing this event in the first place. Prophet Muhammad is the most important person in Islam and for them to mock him is unfair. I have never seen an instance in which Muslims mocked any religion in any way.
5
If any staff or civilians had been injured, Pamela Geller should have been made to pay for the medical care and the loss of wages they suffered.
Why do people think it's freedom of speech to denigrate the most revered spiritual leader of Muslim's world wide, but would be aghast of someone held an event with degenerating cartoons of Jesus, or the Pope?
This was a terrible crime, but one that was clearly provoked. In law there used to be a term called "fighting words" referring to an insult that was so provocative that a violent response was seen as similar to self defense. This doesn't justify attempted murder but why do some people feel the need to be so hateful to others most cherished beliefs? It's fine to disagree with their theology as theologians do all the time but to denigrate and insult is uncalled for.
This was a terrible crime, but one that was clearly provoked. In law there used to be a term called "fighting words" referring to an insult that was so provocative that a violent response was seen as similar to self defense. This doesn't justify attempted murder but why do some people feel the need to be so hateful to others most cherished beliefs? It's fine to disagree with their theology as theologians do all the time but to denigrate and insult is uncalled for.
6
'...Why do people think it's freedom of speech to denigrate the most revered spiritual leader of Muslim's world wide...'
Because it is 'freedom of speech', even though many commenters seem not to understand what that means?
Because it is 'freedom of speech', even though many commenters seem not to understand what that means?
1
The center where the shooting took place is owned by a local school district and is generally used for school purposes, including the administration of AP exams scheduled for the day after the shooting. It seems to me that the folks who run this center showed very bad judgment in renting their facility to a hate group.
12
Why is it that same liberal groups that defend the rights of atheist groups to mock Christianity at the Santa Monica CA Nativity Christmas display are saying these 'Draw Mohammed Protests' are bigoted and Islamaphobic? Why is it acceptable for 'artists' to make a Virgin Mary out of feces but a group can't draw cartoons of Mohammed. It seems like anti-Christian bigotry is acceptable but Americans must walk on eggshells to avoid offending Muslims for fear of terrorist attacks.
14
Because Islamopohbia was the intent, not free speech, and it got the violent action it intentionally provoked.
1
Free speech is free speech. We allow groups like Westboro Baptist Church to do the things they do under the cover of free speech, but this exhibit isn't allowed the same?
Oh, this particular event was too incendiary and provocative? Holding up signs that say "Thank God for Dead Soldiers!" at the funeral of a dead soldier isn't incendiary or provocative? Trampling an American flag on a public college campus in America isn't incendiary or provocative? The second event occurred in the "guns anywhere" state of Georgia which boasts some of the laxest gun laws in the country yet no one was shot there.
I think many of the people on here are strengthening Ms. Geller's point- you are no longer allowed to offend a "special class" of people. Free speech is free speech. Will you all be of a similar mind if a Christian shot up an event because of offensive caricatures of Jesus? How about a shooting spree committed by a homosexual in response to signs that say "God hates fags!"?
Ridiculous.
Oh, this particular event was too incendiary and provocative? Holding up signs that say "Thank God for Dead Soldiers!" at the funeral of a dead soldier isn't incendiary or provocative? Trampling an American flag on a public college campus in America isn't incendiary or provocative? The second event occurred in the "guns anywhere" state of Georgia which boasts some of the laxest gun laws in the country yet no one was shot there.
I think many of the people on here are strengthening Ms. Geller's point- you are no longer allowed to offend a "special class" of people. Free speech is free speech. Will you all be of a similar mind if a Christian shot up an event because of offensive caricatures of Jesus? How about a shooting spree committed by a homosexual in response to signs that say "God hates fags!"?
Ridiculous.
17
"Some peoples idea of freedom of speech is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone says anything back, that is an outrage" - Sir Winston Churchill
9
I don't know what that quote has to do with this situation. Are you suggesting that all the gunmen did was say something back? That they weren't shooting guns?
Two terrorists with military rifles totally defeated by a single traffic cop with a pistol.
Decisive proof that Allah is not on the side of Islamist murderers.
Decisive proof that Allah is not on the side of Islamist murderers.
3
That is because what they did is against the teachings of Islam.
1
When a religion proscribes conduct among non-believers it overreaches. It is perfectly reasonable for Islam to dictate that Muslims not depict Muhammad. But to expect Christians to abide by this rule is to proscribe conduct where Islam has no authority.
14
Why is it that the natural reaction to idiotic provocations (yeah, its liberty of expression, but of such poor taste you have to ask what's the point) like the one in Garland is to pick up a gun, instead of mosques around the U.S. offering a prize for funny or rude pictures of Jesus, or burning bibles, or what have you?
Offensive speech, even that which includes threats and defamation, is never an excuse to incite violence. The answer to offensive speech is to counter it with more speech!
The only thing that Mr. Simpson and Mr. Soofi accomplished was to reduce the incidence of stupidity in the human gene pool by two!
Doh!
The only thing that Mr. Simpson and Mr. Soofi accomplished was to reduce the incidence of stupidity in the human gene pool by two!
Doh!
9
It was said decades ago: "Free speech does not give you the right to yell 'Fire!' in a theater."
4
Many commenters are focused on the reprehensible, even racist conduct of the group, which seems bent on warring with Islam. Certainly their contest was insulting and provocative. But unless they are urging violence, they have the right to espouse their filth and the insulted do not have a right to shoot them for it. Its a kind of insecurity that some zealots feel, which causes them to think that murder is the answer for insult. But they are wrong and can only expect more Charlie Hebdoes and more Pamela Gellers to hurl insults their way, because bullies like to attack weakness. And their violence is sign of weakness.
6
The US 1st Amendment is a wonderful thing. Once you leave America you realize how few countries allow you to really speak your mind. It is a great thing. I may not like what you say but I will defend your right to say it.
17
You can't murder people - ya just can't do it.
12
Go to the Middle East, and you'll see things more clearly.
1
Making the argument that the provocateurs are to blame for the violence is akin to arguing that a woman deserves to be raped because of the way she is dressed. Each of us is responsible for our self control. The proportional response to words is words: may the best argument win. Personal violence is never justified except in defense of bodily harm.
21
This comment should have the 'coveted' gold seal. Well stated!
2
I'm a little shocked at the number of comments that start with an apology for the provocation--attacking the intended victims--then only parenthetically mention an aversion to violence. In fact, this was an overwhelming victory for Ms. Geller and her compatriots, illustrating the creed of irrational violence that infects a great number of adherents to the Islamic faith. Let's put the focus back where it should be--on those who advocate death for those who do not share their faith. It is, after all, the central fact governing nearly every aspect of our lives.
12
If I persistently poke at a Cobra snake, and then the snake attacks me, I am hardly an innocent "victim". If you read the companion article on Gellers, she organized this to provoke what she calls a "Jihad" response, and she got it. She is elated.
As the "contest" was purely for the purpose of taunting people who would respond violently, it was not for expression of an idea. It was to incite violence.
As the "contest" was purely for the purpose of taunting people who would respond violently, it was not for expression of an idea. It was to incite violence.
1
Murder is a crime.
Boorish, self-indulgent provocation is not.
Both are to be condemned.
No heroes here.
And no vital American interest or principle at stake.
Boorish, self-indulgent provocation is not.
Both are to be condemned.
No heroes here.
And no vital American interest or principle at stake.
1
It is inevitable there will be more "Draw Muhammad" contests in the future. But will there ever be an " Ignore Draw Muhammad Contest" among Muslims? If there were to be enough "" Ignore Draw Muhammad Contest" among Muslims then " Draw Muhammad" contests will be history. I do not any hope though.
2
Geller is this generation's Fred Phelps or Madelyn Murray O'Hair.
Inciting situations that let other people get killed for her "bold" views is cowardly.
Get out there and defend your events yourself, lady- you had no right to endanger that security guy.
Inciting situations that let other people get killed for her "bold" views is cowardly.
Get out there and defend your events yourself, lady- you had no right to endanger that security guy.
2
Something doesn't add up here....The guy was a 'jihadist terrorism suspect' , yet was walking the streets armed....I know friends who went to jail because they had a joint.....How many more are just walking the streets just waiting for orders.....Wake up....The danger is now right at your doorstep......
1
What did the assailants and these free speech true believers have in common? Hate.
Be careful America. This could get worse. Geller, Simpson, and Soofi, were birds of a feather. Hate wants more hate.
Be careful America. This could get worse. Geller, Simpson, and Soofi, were birds of a feather. Hate wants more hate.
4
I'm all for free speech, it's our right as Americans. But why would you do the equivalent of poking a hornets nest with a stick. These people will strap on a suicide vest just to be called a martyr and see what the afterlife is about. When a person tailors their life to suit their religion instead of tailoring their religion to suit their life you're going to run in to people who have a delusional concept on reality. I feel the same way my uncle felt about the Kamikaze pilots during WW2. They're insane! And so are the people who had the cartoon contest!
1
Yes we should defend the right for free speech, but events like this are provocative in the extreme. Drama of this kind is the fuel that keeps Ms. Geller on the front page – mission accomplished. More people could have been killed.
5
You either have the freedom of speech and expression or you don't. I don't like people stomping on the flag or burning it, but they still have that right.
If artists want to draw Mohamed then they deserve that right just as much as a flag burner.
If artists want to draw Mohamed then they deserve that right just as much as a flag burner.
4
Soofi and Simpson were both oblivious to the fact that Pamela Geller had set a trap for them, or any other Muslim ignorant enough to ignore the signs of a set-up. Why is she not under arrest for inciting to riot? Note that she was safe in her NYC apartment while the trap she set was in Texas .
6
Let me see ...these men didn't decide to put on body armor and pick up guns and drive to the even to shoot and kill people? They were trapped? It always amazes me how violent Muslims and other fanatics are viewed by some apologists as incapable of containing their anger or their violent tendencies and that that is always someone else's fault or incapable of independent thought. These men made a choice. They decided to react to this event violently rather than organize a protest. It was their choice. No trap. No excuses.
14
Read the comment about how the Mormons "shot up" people when The Book of Mormon was on Broadway (see below)....oh wait, they didn't do anything when someone made fun of their religion.....see how self-control works with free speech? Were the writers/directors/producers of The Book of Mormon charged with inciting a riot? Why not? Because no riot occurred. Blame the victim much?
5
Since when is it improper to trap murderous vermin before they do their damage. Certainly she has done more for our safety than the FBI.
2
A Garland traffic cop who took out two terrorists, armed with assault rifles and clad in body armor, with his handgun? First, amazing marksmanship--in the league of Roy Rodgers or the Lone Ranger. Second, exemplary bravery, if the news reports are accurate. This guy might be a real hero, in an era of so many fake heroes.
19
This wretched woman, Pamela Geller, knows what happened in Denmark and Paris. She set out to cause trouble, to pour gasoline on a fire. First Amendment rights are sacred, but common sense is common sense. She took her deliberately provocative act on the road to a town, near me, where she would find an audience. She got what she wanted. Bob Dylan gor it right in "Masters of War." "Even Jesus himself wouldn't forgive what you do." I wonder whether she ever has considered that radical has its crazies and radical anti-Islam has its own. They share more with each other than either shares with its supposed fellows.
15
I disagree with your position about Ms. Geller. Unless we exercise our right to Free Speech, we will lose it. She is doing for you what you will not do for yourself....stand up against these animals who are infecting our Nation. Do you think the natural consequence of exercising your free speech by having a cartoon contest about Moooohamid should be murder? She has the right to speak with as much unpleasantness and controversy as she wants.....after all, we do live in the United States of America, don't we? The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was never meant to just protect pleasant speech. It exists exclusively to protect unpleasant speech.
I wish all the commenters so appalled at the "provocations" could have been there in person to see people with guns open fire on people with cartoons. Maybe then you'd get it.
30
You see it's the politically correct crowd who will spell our doom.
2
My thanks and admiration to the police officer who, suddenly and unexpectedly, under fire from two determined suicide attackers with semi-automatic assault rifles is able to kill both of the attackers with his outgunned service revolver in seconds and so averted a massacre of civilians. He must be one cool marksmen and deserves the highest honors from this nation.
19
It ain't Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood, and I doubt Officer Friendly there was packing a revolver, but more likely a .40 or a 10-mm or a .45. The cops did well, and I agree, they deserve our highest respect for doing the right thing.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
10
And we, the Founding Fathers feel it is obvious that citizens who avail themselves of the aforementioned rights have a responsibility to use common sense? To wit, consider the environment at the time . Weigh the risk of harm and necessity of what you wish to do against your right.
And yet many religious people interpret that to mean that the government shall give religions 'special treatment', when it means the opposite, that the government shall remain neutral, neither for or against.
How do you suppose someone on the FBI's suspect list could get an assault rifle? But I forget, it is a violation of the Second Amendment to require a background check. Makes you wonder how many other home grown Jihadists have been visiting their local gun shop. I sure am glad Congress is so deeply committed to Homeland Security
15
Very good point, Wayne. I was thinking the same thing.
That traffic officer was quite the good shot. Killed them both with his pistol despite the fact they were wearing body armor. No easy task. Give him a medal.
21
From the time I was in High school I learned that there is a limit to free speech. One should not yell fire in a crowded movie theatre and if there is a stampede that kills a patron, one would be held responsible. Why can't some people grow up?
5
Drawing cartoons is not the equivalent of yelling fire in a crowded theater. Is drawing a picture of someone pushing the limits of free speech in this country?
1
If you don't believe in Free Speech you don't believe in this country. The organizers rented the facility, their event was behind closed doors, and they were not 'inciting' anyone. Incitement is walking in the street with signs that say 'Islam will conquer America'.
Get your fact set straight.
Get your fact set straight.
Kudos to the unnamed traffic cop that shot the two thugs, their full body armor and assault rifles notwithstanding. Hats off to you, Sir!
14
There's a lot of irony here in that the attackers accomplished nothing but creating publicity for the organizers of the event who I'm sure are delighted by all this.
6
Please don't publish their names and make their dream of being famous come true.
The correct response to this so-called "contest" would have been for hordes of cartoonists to show up and submit caricatures of Pamela Geller.
17
Exactly!
1
That's their right of free speech. Let 'em do it - although I doubt very many cartoonists would go given that she is not really the one who is trying to hinder the free speech (free hand) of cartoonists.....
2
Do you think her supporters would have reacted with attempted murder? that is the point, not the tastefulness or otherwise of the event.
3
It's understandable and necessary that there is a push-back to all the nasty things being done in the world in the name of Islam. But who exactly do these images offend; all Muslims, or just the violent ones? I'd like to know, because all we hear about are the extremists.
2
I sincerely believe my recent comments on another forum are, mutatis mutandis, almost equally applicable here:
"There is an extremely long history of denigrating, fustigating, and demonizing Islam in the West; viewed in that light Charlie Hebdo looks hoary and traditional, nothing radical about it. Albeit it does strike me as daft that they should expose themselves (for such a false and bankrupt cause) to the violent ire of demented and malleable socioeconomically marginalized individuals in their midst–for who is more likely than the psychologically disturbed to kill others (and indirectly themselves) over a transparent, even desperate, caricatural provocation? Such acts imply giving privileged and expert provocateurs the further privilege and importance of a determining value, and power, over life and death, one’s own as well as theirs. This ‘very serious’ signifying dance of life-entwined-with-death, in which both the magazine staff and attackers reciprocally participated, is quite obviously a folie, but ultimately a folie à tous."
"There is an extremely long history of denigrating, fustigating, and demonizing Islam in the West; viewed in that light Charlie Hebdo looks hoary and traditional, nothing radical about it. Albeit it does strike me as daft that they should expose themselves (for such a false and bankrupt cause) to the violent ire of demented and malleable socioeconomically marginalized individuals in their midst–for who is more likely than the psychologically disturbed to kill others (and indirectly themselves) over a transparent, even desperate, caricatural provocation? Such acts imply giving privileged and expert provocateurs the further privilege and importance of a determining value, and power, over life and death, one’s own as well as theirs. This ‘very serious’ signifying dance of life-entwined-with-death, in which both the magazine staff and attackers reciprocally participated, is quite obviously a folie, but ultimately a folie à tous."
Wrong! The only people doing a dance of death were the attackers. I am tired of comments that seem to imply the the individuals murdered in Paris were asking for it. No matter how elegant your writing that is what you are saying and I am offended. JE SUIS Charlie!
4
Have a contest making fun of Jews..the result is bad press, maybe. Have a play making fun of Mormons..the result is critical acclaim. Make fun of Christians and the result is it's art. Make fun of Muslims, and they try to kill you. What are you missing here......
40
Bill, Here's what I think is missing. The U.S. has been at war in Muslim countries. Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen. Both sides attract their own sympathizers. Muslims who oppose U.S. drone attacks, or military strikes in Muslim countries don't need additional provocation from people like Pam Geller handing out prize money for drawing cartoons that insult their faith. They are angry enough as it is that U.S. troops are operating in what they believe are Muslim lands.
Why don't we have a cartoon contest in New York? We could have many categories.....Nazi style caricatures of Jews....Blacks with big lips and watermelons.....Priests abusing children......gays engaged in bath house behavior. Lets see how many 1st Amendment champions defend the right to have such a cartoon contest.
I remember when there was a Robert Mapplethorpe photography exhibition that included an image of a crucifix in a jar of urine. Catholics went nuts. Not to many back then defending the exhibition. And unlike this "Mohammad cartoon contest", the purpose of that exhibition was not to provoke violence.
I remember when there was a Robert Mapplethorpe photography exhibition that included an image of a crucifix in a jar of urine. Catholics went nuts. Not to many back then defending the exhibition. And unlike this "Mohammad cartoon contest", the purpose of that exhibition was not to provoke violence.
6
Excuse me, how do you know that the purpose of the event in Texas was to provoke violence? It is my understanding The purpose was to express an opinion about the privileged view some have of Islam, that is, it cannot be criticized and Muslims may not be offended for fear of death. The violent consequences were the decision of the attackers. Their choice made the event's point.
3
Sure, Catholics went nuts, but there was no violence! Is the difference so difficult to understand?
2
Gellers organized this to provoke "Jihadists". As Jihadists react violently, she organized this taunting event to get a "Jihad" response.
Under the guise of free speech, we are seeing a rise in racism and hate speech against muslims. Legal, yes, but not exactly noble or praiseworthy.
14
Let's see your evidence
Islam is not a race. It is a religious ideology. Criticizing, campaigning against, even insulting an idea can not be racist. It is freedom thought in action and essential to the search for truth. No idea that can not stand that is worth consideration as possibly true.
1
If that cop runs for President, he will win.
4
No religious group has the right to kill others because they or their behavior is offensive. In the US the First Amendment must always take precedence. Let the chips - or the bullets - fall where they may.
13
Reading the countless astonishing comments which, one way or another, blame the organizers for this event, it makes me understand a term I recall from history, "defeatism".
23
In Plano, Texas today , there was an anti-Moslem to draw in Jihadists by advertising a contest for anti-Mohammed comics. When the two Jihadists showed up they were shot dead. This reminds me of a Honey Pot plot against cyber attacks - the attackers are lured into a side net where they are found out, isolated and targeted.
This is also reminiscent of the immoral statement by George Bush Jr, "Come Get Me".
It is an encouragement to simple and immoral entrapment. America must not execute such judgments - we must immediately eliminate Honey Pots, police entrapment, and death traps for well-meaning Jihadists!
As an American citizen born in Phoenix and still living in Arizona I believe this act was irreprehensible!
This is also reminiscent of the immoral statement by George Bush Jr, "Come Get Me".
It is an encouragement to simple and immoral entrapment. America must not execute such judgments - we must immediately eliminate Honey Pots, police entrapment, and death traps for well-meaning Jihadists!
As an American citizen born in Phoenix and still living in Arizona I believe this act was irreprehensible!
3
They didn't just "show up" like they were taking in the sights....they came armed to the teeth with the goal of killing as many people as possible...yes, the contest was asinine and obviously antagonistic, but no one was forcing them to attend, their goal was murder.
1
@Wolff: "When the two Jihadists showed up they were shot dead."
I guess you mean your comment to be satirical, but the "two Jihadists" arrived with weapons, not with art supplies.
I guess you mean your comment to be satirical, but the "two Jihadists" arrived with weapons, not with art supplies.
The organizers behind this event are well known foreign-born provocateurs who have openly declared their bigotry against Islam and Muslims. Their objective is quite clear: the current racism against Muslims in Europe ought to be shared in the United States of America.
It is abundantly obvious to many that the event was designed to bait and goad irresponsible behavior and actions from a few -possibly deranged and disenfranchised- individuals who claim to act in the name of Islam.
According to the Pew Research Center, and I quote: "American Muslims are one of the most well “assimilated,” best educated, highest income religious minorities in America. By overwhelming margins, Muslim Americans are satisfied with the way things are going in their own lives and rate their local communities as good places to live. And Muslim Americans are far more likely than the general public to express satisfaction with national conditions."
This is anathema to the likes of Geller, Wilders and Hirsi Ali...who will exert every effort to foment European style anti-Islamic sentiment to our shores.
It is abundantly obvious to many that the event was designed to bait and goad irresponsible behavior and actions from a few -possibly deranged and disenfranchised- individuals who claim to act in the name of Islam.
According to the Pew Research Center, and I quote: "American Muslims are one of the most well “assimilated,” best educated, highest income religious minorities in America. By overwhelming margins, Muslim Americans are satisfied with the way things are going in their own lives and rate their local communities as good places to live. And Muslim Americans are far more likely than the general public to express satisfaction with national conditions."
This is anathema to the likes of Geller, Wilders and Hirsi Ali...who will exert every effort to foment European style anti-Islamic sentiment to our shores.
14
@tewfic el-sawy: "The organizers behind this event are well known foreign-born ..."
Pamela Geller was born in the US:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pamela_Geller
Pamela Geller was born in the US:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pamela_Geller
Islam is not a race. It is an ideology and people have a right and perhaps even an obligation to criticize whatever they find wrong therein. Making fun of Muslims is no more racist than making fun of snake handlers or alien abductees.
1
Her hatred of Muslims go beyond the boundaries of sanity. She blames the entire Islamic world for the actions of a few extremists. It must be awful to live a life so full of vitriol and hate for others. My Muslim neighbors are wonderful people with beautiful children. It makes me smile to see them laugh and play.
10
Amazing how many people don't believe in the first amendment.
29
Anyone out there concerned with the security officer who got shot? Or his or her family? I'm reading all of these opinions of how we all have a right to free speech, and no one should be surprised by the reaction of some radical Muslims, but someone died because of these actions.
How would you feel if the person who got shot was a child walking home from school? How about if you were related to that child? That security guard was someone's child, and everyone's life is significant. That fact that most of you don't seem the least bit concerned with a life wasted is the worst revelation of all out of this entire sad affair.
How would you feel if the person who got shot was a child walking home from school? How about if you were related to that child? That security guard was someone's child, and everyone's life is significant. That fact that most of you don't seem the least bit concerned with a life wasted is the worst revelation of all out of this entire sad affair.
5
Thecsecirity guard was not killed. He was treated at the hospital and released.
1
@David R: "Anyone out there concerned with the security officer who got shot? ... someone died because of these actions."
From the article: "The school officer, who was unarmed, was shot in the lower leg, but was later treated and released from a hospital."
From the article: "The school officer, who was unarmed, was shot in the lower leg, but was later treated and released from a hospital."
1
Fortunately, the security guard was shot in the ankle, treated, and released from the hospital. It could have been so much worse.
It is not surprising that a hate group attracted a hate group.
It is apparent they are both OK with people who have nothing to do with either of them getting killed. I hope they are going to support the policeman's family because they provoked the situation that caused his death. Ms. Geller and the killers are all fanatics. Pitiful. I feel for the policeman's family- what a waste to lose a loved one for people's idiocy.
5
One fanatic shoots, the other speaks. That puts them in different moral universes. One I can live with, the other I can't.
Anyone who used the word "but" in their condemnation misses the fundamental point of free speech. It will invariably offend SOMEONE. But it is SPEECH and as such must be allowed to be voiced.
23
We have a Constitution that prohibits the government from preventing free space. In fact, the government did nothing to prevent free space.
Whatever these two started off as, and irrespective of how their associates may spin this incident, they ended-up as dangerous and heavily armed thugs taking their chances against trained protectors - thanks to the Garland officer and all of our emergency responders...
16
Another police involved shooting. Couldn't the officer have tried to de-escalate the situation rather than immediately resorting to deadly force?
6
Are you serious? They showed up ready to murder people in cold blood?
The article stated that as soon as their car pulled up to the police car the two men jumped out and using their car for cover began firing assault weapons at the officers. Tell me how you would de escalate that situation?
It may not bother you if people make fun of your religious gods and leaders. But it seems real evident Muslims take great offence at like people making fun of their Prophet Muhammad. This isn't rocket science. Why don't you stop doing that? Is this a road rage thing? Why are you intentionally making them mad?
7
Because America has free speech. That is the point. People with guns don't get to decide; we don't self-censor to keep them comfortable.
3
"Why don't you stop doing that [making fun of Muhammad]?"
Because I take great offense when someone tells me to stop making fun of something or he will kill me.
That's extortion. It offends me deeply.
Because I take great offense when someone tells me to stop making fun of something or he will kill me.
That's extortion. It offends me deeply.
1
What if they decide next that women walking around without being covered head to toe in black offends them? What then?
1
I'm sure Pam Heller is proud of bringing her manufactured outrage more publicity.
You don't yell fire in a crowded theater. You don't poke a rattlesnakes' nest. But def hold a "Draw cartoons of Mohammed contest" in Texas where everyone's guaranteed to be armed and frothing, while you're surrounded with $10 grand in protection.
Also pretty sure she's disappointed only two Muslims dead.
This isn't defending free speech. It's baiting a trap.
The lack of results show how ridiculous she and her "Sharia is here!" group are, and why they must go to such extremes to keep people riled up.
The antithesis of civilized behavior.
You don't yell fire in a crowded theater. You don't poke a rattlesnakes' nest. But def hold a "Draw cartoons of Mohammed contest" in Texas where everyone's guaranteed to be armed and frothing, while you're surrounded with $10 grand in protection.
Also pretty sure she's disappointed only two Muslims dead.
This isn't defending free speech. It's baiting a trap.
The lack of results show how ridiculous she and her "Sharia is here!" group are, and why they must go to such extremes to keep people riled up.
The antithesis of civilized behavior.
8
The article describes Geller as attacking Islam. Yet her 'attacks' are just words- rude, yes, but not deadly.
This country has no place for those who believe they can murder because someone offended them.
This country has no place for those who believe they can murder because someone offended them.
36
Two pairs of terrorists. One in Paris, One in Texas. Entirely different outcomes. Those who advocate European style gun prohibition in the US should ponder that thought.....
13
Very bad analogy. The Texas event was *planned* with heavy security. Further, there is no indication, so far, that any civilians, other than the attackers, fired their weapons. From the article:
*"Weeks ago, Garland police commanders, assisted by city and school district officials, came up with a security plan ..."
* "The group paid an additional $10,000 for a heightened security presence at the event that included scores of uniformed officers, a bomb squad and a police SWAT team in military fatigues, the authorities said."
*"Weeks ago, Garland police commanders, assisted by city and school district officials, came up with a security plan ..."
* "The group paid an additional $10,000 for a heightened security presence at the event that included scores of uniformed officers, a bomb squad and a police SWAT team in military fatigues, the authorities said."
1
But, the terrorists weren't stopped by scores of SWAT team members....they we're put down by one brave traffic cop.....
I don't understand your point--the terrorists in Texas were shot by a policeman, not an armed civilian.
Sad again, on both sides. I choose freedom of speech over religious opinion any day; a religion should be strong enough to brook any criticism whatsoever, no matter how sophisticated or puerile.
But I point out two things: (1) Anyone ridiculing Israel or Judaism would immediately be labeled "anti-Semitic", no matter how justified the ridicule may be. (2) I don't know of any Islamist ridiculing the pope or Chrisitanity.
But I point out two things: (1) Anyone ridiculing Israel or Judaism would immediately be labeled "anti-Semitic", no matter how justified the ridicule may be. (2) I don't know of any Islamist ridiculing the pope or Chrisitanity.
10
@R: "I don't know of any Islamist ridiculing the pope or Chrisitanity."
Please cite a source other than yourself.
Please cite a source other than yourself.
Somebody ridiculing Israel or Judaism might be labeled anti-semitic (though Israelis and Jews ridicule themselves quite a big), or maybe they wouldn't - it depends.
In any event nobody would attempt to murder them, and that's exactly the point.
Reacting to speech with speech is fine; reacting with violence is not. There is no moral equivalence between the two.
In any event nobody would attempt to murder them, and that's exactly the point.
Reacting to speech with speech is fine; reacting with violence is not. There is no moral equivalence between the two.
1
Isn't it time to stop making fun of other people's religions?
4
Nope.
5
Isn't it time that humans stopped killing other humans in the name of fairy tales?
Isn't it time to stop committing murder because someone offends one's religion? Or is that an adequate response?
4
"I'm mad about this or that so I think I'll drive home and try to lure other drivers into causing accidents--especially those who appear to be a bit wacko. Hey it's my Constitutional right!"
5
Theo Van Gogh, in 2004 in Amsterdam, probably the most tolerant freedom proud city on this planet, was shot and stabbed to death after making a film about the intolerance of Islam toward women called "Submission."
And ever since that November day there has been an almost relentless upping of the ante by purveyors of the 'cult to protect the sanctity of Islam.'
Yet, provocation by the progressive side has not worked to desensitize the emotions of the offended, and both sides have reached a sort of uneasy stalemate. If 'we' say nothing offensive we are allowed to go about our profane lives, and if we dare show ourselves to be supporters of free speech, then we take on the risk of being attacked or killed. After more than a decade of this tiresome violence, it hardly seems worth it anymore. But that is I think exactly the point. The individuals that continually attack and kill those who support the expressions of free speech are hoping that eventually the rest of us just give up and stop modes of expression that are offensive to them. They do have time on their side- it appears that at some point, after enough attacks, enough bloodshed, the free speech advocates will take their tents and go home. The other side will declare a kind of moral victory and then ratchet up their demands until we give in on the next sacred cow as well. The irony is that all this is going on in the west, where supposedly these freedoms have been fought for and won many years ago.
And ever since that November day there has been an almost relentless upping of the ante by purveyors of the 'cult to protect the sanctity of Islam.'
Yet, provocation by the progressive side has not worked to desensitize the emotions of the offended, and both sides have reached a sort of uneasy stalemate. If 'we' say nothing offensive we are allowed to go about our profane lives, and if we dare show ourselves to be supporters of free speech, then we take on the risk of being attacked or killed. After more than a decade of this tiresome violence, it hardly seems worth it anymore. But that is I think exactly the point. The individuals that continually attack and kill those who support the expressions of free speech are hoping that eventually the rest of us just give up and stop modes of expression that are offensive to them. They do have time on their side- it appears that at some point, after enough attacks, enough bloodshed, the free speech advocates will take their tents and go home. The other side will declare a kind of moral victory and then ratchet up their demands until we give in on the next sacred cow as well. The irony is that all this is going on in the west, where supposedly these freedoms have been fought for and won many years ago.
24
Brilliantly stated and effectively addresses those who advocate submission.
1
Not surprising for a make fun of Mohammed competition. The organizers were hoping this would happen.
18
I seem to remember a crucifix in a tub of urine being called art. But I don't remember anyone being shot over it. I remember a picture of Christ made of elephant dung. Mayor Giuliani tried to ban it and failed but no one got shot over it. There is a theme here. There is one standard for Muslims and another for everyone else. We should have Mohammed drawing contests everywhere, every day until everyone learns that in a pluralistic society you can not respond to offensive materials with violence.
51
"There is a theme here. There is one standard for Muslims and another for everyone else. "
Maybe you should google Foxman + Cartoon to see the 'standards'.
Maybe you should google Foxman + Cartoon to see the 'standards'.
1
I remember a beautiful, spiritual picture made by an African Christian artist from traditional materials used by artists in his culture. And I remember Giuliani and a lot of other bigots making a horrible fuss about it because they believed only European traditions could be used to produce Christian religious art. But I don't see how that supports your point.
There is absolutely no way to defend the actions of the two gunman who were killed, but it must be said that the organizers of this senselessly provocative display must bear a share of the responsibility.
16
But nothing. The people exhibiting the drawings are not to blame. People offended by drawings of Muhammad can roll their eyes and look the other direction. They can stay away from the exhibition and peacefully speak out against what they find offensive. They have no right to shoot people. Good grief!
1
I'm a libertarian and people can hold a Mohammed cartoon contest if they want.
But its a pretty stupid thing to do.
But its a pretty stupid thing to do.
23
Stupid is the operative word. The woman who organized the event should be held accountable for the response they were hoping to get. Shameful act against humanity. No excuse for violence, but enciting violence is no excuse, either.
2
No, that's not how freedom works in America or anywhere for that matter. That's like blaming a rape victim. You know what should be the response? "Radical Muslims should stop being radical". You kind of victim blaming disgusts me.
5
How did she incite violence? What was the horrible thing she did - set up a human sacrifice? Hurt a child? Threaten bodily harm?
Think.
Think.
2
The only people who should carry guns are properly trained and vetted police officers. In this case, officers put their guns to good use, saving many lives. You'll notice that bystanders with guns were not involved and should never be in my opinion.
9
The purpose of violence, physical or psychological, is to silence, demean, denigrate, eliminate from contention, control etc. the target. There's no difference from the point of view of the perpetrator as to how it's accomplished. The sharp differences noted between psychological and physical violence result from taking on the victims' perspectives. Psychological violence includes hate speech, harrassment, lawsuits, insults, screaming, sarcasm to name but a few.
To the extent civilizations and cultures prefer psychological violence over physical violence to control minorities, referring to ethnicity, religion or other differentiations, it seems more related to the position on a timeline continuum of "civilized" existence rather than to the principles themselves of tolerance, free speech/expression etc.
US and by extension Western civilization has certainly had tolerant and intolerant moments both respecting physical and psychological aggression. Periods of religious tolerance were observed in the Ottoman, Russian and Byzantine empires to name some notables.
I realize people feel better when hearing victims were not killed, raped, relieved of property and possessions etc. and were only oppressed by some form of psychological manipulation.
To the extent civilizations and cultures prefer psychological violence over physical violence to control minorities, referring to ethnicity, religion or other differentiations, it seems more related to the position on a timeline continuum of "civilized" existence rather than to the principles themselves of tolerance, free speech/expression etc.
US and by extension Western civilization has certainly had tolerant and intolerant moments both respecting physical and psychological aggression. Periods of religious tolerance were observed in the Ottoman, Russian and Byzantine empires to name some notables.
I realize people feel better when hearing victims were not killed, raped, relieved of property and possessions etc. and were only oppressed by some form of psychological manipulation.
2
I'm shocked, shocked, that a provocative event would generate violence in the United States of America. Lets not forget that the civil rights movement was met with assassinations and firebombings. The drive to end abortion has also been littered with bombed abortion clinics and the occasional murdered abortion provider. And, of course, there was Oklahoma City. Where emotions run high and are mixed with fundamentalist or idealist thinking, one has both the matches and gasoline.
So let's not get too sanctimonious about Muslims acting out. Its as American as apple pie. Tolerance is not just about being nice to people you don't like. Its about finding ways in a democratic society to vent one's spleen and make change short of gunfire. Muslim extremists are just the latest nutjobs to join the party, but the enemy is extremism, not Islam. One could find plenty of passages in the Old Testament that would result in murder and mayhem if taken literally. Its the Age of Reason that separates us from going back to the caves.
So let's not get too sanctimonious about Muslims acting out. Its as American as apple pie. Tolerance is not just about being nice to people you don't like. Its about finding ways in a democratic society to vent one's spleen and make change short of gunfire. Muslim extremists are just the latest nutjobs to join the party, but the enemy is extremism, not Islam. One could find plenty of passages in the Old Testament that would result in murder and mayhem if taken literally. Its the Age of Reason that separates us from going back to the caves.
22
We can and should strongly condemn and reject both the violence by Islamic extremists and the hate that American Defense Freedom Initiative and Pamela Geller are spreading. Our thinking on free speech needs to be more nuanced, not stuck in an absolutist straightjacket that leads to a fanaticism of "freedom." The moment we make something absolute, by rejecting responsibility and self restraint, we are no longer free.
Our society has chosen to have legally defined "hate crimes." That means there is "hate speech" that necessarily precedes such crimes. The message of AFDI and Geller is not about free speech but about hate. By targeting the Islam itself with hate, AFDI are making us more enemies by antagonizing all Muslims. Our fight is with the extremists who use religion as justification for killing; it is not with Islam and its prophet or the vast majority of Muslims who are peace loving.
The event at Garland is like poking the hornet nest. As it has been said, just because we reserve the right to offend, does not mean the offended will not react, violently sometimes. And who got hurt? The security guard who did not choose to be there but needed to be there as a job. When the cartoonists in Europe decided to draw Prophet Mohammad as an act of defiance, people else where in the world got killed. What consolation was it to those killed that we were able to proclaim the sanctity of free speech?
How can we not see this is very foolish and also very wrong?
Our society has chosen to have legally defined "hate crimes." That means there is "hate speech" that necessarily precedes such crimes. The message of AFDI and Geller is not about free speech but about hate. By targeting the Islam itself with hate, AFDI are making us more enemies by antagonizing all Muslims. Our fight is with the extremists who use religion as justification for killing; it is not with Islam and its prophet or the vast majority of Muslims who are peace loving.
The event at Garland is like poking the hornet nest. As it has been said, just because we reserve the right to offend, does not mean the offended will not react, violently sometimes. And who got hurt? The security guard who did not choose to be there but needed to be there as a job. When the cartoonists in Europe decided to draw Prophet Mohammad as an act of defiance, people else where in the world got killed. What consolation was it to those killed that we were able to proclaim the sanctity of free speech?
How can we not see this is very foolish and also very wrong?
12
You can't have it both ways.
2
'...Our thinking on free speech needs to be more nuanced...'
Based on?
What is popular or politically correct?
Or 'nice'?
Based on?
What is popular or politically correct?
Or 'nice'?
1
But what in the name of human decency would prompt anyone go to the trouble of organizing an anti-Islam hate event, anyway? Christian love, I suppose. Atheism is the cure for Christianity and Islam and all of the world's tribal hatreds.
18
The organizer is Jewish, not Christian.
5
And the attendees? What percent were Jews? I'll say it once more: Atheism is the cure for all of the world's tribal hatreds.
Pamela Geller ought to be in prison. She nearly accomplished her objective, to provoke the murder of dozens of people. She is one sick lady, sick with ignorance and sick with hate, a bacillus infecting the nation with hate, stupidity and ignorance.
23
I had never heard of Ms. Geller or of the organizations with which she is involved until reading this article.
I second Notafan's comments here. What a despicable person she is, as no doubt are all of the attendees to this unbelievably moronic and incendiary event. "Free speech"? Please. Ms. Geller and her funders/supporters are clearly deliberate inciters of violence. What is the consequence of these foolish actions? The unnecessary deaths of two young men, while at the same time putting sundry civilians and police officers at mortal risk.
Not only is the deliberate incitement to violence despicable on Ms. Geller's part, but her obvious and immediate reveling in the deaths of these young men, who no doubt were suffering from one severe psychological impairment or another, is beyond the Pale. Why is this woman not under indictment for deliberating inciting violence? Also, why is a vile racist blowhard like Wilders allowed into the USA?
I second Notafan's comments here. What a despicable person she is, as no doubt are all of the attendees to this unbelievably moronic and incendiary event. "Free speech"? Please. Ms. Geller and her funders/supporters are clearly deliberate inciters of violence. What is the consequence of these foolish actions? The unnecessary deaths of two young men, while at the same time putting sundry civilians and police officers at mortal risk.
Not only is the deliberate incitement to violence despicable on Ms. Geller's part, but her obvious and immediate reveling in the deaths of these young men, who no doubt were suffering from one severe psychological impairment or another, is beyond the Pale. Why is this woman not under indictment for deliberating inciting violence? Also, why is a vile racist blowhard like Wilders allowed into the USA?
@Notafan: "Pamela Geller ought to be in prison."
You are getting ahead of the rule of law. First, you need to cite a crime. Here is a complete list of Federal crimes:
18 U.S. Code Part I - CRIMES
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I
You are getting ahead of the rule of law. First, you need to cite a crime. Here is a complete list of Federal crimes:
18 U.S. Code Part I - CRIMES
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I
1
Regardless of the right to have it there is no way to reasonably justify this event.
Compensation is not a reason it is pathology.
The organizers got exactly what they wanted to get.
The two dead men are the other side of the same coin.
Compensation is not a reason it is pathology.
The organizers got exactly what they wanted to get.
The two dead men are the other side of the same coin.
9
No, we are FREE To look at anything at all in this country - otherwise, we should close the arts exhibitions in all the major cities here immediately. So much for, ''Piss Christ.''
9
@Steve Austin: "... we are FREE To look at anything at all in this country ..."
Not exactly. Possession of child pornography is a crime.
Not exactly. Possession of child pornography is a crime.
To all the people who talk about "in your face" and "taunting" - nobody forces Muslims to go to these things. Nobody says Muslims have to listen. The Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) himself, said that when people heard others talking about bad things or insulting Islam, to simply move away from the conversation and then come back later. However, Islam has metastasized because the Uluma, or religious scholars, interpreted Islam through the centuries. Given such a backlog of religious thinking back in the days when the world was very different, a lot of religious rulings have little to do with today's world. I have a lot of respect for Islam and I have Muslim friends. They don't go around shooting up everybody who does something that offends them on religious grounds, though.
23
Jews didn't have to attend Nazi events and nobody had to listen what the Nazis were saying (and doing). It's time to stop hate under the disguise of freedom of speech.
1
It's amazing how many so-called "progressives" are directing most of their anger towards people drawing cartoons rather than those trying to murder other human beings.
Christianity has been viciously and furiously assaulted and offended for the past several decades in the name of free speech. I guarantee you not one of the people condemning Gellar for "going too far" ever uttered a peep towards the likes of Matt Stone and Trey Parker (creators of South Park, whose anti-Christian "jokes" make even the most offensive Mohammad cartoon look like a kindergartner's finger painting by comparison). Or the countless other "comedians" who've spent the better part of their careers insulting Christians.
In fact, I would bet that the VAST majority of these same people would be defending their right to do so.
What is behind this perverse, distorted narrative where criticism and ridicule of Christianity is allowed (if not endorsed) but Islam is not?
Muslims and non-Muslims alike need to get something perfectly clear:
Insulting Jesus is just as offensive to Christians as insulting Mohammad is to Muslims.
Of course, Christians do not typically act out with violence when their beliefs are offended. Maybe they should start.
If Christians started attacking people every time their religion was mocked or insulted, those blaming Gellar for "inciting violence" would have no other choice but to say the same towards the anti-Christian offenders.
Unless of course they are just hypocrites.
Christianity has been viciously and furiously assaulted and offended for the past several decades in the name of free speech. I guarantee you not one of the people condemning Gellar for "going too far" ever uttered a peep towards the likes of Matt Stone and Trey Parker (creators of South Park, whose anti-Christian "jokes" make even the most offensive Mohammad cartoon look like a kindergartner's finger painting by comparison). Or the countless other "comedians" who've spent the better part of their careers insulting Christians.
In fact, I would bet that the VAST majority of these same people would be defending their right to do so.
What is behind this perverse, distorted narrative where criticism and ridicule of Christianity is allowed (if not endorsed) but Islam is not?
Muslims and non-Muslims alike need to get something perfectly clear:
Insulting Jesus is just as offensive to Christians as insulting Mohammad is to Muslims.
Of course, Christians do not typically act out with violence when their beliefs are offended. Maybe they should start.
If Christians started attacking people every time their religion was mocked or insulted, those blaming Gellar for "inciting violence" would have no other choice but to say the same towards the anti-Christian offenders.
Unless of course they are just hypocrites.
38
It is not that ridiculing Islam and Muslims is not "allowed," or that if people doing it deserved to be shot; but it's the question if it is a wise thing, a helpful thing to do, in a society where we can all live harmoniously together with respect and tolerance.
If the cartoons of the prophet are drawn as an expression of hatred toward Muslims, then it is not about free speech but their hate. It is this hate I am criticizing and disapproving. Lately, police officers have been fired from their job because they expressed racist views on internet sites or even in their private emails and texts. Would they be fired if they draw cartoons of Prophet Mohammad?
If the cartoons of the prophet are drawn as an expression of hatred toward Muslims, then it is not about free speech but their hate. It is this hate I am criticizing and disapproving. Lately, police officers have been fired from their job because they expressed racist views on internet sites or even in their private emails and texts. Would they be fired if they draw cartoons of Prophet Mohammad?
Free speech doesn't kill people. Guns do.
30
The constitutional right of free speech, is about freedom to speak against the government without being subject to persecution by the government. It iffers no protection against gratuitous hate speech against one person or a group.
Guns don't kill people, people do, including people with speech that promotes hatred and ignorance.
I classify this a more akin to shouting "fire" in a crowded theater. Everyone needs to step back and not incite the crazies among us, especially those with guns.
8
The actual ruling, around 70 years old, involved shouting fire in a crowded theatre FALSELY.
I think there is an actual fire here, i.e., radical Islam.
Keep shouting Pam Geller. Indeed.
I think there is an actual fire here, i.e., radical Islam.
Keep shouting Pam Geller. Indeed.
4
Its not like shouting fire in a crowded theater. Its like going to see a show in a theater that makes fun of religion (ie Book of Mormon) and getting shot there.
People have been making fun of Catholics, Jews, WASPS, Quakers, Buddhists (those are some of the funniest, by the way) -- and about the god or gods they worship -- since time out of mind. But all of sudden, when the Muslim deity or prophet is up for some ribbing, bullets start flying. Sorry, but I find it hard to muster much respect for a faith that seems far more likely to respond to criticism with guns and bombs than with a considered, logical argument for its tenets (or, god forbid, with some self-deprecating humor of its own). Geller and her ilk are disgusting, irresponsible creatures -- but, unless I missed this part, they haven't yet taken to murder.
34
Murdering by guns and bombs is very direct and clear. You know what kill you.
But how do you suppose Simpson and Soofi got the idea it's their duty to kill "infidels" if not through the speeches from Islamic extremists who distort the teachings of Islam and its prophet?
When Westerner "self radicalized," they do not do it in vacuum, but through being influenced by others' speeches spread verbally or in writing by some persons or websites.
Speech do have consequences that can lead to killing. It's never "free."
But how do you suppose Simpson and Soofi got the idea it's their duty to kill "infidels" if not through the speeches from Islamic extremists who distort the teachings of Islam and its prophet?
When Westerner "self radicalized," they do not do it in vacuum, but through being influenced by others' speeches spread verbally or in writing by some persons or websites.
Speech do have consequences that can lead to killing. It's never "free."
The NSA’s illegal gathering of all citizens’ electronic communications didn’t prevent deaths by terrorists in Garland, TX. I think the NSA’s next step should be taken right from the pages of George Orwell’s, “1984:” mounted cameras and listening devices in everybody’s home; 24/7 domestic drone surveillance from sea to shining sea and all U.S. mail opened and read by CIA agents posted in each post office and air express mail service before being sent. One might consider resurrecting the injustice done to Japanese Americans in WWII and intern all American Muslim citizens to relocation camps for the duration of our war against terrorism (i.e. forever).
Open-ended U.S. Wars of aggression/acts of terrorism throughout the Muslim world, Indiscriminate Aerial bombardment by jets, drones and cruise missiles, use of JSOC hit squads, torture and military occupation does not win over the hearts and minds of people. It just draws more and more people to join the ranks of extremist groups bent on violent reprisals against the U.S. You can bet there will be more and more deadly violence in the U.S. committed by terrorists.
Open-ended U.S. Wars of aggression/acts of terrorism throughout the Muslim world, Indiscriminate Aerial bombardment by jets, drones and cruise missiles, use of JSOC hit squads, torture and military occupation does not win over the hearts and minds of people. It just draws more and more people to join the ranks of extremist groups bent on violent reprisals against the U.S. You can bet there will be more and more deadly violence in the U.S. committed by terrorists.
6
I am a practicing Muslim, born and raised in the USA.
My thoughts on this issue:
1. Any group has any right to hold any anti-Islamic rally in the USA (or anywhere in the world). All the power to such group(s).
2. Any group or individual in the USA (or anywhere in the world) has the right to criticize or make fun of any one of my prophets (from Abraham to Jesus Christ to Mohammad). All to the power to such individual(s).
3. Any member of my religion that does not grasp the above concepts is a sad individual, for that person has no concept about either the religion or freedom of speech.
4. Any member of my religion that resorts to violence against those who criticize my religion or my prophets is a most sad and evil individual.
5. Islam is not for everybody. There are just some people in my religion that would be better off drinking a few beers, smoking a few joints, staying home, and not trying to "represent" us.
My thoughts on this issue:
1. Any group has any right to hold any anti-Islamic rally in the USA (or anywhere in the world). All the power to such group(s).
2. Any group or individual in the USA (or anywhere in the world) has the right to criticize or make fun of any one of my prophets (from Abraham to Jesus Christ to Mohammad). All to the power to such individual(s).
3. Any member of my religion that does not grasp the above concepts is a sad individual, for that person has no concept about either the religion or freedom of speech.
4. Any member of my religion that resorts to violence against those who criticize my religion or my prophets is a most sad and evil individual.
5. Islam is not for everybody. There are just some people in my religion that would be better off drinking a few beers, smoking a few joints, staying home, and not trying to "represent" us.
67
Freedom to criticize and ridicule religion, any religion, without being murdered is critical for any open and decent society. Drawing cartoons of Muhammad is not gratuitous, it's fine. This organization however, would be far more credible if it had Jesus cartoons as well. As it is the group just appears as one of anti-Islamic bigotry rather than simply one that exercises its right to critique theism.
18
Right, this is about being anti-Islam, not about free speech.
Was the attack reprehensible? OF course, but the organizers of the exhibit were provacateurs who put the security guards at risk. In essence they cared more about making their point than whether their employees might be killed.
84
I hope the families of the security guards bring a law suit against this organization, its leaders, and are successful.
The organizers held a peaceful gathering of artists and went out of their way, at considerable expense, to provide for the artists' safety. It was two lunatics who believed that THEY had the right (indeed, the duty) to take the life of people they disagreed with "who put the security guards at risk"
2
If you create conditions that lead to the callous taking of human life or the attempt to take human life, isn't that attempted manslaughter? Ms. Geller would certainly change her tune of moneyed privilege if she was held responsible for creating conditions that put the security guards knowingly at risk.
This sounds like a good plan. We should just keep saying we are holding viewings of collections of art ridiculing Islam and then when the nuts show up to kill people and prove what a religion of peace Islam is, we ambush them. No one will be at these "showings" of course but it will be like putting deadly rat bait out.
14
Why does a Texas school provide their facilities to a hate group? What the heck are they teaching the kids?
13
Why are those graphic artists a hate group? They merely drew pictures of an imaginary face.
If you say the word Yahweh aloud near orthodox Jews, are you a Jew hater?
If you say the word Yahweh aloud near orthodox Jews, are you a Jew hater?
10
H. Tailor....you are not in tune with the story.
1
Teaching about freedom of speech.
2
A liberal irresolution/confusion/paralysis similar to many comments in this discussion was noted and condemned very properly by George Orwell in the 1930's. He said it is idle to pretend there is no choice between Western capitalism and fascism. The words are as true today, just change the labels. The Nazis thought the democracies didn't have the will to stand up to them - they were very nearly right but for some strong leaders circa-1940 who were in the right place and the right time - but also the bulk of the people stood with them. Let's hope history doesn't repeat itself in the sense of needing to get to a world war to deal with this problem.
19
So much is wrong with this entire situation. Shooting people is wrong, no matter the provocation. And poking fun at other people's religious beliefs is wrong, too. Just idiotic.
12
Shooting people, poking fun...I wonder which is more wrong?
1
Poking fun at Islam should not result in being shot. It may be in poor taste to draw cartoons of Muhammad knowing it's offensive to Muslims, but that's not the same kind of wrong as shooting people. Do you see how these two things are not the same level of wrong? Drawing a picture of a person verses shooting people. Do you see how the wrongness of shooting people is not remotely on the same level of wrong as drawings cartoons? Islamic extremists can't set some ridiculous standard like drawing a picture of Muhammad as punishable by death and expect the world to say, "Okay, the people shot for drawing pictures were asking for it." All the blame lies on the idiot extremists who showed up ready to murder people for drawing pictures.
Reading some of these comments defending the shooters and making non sequitur analogies such as "this is like yelling fire in the theater," I feel like I don't recognize my party or the progressive movement anymore. My hypocrisy meter has gone through the roof reading some of these highly recommended apologist posts for the two shooters. Many of you (including myself) wouldn't hesitate a second to watch a Simpsons show or Jon Stewart mocking Jesus or New Age hippies, but suddenly when it's about Islamism, it's unacceptable? It's the equivalent of yelling fire in a crowded theater? The people who mocked Islam are asking to be shot by the terrorists?
It's so patronizing to suggest that Muslims cannot control themselves, that if they resort to violence, it's because they are provoked by blasphemies against their God. I'm terrified that some of you progressives' logic is one step away from saying that wearing a skullcap or going to a synagogue is "provoking" radical Muslims to attack Jews because being Jewish itself is a blasphemy to many radical Muslims.
It's so patronizing to suggest that Muslims cannot control themselves, that if they resort to violence, it's because they are provoked by blasphemies against their God. I'm terrified that some of you progressives' logic is one step away from saying that wearing a skullcap or going to a synagogue is "provoking" radical Muslims to attack Jews because being Jewish itself is a blasphemy to many radical Muslims.
52
SOME Muslims indeed do feel this is an offense worth killing for. BECAUSE we know this, we can decide this is not a fight worth fighting. After all, at the end of the day, some people will die, the cartoonists or the shooters and no minds would have been changed. What's the point? It's just like silly kids daring each other to do foolish things.
I parted with the left long time ago when I saw antisemitic hate groups being not only protected but given a platform at US campuses. There is only one religion that uses violence against its critics and is constantly supported at that by the left.
1
Provocateurs are great. They stay on an issue or two, and keep attacking it. They're a marginalized bunch, generally have a limited number of followers who share their outlook, but can generate a huge base of support when they've pushing something to its absolute limit, and then they're forgotten about and people go back to their lives. They can create situations in which those who can't adjust or who are on their own radical bent, like Elton or Nadir, will have to meet them and destroy or be destroyed.
I've never seen a provocateur actually engage in dialogue. I wonder to myself what would happen if they did.
I've never seen a provocateur actually engage in dialogue. I wonder to myself what would happen if they did.
3
Mr Holmes in his comment, frames the most sacred principle of the American Constitution: freedom of speech. And who those pick up a gun to impose their cultural or philosophical beliefs [that attack another religion or creed or race] are also flagrantly violating the another principle underlying our constitution:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" . All religious extremists [who are US citizens and or live here] should carry a copy of the US Constitution with their religious book of prayer and read it when they are in their house of worship before reading their book of worship.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" . All religious extremists [who are US citizens and or live here] should carry a copy of the US Constitution with their religious book of prayer and read it when they are in their house of worship before reading their book of worship.
6
How did they get assault rifles?
18
Surely from a local store. And local laws give pretty much anyone the right to buy them.
I wonder if the NRA will start thinking twice about it.
I wonder if the NRA will start thinking twice about it.
1
This happened in Texas - assault rifles are as common as tennis rackets
Perhaps it's time to teach the next generation an updated version of the old childhood song, "sticks and stones can break my bones, but words and drawings can never hurt me."
22
except that song/saying was never true.
1
Looking at this from another perspective, words can hurt us. Just look at what Fox "News" has done to the state of our democracy.
1
There's so much cognitive dissonance in my own head here, I'm not sure where to begin. When I read posts such as, in effect, there's no difference between Christian and Muslim extremists, I think: yes, there's a huge difference. One group is committing the vast majority of atrocities in the world; the other is not.
Pamela Geller's group is despicable, but its toxic speech is and should always be protected. That's the whole point of the First Amendment.
Having said all that, I'm glad the two shooters chose that time and place to attack with their assault rifles, rather than a shopping mall on a Saturday afternoon. Or a satirical magazine that never had a chance. The only people to die was the shooters themselves, and that's a good thing.
Pamela Geller's group is despicable, but its toxic speech is and should always be protected. That's the whole point of the First Amendment.
Having said all that, I'm glad the two shooters chose that time and place to attack with their assault rifles, rather than a shopping mall on a Saturday afternoon. Or a satirical magazine that never had a chance. The only people to die was the shooters themselves, and that's a good thing.
21
Just because Geller's speech should be protected does not mean we should approve of it. Geller is spreading hate. HATE! What motivates a person to kill more than hatred?
Je ne suis pas Pamela Geller - despicable!
11
I am Pamala Geller! Vive la Revolution!!!
Criticism of Islam is not despicable!
How very sad and troubling that France stood by the millions in solidarity against those who responded to freedom of speech with murder, yet Americans, or at least quite a few NYT readers, say this violence was justified.
39
I don't think anyone thinks the violence is justified.
But some are asking why the exhibit organizers would ask innocent children to draw cartoons of Mohammad and start to instill prejudice in them.
But some are asking why the exhibit organizers would ask innocent children to draw cartoons of Mohammad and start to instill prejudice in them.
7
Criticizing the actions of Geller and AFDI does not mean approving the shooting. Although Geller's action is illegal and the shooting is not, both are wrong.
Can you show me a single post that said the violence was justified? If so, copy it and paste it into the reply of this comment. I've seen plenty of people condemning the contest--nobody praising the shooters.
Why is it so difficult to call this assault what it is: an attempt by people under the influence of a murderous, fanatical dogma to intimidate others into submission. There is no excuse, justification or contextualization for their actions. The artists were excersizing their constitutional rights and there is no evidence, since the Times neither described nor showed any of the drawings, to suggest that any of the drawings were pornographic or devoid of political comment.
Tragedy was averted by law enforcement who reacted promptly and properly. They are the heroes of the day and their bravery, in the defense of our Constitutuon, should be acknowledged.
Tragedy was averted by law enforcement who reacted promptly and properly. They are the heroes of the day and their bravery, in the defense of our Constitutuon, should be acknowledged.
43
These are not artists but people who co-opt our constitutional right to free speech to glorify their expression of anti-Islam sentiments. The law enforcement were forced to put their lives on the line defending hatred. Let's think about that.
Yes, even right-wing hate groups like those at the Anti-Islam Exhibitors and The Klan have the right to free speech. However, I don't remember The Klan ever having their targets targeting them back. This Anti-Islam hate group is going to continue to have their hands full just like they did yesterday. This fight might look like the Cribs and the Bloods unless they both go on to target the innocent.
1
I remember the Klan targeting people for sitting at lunch counters and riding buses.
They lynched people, shot them in the back, killed them on country roads, bombed churches killing children.
And this was in my lifetime.
They lynched people, shot them in the back, killed them on country roads, bombed churches killing children.
And this was in my lifetime.
And what should we imagine might have happened had a group of Texas Muslims sponsored am event that "included a contest for the best caricature of [Jesus] with a $10,000 top prize"? Here, from the ACLU, are Texas mosque attacks. https://www.aclu.org/map/nationwide-anti-mosque-activity
5
That's a map of mosque attacks over the last 5 years. It looks like there were 5 or more incidents in Texas. It's terrible that any of those had to happen. If you look at New York it has the same rate. Do you think Texas has a monopoly on racist behavior?
1
This makes the attack somehow justifiable?
2
Nothing would have happened. There are tons of Jesus caricatures. Which religious groups promotes violence against Jesus depictions?
5
Why would anyone be led to organize an exhibition like this?
And in Garland, Texas? Give me a break.
This is a deliberate provocation.
Or maybe it's an excuse for the local Homeland Security Office to collaborate with Garland Police and the local militias for a training exercise.
How much was spent by the Garland taxpayers to provide 'security' for this event?
Only in Texas. If only the US government would invade them and bring some sense to the nonsense which now holds forth there.
And in Garland, Texas? Give me a break.
This is a deliberate provocation.
Or maybe it's an excuse for the local Homeland Security Office to collaborate with Garland Police and the local militias for a training exercise.
How much was spent by the Garland taxpayers to provide 'security' for this event?
Only in Texas. If only the US government would invade them and bring some sense to the nonsense which now holds forth there.
10
Geller is from New York. Should we invade there as well?
11
An exhibition where people draw pictures? Does this "deliberate provocation" of pictures being drawn deserve gunmen showing up? What is wrong with you?
If you believe that an exhibition of pictures being drawn of a religious figure is a deliberate provocation deserving violent retaliation, you need to move to the Middle East and leave the Western World. People in the U.S. can draw pictures of Muhammad all day long if they like and have every right to. Islamic extremism has no place in this country. It should have no place in this world.
If you believe that an exhibition of pictures being drawn of a religious figure is a deliberate provocation deserving violent retaliation, you need to move to the Middle East and leave the Western World. People in the U.S. can draw pictures of Muhammad all day long if they like and have every right to. Islamic extremism has no place in this country. It should have no place in this world.
19
If a stand is not taken to protect even what some - not all - regard as an egregious event, what will happen when objection is taken to a more-reasonable-sounding event? Let's say Islamists challenge the right of undergrad classes to seat men and women together, perhaps in certain classes of interest to them or in certain parts of their country where Muslims form a larger-than-usual number of the population. Then what? Will it be a provocation to reject their request or hold a rally standing against such an affront to American and Western values?
3
American Liberals have a choice to make. Do we want a society with freedom of speech? Or a society where a special exception is made for a specific religion when it comes to freedom of speech?
Every religion is a fair game. Why not Muslim?
Every religion is a fair game. Why not Muslim?
57
We don't see people encouraging innocent children to make cartoons of Christ.
What is the motive for that?
Free speech, of course.
Common sense and empathy and respect and common courtesy, probably not.
What is the motive for that?
Free speech, of course.
Common sense and empathy and respect and common courtesy, probably not.
2
American Liberals? How about Americans? I seem to recall Messrs. Hannity, Beck, and O'Reilly taking great pains to remind us every December about how Christianity is "under attack" simply because a few municipalities choose to not put up a creche in front of city hall. This isn't a liberal/conservative issue. This is a an irrational/rational issue. Either you want to walk on eggshells in an effort to "protect" the adherents of certain religions from offense, or you want to keep America a free republic in which the rights of the religious remain coupled with responsibility - chiefly, the responsibility to ignore whatever verbal or visual slings and arrows may be thrown your way for making the choice to practice your religion.
1
Hey, new2: Why are you singling out "American Liberals"? ALL Americans have a choice to make.
This is America where FreeSpeech is valued and enshrined. If you choose to live in America you abide by the rules here. If you want to live in Saudi Arabia go right ahead. Nobody is stopping you. There is religious freedom and freedom to speak in America. PERIOD.
70
I believe at the time the Founding Fathers wrote about free speech, there existed an understanding among those in American societey.Call it civil discourse and respect. The threat of being publicly shamed or ostracized enforced these. We no longer have that. We have pushed the boundaries of free speech etc. much like the teen who comes home with a pink Mohawk whose only reason for doing so is to rebel against and shock her parents. Adult teens are running amuck in the world chasing their fifteen minutes of fame.They mindlessly rebel and shock , leaving us with misshapen or completely missing boundaries. Never mind if the book, artistic piece,etc.is good, if it's shocking it will get attention and make money. Are we so devoid of genuine, good ideas that we fall back on shock value? Or is it just an easy way out of creating valuable additions to culture? Also, just because you can, doesn't mean you should. Adult teens seem to have missed that lesson. Maybe they were busy dunking Christ.
This is not an issue of free speech or in fact anything with the word free in it. It is simply another example of insanity, denial and delusion called god, religion and faith.
This is the logical the extension of defining corporations as people and givint corporations or wholly owned entities the right to deny others based on a claimed religious belief.
Once you let any religious zealot in the neighorhood you got a mess on your hands.Ask the Native Americans when Columbus and the Mayflower arrived. The Native Americans had no consistent immigration policy. Maybe they should have executed the invading terrorists or built a high fence. What?
Some readers might be offended. But look at any insane, delusional and in denial part of the world and without blinders ask one question: Are the warring parties warring because of their god?
Maybe somewhere there is a real revolution where the 1% are being challenged by any and all means. If so this poster wants to hear from you.
Note: America's war against the king of England within less than 25 years was converted by the standard bait and switch technique from we want every man to be free of a tea tax but we will kill you if you do not pay a whiskey tax. The king was replaced by the ruling 1% of white, rich and mostly land and slave owners. Blacks and women along with Native Americans and poor white men (!) became disenfranchised and defined as Persons without any rights overnight.
Can the People ever be free again in the USA?
This is the logical the extension of defining corporations as people and givint corporations or wholly owned entities the right to deny others based on a claimed religious belief.
Once you let any religious zealot in the neighorhood you got a mess on your hands.Ask the Native Americans when Columbus and the Mayflower arrived. The Native Americans had no consistent immigration policy. Maybe they should have executed the invading terrorists or built a high fence. What?
Some readers might be offended. But look at any insane, delusional and in denial part of the world and without blinders ask one question: Are the warring parties warring because of their god?
Maybe somewhere there is a real revolution where the 1% are being challenged by any and all means. If so this poster wants to hear from you.
Note: America's war against the king of England within less than 25 years was converted by the standard bait and switch technique from we want every man to be free of a tea tax but we will kill you if you do not pay a whiskey tax. The king was replaced by the ruling 1% of white, rich and mostly land and slave owners. Blacks and women along with Native Americans and poor white men (!) became disenfranchised and defined as Persons without any rights overnight.
Can the People ever be free again in the USA?
9
I am a software engineer who works with Muslims in this country who have come from Pakistan, Iran, Lebanon, and Nigeria.
They want the same things I do, interesting work, good salary, buy a house, send their kids to college. They don't like ISIS any more than I do and Muslim extremist don't represent them.
So many people have said that nothing justifies coming armed to a museum to kill. That is obvious.
But what if someone asked children to make cartoons depicting Christ?
We need people working to make things better not working to make things worse. Why not take that same effort to show why other Muslims have the same problem with ISIS as I do.
And I remember the KKK? They were fighting to keep the US a "white, Christian nation." That was in my lifetime. But that is not my Christianity and they never represented me.
They want the same things I do, interesting work, good salary, buy a house, send their kids to college. They don't like ISIS any more than I do and Muslim extremist don't represent them.
So many people have said that nothing justifies coming armed to a museum to kill. That is obvious.
But what if someone asked children to make cartoons depicting Christ?
We need people working to make things better not working to make things worse. Why not take that same effort to show why other Muslims have the same problem with ISIS as I do.
And I remember the KKK? They were fighting to keep the US a "white, Christian nation." That was in my lifetime. But that is not my Christianity and they never represented me.
17
"So many people have said that nothing justifies coming armed to a museum to kill. That is obvious.
But what if someone asked children to make cartoons depicting Christ?"
A.) What on Earth does one have to do with the other?
B.) If you really do practice Christianity, then you know full well that children draw cartoons of Jesus all the time in Sunday School. No is offended by this, and if some smart-aleck kid does purposefully draw an offensive picture of Jesus, at worst, he's taken outside the class and given a stern talking to.
The gunmen didn't even bother to go inside and look at the cartoons before they started shooting. They could have been the most reverent images possible and it wouldn't have mattered. This isn't about "why did they have to draw the pictures in the first place?" This is about "Why can't some people who claim to practice Islam be strong enough in their faith to either ignore or rationally express their offense at the creation of a one-dimensional image?"
But what if someone asked children to make cartoons depicting Christ?"
A.) What on Earth does one have to do with the other?
B.) If you really do practice Christianity, then you know full well that children draw cartoons of Jesus all the time in Sunday School. No is offended by this, and if some smart-aleck kid does purposefully draw an offensive picture of Jesus, at worst, he's taken outside the class and given a stern talking to.
The gunmen didn't even bother to go inside and look at the cartoons before they started shooting. They could have been the most reverent images possible and it wouldn't have mattered. This isn't about "why did they have to draw the pictures in the first place?" This is about "Why can't some people who claim to practice Islam be strong enough in their faith to either ignore or rationally express their offense at the creation of a one-dimensional image?"
11
@NealIT
My question is why go out of our way to divide when we could be using that same effort to work together to really get rid of extremist Muslims for the sake of both Christians and Muslims.
My question is why go out of our way to divide when we could be using that same effort to work together to really get rid of extremist Muslims for the sake of both Christians and Muslims.
'...But what if someone asked children to make cartoons depicting Christ?...'
That is protected speech and while most people would not approve of it, they are welcome to use more speech to express their opinion.
That is protected speech and while most people would not approve of it, they are welcome to use more speech to express their opinion.
3
Why was one of the security personnel guarding an entrance unarmed?
5
The event organizers spent $30,000 on security, but all their people were unarmed, is my understanding. Fortunately, there were Dallas police on the scene also.
2
This is symptomatic of a clash between the ancient and the present. Civilization has progressed to be a largely peaceful society with fewer wars but the old order of settling differences with force still remains in the old uncivilized among us. That's why we have cops.
3
"...an event in Texas where people were invited to present cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad."
What a pointless, provocative, exercise of stupidity and bigotry. Free speech is one thing. Deliberately provocative and irresponsible speech is something entirely different. The organizers of this event should be ashamed. They got exactly the response they desired from these extremists, and they put many lives at risk in expression of their own intolerant extremism. Undoubtedly they are clueless as to their culpability.
What a pointless, provocative, exercise of stupidity and bigotry. Free speech is one thing. Deliberately provocative and irresponsible speech is something entirely different. The organizers of this event should be ashamed. They got exactly the response they desired from these extremists, and they put many lives at risk in expression of their own intolerant extremism. Undoubtedly they are clueless as to their culpability.
23
Sorry, Robert, provocation and irresponsibility are at the heart of free speech.
35
Unbelievable! You should move to a country where it is permissible or even welcome to respond to provocation with murder.
30
Yes Sir, the Geller group is endangering Americans taunting clearly crazy dangerous people. I resent Geller yelling "Fire" in the venue.
3
Of course it is inconceivable to answer an expression of 1st amendment rights with an armed assault on the gathering... but, like shouting FIRE in a crowded movie theater, can it really be that speech designed to be incendiary to the point of there being a reasonable expectation it will incite violence really be protected speech?
This group obviously set out to incite violence and they have been successful. An innocent man died so this group could generate some headlines.
If a person stands on a street corner and incites citizens to riot and that riot causes death, the speaker is culpable regardless of the 1st amendment. Why is this any different?
This group obviously set out to incite violence and they have been successful. An innocent man died so this group could generate some headlines.
If a person stands on a street corner and incites citizens to riot and that riot causes death, the speaker is culpable regardless of the 1st amendment. Why is this any different?
8
It is not a "reasonable" expectation.
Reasonable to expect evil?
Reasonable to expect evil?
6
They didn't burn a Koran, they drew cartoons.
Draw a cartoon of Buddha, a Hindu god, Jesus or Moses, and no one gets killed. Now why is that?
Draw a cartoon of Buddha, a Hindu god, Jesus or Moses, and no one gets killed. Now why is that?
18
ah, the heckler's veto--if someone may be offended by speech, ban the speech!
8
If a group of Muslims celebrated a mock crucifixion of Christ to offend his believers, as a Christian I'd be upset and saddened that another faith group had so little tolerance/respect for mine, but would never consider violence. I imagine that the vast majority of moderate, peace-loving Muslims would feel equally upset and sad when a Christian group staged an event to award prizes for the most hateful drawings of its prophet, but would never consider violence. What is the purpose for the greater good and safety of these denigrations?
12
Of course logic never plays into the picture, but if these extremists actually believe in the power of their God why do they think they have to do His dirty work for him?
The big hole in most religious extremism and even fundamentalism that gets into politics and changing laws to force conformity to their religious beliefs is that God is supposed to give people the chance to make the right or wrong choice.
I wish religious leaders would expose people who want the government to enforce religious doctrine for what they are- the most blasphemous beings on the planet, for destroying God's test for humanity. If the government makes people do the "right" thing their choice to do so becomes meaningless and God's test of our righteousness is completely destroyed.
I'm not saying that is my description of human existence, but that is the basis of most fundamentalist interpretations of Islam and Christianity. God gives us a choice to be good or evil.
The big hole in most religious extremism and even fundamentalism that gets into politics and changing laws to force conformity to their religious beliefs is that God is supposed to give people the chance to make the right or wrong choice.
I wish religious leaders would expose people who want the government to enforce religious doctrine for what they are- the most blasphemous beings on the planet, for destroying God's test for humanity. If the government makes people do the "right" thing their choice to do so becomes meaningless and God's test of our righteousness is completely destroyed.
I'm not saying that is my description of human existence, but that is the basis of most fundamentalist interpretations of Islam and Christianity. God gives us a choice to be good or evil.
5
One does not have to stand on the side of censorship, or to give any support at all to those who would oppose speech with violence such as these men, to note that Ms. Geller's actions have usually been purposely provocative and hateful, and that her history has long been one of disgusting intolerance and open racism. She, and those who follow her, are not all that much better than those who attacked them. Both sought to use hate, divisiveness, fear, and intolerance of the views and lives of others as tools for their own personal aggrandizement.
9
false equivalence. neither geller nor her followers has picked up a gun to shoot at muslims.
you need to wake up and recognize the truth.
you need to wake up and recognize the truth.
3
Yes -- look her up!
She's not about free speech.
( other than her own ).
She's not about free speech.
( other than her own ).
Freedom of speech ends when the rights of others are affected. Making fun of religious believes is not freedom of speech, is an insult. Saying this, I also have to recognize that islamism represents a present danger to the world. Just take a look at Irak, Siria, Pakistan, North Africa; Islam wants to erradicate every single sign of Christianity and other religions.
It's unfair to brand all muslims like radicals and terrorist, because a lot of them are good people, but we have to be realistic and see that there's something wrong with Islam itself, and a lot of muslims knows it.m of speech ends when the rights of others are affected. Making fun of religious believes is not freedom of speech, is an insult. Saying this, I also aknowledge that islamism represents a present danger to the world, just take a look at Irak, Siria, Pakistan, North Africa, Islam wants to erradicate every single sign of Christianity and other religions.
It's unfair to brand all muslims like radicals and terrorist, because a lot of them are godd people, but we have to be realistic and see that there's something wrong with Islam itself, and a lot of muslims knows it.
It's unfair to brand all muslims like radicals and terrorist, because a lot of them are good people, but we have to be realistic and see that there's something wrong with Islam itself, and a lot of muslims knows it.m of speech ends when the rights of others are affected. Making fun of religious believes is not freedom of speech, is an insult. Saying this, I also aknowledge that islamism represents a present danger to the world, just take a look at Irak, Siria, Pakistan, North Africa, Islam wants to erradicate every single sign of Christianity and other religions.
It's unfair to brand all muslims like radicals and terrorist, because a lot of them are godd people, but we have to be realistic and see that there's something wrong with Islam itself, and a lot of muslims knows it.
So you are assuming that all Muslims form a massive monolithic body where all Muslims would be offended by a remark? Do you also think they all look alike? What if there are Muslims who are chafing at the restrictions of the ways in which some people practice their faith?
1
there is no right not to be offended. If you don't like what's being said/depicted, ignore it!
If Muslims were subject to the same restrictions as Blacks during segregation, THAT would be an infringement of their rights. Or if they had the same second-class citizen status as non-Muslims in Muslim majority countries, by the way.
If Muslims were subject to the same restrictions as Blacks during segregation, THAT would be an infringement of their rights. Or if they had the same second-class citizen status as non-Muslims in Muslim majority countries, by the way.
1
It seems as though both parties got what they wanted. AFDI got the free publicity they sought by organizing the event and the gunmen got a free pass to heaven.
Pretty depressing.
Pretty depressing.
18
Another not-so-gentle reminder that those that need protection for free speech are not always the angels among us. Think Larry Flynt, Lenny Bruce and the Ku Klux Klan. Free speech is free speech. And, unless it fits the very specific legally definition of "hate speech," (which this activity did not), it deserves protection.
28
Incorrect.
Hate speech is, and should be, protected speech, as 'hate' is completely subjective.
Hate speech is, and should be, protected speech, as 'hate' is completely subjective.
2
Would it be free speech if we draw Netanyahu's head on a pig's body?
This is a clash between two cultures, & one rabble rouser.There is the Western culture & the Eastern culture, the rabble rouser is Pamela,Geller.Ms Geller & her followers are no different than any other hate group that operates in the United Staes & takes advantage of free speech, to sprew her hatred, Although, she claims to be against the Jihadists, & not the Muslim people, she indirectly antagonizes members of the Muslim religion that are loyal American Citizens, & through her activities will suffer the consequences of a few radicals.There is free speech & there is human decency, making fun of someone who to a billion people in the world is a messenger from God, is outrageous & no different than yelling fire in a crowed theatre. Although, the greater majority of muslims would not become violent over this slanderous conduct , it has to hurt them just the same.It is no different than the American Nazi's denouncing Jews or the Klu Klux Klan spewing their hatred.Let us as good decent Americans, reach out to our muslim neighbors & befriend them.
8
No. Making fun of religious figures is NOT like shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre.
28
Then let's hope we don't ever read any more hateful Christian bashing in the NYT comments again lest someone's feelings be hurt.
6
If two billion people believe in something that doesn't make it off limits from criticism. Muslims need to understand that their ideas are on the table for examination and criticism just as much as anyone else's ideas or they need to leave our societies.
6
Foolhardy provocation has nothing to do with free speech.
11
So speech that you deem to be foolhardy provocation should be censored?
1
This is an example of haters from both sides colliding.
11
Mark Potok from the SPLC is on the Ed Shultz show and mentioned that Geller is banned from the UK for threatening orderly conduct. That's precisely what should be done.
This is not a free speech issue. It's a pubic safety issue. As such, the AFDI should be investigated to see if there is a causal relationship between last night's shooting and whether the AFDI purposely baited such action.
This is not a free speech issue. It's a pubic safety issue. As such, the AFDI should be investigated to see if there is a causal relationship between last night's shooting and whether the AFDI purposely baited such action.
7
Muslim failure to accept criticism is the real issue here.
4
Simply, in America, freedom of speech is just that, freedom of speech. If a group thinks that depicting Mohammed proves a point, they are 100% in the right to depict the prophet --if Allah finds it objectionable, it is for Allah to take care of it in the next lift. If you find the whole exercise ridiculous, you can say so, but have no right in silencing a point of view.
Atheists, leftists, Christians, Jews, religious folk and secular groups, scientists and humanists, fundamentalist Christians, Wiccan, political correctness fanatics and firebrands --they all need to respect this, and support freedom of speech simply because in their eyes of their opponents they too would have no rights of speech if a group is deemed to not have it.
Now shooting people --that is always a crime, and it cannot be blamed on the victim, even if that person is a hero to some, and an anti-Islamist to another.
Atheists, leftists, Christians, Jews, religious folk and secular groups, scientists and humanists, fundamentalist Christians, Wiccan, political correctness fanatics and firebrands --they all need to respect this, and support freedom of speech simply because in their eyes of their opponents they too would have no rights of speech if a group is deemed to not have it.
Now shooting people --that is always a crime, and it cannot be blamed on the victim, even if that person is a hero to some, and an anti-Islamist to another.
30
Free speech comes with a price. The price is responsibility. Too bad the irresponsible are also ready to stomp on freedom of religion when it suits their purpose. And then to fight for that religious freedom for wedding planners.
12
No. It is FREEDOM of speech.
Freedom is an absolute and it should always be free. No should should have to pay for it with their lives because a group or a philosophy is offended by it.
If they cannot handle it then they should be living in a country where freedom is limited (i.e. it is not really freedom).
Freedom is an absolute and it should always be free. No should should have to pay for it with their lives because a group or a philosophy is offended by it.
If they cannot handle it then they should be living in a country where freedom is limited (i.e. it is not really freedom).
27
Freedom of religion does not include the right to silence critics of your religion.
4
This morning I read a short history of Alexandria, Egypt, during the late Roman imperial period (400 CE). By now The Empire was ruined, on its last legs. And Christians, far from being a persecuted religious minority, were the majority, and the persecutors.
Our view of early Christians is that they were essentially benign. That is naive. Many were murderous. It was dangerous to publicly disagree with them in the forum, especially those fanatical long-bearded types described as "monks" who called themselves "Christ's Warriors". Dangerous because a mob of monks might descend upon your house one night, whipped into a frenzy by their leader, and drag you off never to be seen again.
We would call them "jihadists".
The Alexandria of 400 CE was rent by anarchy. Christian sects and factions obeyed their own imam, a charismatic leader, and were willing to die and kill for him; laws unto themselves. They attacked pagans, pagan temples and any-&-all who disagreed with them, their leader or their interpretation of Christian faith; especially the New Testament.
We moderns think of The New Testament as a fixed-in-stone agreed-upon book. That's Guttenberg's influence on our cognition. Books weren't mass printed in 400 CE, but repeatedly copied on scrolls; like the Talmud. So many different versions of the New Testament circulated that it's impossible to speak of a type. Most didn't survive Antiquity, destroyed by bishops as heretical.
If all that sounds like today's news, it should.
Our view of early Christians is that they were essentially benign. That is naive. Many were murderous. It was dangerous to publicly disagree with them in the forum, especially those fanatical long-bearded types described as "monks" who called themselves "Christ's Warriors". Dangerous because a mob of monks might descend upon your house one night, whipped into a frenzy by their leader, and drag you off never to be seen again.
We would call them "jihadists".
The Alexandria of 400 CE was rent by anarchy. Christian sects and factions obeyed their own imam, a charismatic leader, and were willing to die and kill for him; laws unto themselves. They attacked pagans, pagan temples and any-&-all who disagreed with them, their leader or their interpretation of Christian faith; especially the New Testament.
We moderns think of The New Testament as a fixed-in-stone agreed-upon book. That's Guttenberg's influence on our cognition. Books weren't mass printed in 400 CE, but repeatedly copied on scrolls; like the Talmud. So many different versions of the New Testament circulated that it's impossible to speak of a type. Most didn't survive Antiquity, destroyed by bishops as heretical.
If all that sounds like today's news, it should.
9
What do ancient Christians or Christianity have to do with yesterday's attack on a group of artists drawing images of Muhammad?
20
So using your argument, do Christians have the right to take up arms out of offense over your calling them "jihadists"? Should YOUR free speech be restrained?
2
The Talmud was never printed on scrolls. The Torah was and is.
2
That is exactly what free speech is - the right to be plain stupid, to be offensive, to push limits.
It is easy to defend it when it is rational and when you agree with it - that is the hard thing about FREEDOM.
Freedom is an absolute value. We must defend it even when we don't agree with what it says.
If a certain group cannot handle this then it also cannot handle what our country and what our constitution stand for.
Please, kindly exit.
It is easy to defend it when it is rational and when you agree with it - that is the hard thing about FREEDOM.
Freedom is an absolute value. We must defend it even when we don't agree with what it says.
If a certain group cannot handle this then it also cannot handle what our country and what our constitution stand for.
Please, kindly exit.
30
The despicable, thin-skinned reaction of those who kill in the name of religion trumps all else. However:
My impression of the groups that claim freedom of speech in defending their right to denigrate Islam or Mohammed, or any other religion or prophet, is that their rationale for doing so has become so far removed from any meaningful statement that they purportedly are making. Seriously, what is the intellectual point that Ms. Geller and AFDI are trying to make if you strip away the freedom of speech defense? There wouldn't be an iota of actual religious content. They just want to provoke, and you may think this analogy is a stretch, but it’s like the looters in Baltimore, who claim that burning down businesses is a necessary means by which to exercise their right to protest police brutality.
My impression of the groups that claim freedom of speech in defending their right to denigrate Islam or Mohammed, or any other religion or prophet, is that their rationale for doing so has become so far removed from any meaningful statement that they purportedly are making. Seriously, what is the intellectual point that Ms. Geller and AFDI are trying to make if you strip away the freedom of speech defense? There wouldn't be an iota of actual religious content. They just want to provoke, and you may think this analogy is a stretch, but it’s like the looters in Baltimore, who claim that burning down businesses is a necessary means by which to exercise their right to protest police brutality.
5
In my opinion two ignorant extremist entities got what each wanted. The event organizers courted and wanted to provoke violence, which they did. And the gunmen wished for martyrdom, which they achieved. Too bad the rest of us have to witness this hysteria.
22
Too bad the police are sworn to stand in the middle to protect us.
4
Your equating of a zealously- and perhaps stridently-anti-Islamist organization with terrorist Islamism is what is ignorant.
9
Free speech? Not really. Speech is not actually free, one cannot enter a movie theater and scream, "fire." It could be argued that this "convention" was that equivalent. That said, obviously this tragedy once again highlights the need for gun reform. I think this Geller woman is just gross. I was furious that I had to be subjected to her hateful posters on the subway system and the impact it had on Muslim children who ride the subway was terrible (young women having their head coverings ripped off or are shouted at).
13
'...It could be argued that this "convention" was that equivalent...'
But not by anyone with functioning frontal lobes.
But not by anyone with functioning frontal lobes.
3
In 1987 the American photographer Andres Serrano made a work titled “Piss Christ”. He submerged a plastic and wood crucifix into a jar of his own urine and photographed it. The work debuted at New York’s Stux Gallery then went on tour as part of “Awards in the Visual Arts 7,” a 10-person show for which each artist received a $15,000 fellowship from Winston-Salem, N.C.’s SE Center for Contemporary Art .
The exhibition traveled to Carnegie-Mellon University Art Gallery without incident, before going on view at Richmond’s Virginia Museum of Fine Arts. There the "Piss Christ" photo was destroyed by Christians with hammers.
Then the Christians used the hammers to beat Mr. Serrano to death.
The last sentence is not true: no one made any attempt to physically harm Mr. Serrano.
But a substantial number of people did write their President and Congressmen-and-women. As a result, the funding for the National Endowment for the Arts was cut by $15,000 the next year - the same amount that had been paid to Mr. Serrano, I believe.
The people who wrote to their political representatives did not approve of destroying the photo. They considered the act to be in poor taste, and well-brought-up Southerners frown on such acts.
But well-brought-up Southerners believe that letting their elected representatives know they frown on the NEA giving tax money for so-called 'art' such as this is a good thing.
That's the way we do it in the USA - with the pen, email, or phone.
The exhibition traveled to Carnegie-Mellon University Art Gallery without incident, before going on view at Richmond’s Virginia Museum of Fine Arts. There the "Piss Christ" photo was destroyed by Christians with hammers.
Then the Christians used the hammers to beat Mr. Serrano to death.
The last sentence is not true: no one made any attempt to physically harm Mr. Serrano.
But a substantial number of people did write their President and Congressmen-and-women. As a result, the funding for the National Endowment for the Arts was cut by $15,000 the next year - the same amount that had been paid to Mr. Serrano, I believe.
The people who wrote to their political representatives did not approve of destroying the photo. They considered the act to be in poor taste, and well-brought-up Southerners frown on such acts.
But well-brought-up Southerners believe that letting their elected representatives know they frown on the NEA giving tax money for so-called 'art' such as this is a good thing.
That's the way we do it in the USA - with the pen, email, or phone.
21
I do not understand why some Muslims are threatened by caricatures of their Prophet, as offensive and reprehensible as these cartoons may be. A true religion should be able to withstand criticisms and ridicule. Respect for religion cannot be forced, not least through violence. Respect for a religion is achieved through the lifestyles of its adherents.
25
Consider the reaction if someone promoted a public exhibit consisting of caricatures of Christ---especially in east Texas, or Alabama, or central Tennessee or any other part of the Bible Belt. And, what would be the public reaction to shootings there?
1
Point is, Jesus Christ is being insulted everyday, we Christians are offended, but we never shoot.
4
I have friends in East Texas who love watching Family Guy and South Park. They laugh at those caricatures of Christ. They don't resort to violence.
9
Reading through the comments I'm tired of hearing about how Islam is inherently violent. It is a belief held by Europeans since the crusades, incidentally as means to justify slaughtering Muslims preemptively. From the Crusades, to the Inquisition, to the Colonialism of the French, Spanish, Italians, British, Dutch, etc, to the world wars, the gulf wars and the drones, the Muslim world has been invaded, bombed, and occupied by one western power or another and the narrative is always that about how the Muslims are inherently violent, is the west projecting perhaps?
6
And of course the Muslims remained passive and reactive, never invaded anyone, never conquered anyone. SO different from the West.
3
There is no constitutional right to not be offended. There is a constitutional right to say things that are offensive. To all of the commentators who claim the event is culpable, shame on you. You are no American.
17
And if you have a really big gun, you can be even more offensive. That's what Ryan 'n them mean when they say an armed society is a polite society.
Not to excuse the actions of the assailants but I do hope that the outcome of this event gives the odious Ms. Geller pause before she decides to schedule another one. If not I may just turn up with a sign of my own portraying this vicious and bigoted woman as Lucifer in heels. Or is my right to free speech to be denied in favor of hers?
13
You and the rest of those attacking Geller should be ashamed. No one is denying your right to free speech, so why are you setting that up as a strawman? It is unbelievable that the vast majority of commentators are piling on Geller and the exhibit rather than the perpetrators who attempted to murder nonviolent people.
8
I don't imagine anyone would pay much attention to you if you portray ms geller as Lucifer in heals, what makes you think anyone would care? Little kids go to Halloween parties dressed as Lucifer in heals.
2
Spend a day in Salem and then ask yourself if we're prepared to go back to accepting murder as a response to 'blasphemy' or for offending subjective 'religious sensibilities'. In a multicultural society someone will be offended by practically everything and so we must create space to agree to disagree.
If you find something offensive take custody of your eyes and don't look.
If you find something offensive take custody of your eyes and don't look.
27
In an interview this morning on CNN Ms. Geller was asked "Wasn't this event provocative". In other words Ms. Geller deliberately incited the violence by insulting Islam. In a heated exchange that has been replayed several times by CNN Ms. Geller defended her right and the right of the artists who participated in the event, as clearly protected by the 1st Amendment to the Constitution. When the CNN host insisted that Ms. Geller was a provocateur time and again Ms. Geller answered that freedom of speech is the most fundamental and basic rights of all Americans. She also noted that when an image of Jesus Christ on the Cross was placed in urine, while many Americans, especially Christians found that offensive the response of the Christian community was words, not violence.
Under Islamic law, or Sharia, drawings images of the Prophet is strictly prohibited. Cartoons of the Prophets draw death threats and attacks by radical, violent Islamists.
What is disturbing and deeply troubling is that the CNN moderator placed the responsibility for this violence and the violence in Paris not on the Islamists but on the people who criticize Islam. The CNN moderator charged that criticizing Islam invites violence and the American right of free speech should be set aside so as not to offend Islam.
Why any TV commentator would place religious law of violent radicals above American constitutional law is beyond belief. Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, is our greatest freedom.
Under Islamic law, or Sharia, drawings images of the Prophet is strictly prohibited. Cartoons of the Prophets draw death threats and attacks by radical, violent Islamists.
What is disturbing and deeply troubling is that the CNN moderator placed the responsibility for this violence and the violence in Paris not on the Islamists but on the people who criticize Islam. The CNN moderator charged that criticizing Islam invites violence and the American right of free speech should be set aside so as not to offend Islam.
Why any TV commentator would place religious law of violent radicals above American constitutional law is beyond belief. Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, is our greatest freedom.
41
She has the first amendment right of freedom of speech but she is still a provocateur . This "exhibit" had no redeeming value but to incite and in her case it is hate speech.
5
And even hate speech is allowed under the Constitution of the United States! Are you suggesting that provocateurs or exhibits with no redeeming value be banned and that its ok to shoot those people who organize those events or speak against Islam with repugnant points of view? The right to shoot those who speak freely in the United is non existent. That's repugnant and disgusting. And so is your point of view. But, you have the right to offer it without fear of reprisal.
5
This event had nothing to do with freedom of speech, but everything to do with race-baiting. That Geller woman is disgusting.
10
Perhaps you should brush up on the First Amendment before proclaiming your ignorance so loudly.
6
Okay - this is the USA and we have freedom of speech. Even "hate" speech is protected under the constitution.
However, Pamela Geller was not celebrating the Bill of Rights. No, she was doing the equivalent of yelling "fire" in a crowed theater. Yes, I know this is not the Middle East and Muslims need to get over themselves.
If you tell me ahead of time that if I say something disrespectful about your mother, you're going to punch me in the mouth, how can I complain if I mouth off and end up with a fat lip?
Ms. Geller knew that she would probably get this type of reaction and what did she do? She went ahead and did it anyway.
If she keep on holding such events, it will only be a matter of time before a radicalized U.S. born and raised Muslim will say "enough is enough" and then we'll be reading her obituary.
She can keep poking the lion and laughing it off. But what is she going to do when the lion gets loose?
However, Pamela Geller was not celebrating the Bill of Rights. No, she was doing the equivalent of yelling "fire" in a crowed theater. Yes, I know this is not the Middle East and Muslims need to get over themselves.
If you tell me ahead of time that if I say something disrespectful about your mother, you're going to punch me in the mouth, how can I complain if I mouth off and end up with a fat lip?
Ms. Geller knew that she would probably get this type of reaction and what did she do? She went ahead and did it anyway.
If she keep on holding such events, it will only be a matter of time before a radicalized U.S. born and raised Muslim will say "enough is enough" and then we'll be reading her obituary.
She can keep poking the lion and laughing it off. But what is she going to do when the lion gets loose?
8
So we should give up on a basic freedome because we are afraid of 'lions' now?
We should shut up out of fear? If that is the case then Ms Geller is right: we are self-imposing Shariah.
We should shut up out of fear? If that is the case then Ms Geller is right: we are self-imposing Shariah.
9
Alan i see your response is a perfect answer, i hope other people think like we do and the whole world be at peace. Peisinoe he used lion as an example doesnt mean anyone need to be afraid. Everything that happens like this i think its all political.
If we identify these shooters as Muslim, then shouldn't we identify other shooters as Catholic, Jewish or Christian? Newspapers and broadcasters are creating hatred and prejudice by the very words used in reporting.
4
Because the other shooters (Catholic, Jewish or Christian) weren't killing on behalf of their 'religion'.
14
It's a matter of context. These shooters were identified as Muslim because their actions were driven by religious ideology.
10
We should identify them by their religion if they try to kill people in the name of their religion. In America the religion of most murderers (and attempted murderers) is irrelevant. In this instance, it wasn't.
10
I wonder if I will ever get to see the exhibited artworks, in order to determine for myself whether I find them hateful, merely wittily satirical, or beautiful. Possibly not, as most media outlets appear to be afraid to include them with any coverage of this event.
22
Wasn't it just a few months ago that a disgruntled atheist killed 3 Muslim students? Where was the "See, that's what you can expect from atheists!" crowd.
13
Do you really think the "disgruntled atheist" killed 3 Muslim students because he was an atheist? Is that what you really are trying to have us believe? Because that is what your silly attempted analogy purports to do.
2
Apparently the solution to this problem is that people should be walking around with assault rifles instead of handguns in order to combat these types of incidents. I noticed none of the millions of after-the-fact "heroes" who pipe up saying if there had been people with guns in the audience, the perpetrators would have been stopped in their tracks. What? No heroes in Texas? Because I'm almost positive there were plenty of guns.
Another myth bites the dust.
Another myth bites the dust.
8
Your argument doesn't prove or disprove anything. When there are armed police everywhere, the right of the public to carry guns is pretty much irrelevant, There are a lot better cases to make your argument than this one.
1
The perpetrators were stopped in their tracks...by a Garland Police officer, before they could gain entrry into the center where the event took place.
4
A lot of what passes for first amendment privilege is really just bad taste. But nevertheless, free speech means that ultimately taste is a moot point, and individuals have the freedom to express themselves in ways that others will find offensive. It seems that the arrangers of this "art" event got exactly what they planned—outraged and violent response. And that violent response was exactly what the gunmen came to express. Diversity is not a dream in the United States; it is a reality. At some point we as a nation have to grow up and learn to play well with each other, if it isn't too late for that already.
10
Bad taste is protected speech under the 1st Amendment.
5
After reading through the comments, here is a synopsis:
It is always alright to deride and mock Christians, because when you do that, they either turn the other cheek or fight back with the pen and paper.
It is never alright to deride and mock Muslims, because that is insensitive and provocative, and they fight back with AK-47's.
What hypocrites.
It is always alright to deride and mock Christians, because when you do that, they either turn the other cheek or fight back with the pen and paper.
It is never alright to deride and mock Muslims, because that is insensitive and provocative, and they fight back with AK-47's.
What hypocrites.
53
They're just like super hardcore Christians.
1
It's all right to spell "all right" as two words, too.
Sorry if that hurt your feelings. Don't shoot me!
Sorry if that hurt your feelings. Don't shoot me!
2
Aren't the Christians in your example following the dictates of the bible? And aren't the muslims in your example following the dictates of their holy nonsense as well?
2
Free speech does not always mean good commonsense
9
And yet murder is always murder.
13
Thank goodness. Hown boring that would be.
2
The cartoon-show event where this happened sounds moronic and seems designed to create just the sort of incident that happened. Lucky for all that no one but the gunmen died. There is free speech and then there's just being stupid.
11
That is exactly what free speech is - the right to be plain stupid, to be offensive, to push limits.
It is easy to defend it when it is rational and when you agree with it - that is the hard thing about FREEDOM.
We must defend it even when we don't agree with what it says.
It is easy to defend it when it is rational and when you agree with it - that is the hard thing about FREEDOM.
We must defend it even when we don't agree with what it says.
17
Peisinoe -- If one or more cops died there while defending the right of these people to speak freely, can we say that the officers were simply enjoying their freedom as Americans?
Words can have consequences, and sometimes it's others who pay the price. Yes, we have the right to speak them but that doesn't mean we are immune to what they might elicit.
Words can have consequences, and sometimes it's others who pay the price. Yes, we have the right to speak them but that doesn't mean we are immune to what they might elicit.
1
Thousands of cows are slaughtered everyday in America so we can feast on steak. Yet Hindus aren't killing anyone, protesting or screaming Hinduphobia. Different country, different values they've learned to adapt to.
Pork taken off that burrito chain's menu because their "responsible standards" weren't met? I'll let you decide who's standards they're referring to.
Pork taken off that burrito chain's menu because their "responsible standards" weren't met? I'll let you decide who's standards they're referring to.
23
Baloney. Learn about how commercial pork is |made. It isn't pretty. Females are locked in cages so small they can't turn around. Go look a pig in the face some day and then tell me it's okay to treat them that way.
4
The standards, as Chipotle has repeatedly stated, are not those of Islam.
"The fast casual Mexican restaurant plans to soon end its self-imposed pork shortage after it found a new supplier that meets its standards for free-range pork, Chipotle founder Steve Ells told investors in a conference call Tuesday."
http://www.today.com/money/carnitas-are-coming-back-chipotle-sees-end-po...
"The fast casual Mexican restaurant plans to soon end its self-imposed pork shortage after it found a new supplier that meets its standards for free-range pork, Chipotle founder Steve Ells told investors in a conference call Tuesday."
http://www.today.com/money/carnitas-are-coming-back-chipotle-sees-end-po...
2
Laughindragon, there is a reason the POTUS refuses to acknowledge Islam has anything to do with what the atrocities going on in predominately Islamic countries. It's not strategic to offend so many people who will shout Islamophobia from the rooftops if the 'I' word is mentioned. There is no need for Ells to mention the 'I' word because no one wants to bear the brunt of the backlash that follows.
Businesses flourish and survive because they please their investors as well as customers. Like Pres. Obama, Mr. Ells is an intelligent man. Tracy, the investors at that conference knew full well why pork was being taken off the menu: 2.5 million more people will now be eating there.
Businesses flourish and survive because they please their investors as well as customers. Like Pres. Obama, Mr. Ells is an intelligent man. Tracy, the investors at that conference knew full well why pork was being taken off the menu: 2.5 million more people will now be eating there.
1
I worry that the escalating trend toward this kind of Muslim-bashing will radicalize a younger generation, as it has in Europe. Terrorists are made, not born, and anyone who has paid attention to Europe must surely realize that Pamela Gellerism is an important element of that deadly process.
In the two countries I know best, India and the United States, there has been no mass Muslim movement towards terrorism as there has been in Europe. I was struck by this last summer, when hundreds of Australian and British Muslims rushed off to fight with ISIS, while nothing of the sort was happening in the States and India. In the States, the most organized Muslim-American response to the post-9/11 world was by comedians, like the ones who started The Axis of Evil Comedy Tour.
Gellar has been struggling to receive this kind of recognition for a decade, but no American Muslims took the bait until now. Thanks to the two who did, Geller and her supporters can finally pop the champagne, pull on the bikinis, and feel like they measure up to major-league Anti-Islamists like Charlie Hebdo and Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Way to go, hate-mongers! A pox on all your houses.
In the two countries I know best, India and the United States, there has been no mass Muslim movement towards terrorism as there has been in Europe. I was struck by this last summer, when hundreds of Australian and British Muslims rushed off to fight with ISIS, while nothing of the sort was happening in the States and India. In the States, the most organized Muslim-American response to the post-9/11 world was by comedians, like the ones who started The Axis of Evil Comedy Tour.
Gellar has been struggling to receive this kind of recognition for a decade, but no American Muslims took the bait until now. Thanks to the two who did, Geller and her supporters can finally pop the champagne, pull on the bikinis, and feel like they measure up to major-league Anti-Islamists like Charlie Hebdo and Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Way to go, hate-mongers! A pox on all your houses.
13
You don't consider the 911 Attacks on the World Trade Center and the Fort Hood Massacre as noteworthy?
4
William Case: of course the 9/11 & Fort Hood attacks were noteworthy. But the 9/11 attacks were NOT perpetrated by Muslim Americans, and the Fort Hood attack (and other incidents) involved one or two men at most -- not an organized movement of hundreds as we see in Europe today, so many of them European-born-and raised.
I am no sociologist, but I believe that American Muslims are relatively integrated into America's relatively liberal, live-and-let-live social fabric. It's easier for immigrants to assimilate here -- and overwhelmingly, most do. That is what protects the United States. Voices like Geller's have so far been in a minority, and there they should remain.
I am no sociologist, but I believe that American Muslims are relatively integrated into America's relatively liberal, live-and-let-live social fabric. It's easier for immigrants to assimilate here -- and overwhelmingly, most do. That is what protects the United States. Voices like Geller's have so far been in a minority, and there they should remain.
1
It is important to understand that breathlessly defending free speech of a certain, acceptable kind, is not a defence of free speech.
We have a constitutional protection simply because it is the type of speech that is not popular requires protection. Whether you are amused or appalled by "Mohammad Cartoons" is not the point. That is precisely the sort of speech that requires absolute protection. Why? Because it is simply too easy to create a protected class of people or beliefs that becomes sacrosanct and therefore proof against discussion, ridicule and, yes, mockery.
I suspect that there are some posts here that take the position "free speech has it's limits". Know what? It should not except in the direst extremes and even then, not when it comes to politics or religion. Free speech is our most precious right and it must not be tampered with in a misguided effort to "spare peoples feelings".
We have a constitutional protection simply because it is the type of speech that is not popular requires protection. Whether you are amused or appalled by "Mohammad Cartoons" is not the point. That is precisely the sort of speech that requires absolute protection. Why? Because it is simply too easy to create a protected class of people or beliefs that becomes sacrosanct and therefore proof against discussion, ridicule and, yes, mockery.
I suspect that there are some posts here that take the position "free speech has it's limits". Know what? It should not except in the direst extremes and even then, not when it comes to politics or religion. Free speech is our most precious right and it must not be tampered with in a misguided effort to "spare peoples feelings".
42
I do not know what you mean by "direst extremes," but free speech does have limits. All of our constitutional rights are subject to certain limitations. It seems likely, based on statements provided by news reports, that Ms. Gellar's hate group was engaged in protected (though vile) speech. The violent response was criminal and unequivocally wrong.
After all the negative things we heard about the Police, finally a positive news. Give a medal to the cop who killed the two 'terrorists' dressed in body armor with just his service pistol. Must be a great shot.
53
While everyone has the right to disparage anyone and anything, it is regrettable when hate mongers with the most mean spirited of motives disparage something or someone who helps people be better human beings.
6
We here in Tennessee, which overwhelmingly claims to be of the Christian religion, remember a few years ago when mosques were routinely burned down here by arsonists, who probably didn't bother to check whether anyone was inside them at the time:
http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/06/13/2150841/hecklers-cheer-burn...
Geller knows exactly what she is doing, and she should be held criminally responsible for purposely inciting violence.
http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/06/13/2150841/hecklers-cheer-burn...
Geller knows exactly what she is doing, and she should be held criminally responsible for purposely inciting violence.
17
It's a sad thing that a security officer was shot. I hope his ankle fully recovers, and that he and the other policemen involved in doing away with these two pieces of human trash receive commendations and cash bonuses.
I am a firm advocate for free speech, and it troubles me not an iota that these two, who tries to stifle speech, are dead and gone from the landscape. May their memories wither.
It also troubles me that we're here defending people who spew religious hate speech, making no distinction between mainstream modern Islam and the lowlife crazies who inhabit its darker spaces. But freedom of speech is freedom of speech. They're entitled to their deliberate ignorance and hatreds, when they act upon them in a lawful manner.
I am a firm advocate for free speech, and it troubles me not an iota that these two, who tries to stifle speech, are dead and gone from the landscape. May their memories wither.
It also troubles me that we're here defending people who spew religious hate speech, making no distinction between mainstream modern Islam and the lowlife crazies who inhabit its darker spaces. But freedom of speech is freedom of speech. They're entitled to their deliberate ignorance and hatreds, when they act upon them in a lawful manner.
18
Free speech is meant to guarantee your right to speak up against the government when you have good reason to believe it is out of line not to protect or create a freedom to abuse groups or people whom you do not approve of."
No! Free Speech has no such limit. Free Speech guarantees all of our rights in the common marketplace of ideas, in politics, in education, in the streets- and yes even to state that someone else religious, or scientific beliefs are "poppycock". My right to free speech does not depend on a popular vote,and frankly I do not care if you like me or my opinions. You have the right to say so. That is your right of free speech. Sometimes the best speeches are offensive.
No! Free Speech has no such limit. Free Speech guarantees all of our rights in the common marketplace of ideas, in politics, in education, in the streets- and yes even to state that someone else religious, or scientific beliefs are "poppycock". My right to free speech does not depend on a popular vote,and frankly I do not care if you like me or my opinions. You have the right to say so. That is your right of free speech. Sometimes the best speeches are offensive.
26
The Constitution protects your right to hate others and to provoke them with offensive cartoons. But I am not required to approve of your conduct, and I most surely don't.
4
Free speech does have limitations.
You can't tell; someone to commit a crime.
You can't give out military secrets because of the freedom of speech
You can't tell; someone to commit a crime.
You can't give out military secrets because of the freedom of speech
5
Attacking Islam and running anti-Islam websites is the first problem. If a Muslim were to create an anti-Christian website or hold a rally inviting others to draw cartoons mocking the Christian faith, people would be up in arms demanding the president send a Navy SEALS unit to kill all of those in attendance on grounds of terrorism. There is absolutely no excusing the actions of the gunmen, but we have to realize attacking Islam does not help stop terrorism, and as Garland, Texas found out, most times it only encourages it.
5
And you know what? The President should take that opportunity to explain what free speech is. It is supposed to get people annoyed and outrage them.
And, if memory serves, Piss Christ created a lot a shouting (good!) but no gunshots. You really don't have to treat people as children.
How is your free speech up in Canada, eh?
And, if memory serves, Piss Christ created a lot a shouting (good!) but no gunshots. You really don't have to treat people as children.
How is your free speech up in Canada, eh?
16
I think to show your support for free speech, you should paint some grotesque cartoons of Muhammad on your garage. And maybe some gunmen will eventually murder you and your family. But free speech is supposed to get people annoyed and outrage them, right? (as long as other people, and not you are the victims). Put your money where your mouth is.
1
Your comment is so idiotic it is amazing it was printed. What evidence possibly exists that people are up in arms demanding any such thing? In fact, when Serrano's work was exhibited, the response by aggrieved persons was to demand that his stipend from the Government to produce such stuff be cut off.
2
This cartoon and others on the website say it all!
http://www.jesusandmo.net/2015/04/29/but/
http://www.jesusandmo.net/2015/04/29/but/
2
Haven't you seen at least as bad stuff about Jews and gays?
2
Good job on neutralizing the imminent threat to human life. These two dead people are dead for a reason and it is a simple reason. Agreements or no agreements, the people taking part in the event had every right to be there and they have the natural right to live. I congratulate the security officers for neutralizing the imminent threat to people's lives. I am an Indian living in the United States. What I say to people coming to live here is simple, please research on the first and second amendments and the bill of rights. If your upbringing or religion does not agree with the principles of this great nation, then it is better that you don't come here. And to people living here, respect and teach your children to respect the foundations of this great nation. It is a privilege living in this country and it is essential to protect the foundations that make this country great. The first amendment gives one the right of freedom of speech, but it also is a self protecting amendment. Which is that you cannot use the freedom given by it to try and alter that which gives you this freedom in the first place. So all you opponents of the first and second amendments, try not wasting your time and getting killed in the process. Enjoy your privileges and at least show the basic courtesy of not trying to kill others because they don't agree with your personal beliefs.
38
I don't understand the point of taunting people over a sensitive issue.
It reminds me of a time when I was talking with someone about animal abuse. The person mentioned a particular local incident (which was in Miami at the time) and I asked if we could change the subject because I simply can't handle the details of those tragedies; I use the energy needed to process those details to causes devoted to caring for animals who have been abused.
Anyway, the person then proceeded to try to go into great detail on the particular case ofabuse - she was downright pushy - on the grounds that I had no right to infringe on her right to free speech. True story.
It was a very odd act of out-and-out sadism, and sometimes I feel that the notion of free speech has been carried so far that we forget to ask ourselves if hurting others in the process of exercising freedom is worth it. It seems some of the commenters here would prefer we be able to falsely shout "Fire!" in a crowded theatre even if it meant people might be trampled to death in the resultant chaos. After all, we have principles of free speech to uphold, and the families of the dead will just have to deal with it, seems to be the conceptual meme in this forum.
On that note: as a devout atheist, I ask, can't we find something better to do than to ridicule religious figures? Are we really that bored?
It reminds me of a time when I was talking with someone about animal abuse. The person mentioned a particular local incident (which was in Miami at the time) and I asked if we could change the subject because I simply can't handle the details of those tragedies; I use the energy needed to process those details to causes devoted to caring for animals who have been abused.
Anyway, the person then proceeded to try to go into great detail on the particular case ofabuse - she was downright pushy - on the grounds that I had no right to infringe on her right to free speech. True story.
It was a very odd act of out-and-out sadism, and sometimes I feel that the notion of free speech has been carried so far that we forget to ask ourselves if hurting others in the process of exercising freedom is worth it. It seems some of the commenters here would prefer we be able to falsely shout "Fire!" in a crowded theatre even if it meant people might be trampled to death in the resultant chaos. After all, we have principles of free speech to uphold, and the families of the dead will just have to deal with it, seems to be the conceptual meme in this forum.
On that note: as a devout atheist, I ask, can't we find something better to do than to ridicule religious figures? Are we really that bored?
116
Juliet: Seems you have no problem with the muslims trying to kill cartoonists. Your criticism was entirely directed at those who exercise free speech, even hate speech, and you ignored the shooters completely. Are you implying that what they did is ok? Shooting to defend the honor of their prophet as they see it is ignored?
10
That's not a good reason. When someone says something you don't want to hear, you can just turn around and leave. Or, as in the current case, not attend the event and ignore it.
The moment you choose to insert yourself in it, that moment you have to accept the other person's right to free speech, just as the other person has to accept your right not to agree with them. You cannot justify shooting at the other party, because you feel offended by what you freely chose to listen to anymore than the other person can justify shooting at you because you happen not go agree with them.
There is lots of stuff we hear all day anyone of us doesn't agree with. The vast majority of it is way more serious than religious-philosophical disagreements that solely play themselves out in peoples' heads. If all of us would bring guns to those disagreements, then the global human overpopulation problem would have been solved a long time ago.
The moment you choose to insert yourself in it, that moment you have to accept the other person's right to free speech, just as the other person has to accept your right not to agree with them. You cannot justify shooting at the other party, because you feel offended by what you freely chose to listen to anymore than the other person can justify shooting at you because you happen not go agree with them.
There is lots of stuff we hear all day anyone of us doesn't agree with. The vast majority of it is way more serious than religious-philosophical disagreements that solely play themselves out in peoples' heads. If all of us would bring guns to those disagreements, then the global human overpopulation problem would have been solved a long time ago.
2
What if that ridicule is based on truth.
1
What is the difference between the group putting on this event and the KKK, Skinheads, or other extremist group?
Clearly, there is no justification for the actions of these deranged men that shot an innocent security guard. It is also clear the individuals putting on this exhibition are also just as deranged. Is it surprising in this hypersensitive and copy cat world that something like this would happen at such an event? The right to free speech does not mean free of consequence. Totally unjustifiable response by two individuals, yes. Surprising? No.
The only purpose of this type of event is to accomplish exactly what happened, instigate violence. One of the first things said by an audience member when the shooting was announced is "were the subjects Muslim"? All of the idiots (gunman and event participants ) are one and the same.
Clearly, there is no justification for the actions of these deranged men that shot an innocent security guard. It is also clear the individuals putting on this exhibition are also just as deranged. Is it surprising in this hypersensitive and copy cat world that something like this would happen at such an event? The right to free speech does not mean free of consequence. Totally unjustifiable response by two individuals, yes. Surprising? No.
The only purpose of this type of event is to accomplish exactly what happened, instigate violence. One of the first things said by an audience member when the shooting was announced is "were the subjects Muslim"? All of the idiots (gunman and event participants ) are one and the same.
9
@jblack1092: you ask for difference? Well, seems this group was using the KKK tactics to attack the enemy of United States. The method is faulty, but the goal is good.
KKK and the groups you mentioned not only used hateful methods, but attacked innocent people who didn't threaten United States. Both their methos and their goals were bad.
KKK and the groups you mentioned not only used hateful methods, but attacked innocent people who didn't threaten United States. Both their methos and their goals were bad.
rimantas: Who is the enemy you refer to in this case? Muhammad? Muslims? Two crazy gunmen? These people were not at war or defending anything. They were instigating.
What tactics are you referring to when referencing the KKK. None of the tactics of either group are "good".
Yes, protecting the US against our enemies is "good". Instigating and rubbing hateful speech in a groups face is not noble and heroic or "good" as you would say.
What tactics are you referring to when referencing the KKK. None of the tactics of either group are "good".
Yes, protecting the US against our enemies is "good". Instigating and rubbing hateful speech in a groups face is not noble and heroic or "good" as you would say.
@jblack1092: well, I read the news daily and it's obvious the enemy are muslim terrorists. And I consider those two shooters in Texas to be those. Sorry you are confused whom we are fighting, with occational droning and bombing.
I suggest you better learn to accept hate speech - it's part of our system.
I suggest you better learn to accept hate speech - it's part of our system.
Muslims around the world clearly abhor any depiction, especially unfavorable, of their prophet. Yet there was no peaceful organized protest at the event? The only ones who showed up were there to kill?
21
Most probably thought the organizers were just being jerks and let it go at that.
3
In the US and other Western societies the concept of Free Speech must be defended vigorously. There is no conditional Free Speech - If one group does not believe in the message being espoused then they have every right to provide an opposing viewpoint.
Violence is never an acceptable response.
Violence is never an acceptable response.
21
"… there are many acceptable forms of rebuttal. Shooting people with AK47s is not one of them."
Of course. For example, when many New Yorkers were offended that Muslims had asked for a permit to establish a cultural center a few blocks from the 9/11 site, they leaned on city officials not to issue a permit, even though there was no valid reason not to issue that permit. Those New Yorkers were upset, and they didn't shoot anyone. They simply leaned on their government officials to deny Constitutional rights to those Muslims.
Much better than shooting the people who applied for a permit, to be sure. Not exactly commendable behavior by those New Yorkers, but better than shooting -- that much must be granted.
Of course. For example, when many New Yorkers were offended that Muslims had asked for a permit to establish a cultural center a few blocks from the 9/11 site, they leaned on city officials not to issue a permit, even though there was no valid reason not to issue that permit. Those New Yorkers were upset, and they didn't shoot anyone. They simply leaned on their government officials to deny Constitutional rights to those Muslims.
Much better than shooting the people who applied for a permit, to be sure. Not exactly commendable behavior by those New Yorkers, but better than shooting -- that much must be granted.
When extremists encounter opposing extremists, you've got a powder keg on your hands. Whether extremist pro-Muslims and extremist anti-Muslims encountering each other are effectively shouting fire in a crowded theater is a question that no court has considered. It has long been recognized that the First Amendment has limitations. As America becomes a forum for opposing extremists, the need to determine First Amendment limitations becomes more important. The safety of innocent bystanders is particularly at issue. No one has the right to speech that unreasonably endangers the public.
2
What about Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton?? They always cause trouble and stir up the possibility of innocent strangers being hurt by an angry mob.
2
Reading through these comments, I think one thing is clear: the left has utterly abandoned any pretense that it is concerned about protecting freedom of speech. We are told in various ways that the event's organizers are bigoted provocateurs who, to quote one commenter, have abandoned “logic, facts, [and] morality.”
Says them. In 2013, I brought Bosch Fawstin, an award recipient at yesterday’s “Draw Mohammad” exhibition, to the University of Baltimore School of Law to speak about Islam, the artist, and the First Amendment.
For me, Fawstin’s talk was electric. Born and raised an Albanian Muslim, Fawstin explained how he came to reject Islam in the wake of 9/11, and argued that Islam—not any alleged deviant form of it—means brute force and tyranny. As an artist and not a soldier, Fawstin decided to tackle Islam the best way he knows how—through his work as a graphic artist.
Let us not forget that as an apostate, Islam denies Fawstin any right to freedom of speech and conscience. In fact, under the logic, facts, and morality of Islam, Fawstin could be murdered on sight—and Islam would have nothing to say against it. Nevertheless, we are told that Fawstin and his fellow agitators mindlessly provoke Islamic violence against them.
Nonsense. The Islamic creed provokes mindless violence, and it is brave people like Bosch Fawstin who stand against it. As my friend, I proudly stand with him.
Says them. In 2013, I brought Bosch Fawstin, an award recipient at yesterday’s “Draw Mohammad” exhibition, to the University of Baltimore School of Law to speak about Islam, the artist, and the First Amendment.
For me, Fawstin’s talk was electric. Born and raised an Albanian Muslim, Fawstin explained how he came to reject Islam in the wake of 9/11, and argued that Islam—not any alleged deviant form of it—means brute force and tyranny. As an artist and not a soldier, Fawstin decided to tackle Islam the best way he knows how—through his work as a graphic artist.
Let us not forget that as an apostate, Islam denies Fawstin any right to freedom of speech and conscience. In fact, under the logic, facts, and morality of Islam, Fawstin could be murdered on sight—and Islam would have nothing to say against it. Nevertheless, we are told that Fawstin and his fellow agitators mindlessly provoke Islamic violence against them.
Nonsense. The Islamic creed provokes mindless violence, and it is brave people like Bosch Fawstin who stand against it. As my friend, I proudly stand with him.
314
"The left has utterly abandoned any pretense that it is concerned about protecting freedom of speech."
Seriously?
Get your face out of FOX News and find out what's really going on.
Sheesh.
Seriously?
Get your face out of FOX News and find out what's really going on.
Sheesh.
4
How can you tell the commenter you disagree with is on the left, or determine that the entire "left" has "utterly abandoned any pretense about protecting freedom of speech" from the comments on one message board?
4
NPro: Amen. Except that I'd add every religion has been twisted to allow mindless violence; Torah Judaism and Old Testament-thumping Christianity are pretty bad too. The laws of civil society restrain their most rabid adherents from doing what taken-literally passages inspire them towards.
The problem is that in Islam there is no concept of a civil, secular society. That is a purely Western concept and I guess we can thank Henry VIII for severing England from the tentacles (loaded word!) of Rome and promoting nationalism over a monolithic Christendom.
Unfortunately, US foreign policy post-WWI has been to destroy every secular, democratic movement throughout the Middle East, so that progressives from Muslim countries had little choice but to emigrate or be silent. And this is the result...
The problem is that in Islam there is no concept of a civil, secular society. That is a purely Western concept and I guess we can thank Henry VIII for severing England from the tentacles (loaded word!) of Rome and promoting nationalism over a monolithic Christendom.
Unfortunately, US foreign policy post-WWI has been to destroy every secular, democratic movement throughout the Middle East, so that progressives from Muslim countries had little choice but to emigrate or be silent. And this is the result...
2
Interesting. Little curious when we're all gonna be ready to lable this faith as a cult, consider it's practice illegal, incarcerate or deport all of those who elect to practice it and go back to some semblance of not being under siege. Not quite there yet? Ok, I'll wait......
8
I eagerly await the report of United States Commission on International Religious Freedom on this issue. This organization under advice from Indian diaspora inimical the country's interest never loses an opportunity denigrate and criticize India under ridiculous pretext, conveniently ignoring stated policy of Modi that his government would “not allow any religious group, belonging to the majority of the minority, to incite hatred against others, overtly or covertly.” “Mine will be a government that gives equal respect to all religions”.
Like it or not there is plenty that US can learn from India on the issue of religious tolerance and plural society.
The Semitic religions believe that their scriptures — Torah, Bible and Quran — are repositories of the absolute and final truth. Those who do not accept these exclusive truths are referred to as 'pagans' or 'kafirs'.
Hinduism regards all other religions as innumerable paths for spiritual realization. It regards the choice as a matter of personal preference.
Indic religions Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism are able to establish an instant rapport with other religions because they believe that neither is their truth exclusive, nor are they in possession of an exclusive method of spiritual realization.
Like it or not there is plenty that US can learn from India on the issue of religious tolerance and plural society.
The Semitic religions believe that their scriptures — Torah, Bible and Quran — are repositories of the absolute and final truth. Those who do not accept these exclusive truths are referred to as 'pagans' or 'kafirs'.
Hinduism regards all other religions as innumerable paths for spiritual realization. It regards the choice as a matter of personal preference.
Indic religions Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism are able to establish an instant rapport with other religions because they believe that neither is their truth exclusive, nor are they in possession of an exclusive method of spiritual realization.
3
Hey N.G. Krishnan, have you been following Buddhist treatment of Moslems in Myanumar? What about the slaughter by both Hindus and Moslems when India and Pakistan were seperated in 1948. There used to be Jewish groups that had lived in India for hundreds of years. Most have left and gone to Israel; why leave if Hindus are so accpting? I woudnt be so smug if I were you.
2
Living in a maturing society I must admit you have a point.
Developing societies radical preachers of all regions have successfully linked nobility of the religion with nationalism for the narrow political ends. Shame that humans can misuse anything including dharma to espouse prejudice in dharma name.
For instance there is widespread ignorance in Burma and Sri Lanka of many core Buddhist teachings. Most of Buddhist are devotional. Prayers and offerings express a beautiful spirit of generosity and a belief in merit-making, karma, and rebirth. The elaborately decorated temples are regularly awash with joyful community sharing, chanting, and support for the monks. In this culture of devotion, the teachings of the noble truths and eightfold path, of nonviolence, mindfulness, meditation, and virtue, are lost.
It is said that “The Buddha’s dharma didn't teach peace and relaxation; it taught awakening—often rude awakening.” That rude awakening is sure to come.
Developing societies radical preachers of all regions have successfully linked nobility of the religion with nationalism for the narrow political ends. Shame that humans can misuse anything including dharma to espouse prejudice in dharma name.
For instance there is widespread ignorance in Burma and Sri Lanka of many core Buddhist teachings. Most of Buddhist are devotional. Prayers and offerings express a beautiful spirit of generosity and a belief in merit-making, karma, and rebirth. The elaborately decorated temples are regularly awash with joyful community sharing, chanting, and support for the monks. In this culture of devotion, the teachings of the noble truths and eightfold path, of nonviolence, mindfulness, meditation, and virtue, are lost.
It is said that “The Buddha’s dharma didn't teach peace and relaxation; it taught awakening—often rude awakening.” That rude awakening is sure to come.
In 1987, American photographer Andres Serrano put a small plastic crucifix in a glass of his own urine and won the Southeastern Center for Contemporary Art's "Awards in the Visual Arts" competition, which was sponsored by the National Endowment for the Arts. The photographic image of Christ suspended in urine was exhibited at the in New York, where it received favorable reviews by art critics and was hailed as a triumph example of free speech. Although it was vandalized when exhibited overseas, the work is still on exhibit on display at the Edward Tyler Nahem gallery in New York. Religious groups have appealed to President Obama to denounce the artwork as he did the controversial Innocence of Muslims film, but the White House has not responded. For many, Serrano artwork demonstrates that freedom of speech also applies to speech that offends religion.
18
Does the Christian religion specifically prohibit suspending a plastic Christ in urine?
The exquisite sensitivity that Muslims display when others speak about their Prophet may indeed not be compatible with traditional American life. Whether or not Geller is being deliberately provocative (I think she is), the speech she encourages is protected in American life. It must remain so along with vigilance for those who would curtail it.
36
Violence is never the answer to hateful manifestations of free speech. It is a self-defeating act because it draws greater attention and empathy to those propagating hate by making them victims. Those who believe that violence is the answer fail to realize that they are playing right into hatemongers'
hands.
Violent acts such as the attempted attack in Texas and the mass murder at the Paris office of Charles Hebdo are a bonanza for Islamophobes: They receive free publicity on a global scale. Also, when they would have normally been at the receiving of public revulsion, they are instead showered with understandable empathy.
Alas, trying to reason with Muslim extremists and Islamophobes is an exercise in futility. In a perverse twist of fate, both sides complement each another.
hands.
Violent acts such as the attempted attack in Texas and the mass murder at the Paris office of Charles Hebdo are a bonanza for Islamophobes: They receive free publicity on a global scale. Also, when they would have normally been at the receiving of public revulsion, they are instead showered with understandable empathy.
Alas, trying to reason with Muslim extremists and Islamophobes is an exercise in futility. In a perverse twist of fate, both sides complement each another.
6
Free speech is a great value. Every American citizen
has the right. But Americans don't have right to
be busive to others. You and I can't sit in a restaurant
and hurl expletives at each other. We surely will be
either thrown out or get into fist fight. Every right abused
has negative consequences. Second amendment allows
us to buy and keep the guns but it also promote violence.
America has more deaths from guns than any advanced country. wonder why? Ask mothers of children at Sandy
Hook school in Connecticut.
has the right. But Americans don't have right to
be busive to others. You and I can't sit in a restaurant
and hurl expletives at each other. We surely will be
either thrown out or get into fist fight. Every right abused
has negative consequences. Second amendment allows
us to buy and keep the guns but it also promote violence.
America has more deaths from guns than any advanced country. wonder why? Ask mothers of children at Sandy
Hook school in Connecticut.
2
We should be grievously offended whenever someone seeks to avenge an insult by harming or killing the offender. It makes me want to testify against them and see them put away for good. This includes everyone from muslims who have been offended by a cartoon, to policemen who have suffered insubordination and disrespect.
3
The sad truth is there are radicals and other disturbed people among us who act out and cause harm even with no overt provocation. Comsider the Boston Marathon for example. That said, however, when exercising free speech, or pretending to, as the event in Garland was purportedly about, it's also important to think about potential consequences. And there are always consequences. We have the right to place our hand on a hot stove but is getting burned worth it? It's become painfully apparent that making fun of Mohammed is a hot stove issue for those who exercise no self control over slights, anger, or ego. Thus, before offering a public activity that provokes; that's a hot stove issue, it seems vitally important to consider what positive or desired results, if any, will come from touching that hot stove--and whether getting burned on a large or small scale is worth it. In other words it's good to do a benefit/damage analysis regardless of rights. That's reality. And, for the good of all, wisdom plus reality must lead the way.
3
The Cartoon exhibit obviously thought about the consequences having spent $10,000 on extra security. This is the country we are-- one eager to insult and one quick to exact deadly vengeance on that insult.
So you are saying that we in the United States must not exercise our free speech rights because Muslims may be offended. You used a lot of words and talked about a stove, but what you are saying is very simple and VERY offensive.
2
Such attacks are now becoming less of an anomoly and more of a problem which can no longer be avoided. Our President's unwillingness to confront extremism in order to merely maintain political correctness may work in the case of infrequent incidents, but that is no longer the circumstance. We are now dealt with a true, ideological, fundamental enemy which rejects the freedoms which this great country was established upon.
There is almost exclusive consistentcy in those who oppose these values - jihadists, islamists, and conservative muslims. This figure slightly outnumbers the nominal muslims who we welcome and wish to exploit. In summary, hundreds of millions of muslims hold these pernicious beliefs, while hundreds of millions of muslims oppose these attacks.
This confrontation is especially difficult because it is not necessarily a centralized threat, but rather an ideological disease. While I do not boast a solution at the moment, I do propose that 1) Obama confront the problem truthfully (which he will not), and that 2) the free world NEVER censure itself to satisfy a third party!
Freedom really isn't free!
There is almost exclusive consistentcy in those who oppose these values - jihadists, islamists, and conservative muslims. This figure slightly outnumbers the nominal muslims who we welcome and wish to exploit. In summary, hundreds of millions of muslims hold these pernicious beliefs, while hundreds of millions of muslims oppose these attacks.
This confrontation is especially difficult because it is not necessarily a centralized threat, but rather an ideological disease. While I do not boast a solution at the moment, I do propose that 1) Obama confront the problem truthfully (which he will not), and that 2) the free world NEVER censure itself to satisfy a third party!
Freedom really isn't free!
6
There's another way to look at Ms. Geller and her organization. According to the most recent (publicly available) IRS tax reports from her nonprofit AFDI, Ms. Geller was paid over $210,000 in 2013 (over 50% of AFDI total expenses), and it seems that she is AFDI's only employee. And she indicates that she only works 10 hours a week for the organization. That's over $400 per hour. Nice gig, if you can get it. Seems that hate pays pretty well these days and what she's really focused on is finding ways to generate lots of cash for herself. At $1 million, AFDI's 2013 contributions were $850,000 more than the measly $150K she raised for herself in 2012. Evidently, 'freedom of speech' is a growth market ...
7
Interesting fact! But compared to Bill Clintons $500,000 per speech she's nobody!
2
Pamela Geller's latest exercise in inflaming hate went this time beyond her wildest dreams. A shooting? For Pamela Geller, that's just icing on the cake.
5
Shame, shame, shame on the organizers and participants who knowingly and willfully put the lives of security guards and police as well as any casual passer-byes in danger for the cheap thrill of offending a religious group. There is absolutely nothing right in taking up arms. I do not defend the gunmen at all. The first amendment is supposed to give us the freedom to assemble and protest and speak against evils, especially protecting us from an overbearing and tyrannical government. I now feel I must endure the overbearing and tyrannical opinions of pinheads.
5
I am getting tired of people claiming that attacking their opponents makes them free speech heroes. I'm a Democrat. Let's say I call a "Free speech" forum in which my fellow Democrats all compete to come up with art that savages Republicans, and only Republicans. No one except Republicans. We have an award for who can create the most obscene, angry, vicious drawing, joke, or song against Republicans. Nothing against Democrats or anyone else, only Republicans. How would that make me a free speech warrior? (And why, BTW, has offensiveness become the standard of free speech these days?) If these people want to show how much they support free speech, let them invite people to mock Christians, Americans, Texans, and anyone else. If they allowed that, despite obviously deploring it, then they would be really promoting free speech. But this idea that celebrating bile against one's enemy is the height of free speech is absurd. Saddam Hussein had that kind of "free speech" in his day.
The image of religious zealots shooting people for expressing their opinions, at an event full of the free speech equivalent of armchair warriors, makes for one sad day for true free speech.
The image of religious zealots shooting people for expressing their opinions, at an event full of the free speech equivalent of armchair warriors, makes for one sad day for true free speech.
6
If we are to remain the country we claim to be, we need to make clear to everyone who wants to live here that there are no "sacred cows." Anything and anyone in this country is subject to satire, lampooning and derision. If you don't like it, respond in kind. Because you can.
But you cannot silence the speaker or author, via censorship or violence. Do that, and in my view, you forfeit your right to life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness, in effect, the privilege of living here.
In a perfect world, should people be respectful and responsible? Perhaps. But these days, the political correctness fanatics use those terms as a cover for censoring everything that "hurts their feelings" or somehow offends their belief systems. Get over it.
What makes a representative government work best is openness, the ability to speak our minds without getting physically injured or killed for doing it. Sure, we have some problems there, particularly the ones created by SCOTUS that have decreed corporations are people and money is speech, both of which are clearly ludicrous notions. But they are what they are. And neither determination says we can be injured or killed for disagreeing with it, as I just have.
In the end, I am very pleased the two gunmen at this event were killed. They sought to kill those merely advocating for their point of view. I would hope that fate would greet all others, of any persuasion, seeking to use violence to muzzle other people in this country.
But you cannot silence the speaker or author, via censorship or violence. Do that, and in my view, you forfeit your right to life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness, in effect, the privilege of living here.
In a perfect world, should people be respectful and responsible? Perhaps. But these days, the political correctness fanatics use those terms as a cover for censoring everything that "hurts their feelings" or somehow offends their belief systems. Get over it.
What makes a representative government work best is openness, the ability to speak our minds without getting physically injured or killed for doing it. Sure, we have some problems there, particularly the ones created by SCOTUS that have decreed corporations are people and money is speech, both of which are clearly ludicrous notions. But they are what they are. And neither determination says we can be injured or killed for disagreeing with it, as I just have.
In the end, I am very pleased the two gunmen at this event were killed. They sought to kill those merely advocating for their point of view. I would hope that fate would greet all others, of any persuasion, seeking to use violence to muzzle other people in this country.
8
I would add people shouldn't be surprised when crazies attack and kill.
So how did the two attackers get assault type rifles to undertake their attack? If they were on the FBI's watch list how could they get weapons?
The Republicans blocked universal background checks, so it's very easy for someone on a terrorism watch list, who can't get on an airplane, to back up a truck at a gun show and fill it with the type of weapon used to slaughter children in Sandy Hook..
4
Let's agree that the attack was reprehensible, and also stop pretending that Christianity as currently practiced in the United States consists entirely of people like Ned Flanders.
2
This article goes out of its way to smear the organizers of the event, suggesting they're responsible for the attack, the way some would blame a woman who was raped for being responsible for the attack on her.
40
A disgusting perversion of comparative logic and false comparative to boot.
@Gunnar W.: "This article goes out of its way to smear the organizers of the event, suggesting they're responsible for the attack, ..."
Please quote the article, so we don't have to guess what you are talking about.
Please quote the article, so we don't have to guess what you are talking about.
The piece does nothing of the sort. It simply tells the facts. If one gets the idea that the organizers are a bunch of racist freaks who put on the show not as an expression of free speech but because they get their kicks insulting and offending Muslims and giving voice to their paranoia, that's because they are.
2
When kids are asked not to do something, their curiosity about that thing generally increases. True for kids and for harmless curiosity (curiosity can kill a cat though), but should that also apply to (supposedly balance-minded and in-control) "adults" and to acts which are widely known to hurt someone else. The people who, knowing well it would hurt the sentiments of Muslims, gathered purposely to make fun of Mohammad were behaving no better than naughty kids - but not as innocent naughty kids, as evil malicious ones!
On the other side, we have angry, revengeful kids, who are easily provoked and who also lose all balance of mind and the ability to see what exactly they are doing in retaliation.
And to me it all sounds like idiots versus idiots. The consequence sadly is bloody.
On the other side, we have angry, revengeful kids, who are easily provoked and who also lose all balance of mind and the ability to see what exactly they are doing in retaliation.
And to me it all sounds like idiots versus idiots. The consequence sadly is bloody.
Given that the NSA has spent some 50 BILLION dollars to listen to everything all Americans say, write and do, where exactly were they on this case? And the FBI? And the CIA? And why do those agencies all seem to be inept or incompetent or both and more and worse?
At least the traffic cop was a straight shooter and the two killers didn't make it to martyrdom, just dumbdom.
At least the traffic cop was a straight shooter and the two killers didn't make it to martyrdom, just dumbdom.
6
Because here in the USA those ridiculously politically correct are fighting furiously to halt the police from monitoring those that are more likely to be violent or commit crimes. Hence we have grandmothers being frisked at airports while people attending extremist mosques are free to roam the streets.
5
This "event" was a clear example religious bigotry designed to feed and fan the flames of anti-Islamic hatred. Pamela Geller is an attention craving, media manipulating, hate spewing, crackpot.
BUT, I stand, resolutely, behind their/her right to express their ignorance in the way in which they chose. Religious tolerance in the country means that we not only have to tolerate all religions, but the expression of anti-religious sentiments. Freely expressing one's ignorance and hatred should draw societies scorn, not gun fire.
BUT, I stand, resolutely, behind their/her right to express their ignorance in the way in which they chose. Religious tolerance in the country means that we not only have to tolerate all religions, but the expression of anti-religious sentiments. Freely expressing one's ignorance and hatred should draw societies scorn, not gun fire.
10
Pamela Geller is a vicious hate monger; knowing what the likely outcome would be, she deliberately provoked people--with predictable results. She will be vindicated in her hatred of Muslims in eyes of her equally perverse followers. The real tragedy is that Geller is free to spread her hate and bigotry far and wide.
14
Freedom is many things but it's not a tragedy, it's a constitutional right.
5
Sticks and stones...but words will never harm me. I think you have the wrong person labelled a hate monger. She is a peaceful person. It the two dead that were the hate mongers. I won't be missing them.
6
And you are free to attempt to spread your blasphemy censorship, which I choose to ignore. The real tragedy is how quickly people will surrender free expression for a 7th Century theology which has no basis in science or reality.
4
What moron decided it was a good idea to have Pam Geller and her fellow-haters do something this provocative and expect nothing to happen? Or was this shooting part of Geller's whole scheme? Now, along with being the head of an official "hate-group" she's least an accomplice to manslaughter.
9
I did not hear of Pam Geller nor this event until radical Islamist tried to silence them. Now I know.
Muslims should heed the words of the Prophet Jesus and turn the other cheek to insults.
Muslims should heed the words of the Prophet Jesus and turn the other cheek to insults.
2
"Provocative" is thinking like a dhimmi.
3
Accomplice to manslaughter? Not in a court of law. You seem to have misunderstood who was trying to kill who.
3
Why don't our political leaders and media declare the truth: that we are at war with Jihadi Islam and, therefore, any American who joins that movement is guilty of treason for which the penalty should be execution by firing squad. Instead what we have is a mealy mouthed, rhetoric - super sensitive political correctness that seems to classify a desire and action to be a Jihadi as some kind of a semi acceptable political opinion-right or perhaps a minor mental disability.
21
Oh yes. Lets do that. Declare war on Jihadi (sp) Islam. While we are at it why not just put Islam on notice. You do realize if such a declaration was to be put in effect, every Muslim in the US would be marked for death. This is not mealy mouthed political correctness I am talking about. I am talking about freedom of religion. How do you expect to separate out those with radical Islamic views from those who are simply followers of Islam? Your knee jerk reaction is exactly what we don't want from our leaders. Wee did that once and wound up killing a whole lot of innocent people simply because a group of simpletons decided they didn't like their leader. Please put some thought into what you propose. It reeks of internment camps back in the 1940's.
Why? Because that is not the truth. Truth be told the vast majority of Muslims are not violent, do not attempt to murder people who draw satirical cartoons nor anyone else. It is the people who co-opt Islam for their own gains that we and many Muslims are fighting against.
Contrary to the belief of some, Christianity is not under assault in the US or anywhere else by Islam.
Contrary to the belief of some, Christianity is not under assault in the US or anywhere else by Islam.
Just because a man is willing to die for a cause does not make it true.
8
That heroic officer was a quick thinker and good shot....one more reason I love living in Texas....still the land of the free & home of the brave!
22
The event organizers were very brave standing behind Security included uniformed Garland police and school district officers, SWAT team and bomb squad officers, and representatives of the F.B.I. and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.But that officer was a good shot!
There were a lot of law enforcement folks on the scene, risking their lives to keep the peace. Cops do a lot of good work. Just in case you had forgotten.
24
Geller paid for the security because they expected and wanted something to happen. They got their wish, didn't they? LE had to come out, with bomb squads, after the two shooters showed up. The whole thing on both sides is perverse.
2
Loss of life is never good. When I first saw this article I mused what a waste this anti-Islam art contest was-proves nothing if nothing goes wrong and when the result is a wounded security guard and two dead-it is a small tragedy.
But then I looked at the comments, the debate raging here in the virtual pages ofg the NY Times and I think, maybe there is a purposew to this sort of thing-if only to air out this issue. I am finding obviously intelligent, caring people on all sides raesoning towards a better balance.
But then I looked at the comments, the debate raging here in the virtual pages ofg the NY Times and I think, maybe there is a purposew to this sort of thing-if only to air out this issue. I am finding obviously intelligent, caring people on all sides raesoning towards a better balance.
2
Well--just to make it interesting--I am ethnically and culturally as Jewish as they come; lived for a decade as a Muslim by choice--in and out of a Muslim country--and as far as I'm concerned--offend away, and more power to ya.
Pamela Geller is a loathsome human being and, as many have noted, a provocateur. Of course this was a baited trap and I'm sure she and her followers are delighted a couple of idiots were fatally caught in it.
That doesn't change the fact that in a secular society, you can bleed in private, if someone has hurt your sensibilities, but you cannot stop them from mocking you or anything you hold dear.
As many have noted, there was no righteous outcry from the liberal-minded when Andres Serrano exhibited his "Piss Christ." That was revolting but he had the right to do it.
So the mealy-mouthed intellectuals who withdrew from the PEN awards gala are probably hypocrites of the first order, and thank God they were replaced by people of greater intellectual integrity.
Truly, honestly--NOTHING is sacred.
Pamela Geller is a loathsome human being and, as many have noted, a provocateur. Of course this was a baited trap and I'm sure she and her followers are delighted a couple of idiots were fatally caught in it.
That doesn't change the fact that in a secular society, you can bleed in private, if someone has hurt your sensibilities, but you cannot stop them from mocking you or anything you hold dear.
As many have noted, there was no righteous outcry from the liberal-minded when Andres Serrano exhibited his "Piss Christ." That was revolting but he had the right to do it.
So the mealy-mouthed intellectuals who withdrew from the PEN awards gala are probably hypocrites of the first order, and thank God they were replaced by people of greater intellectual integrity.
Truly, honestly--NOTHING is sacred.
12
@SCA: 'As many have noted, there was no righteous outcry from the liberal-minded when Andres Serrano exhibited his "Piss Christ."'
I'm not sure what your point is, but Serrano's "Piss Christ" was damaged by a hammer-wielding attacker in 2011 in France. A web search will find much more.
I'm not sure what your point is, but Serrano's "Piss Christ" was damaged by a hammer-wielding attacker in 2011 in France. A web search will find much more.
Actually she did a great thing by baiting the trap.
She proved that there are Muslims who will do bad things.
These people are a danger to our freedoms and anything that brings them out is a good thing so then people will know the truth..
She proved that there are Muslims who will do bad things.
These people are a danger to our freedoms and anything that brings them out is a good thing so then people will know the truth..
1
The event seems absolutely pointless. Provoke and bait hardline muslims with hired security. This helps no more than a baby abortion party event might with militant Christians. That said it appears these 2 gunmen were unto no good anyways so atleast they got flushed out before they did more serious damage in Somalia or Syria.
1
Do we have the right to say what we wish in our free society, without fear of government interference? In general, yes. Some speech is not protected though. Like hate speech, for example. Or incitement to violent action. Or treason.
But the fact that the law says we can speak does not mean that we always should speak. That's not a question of freedom. That's a question of good judgment, of respect for others.
The people who put on this event claim that this was all about demonstrating their freedom of speech. In fact, what they demonstrated was poor judgment and a lack of respect for others. They had the right to do what they did, but nonetheless, they shouldn't have done it.
And none of what has just been said has a thing to do with the two zealots who thought they needed to protect the Prophet by shooting people. Thankfully, they were stopped.
But the fact that the law says we can speak does not mean that we always should speak. That's not a question of freedom. That's a question of good judgment, of respect for others.
The people who put on this event claim that this was all about demonstrating their freedom of speech. In fact, what they demonstrated was poor judgment and a lack of respect for others. They had the right to do what they did, but nonetheless, they shouldn't have done it.
And none of what has just been said has a thing to do with the two zealots who thought they needed to protect the Prophet by shooting people. Thankfully, they were stopped.
6
I just don't understand why the West keeps bending over backwards to accommodate such an intolerant religion. Whether it's having to wear acceptable clothing when in their countries to not offending their god yet the don't accommodate or tolerate others. Enough with trying to blame everyone but the intolerant violent haters who do not know how to live peacefully with others.
41
Enough with the intolerant refusal to see Muslims as individuals. Enough with painting them all with the "violent" brush. Enough with refusing to allow them freedom of religion. Enough with thinking the West is so superior. Enough with the lazy black/white thinking.
So we spend trillions of dollars to read every citizen's email and monitor everyone's conversations and somebody charged with "violent jihad" can wander around Texas with a gun at public events ? Anybody else see anything wrong here ? If there were accountability for how our money for security is spent, people like this would be watched closely 24/7, instead of being used to hire pedophiles to grope children at our airports and paying contractors to shoot innocent civilians in foreign countries.
3
Liberal apologists against freedom of speech. Who would have thunk it.
30
Unfortunately Rocco it's all too common. A similar liberal irresolution was noted and condemned very properly by George Orwell in the 1930's. He said it is idle to pretend there is no choice between Western capitalism and fascism. The words are as true today, just change the labels. The Nazis thought the democracies didn't have the will to stand up to them - they were very nearly right, but for some strong leaders circa-1940 who were in the right place and the right time - but also the bulk of the people, who stood with them. Let's hope history doesn't repeat itself in the sense of needing to get to a world war to deal with this problem.
2
A $10,000 first prize and $ 40,000 for security shows where the organizers of this event put their priorities. Yes, we all have the right to free speech, especially that which we find most provocative however, do we have any responsibility for its consequences. Had these amateur jihadists filled their car with enough explosives to kill the two hundred men, women and children in attendance, would the organizers have admitted to any culpability?
8
I would never have heard of Charlie Hebdo except for the bigoted atrocity carried out in the Paris office of that satirical magazine. Bigoted yes, because it was aimed at "other" to the point of slaughter. I would never have heard of the event in Texas except for the bigoted atrocity carried out there, more slaughter. Strange that bigotry and hate and death is having the opposite effect of its intent, spreading the word that we must all stand up to hate in all its forms, and support free speech - the Universal Consciousness certainly moves in mysterious ways.
2
@LuckyDog - there was a pamphleteering war between various religious groups in Punjab in India in the 1920s. This was across various sects of Muslims and Hindus. A publisher of one pamphlet that supposedly insulted the Prophet was murdered; the murder made the New York Times. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9A0CE2D7103EE73ABC4F53DFB...
(Rajpal was the publisher, not the author, the NYT got that wrong.)
Guess what, all the other pamphlets of that time have faded into oblivion. That particular pamphlet "Rangeela Rasul" is immortalized on the web. It is quite easy to find. The point is that those who would kill for blasphemy actually make what they're fighting against stronger.
(Rajpal was the publisher, not the author, the NYT got that wrong.)
Guess what, all the other pamphlets of that time have faded into oblivion. That particular pamphlet "Rangeela Rasul" is immortalized on the web. It is quite easy to find. The point is that those who would kill for blasphemy actually make what they're fighting against stronger.
Pamela Geller must be clapping her hands in glee today. What excellent publicity! So many microphones, so little time!
"It's about free speech! Free speech!"
No, it's about inciting hatred and mistrust.
Her group, the American Freedom Defense Initiative, has been labelled, well-deservedly, a hate group by the British government and the Southern Poverty Law Center, among others.
She is nothing more than a provocateur, busily stirring up hatred and pointing it in the direction of all Muslims, eagerly waiting for the pot to boil over so she can point her finger: "See! See!"
Flip the situation and imagine a Muslim group that, for years, plasters Holocaust-denial posters throughout the country, holds anti-Zionist seminars in Hassidic neighborhoods, and is invited by the media to espouse their anti-Semitic views as though they are credible.
Imagine if the Ku Klux Klan were promoted and lent credence to spread their hateful messages throughout the country.
You would see an entirely different reaction from the media. And I suspsect there are fringe elements among the denigrated groups I just mentioned who would take matters into their own hands. I am not condoning the Texas shooters because violence is never the answer. But neither is hatred.
Muslims and blacks are always called to condemn members of their group who commit atrocities. It's time Jewish leaders and rabbis condemn the AFDI. It is impossible to heal wounds when someone keeps picking at the scab.
"It's about free speech! Free speech!"
No, it's about inciting hatred and mistrust.
Her group, the American Freedom Defense Initiative, has been labelled, well-deservedly, a hate group by the British government and the Southern Poverty Law Center, among others.
She is nothing more than a provocateur, busily stirring up hatred and pointing it in the direction of all Muslims, eagerly waiting for the pot to boil over so she can point her finger: "See! See!"
Flip the situation and imagine a Muslim group that, for years, plasters Holocaust-denial posters throughout the country, holds anti-Zionist seminars in Hassidic neighborhoods, and is invited by the media to espouse their anti-Semitic views as though they are credible.
Imagine if the Ku Klux Klan were promoted and lent credence to spread their hateful messages throughout the country.
You would see an entirely different reaction from the media. And I suspsect there are fringe elements among the denigrated groups I just mentioned who would take matters into their own hands. I am not condoning the Texas shooters because violence is never the answer. But neither is hatred.
Muslims and blacks are always called to condemn members of their group who commit atrocities. It's time Jewish leaders and rabbis condemn the AFDI. It is impossible to heal wounds when someone keeps picking at the scab.
11
If some people are willing to kill over a cartoon, then that absurdity should be criticized in a free society. Allowing a religious group to dictate what we can draw is simply ridiculous. We talk about how ISIS imposes their form of strict Sharia law and how we need to fight their ideology, yet we are willing to surrender to individuals angry over a cartoon in this country?
50
Say no to jihad. Say yes to debate. Say no to sharia. Say yes to human rights. Fourteen hundred years of assaulting the West must come to an end.The time for Islam's reformation is hundreds of years overdue.
35
So, you want to blame Muslims for anti-Islamic rhetoric? Isn't that a little like blaming Black Americans for racism?
I love free speech and defend it heartily. At the same time, I'm sick of people deliberately baiting and provoking other people in the name of free speech. And don't waste my time with the idea that baiting and provoking others is what free speech is about. In the current context of increasing American Islamophobia, it doesn't meet the smell test. It was in your face, obnoxious provocation designed to get a response.
Let's have a Muslim community somewhere create an identical event where people submit cartoons of JC, preferably in a location where there are lots of gun nuts like in Texas. And then see what happens.
Let's have a Muslim community somewhere create an identical event where people submit cartoons of JC, preferably in a location where there are lots of gun nuts like in Texas. And then see what happens.
13
An event lampooning Jesus would more than likely result in angry Christians protesting;not body-armor clad assault rifle toting jihadis aiming to execute people as is so common among Muslims.
2
Many of these comments would apply if the event in question took place in Pakistan or Saudi Arabia or any other country with anti-blasphemy laws. But this event took place in the US, where free speech is the law and mockery of religion is a staple of art, theater and humor. Don't want your religion subject to the same 'respect' shown others? Move to a country whose laws are more in step with your beliefs.
Funny thing is that most (all?) of the comments criticizing those who staged/attended the event are made by folks who would never, ever live in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan or other countries that practice what the commentors preach; curtailment of freedom of speech. Strange how repression in one aspect of public discourse often leads to repression in other areas as well.
Funny thing is that most (all?) of the comments criticizing those who staged/attended the event are made by folks who would never, ever live in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan or other countries that practice what the commentors preach; curtailment of freedom of speech. Strange how repression in one aspect of public discourse often leads to repression in other areas as well.
24
I'm tired of hearing about "mujahideen". We need to coin a new term for people who who think they are participating in some kind of war, but are not. These people were not striking out an against invaders - in fact, they were the invaders. Maybe "imbeciladeen" would be the right term for them.
Why does anyone think it is "offensive" to criticize, make fun of, or laugh at people who, because they think they have God's cell phone number, hold absurd and mean spirited political positions? If we refrain from speaking out, we become the very definition of a society, that is frightened and controlled, rather than brave and free.
Why does anyone think it is "offensive" to criticize, make fun of, or laugh at people who, because they think they have God's cell phone number, hold absurd and mean spirited political positions? If we refrain from speaking out, we become the very definition of a society, that is frightened and controlled, rather than brave and free.
21
"I don't care if the organizer is an anti Muslim firebrand, no one has the right to attack any gathering of humans with a gun."
That's the bottom line. All civilized human beings agree.
But a little decency would go a long way here. How would this event organizer respond to a suggestion that we expand his "cartoon contest" to add prizes, say, for the best graven image of God, or for Jesus breaking multiple Commandments.
It was not New Yorkers' finest hour when many of them opposed granting a permit for the Muslim cultural center proposed for a few blocks away from the 9/11 site, but it's understandable that they were offended. That didn't justify their behavior, and nothing justifies shooting anyone.
But how about a little civility now and then?
That's the bottom line. All civilized human beings agree.
But a little decency would go a long way here. How would this event organizer respond to a suggestion that we expand his "cartoon contest" to add prizes, say, for the best graven image of God, or for Jesus breaking multiple Commandments.
It was not New Yorkers' finest hour when many of them opposed granting a permit for the Muslim cultural center proposed for a few blocks away from the 9/11 site, but it's understandable that they were offended. That didn't justify their behavior, and nothing justifies shooting anyone.
But how about a little civility now and then?
3
Caricature, cartoons, satire, etc. are all perfectly acceptable forms of political criticism in the US. Sometime it's below the belt, but that's the nature of it. You don't have to like it, and there are many acceptable forms of rebuttal. Shooting people with AK47s is not one of them.
22
"In 2010, federal prosecutors in Arizona charged Mr. Simpson with lying to an F.B.I. agent about his plans to travel to Somalia “for the purpose of engaging in violent jihad.” A judge found him guilty of lying to the agent, but said the government had not proved that his plan involved terrorism, and sentenced him to three years’ probation."
So, nobody thinks it's a problem that this guy had allegedly plotted to engage in Jihad, was found guilty of lying to a federal agent, was being surveilled for further activity several months prior to this incident, and was allowed to remain in the U.S.?
Frankly I find this aspect more important than the free speech or Islam issues here. If you're caught planning to wage Jihad, and then caught again, you're not welcome here. Period. Get out. They should have bought this guy a one-way ticket to Somalia back in 2010.
So, nobody thinks it's a problem that this guy had allegedly plotted to engage in Jihad, was found guilty of lying to a federal agent, was being surveilled for further activity several months prior to this incident, and was allowed to remain in the U.S.?
Frankly I find this aspect more important than the free speech or Islam issues here. If you're caught planning to wage Jihad, and then caught again, you're not welcome here. Period. Get out. They should have bought this guy a one-way ticket to Somalia back in 2010.
5
I wonder if any intelligence agency surveiled any of them after that case.
Martha Stewart was jailed for lying to an FBI agent. But the judge let this guy off the hook? i thought she should be miffed about the former CIA director lying to the FBI and sharing state secrets and got off the hook as well. Something seems a bit off here? I suspect the FBI let the terrorist off the hook to see where it might lead. How do that work out? I guess they were afraid Martha might rearrange the dinner plans. Might lead to dancing.
2
Offend whomever you want for now. Just remember, the odds of our tribe stepping in and protecting you are inversely related to just how distasteful you become to the majority, no matter how we claim to love freedom. Ms. Geller and Mr. Wilders depend on that ugly truth than more their apologists care to admit. They aren't pissing on our own beliefs and values so high-minded defenders are much easier to come by.
6
Why aren't we kicking these people out of country? And,we did we let them in to begin with?! 3 years probation? That will really stop them.
15
He was born in this country. How do you propose he should have been kept out?
Europeans are asking themselves the same question: only too late to save their cultures.
1
First, the organizers of this event are not at all like Charlie Hebdo because Charlie Hebdo is against bigotry, and it appears that many of the people involved in this event were just bigoted people with no real substance. This does NOT, however, mean that the appropriate response to something like this should be: "Well, they probably shouldn't have drawn something so inflammatory" or "They knew how this would likely end". That is another issue for another day. Separate the principle from the content, please. It would be a real shame for the focus to immediately turn to how we must not offend people, rather than why it is that some offensive images/ideas generate more violent responses than others and how this can be remedied in our free, secular society. It is not an easy issue to confront, but it is the only one that matters at this point because too much is at stake.
"The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error." - John Stuart Mill ("On Liberty", 1869)
"The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error." - John Stuart Mill ("On Liberty", 1869)
5
"First, the organizers of this event are not at all like Charlie Hebdo because Charlie Hebdo is against bigotry, and it appears that many of the people involved in this event were just bigoted people with no real substance. "
That is completely irrelevant. Under US law, you are free to say what you want and draw cartoons of popular figures, including of religious figures that lived 1500+ years ago. End of discussion. The reaction of several readers on here is disturbing. The act of trying to shoot up this event is not defensible on any level and too bad some Muslims got offended.
That is completely irrelevant. Under US law, you are free to say what you want and draw cartoons of popular figures, including of religious figures that lived 1500+ years ago. End of discussion. The reaction of several readers on here is disturbing. The act of trying to shoot up this event is not defensible on any level and too bad some Muslims got offended.
3
Did you read the rest of my comment?
Contrary to the uninformed comments below, Geller was not mocking anything at this event. She was calling for a robust defense of the 1st Amendment, something that was once sacred to American liberals. How times have changed.
Pamela Geller is an American hero.
Her blog, http://pamelageller.com/, documents the daily muslim atrocities around the world that the MSM and NYTimes don't find "fit to print." But these despicable atrocities are happening, muslims appear to be on a crusade of extermination--today in the mideast, to be followed in Europe in the near future. Almost alone in the West, Geller is courageously speaking truth to power.
I'm glad that the shooter was a poor shot, only wounding the unarmed security guard, and I'm glad that the Texas police did their duty. The shooters got their wish, they are dead now.
Pamela Geller is an American hero.
Her blog, http://pamelageller.com/, documents the daily muslim atrocities around the world that the MSM and NYTimes don't find "fit to print." But these despicable atrocities are happening, muslims appear to be on a crusade of extermination--today in the mideast, to be followed in Europe in the near future. Almost alone in the West, Geller is courageously speaking truth to power.
I'm glad that the shooter was a poor shot, only wounding the unarmed security guard, and I'm glad that the Texas police did their duty. The shooters got their wish, they are dead now.
30
Geller is a bigot (in her own words.) She hates Islam, which, of course, is her right, but goes out of her way to offend Islam and call even moderate Moslems terrorists. Anyone serious enough to really study Islam knows there is a vigorous debate with the faith over the meaning of suras from Mecca, as opposed to those written in Medina, and what is the consequence of following one or the other for spiritual guidance. There are intellectuals within the faith for whom these issue are extremely important and they are beset by the orthodox and radical sects, as well as Geller and her ilk. As fellow human beings searching for the truth in a world gone mad, we should be supporting these intelligent and moderating forces instead of lumping all Moslems together and calling them terrorists.
Geller revels in provocation, so let's not mince words; she's not a hero; she's a media clown.
Geller revels in provocation, so let's not mince words; she's not a hero; she's a media clown.
1
Stephen, you ignored my main point. Where else can I find coverage of the worldwide muslim atrocities that are fast becoming routine? Geller provides that coverage, truthfully, no one else does. She may well have clownish antics at times, but she is heroically standing up for freedom, and against the encroachment of Sharia.
1
The organizers had no purpose than to be gratuitously provocative. They set the trap, hired 40 police, SWAT team, FBI and bomb squad members to be there - and waited.
14
So that gives someone the right to try to assault the gathering??? I don't much care for the KKK or neo-Nazis, but they unfortunately have the same rights under the Constitution.
2
They didn't "set the trap". They had security because of what happened to Charlie Hebdo and others in Europe that have drawn Mohammed cartoons. Isn't that pretty obvious?
4
That's was smart, good security knowing some idiots we're going to try and take out some innocent people I acting there constitutional rights..now they go get to get their 29 sheep or virgins..something like that
2
Yes, the event was childish, bigoted and ill-conceived. But you know what? Who cares? If it offends you, then don't go. Better yet, exercise one's inalienable American right to counter the message from this event with your own point of view, published in the social media venues of your choosing. If you're feeling particularly vexed, you can feel free to stand outside the event w/ signs and peacefully demonstrate.
It amazes me how our culture seems to selectively practice "victim blaming" based on context and how we individually perceive the targets of crime. This case is no different. A group was engaging in provocative, questionable behavior, yet no one, no one, has the right to harm them. This is no different than an individual wearing a "proactive" outfit, or writing something "provocative" on Twitter, or even singing a "provocative" song.
When people begin a conversation on this subject with hand-wringing, defeatist questions like "Why did they hold this event?" or "What did the organizers expect would happen?", then it makes me worry about where we're headed, as a society, and I consider myself a very left-leaning individual. We need to collectively find the courage to stand up for the freedoms we have fought, bled & died for over 200+ years of this nation's history. If anyone feels embracing censorship is "the right thing to do", then there are dozens of countries that perhaps they'd feel more comfortable living in.
It amazes me how our culture seems to selectively practice "victim blaming" based on context and how we individually perceive the targets of crime. This case is no different. A group was engaging in provocative, questionable behavior, yet no one, no one, has the right to harm them. This is no different than an individual wearing a "proactive" outfit, or writing something "provocative" on Twitter, or even singing a "provocative" song.
When people begin a conversation on this subject with hand-wringing, defeatist questions like "Why did they hold this event?" or "What did the organizers expect would happen?", then it makes me worry about where we're headed, as a society, and I consider myself a very left-leaning individual. We need to collectively find the courage to stand up for the freedoms we have fought, bled & died for over 200+ years of this nation's history. If anyone feels embracing censorship is "the right thing to do", then there are dozens of countries that perhaps they'd feel more comfortable living in.
47
Just to shift things up, I'd like to offer that there were religious objectors who built their own world in the wilds of America and let Indians under the influence of alcohol and men of greed murder them without resistance because they so detested all this bickering and back biting. There are tales of women crying out to Jesus to save their souls lest they break his bond before they died. They refused to kill.
Many of these frontier families were abducted into Indian life and saw more honesty and reason in them than their emerging Protestant values could reconcile with those who didn't give a fig for anything but Property. Some returned to live with their European relations, others never looked back; they had to run just to survive. We are a murderous Lot, that is all.
Many of these frontier families were abducted into Indian life and saw more honesty and reason in them than their emerging Protestant values could reconcile with those who didn't give a fig for anything but Property. Some returned to live with their European relations, others never looked back; they had to run just to survive. We are a murderous Lot, that is all.
2
To add to their misery, because they would not side with either, they were perceived as resident enemies by all who engaged in hostilities. Always their lot to be kicked about by those pretending to defend them from the other.
There is a fine line between religion and cult. A religion becomes a cult when it cannot take criticism , reacts violently to criticism and cannot take self-corrective action. Islam is a violent cult that has survived 1500 years and grown and offers no room for corrective action and disowning of violent passages which is deems to be 'word of God'. If you objectively study the destruction , death and violence unleashed by of Islam in South Asia or Indian subcontinent over indigenous faiths and people over last 1500 years, you would reach the same conclusion.
40
They have not achieved the finesse necessary to carry on pedophile rings under cardinal wraps for the last century, nay? They would have a BIG problemo with dat rap.
1
If you objectively study any world religion, you will discover that it is as violent and vile as any other religion. Hinduism included.
1
Study Christianity in Europe, and for over 1000 years you would see the same thing. Islam is fighting it out over competing religious world views. There is also a strong minority within Islam that is actively trying to promote the enlightened teachings of Mahmoud Muhammad Taha and other teachers who perceive the possibility of a peaceful version of political Islam. But of course that means reading the suras of the Koran with a more critical mind, with an understanding of history, which so many, it would appear, seem to lack.
1
For 40 years anti-Jewish hate speech by the black Muslim hate group Nation of Islam has been allowed in colleges and public venues. Their hate literature is sold at mainstream bookstores and college campuses. Prominent black "civil rights" leaders, celebrities, politicians and religious leaders openly promote them, including Tavis Smiley having him on his PBS special. But let a Jewish woman get uppity with Muslims and her freedom of speech is quickly curtailed by threats of violence. When violence ensures she is blamed for "provoking Muslims". What would the reaction be if Jews behaved this way at events put on by Muslims and/or blacks which they found offensive? There are a lot (although you won't know it because media bias downplays this). I do not think they would get the sympathy Muslims do and I don't seem Muslims and blacks being chided by the left for "provoking Jews".
34
I'd say the Nation of Islam does not seek to insult the jewish faith but rather hates Jews as a people. Not that racism is okay but it's a little different here. The equivalent would be a bunch of people meeting in Texas and ranting on Muslims controlling the economy and putting down the white man.
While I guess I'd stand up for Pamela Geller's right to show cartoons of Mohammed, I'm not sure I would consider it worth the risk to attend the event...
5
I am going to keep on saying this -- maybe someday people will get it through their heads: Having a right to do something is NOT the same as it being the right thing to do!
They might have a right to free speech but using -- or abusing - that right to Incite people and provoke violence is simply not right, even if it is not against the law (although I think this fits in with the "can't scream fire in a theater").
They might have a right to free speech but using -- or abusing - that right to Incite people and provoke violence is simply not right, even if it is not against the law (although I think this fits in with the "can't scream fire in a theater").
9
Civilization cannot survive if people pick up a gun every time they encounter a form of expression that offends them. Otherwise, many stand-up comedy routines would end in bloodshed, and Bill Maher's Real Time shows would require more security than the Pentagon.
346
But that is what they are doing in Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, Somalia...yes, these societies are dying.
2
This isn't about "people" picking up a gun. It's about Islamic radicals refusing to be tolerant of ostensibly harmless cartoons while simultaneously complaining about the intolerance of the rest of the world . . .
Note that Bill Maher hasn't been shot at . . .
Note that Bill Maher hasn't been shot at . . .
1
Why not - your government does this all the time
Just because we have the right to do something doesn't mean that it's right to do so. True, the art contest was an exercise of free speech under U.S. law--but it was also an abuse of freedom by violating moral law and civility.
11
Who gets to define 'moral law and civility'?
2
With great freedom comes great responsibility. I can't see where provocation like this would be considered responsible. In no way do I support of terrorists, they got what they asked for I guess, but does this rally of yeahoos in Texas really not understand one does not have to be a terrorist to find such an event disrespectful. How would they feel about a contest to see who could depict Jesus in the most obscene manner?
9
The 1st Amendment gave those individuals the right to hold their Anti-Islam exhibit.
The 2nd Amendment made certain that those violently opposed to that first Amendment right could easily obtain guns.
There is no time like the present for adult supervision. Repeal the 2nd Amendment and replace it with one that empowers the federal government to set national standards for firearm possession, use, ownership, and transfer of ownership. And to those who declare that guns are a guarantee against oppressive government, I say: you're bringing a gun to a drone fight.
The 2nd Amendment made certain that those violently opposed to that first Amendment right could easily obtain guns.
There is no time like the present for adult supervision. Repeal the 2nd Amendment and replace it with one that empowers the federal government to set national standards for firearm possession, use, ownership, and transfer of ownership. And to those who declare that guns are a guarantee against oppressive government, I say: you're bringing a gun to a drone fight.
8
If I recall correctly, the people who attacked Charlie Hebdo did so in France, which has extremely tight gun control laws. Where there is a will, there is a way. In that case, probably through underworld connections, just as it would be possible to do so here. One will not disarm terrorists by repealing the 2A.
3
I am not suggesting that it would disarm terrorists; it would simply diminish the numbers of guns floating around and, thus, make us all safer. Thus, the terrorists, the drug dealer, the jealous husband, the disgruntled employee, and the five-year-old rummaging around his parents' bedroom would all be competing for the same gun. Presently, they can all get one.
Here's wishing we could put all these people on an island together -- Pam Gellar and her crowd, and all these reactive jihad wannabes, and let them work it out. The worry is for all the rest of us reasonable people who want to live in peace.
23
Here's hoping you find your way back under your bridge.
Of course, they could carry guns, the common denominator, though being on FBI watch list. It's a matter of who shoots first or who gets shot first...
I'm all for free speech, but was there any purpose to this 'draw the Prophet' competition other than to try to stir up exactly the kind of response it got?
This is not like Charlie Hebdo, which is an equal-opportunity offender (awhile back it printed a cartoon of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost engaged in a sodomitic threesome). This group with its rather Orwellian name got what they asked for, and I do not have to support the Jihadists to have absolutely no sympathy for the 'victims' whatsoever.
This is not like Charlie Hebdo, which is an equal-opportunity offender (awhile back it printed a cartoon of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost engaged in a sodomitic threesome). This group with its rather Orwellian name got what they asked for, and I do not have to support the Jihadists to have absolutely no sympathy for the 'victims' whatsoever.
7
How many groups do you have to offend at anyone time in order to be like Charlie Hebdo? Are only two required? Is it OK to offend Asians if I post something about the Pope at the same time?
1
MKM, you miss my point entirely.
This group in Texas deliberately set out specifically to offend Muslims, and only Muslims. The goal was not to make an intellectual comment nor satire, nor even to be a provocateur in the sense Charlie Hebdo is; it was, pure and simple, in the hope of starting a fight. And by golly, they got what they asked for. There is no 'good guy' in this - just two sets of ugly ideologues with different imaginary superfriends. No sympathy, none at all.
This group in Texas deliberately set out specifically to offend Muslims, and only Muslims. The goal was not to make an intellectual comment nor satire, nor even to be a provocateur in the sense Charlie Hebdo is; it was, pure and simple, in the hope of starting a fight. And by golly, they got what they asked for. There is no 'good guy' in this - just two sets of ugly ideologues with different imaginary superfriends. No sympathy, none at all.
ACW - It was very much a political statement by a New York group holding a meeting in Texas. Radical Islamist murder people for printing a cartoon. Gelller's Group says not acceptable and runs a Mohamed cartoon contest, a protest against what happened to Charlie Hebdo and others. It was in fact exactly in the tradition of Charlie Hebdo. They poked their finger in the eye of murderous bullies.
1
Pamela Geller (possibly a DSM V bi-polar provacateuress ?) is perhaps the one who should be held accountable.
She designated on The Southern Poverty Law Center's list as a Hate Group.
She designated on The Southern Poverty Law Center's list as a Hate Group.
6
Nation of Islam and the New Black Panther Party are also designated on the Southern Poverty Law Center's list of hate groups. Both speak regularly on college campuses. The former is openly supported and promoted by prominent black activists, entertainers, politicians and religious leaders.
5
The Southern Poverty Law Center is a hate group. I suppose it just depends on which kind of hate you like best...
7
You and Django channel Potock & Dees quite well. If it is a mental health issue just where is the call for improved coverage by Obamacare?
2
First, what the gunman did was not an offense against the First Amendment. The First Amendment protects us from action by the government, not by crazed, murderous individuals. His actions were a crime, and are without any defense, but had nothing to do with the First Amendment.
Second, this shooting is just what Pamela Geller and her followers were hoping for. If the exhibit had opened and closed without incident, or without comment by Muslims, she would have been frightfully disappointed. Pamela Geller was there to provoke, and the more extreme and violent the reaction, the better to prove her point. It is a pity that she had this level of satisfaction.
Second, this shooting is just what Pamela Geller and her followers were hoping for. If the exhibit had opened and closed without incident, or without comment by Muslims, she would have been frightfully disappointed. Pamela Geller was there to provoke, and the more extreme and violent the reaction, the better to prove her point. It is a pity that she had this level of satisfaction.
10
The organizers got what they wanted out of this event. Let's please not compare a cartoon drawing contest whose intention was to demonize the Prophet Mohammed to what happened at Charlie Hebdo. Geller put out her own money to hire fully armed security to protect the event. They expected something to happen and wanted something to happen. Of course they had every right to put on this "contest," but don't even think they did it out of some noble defense or expression of the our First Amendment rights. They did it out of hatred for Muslims. Pam Geller is a professional instigator.
15
True. Pam Geller is a disgusting person.
So were the terrorists.
A pox on both their houses.
So were the terrorists.
A pox on both their houses.
11
As I recall you were harsh on families that don't vaccinate. With that curse you just forfeited any stature in public health.
Yes, I'm sure Pam Geller and, say, Amjen Choudary and the other Muslim hate preachers freely walking the streets of Britain spewing hate of the West and Britain in particular, would have quite a bit to talk about. And how lucky they both are to live where they do, are they not? Oh wait - it was Geller's hate speech that drew an armed response, so far Choudary is bullet free . . .
1
I really don't understand some of these comments. Is there a moral equivalency between drawing a cartoon and killing?
If America won't stand up for freedom of speech, who will? Have we not learnt that appeasement results in a hunger for greater power? Today a cartoonist is in hiding for drawing a cartoon of a man. Tomorrow, who will they come after? Is that the road that America wants to go down?
I am a first generation Hindu American, and didn't leave the land of my birth to submit to Islam in my new country. If you want to sit in the sidelines, do so. I will fight to keep the rights that many have given their life for. Freedom is not given, it is earned by blood and sacrifice.
If America won't stand up for freedom of speech, who will? Have we not learnt that appeasement results in a hunger for greater power? Today a cartoonist is in hiding for drawing a cartoon of a man. Tomorrow, who will they come after? Is that the road that America wants to go down?
I am a first generation Hindu American, and didn't leave the land of my birth to submit to Islam in my new country. If you want to sit in the sidelines, do so. I will fight to keep the rights that many have given their life for. Freedom is not given, it is earned by blood and sacrifice.
80
I respect your right to walk naked down Frat Row, but you know Frats. Who's to blame when the lame come claiming? I hope you make it home, because Homie don't recommend that. But it might sell tickets...
Welcome to our civilization! I like your mindset. We need more like you.
Remember when there was a hit Broadway show that got tons of national attention that was a 2+ hour long mockery of the Mormon religion and so a group of Mormon extremists showed up at the theater to murder the attendees for mocking their religion and everyone on the internet was like "well, what do you expect when you make offensive plays about people's religions and sacred beliefs?"
Oh wait, me neither. Because instead of responding to the Book of Mormon with violence, the Mormon church took out ads in the playbills advertising their religion to the playgoers. The play was an arguably offensive exercise of the writer's First Amendment free speech rights and so the Mormons exercised their First Amendment right to counter-speech. I'm not always a big fan of everything the Mormon church does, but their response is an example of free speech at its finest.
In other words, regardless of how offended you are by what someone says about your religion (or pretty much anything else), you are 100% in the wrong if you try to murder them in response. People need to stop trying to make excuses for this kind of event.
Oh wait, me neither. Because instead of responding to the Book of Mormon with violence, the Mormon church took out ads in the playbills advertising their religion to the playgoers. The play was an arguably offensive exercise of the writer's First Amendment free speech rights and so the Mormons exercised their First Amendment right to counter-speech. I'm not always a big fan of everything the Mormon church does, but their response is an example of free speech at its finest.
In other words, regardless of how offended you are by what someone says about your religion (or pretty much anything else), you are 100% in the wrong if you try to murder them in response. People need to stop trying to make excuses for this kind of event.
810
Have you actually seen the play? While certain aspects of Mormonism were satirized, the religion itself came out looking pretty good.
3
Good post, Kate.
1
I don't think the point most are making is to excuse the violence or the reaction. Of course it is completely inappropriate. But there is a vast difference between something meant to entertain (even if it might be offensive to someone) and something clearly meant to provoke, to show hatred. I hardly think the Book of Mormon showed any hatred toward Mormons. Remember Mel Brooks and Blazing Saddles, The Producers, etc - he is considered a comedy classic even though he might have offended plenty. But satire is not the same as stating hatred openly. Having a right is not the same as being in the right. Just because something is not against the law does not mean it is a good thing to do. (although in this case, it is questionable that the "screaming fire" interpretation could be applied)
3
Interesting. I don't remember any Christian killing someone recently because someone else profaned their religion.
48
You missed the man teaching his flock to beat their babies to sleep with pants hanger tubes, I must assume.
http://tucson.com/news/local/star-investigation-tucson-ministry-a-cult-f...
There are monsters under every flag and faith. God excuses none of them.
http://tucson.com/news/local/star-investigation-tucson-ministry-a-cult-f...
There are monsters under every flag and faith. God excuses none of them.
1
What I want to know is how, where and when did this guy convicted of terrorism-related charges get an assault rifle?
20
Arizona, naturally. At this particular moment, your average feral burro is able to buy an assault rifle anytime s/he pleases, just about anywhere in Phoenix or Arizona. And guess what else? They can't be prevented from carrying it anywhere they like.
2
This is America," Every idiot can have a gun thanks to the ridiculous 2nd amendment.
1
Yup, you couldn't register a gun here unless you bought it a dog.
The cartoons are quite mild compared to "The book of Mormon" playing on broadway but I was not worried about a group of mormons with ak47's attacking the place. I suspect that Mormons would classify the play as hate speech whatever that is. It is in the eye of the beholder. How many of the commenters
have seen the play and laughed at another religion other than their own. I loved the show. Just look up what muhammad did to poets who made fun of him to get an idea why some muslims have trouble with criticism of their religion.
have seen the play and laughed at another religion other than their own. I loved the show. Just look up what muhammad did to poets who made fun of him to get an idea why some muslims have trouble with criticism of their religion.
34
Only 200 people attended. Not a large percentage of the population of the D/FW metroplex. I hope the jihadi fanatics are as small a percentage of the Islamic world.
3
People who say Geller provoked this attack are like people who say that women who wear short skirts provoke sexual assaults.
53
Probably, that's why they had some very serious armed private security. However, it does prove their point that there is a serious problem with a fringe element of the Muslim community that you don't have with other organized religions. Like it or not, hate speech is the only speech that needs protection. Wonderful feel good speeches do not. The question is that one man's feel good speech is another man's hate speech. Who decides? No one should decide. Free speech is no longer free speech when there are limitations.
1
The women in your sad example is not looking to provoke a response by wearing a short skirt. Ms. Geller's free speech extravaganza was design to insult and provoke and it achieved its objective.
5
Very poor analogy. Women who wear short skirts may be proud of their legs, may be asking others to stare at them, ... whatever. What was Geller proud of, - or what is she asking us to watch and admire?
4
Almost feels like the organizers wanted violence to happen.
20
This idiocy on all sides reminds me of the universal axiom...given that we have been given the guarantee of freedom of speech in this country, just because you can doesn't necessarily mean you should!
4
Excuse me - only one side here is 'idiotic' - the other is way beyond this: fanatical, criminal, murderous.
4
So a man who had been in front of a judge charged with traveling "for the purpose of engaging in violent jihad," and drew three year probation because of a lack of proof of his plans, and who is under investigation by the F.B.I. manages to get is hands on an assault rifle and body armor? Only in America.
36
Anyone with money intent on getting a weapon can usually find a way anywhere, the Parliament Hill shooter in Ottawa did, the Charlie Hebdo killers did in France or somewhere in the EU, etc. In terms of the court process you referred to, what strikes me is the inaptness of civil process frequently to protect the public. The people who support closing Guantanamo and submitting the remaining prisoners to trial in the ordinary courts might reflect.
1
Interesting examples since both of them are noted for their Rarity in France and Canada. Even though they do have guns, they tend to refrain from using them to kill each other. Unfortunately these events are anything but rare in USA. Also, I'm not sure where your Guantanamo point comes into play, but we can't prosecute the terrorists we captured in ordinary courts because the evidence against them was obtained by torture, something that is presently against the law in the US, but who knows? A conservative administration could fix that I'm sure.
You can't have it both ways.
You can't logically condemn those who are upset when a U.S. flag is desecrated in the name of "free speech" and then condemn those who are using free speech to hold a best prophet cartoon contest.
Self-censorship is fine if you are willing to be silenced, but others are not required to do so. Just because you are offended doesn't give you the right to silence (or kill) those who offend you.
Either we have free speech or we don't. There is no middle ground.
You can't logically condemn those who are upset when a U.S. flag is desecrated in the name of "free speech" and then condemn those who are using free speech to hold a best prophet cartoon contest.
Self-censorship is fine if you are willing to be silenced, but others are not required to do so. Just because you are offended doesn't give you the right to silence (or kill) those who offend you.
Either we have free speech or we don't. There is no middle ground.
49
I live in Garland and fully support the school district's decision to allow this group to use the facility as part of their content-neutral policy of renting out the space. There are few, if any, rights in our country that are more central to the republic than the right to freely engage in provocative and offensive speech. I do not agree with the group's mission or method (and believe they are not consistently a free speech group), but I fully support their rights to air their views and exercise their speech in a legal, non-violent matter.
A consequence of our freedom is that people will use it to do evil, but to surrender our liberty or that of our fellow citizens by squelching free speech is a fools' errand. As Jefferson said, from time to time the tree of liberty must be refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants. I'm not displeased to see some tyrant blood fertilizing the tree today.
A consequence of our freedom is that people will use it to do evil, but to surrender our liberty or that of our fellow citizens by squelching free speech is a fools' errand. As Jefferson said, from time to time the tree of liberty must be refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants. I'm not displeased to see some tyrant blood fertilizing the tree today.
34
Note - this is not meant to be sarcastic.
Bravo to the event organizers and all those who attended. We need more events like this to show that America cannot and will not be cowed by an intolerant religion or fanatics who follow religious text from hundreds of years ago verbatim.
Free speech must be exercised, and the radical Islamic minority need to be further exposed for what they are and where they belong. There is no place in the twenty-first century for literal interpretation of text written centuries ago.
Bravo to the event organizers and all those who attended. We need more events like this to show that America cannot and will not be cowed by an intolerant religion or fanatics who follow religious text from hundreds of years ago verbatim.
Free speech must be exercised, and the radical Islamic minority need to be further exposed for what they are and where they belong. There is no place in the twenty-first century for literal interpretation of text written centuries ago.
26
Bravo to your comment. I support it 100%.
Please just substitute the word "Christian" for the word "Islamic".
Please just substitute the word "Christian" for the word "Islamic".
2
"Intolerant religion"?? Try Geller's brand of Judaism or Pat Robertson's version of Christianity.
From some of the comments here, I fear we are sliding into a fascistic box in the liberal minded United States. Freedom of Speech belongs to and must be protected for everyone. You can hate the message, but must defend the freedom. Once we start chipping away at Freedom Of Speech because certain things offend our sensibility, it' the beginning of the end. Seriously. Ideas, sometimes even the best ideas, the most transformative and useful can and will offend someone. That is the price we pay for a democratic and free society.
26
The two gunmen, now deceased, would like to thank the NRA - posthumously, or course - for making the assault rifles so readily available.
18
On the NRA's behalf, you are welcome.
Oh, and we'll cop also to making it easy for the French-Arab Islamofascists to get their automatic weapons. And the Somalis, and Boko Haram, and ISIS, and, well, you get the picture.
Now, if only we could agree that the word is mightier than the gun, and if you would support freedom of speech for views you do not like, then we could be friends.
Oh, and we'll cop also to making it easy for the French-Arab Islamofascists to get their automatic weapons. And the Somalis, and Boko Haram, and ISIS, and, well, you get the picture.
Now, if only we could agree that the word is mightier than the gun, and if you would support freedom of speech for views you do not like, then we could be friends.
3
Our democracy is self destructing, because it abuses freedom and equality. Because it has taught its citizens to accept rudeness as a right, corruption as freedom, impudence of speech as equality and anarchy as bliss.
Isokrates 436 B.C. - 338 B.C.
Isokrates 436 B.C. - 338 B.C.
11
The statements by the Texas Republican officials questioning the cause of the attack and equating a hate group that put up an event that specifically invited participants to mock one religion without any context with a satirical journal that makes equlally fun of all religions within a very specific current affairs and political context are so expectedly stupid, The Onion couldn't have written them better.
2
Are commentators here excusing the actions of the gunman? I guess it's okay to shoot people when you're insulted, but not when you're a cop. If the cops hadn't killed him, I wonder how many people he would have killed in his jihad. I don't agree with the anti-Islam exhibit, but the exhibitors weren't shooting people. When cops, white people and non-Muslims are all labeled as racist, that's fine....right....free speech? I'm just trying to understand the rules.
31
Thought experiment: people in Texas hold a rally to burn Bibles. What happens next?
3
Clearly, this woman wanted to incite a reaction. And she got one. She is not brave by any means. She staged an event intending to mock and demean someone else's prophet and religion. Geller is full of hate, not courage.
11
I agree!
I hate when people "incite" to get a reaction!
This is why I don't support riots in Baltimore or any other American city.
I hate when people "incite" to get a reaction!
This is why I don't support riots in Baltimore or any other American city.
4
Events like this and the attacks that they provoke are equivalent displays stupidity and ignorance. This is more a race-to-the-bottom than meaningful exercise in dialogue. Shame all around.
10
This was not a free speech event. It was a deliberate provocation - a hatred event. The organizers and participants are very juvenile and irresponsible.
8
Nothing that happened at this event feels right. If law enforcement officials need to trap a suspect, there are legal procedures in place that allow them to do this, but this feels like some law enforcement officials may have been conducting a fishing expedition, acting in concert with a known hate group and using them as bait. What if the shooters had managed to kill the security officers and then got to kill people attending the event before they were shot? What if they were driving a couple of trucks filled with explosives? Would it be such a great idea then?
4
"In 2010, Mr. Simpson was charged with plotting to engage in “violent jihad” in Somalia. A judge found him guilty of lying to the agent, but said the government had not proved that his plan involved terrorism, and sentenced him to three years’ probation."
Huh? I thought all of the incompetent judges were in Vermont. Who knew?
Huh? I thought all of the incompetent judges were in Vermont. Who knew?
3
I've read many comment forums about this event and I'm disturbed by many of the wishy washy comments. Too many people are saying "I believe in freedom of speech, but.....". There shouldn't be a "but" qualifying the meaning or definition of freedom of speech. Either you believe and defend it 100% or you're just kidding yourself or you don't get it. It's all inclusive - tasteless speech and all. It's not called "Freedom of most speech as long as is it's not offensive or stupid", it's called Freedom of Speech without any if, ands, or buts to qualify the meaning. Hold the line people. All speech is be free. That said, words / actions have meaning and consequences. If a company were to sponsor an event such as the one held in Ms. Geller the public could choose not to buy their products or protest in front of their stores. Violence is not the answer.
25
It was not free. You win a prize of $10,000 for the most hateful and disgusting image created.? What a way to educate our youngsters!
1
Well, actually it's a perfect way to educate our children. These people provided an example of what our family would never say / do and gave an example of why hate never wins. It's also a shining example that in our great country, even ugly, hateful speech is allowed. A perfect teaching moment. Sad, but perfect. Now, that doesn't mean we should censor speech and decide which speech is free. I don't agree with what they did, nor do I agree with their motives but I defend their right to do it.
1
Sad that in today's modern world we still have to deal with such ignorance and bigotry.
I am referring to those who claim with no factual evidence that modern day Christians in the US would do the same if the cross was disgraced. There are many examples of disgraced crosses and Christan symbols in museums. Countless atheist conventions in America belittling the Christian concept of God in every imaginable way. There have been legal protests but no shootings, no beheading, no bloodthirsty mobs. How ignorant to compare modern civilization to the norms of the middle ages.
Where does such profound ignorance come from, and what can we as a society do to help the many in the comments section here who seem to suffer from it?
I am referring to those who claim with no factual evidence that modern day Christians in the US would do the same if the cross was disgraced. There are many examples of disgraced crosses and Christan symbols in museums. Countless atheist conventions in America belittling the Christian concept of God in every imaginable way. There have been legal protests but no shootings, no beheading, no bloodthirsty mobs. How ignorant to compare modern civilization to the norms of the middle ages.
Where does such profound ignorance come from, and what can we as a society do to help the many in the comments section here who seem to suffer from it?
24
Imagine if there were a Bible burning in Texas. I'm guessing there would be violence. I don't know if anyone would get shot, but I will bet a lot of money there will be violence.
People are very defensive about something they take on faith. Hence, this tragedy.
People are very defensive about something they take on faith. Hence, this tragedy.
Open your eyes. There are enough Bible burning in USA and is posted in youtube. A simple youtube search will give you that answer.
5
Sounds like a dream come true for the organizers.
7
The constant references in these comments to those opposing Geller and her acolytes as "liberals" and those supporting them as "right-wing" perfectly underscores how absolutely meaningless those terms have become.
6
Cartoons of Mohammad are the tip of the iceberg in terms of statements considered blasphemous and demanding a lethal response from true believers. Denying the Koran as the direct word of God, denying Mohammad as the last and final prophet, questioning his real historicity or goodness, etc., could get a scholar (not just a provocateur) on some mullah's hit list. Once the cartoonists have been sufficiently intimidated, why doubt that some other item, "offensive" to the true believer, will bubble to the surface? I look forward to our weak-kneed apologists cravenly whimpering "do we REALLY need to study and write about such things, offensive to our Muslim brethren".
21
Ironic that, as far as I can tell, there are no cries for jihad because so many people eat pork.
I'm appalled at the comments in response to this article. What did I miss? One group of people said things and created visual displays that another group found offensive. The offended group picked up automatic weapons and tried to murder the people in the first group. Excuse me, but how can any one who believes in free speech and the rule of law, think that the attempted murder is justified?
82
I am in no way defending the actions of the gunmen, but I am so tired of hearing about this being framed as a free speech issue. It is a sign of weakness to inoculate yourself with the First Amendment because you cannot defend your actions using logic, facts, or morality.
Free speech protections exist to protect the people from government censorship, and by extension, government tyranny. This is why private organizations can regulate speech quite extensively within their jurisdiction, and why the government is allowed to regulate speech in a neutral manner to promote public safety.
It is complete self-delusion to think that using your right to freely express yourself specifically to upset other people is some noble exercise in defending an American value. I would go so far as to say that the United States has the broadest free speech protections in the world (just look at our libel laws), and it is sad that instead of embracing that freedom to engage in thoughtful, productive debate, that freedom is abused to make crude provocations rooted in uniformed prejudice.
Free speech protections exist to protect the people from government censorship, and by extension, government tyranny. This is why private organizations can regulate speech quite extensively within their jurisdiction, and why the government is allowed to regulate speech in a neutral manner to promote public safety.
It is complete self-delusion to think that using your right to freely express yourself specifically to upset other people is some noble exercise in defending an American value. I would go so far as to say that the United States has the broadest free speech protections in the world (just look at our libel laws), and it is sad that instead of embracing that freedom to engage in thoughtful, productive debate, that freedom is abused to make crude provocations rooted in uniformed prejudice.
362
Under our Constitution, which countless people have died to defend, it doesn't matter if what you say is noble or popular or despicable and grossly unpopular. You can say what you like, period. Yes, there may be private consequences for your actions, but under no circumstances should those consequences include violence against the speaker.
I am appalled at the response of so many Times' readers in this comment thread. Apparently, showing how politically correct and how compassionate one is toward poor, persecuted Islam has become more fashionable among the Times' liberal readership than defending our most important freedom. It is, quite frankly, a disgusting reaction that I have come to expect from these comment threads.
I am appalled at the response of so many Times' readers in this comment thread. Apparently, showing how politically correct and how compassionate one is toward poor, persecuted Islam has become more fashionable among the Times' liberal readership than defending our most important freedom. It is, quite frankly, a disgusting reaction that I have come to expect from these comment threads.
10
You have articulately described the philosophy of the NYT and many posters here and have been appropriately rewarded.
Therefore, for the sake of consistency, I'll expect to see you leading the crusade against Leftist hate speech against Jews and Israel, especially on American campuses.
Of course, the rhetoric against the police should probably also be stopped, or at least toned down to "thoughtful, productive debate."
Uh, huh.
Therefore, for the sake of consistency, I'll expect to see you leading the crusade against Leftist hate speech against Jews and Israel, especially on American campuses.
Of course, the rhetoric against the police should probably also be stopped, or at least toned down to "thoughtful, productive debate."
Uh, huh.
6
While I agree that this was not the best test of free speech, I do believe it was "a test." However, labeling is not illegal and whenever a group of people get together to denigrate another group of people, we should call it what it is -- hate speech.
If we're going to allow organized hatred, let's at least call it what it is, so that people don't get confused. We may not be able to eliminate hatred at this point in our social evolution, but we bring it out into the light of day for all to plainly see.
If we're going to allow organized hatred, let's at least call it what it is, so that people don't get confused. We may not be able to eliminate hatred at this point in our social evolution, but we bring it out into the light of day for all to plainly see.
I await the Jesus and Holy Family cartoon and joke contest in Dallas and the peaceful response by the Sons of the Alamo.
14
Already happened, you feral dingbat. Art that denigrates Christianity has been around for a long time and there has been no violence as a result. Even in NYC when is used tax dollars for grants for Andre Sorrano and other producers of Christianity denigration, there was no violence.
Tell me, what't it like living in a fantasyworld?
Tell me, what't it like living in a fantasyworld?
1
There is no need for you to wait. The most prominent and probably offensive of American atheists, Madaline Murray O'Hare, was a Texan who plied her deliberately provocative material for decades here in the Lone Star State. She did not leave this earth in blaze of gunfire.
1
I am not aware of any defamation of Jesus by an Islamic critic of the faith of any nature, including ISIS, Taliban, or for that matter Al Qaeda. Can you cite a valid reference? Of course this violence was unnecessary, and you know it, indeed.
Psychology of the liberal mind is interesting indeed. Looking over the comments below, one sees consistent trashing of Geller by the left. She directs her hate at the enemies of our nation. Two of those decided to shoot more cartoonists who were drawing the prophet. But hardly anyone on the left will trash the shooters. Why? Why do they give our enemies a pass, yet concentrate their venom on one who hates these enemies?
13
I am a liberal who believes in free speech and is tired of religions of all kinds forcing themselves upon us- whether islam christianity, wall street , or any other idol.
1
That's a very good question. In some cases it results from faulty logic, in particular what is called today false moral equivalence, but in the main I believe the explanation is psychological, so as not to offend and thereby preclude a hostile (verbal or physical) response.
1
@Woolgatherer: don't you think attempts to shoot the cartoonists is "forcing themselves upon us"??? Why no outrage against those?
Pamela Geller is the perfect defination of " racist hate monger" and their provactive activities in the name of freedom of speech or expression should be condemened . These activites are widely shown in news media in muslim countries and the Al Queda , ISIS and other terrorist groups use it to recruit the young people. Why these groups are mocking,insulting and hurting muslims by poking finger in their eyes. and what they acomplish? I think we have feedom of speech but not freedom of hate speech Inciting and inviting violence is good for these hate groups and good publicity for Pamela Geller but not for America.
8
My God, I cannot believe how you and many here don't have the faintest idea what free speech is about. "Hate speech" is legal - or don't you know that? If you want to tell "N" word jokes all day long there is no law against it - I don't but that isn't the point.
The first amendment was most of all about protecting offensive speech and free speech. What is wrong with you people? Are you actually Americans? And many here jumped to the defense of Andre Sorrano's Piss Christ years back but Geller is no good? Wow, you folks are the fascists, do you not get that?
The first amendment was most of all about protecting offensive speech and free speech. What is wrong with you people? Are you actually Americans? And many here jumped to the defense of Andre Sorrano's Piss Christ years back but Geller is no good? Wow, you folks are the fascists, do you not get that?
3
The thing is that "hate speech" is in the mind of the perceiver - anything that somebody else objects strongly to can be hate speech, or speech against the government (check out the policies of ISIS or antidemocratic governments around the world), or whatever - that is why, no matter how offensive, we cannot outlaw it, but must oppose it with our own free speech and free elections.
2
There is no requirement that comments to Times articles be from US citizens.
For all any of us know, any number of them might come from foreign delegations to the UN stationed in New York, or foreign nationals around the world.
Individuals for whom free speech may be a threat to their way of life.
For all any of us know, any number of them might come from foreign delegations to the UN stationed in New York, or foreign nationals around the world.
Individuals for whom free speech may be a threat to their way of life.
Regardless of whether one agrees, or disagrees, with Mr. Geller's views, she has the right to express them, just as you have the right to accuse her of "mental thuggery."
Proselytizing anything generally offends those who believe otherwise. Burning the American flag, or drawing an insulting image of a head of state, may "offend" an entire community. Teaching evolution "offends" many. Family planning offends many. Gay, or interracial, or interfaith marriages, offend some. You get the picture, right?
There is simply no excuse for such violence and it should be condemned without exception. If you make one exception, you must be prepared to make a lot more. Because the list above can easily be expanded by anyone who believes in something strongly enough.
Proselytizing anything generally offends those who believe otherwise. Burning the American flag, or drawing an insulting image of a head of state, may "offend" an entire community. Teaching evolution "offends" many. Family planning offends many. Gay, or interracial, or interfaith marriages, offend some. You get the picture, right?
There is simply no excuse for such violence and it should be condemned without exception. If you make one exception, you must be prepared to make a lot more. Because the list above can easily be expanded by anyone who believes in something strongly enough.
13
On the one hand, the far right is pushing Freedom of Religion laws in Indiana and other states. On the other hand, the far right is supporting provocative speech that ridicules religion. So, which will it be?
2
So many NY Times readers forget that it is specifically offensive speech that the 1st Amendment is there to protect. The other kind doesn't need protection. Charlie Hebdo illustrators paid with their life for free speech. Geller's event courageously stood up with Charlie. Many readers are making the same point as the terrorists.
I also see that the racism of low expectations toward Muslims is alive and well in the EXPECTATION that of course Muslims will turn murderous when offended! So let's all criticize Geller whose point was perfectly illustrated by the gunmen. NY Times readers who so readily advocate self-censorship and blame the victim should be ashamed.
Are women who wear "provocative" clothes also asking to be raped? (not far off topic: That's what "liberals" say in Sweden to rationalize the statistics of Swedish women raped by Muslim men).
I also see that the racism of low expectations toward Muslims is alive and well in the EXPECTATION that of course Muslims will turn murderous when offended! So let's all criticize Geller whose point was perfectly illustrated by the gunmen. NY Times readers who so readily advocate self-censorship and blame the victim should be ashamed.
Are women who wear "provocative" clothes also asking to be raped? (not far off topic: That's what "liberals" say in Sweden to rationalize the statistics of Swedish women raped by Muslim men).
19
A well-baited ambush.
13
There is here a clear breach of an unwritten ETHICAL CODE between enlightened human beings. Freedom does definitely grant licence for speech and artistic expression but compassion and consideration for others feelings need to be maintained. This is where the ETHICAL aspect plays it's role.........C
5
And the far right continues on with dragging this country down into the morass of their mentality. And the rest of this country continues to let them. With continued provocations such as this, more and more of the world looks down on America and our perceived values. Is it really any wonder that half the world chants "Death to America" and the other half simply shakes their heads? This is not the America I want to be a part of. These are not the values that I want the outside world to believe that I hold dear. How long will things keep getting worse and worse in this country before they finally start getting better?
7
Je suis American Freedom Defense Initiative doesn't have the same cachet.
6
The Anti-Islamic event under the guise of freedom of expression was just another rally to promote hatred.
They are a risk to public safety and a waste of time.
They are a risk to public safety and a waste of time.
10
Freedom of speech seems to have been redefined as "right to offend Muslims"! However violence to defend the Prophet was condemned by the Prophet himself.
4
Good work, Texas police. Despite the often unfair calumny poured on the thin blue line, given a little luck and a lot of bravery, they come through, and each decent person stands in deep gratitude to them.
The many comments which take umbrage at Geller's event or views don't get it: it's not the point. Their right to speak freely is, as commenter Air Marshal of Bloviana pointed out in thirteen words which cannot be improved on.
The many comments which take umbrage at Geller's event or views don't get it: it's not the point. Their right to speak freely is, as commenter Air Marshal of Bloviana pointed out in thirteen words which cannot be improved on.
17
Thanks, Mr. Gerald, I always appreciate positive feedback and will continue to do my best.
1
Joyce Carol Oates, Junot Diaz, Teju Cole and some other PEN members denounce this report as false, since they know that Muslim extremists pose no risk to those exercising free speech and that the right to offensive speech against religions is limited to mockery of non-Islamic religions, such as art featuring Jesus covered with excrement or urine.
4
90% of Charlie Hebdo articles were mocking Jesus and Christians including Pope. At those times French Public hailed those magazine reports as freedom of speech. Now after Charlie Hebdo attacks by Islamic militants, a survey conducted shows that 40% of French public is against mocking religion. This is the change Islam brings to the society. The freedom of speech and religion, Europe and the west exercised against Christianity will soon come to an end. Thanks to Islam.
22
CNN's coverage of this event featured a commentator who pointed out that lampooning public institutions is a western tradition and offered the hit Broadway play, "The Book of Mormon" as an example. The CNN anchor asked, "Do you think we will ever see a Broadway play about the Koran?" The commentator replied, "No. The cost of security would be prohibitive."
People ask what the difference is between making fun of Christ or Muhammad. That's the difference.
ps ... The Mormons have actually bought ads in the program for the Book of Mormon play.
People ask what the difference is between making fun of Christ or Muhammad. That's the difference.
ps ... The Mormons have actually bought ads in the program for the Book of Mormon play.
22
The Mormons are a very business oriented religion.
i'm using a VPN to read NYT website which is blocked by Chinese Gov't, and find this news somehow confused me. could anybody explain it in some simpler wording that i may understand?
my question is, do American society allow people to do something obviously offending a religion? i mean, what is the essential difference between offending Islam and offending Christian?
i'm not a Muslim and i dont know any muslim in person, and i dont know the theology of their religion. but if it is a big religion and most people of it are doing nothing bad, why it is allowed to form some organization named stop islam or something in US? i really want to know this, pls tell me. thank you.
my question is, do American society allow people to do something obviously offending a religion? i mean, what is the essential difference between offending Islam and offending Christian?
i'm not a Muslim and i dont know any muslim in person, and i dont know the theology of their religion. but if it is a big religion and most people of it are doing nothing bad, why it is allowed to form some organization named stop islam or something in US? i really want to know this, pls tell me. thank you.
5
You can look at Muslim majority countries and Christian majority countries and compare their freedom of speech.
1
Yes, the First Amendment of the Constitution allows people to say something obviously offensive, because it is our right of free speech.
Yes, Americans are allowed to offend the religion of their choice or the political cause of their choice. The federal government may intervene only if the offense involves an effort to overthrow our government or cause physical injury to the public.
It pains me to see people misinterpret our responsibility with regard to free speech. If we are to use our speech to make changes, it must be as legally unfettered as possible, so that we are never afraid of our government trying to censor us. The humanity of our speech is our own responsibility, and if it stinks then others should tell us so. But still, the speech we hate is the speech whose presence we must defend the most ardently.
9
Why can't we make the effort to understand why certain people believe that it is heretical to depict an iconic representation of an individual they deem holy? Why do we mix up this sacred belief with freedom of speech? It's not freedom of speech. It's respect for something others believe is sacred. When indigenous Hawaiians protest that scientists are destroying a mountain they deem sacred by building planetariums on top of the mountain, they are ridiculed for their belief that a mountain can be considered sacred. Have we lost the ability to consider something sacred, something that should not be ridiculed or destroyed or deemed "just a mountain," or "just a picture?"
2
Is everything sacred? It is to someone. Maybe we should not move or breathe because we might offend someone somewhere. Think, where would it end?
Most religions have taboos relating to sacred people, locations or objects. The key point is that in a free society, one is not obligated to respect the tenets of any particular religion. Believers may revere what they wish, but others need not, and have no duty to adhere to the rules of a religion they choose not to accept.
This is intrinsic to both freedom of speech and of religion.
This is intrinsic to both freedom of speech and of religion.
What do you do for fun over the weekend in Garland, Texas? Get together with a couple of your best buddies, draw some pictures of somebody else's god, hope some fanatics show up, and best of all, you might just see somebody killed.
15
All of us here in Texas would defer to you or any other Chicagoan when the subject turns to people getting shot over a weekend. Your city hold the national record on that one.
1
Fortunately, only the terrorists were killed, and the injury to the police officer was comparatively minor. We wish him a complete recovery (and a medal for bravery).
The organizer, Pamela Geller, is from New York. She lives in Manhattan. I also read news reports that most of the attendees were from out-of-state. This is not a typical night in Garland, TX by any stretch of the imagination.
Disgusting on both sides.
12
There is a big difference between exercising one's Freedom of Speech and exercising that freedom with the thoughtfulness and solemnity that goes with the responsibility of living in a civilized society. Yes, our Constitution protects the right of hatemongers like AFPI to hold these events and express any opinion that they hold dear (or that maximizes their publicity). The very survival of our Nation arguably depends on that lack of censorship. But just because one has the constitutional right to cultivate hate doesn't mean it''s alright to do so. It is not, and when protected speech is used as a shield to fan hatred or bait others into hateful responses, those who use our cherished freedoms so irresponsibly should be publicly and mercilessly shamed. So, where were you good citizens of Texas?
8
I loathe the stupid, hateful and obviously intentionally provocative actions of the Texas group. But let's keep our eye on the ball here. A few years ago, a stupid, hateful and obviously intentionally provocative "art installation" called "Piss Christ," consisting of a crucifix submerged in a vat of urine, was displayed in New York. It was met with disgust, condemnation, protests -- and not one single bullet. There is not the slightest moral equivalency between those who deride another's religion, and those who would kill human beings for doing so. And by defending the right of people to say things we find the least defensible , we show ourselves to be better -- yes, bettter -- human beings than those who would kill a man "for just words that he said.".
1
You forgot the Virgin Mary with elephant dung. Giullianin criticized that and he was roundly and appropriately condemned. Saw that peice at the Met a couple of months ago.
It is time for the government to use force to censor such activities. Only government officials should decide what is or is not free speech.
4
Excellent point. I wonder how many of those berating the contest organizers will miss your sarcasm?
That's actually the opposite of "freedom of speech."
1
How very totalitarian of you Dr. John. I for one refuse to acquiesce my freedoms to "government officials" And rest assured I am not in the minority
2
Dear White People,
Please stop doing 2 things which may seem harmless to you, but really hack other people off:
1. Stop drawing Mohamed
2. Stop wearing "Blackface"
If you really think the biggest problem with Islam is not drawing Mohamed, you are myopic.
Please stop doing 2 things which may seem harmless to you, but really hack other people off:
1. Stop drawing Mohamed
2. Stop wearing "Blackface"
If you really think the biggest problem with Islam is not drawing Mohamed, you are myopic.
2
Dear People in General,
Please stop doing these things that are truly offensive and not true to humanity:
1. Stop pretending that race is the most important thing in life. It is not. In truth, it does not matter at all, and continuing to make it an issue just promotes racism. Not cool. If you have to make race an issue, then YOU are the problem.
2. Stop using slang for your own race, but getting really angry if other people use the same slang. Not cool, and not logical. If a word is not acceptable used by anyone, then it is never acceptable.
3. Stop pretending that particular hairstyles, clothing, forms of entertainment and particular words belong only to one race. Not cool, not logical, not even remotely true.
If you think the biggest problems are due to race, then you are missing the real issues in life - with the corrupt Citizens United "ruling," and an election year looming in 2016, we really have more important issues to pay attention to.
Please stop doing these things that are truly offensive and not true to humanity:
1. Stop pretending that race is the most important thing in life. It is not. In truth, it does not matter at all, and continuing to make it an issue just promotes racism. Not cool. If you have to make race an issue, then YOU are the problem.
2. Stop using slang for your own race, but getting really angry if other people use the same slang. Not cool, and not logical. If a word is not acceptable used by anyone, then it is never acceptable.
3. Stop pretending that particular hairstyles, clothing, forms of entertainment and particular words belong only to one race. Not cool, not logical, not even remotely true.
If you think the biggest problems are due to race, then you are missing the real issues in life - with the corrupt Citizens United "ruling," and an election year looming in 2016, we really have more important issues to pay attention to.
Jihadists should go only after people like Geller and leave the rest of us alone. That’s a great compromise.
15
Another instance of baiting and bigotry under the guise of Freedom of Speech. Believe me, I DO NOT CONDONE this violence. But our Freedom of speech should take a page from my mother's principles, " when you have have nothing good to say, say nothing." Works every time and boundaries are maintained. Of course, extremists of every religion, country, people and sects do not understand or rather refuse to understand this basic tenet. But let's not taint all the decent amongst us with the same gory brush.
9
In a free society it's a citizens inherent duty to absorb any criticism, no matter how severe, without responding violently. That's simply what free speech requires if it is ever going to last. No matter how offensive the speech, responding to it by attempting murder immediately puts you in the wrong. If you've read the Quran, you know that it is absolutely scathing in its expression of hatred for the non-believer...which in this case happens to be me. Yet I will never strike out violently against those who say I deserve a fate worse than death on the basis of the Quran. I endure that speech, I endure that criticism without inflicting violence, and whoever wishes to live in a democracy must also endure the same sort of affront without resorting to murder
1
Where does one draw the line? Do we tell women what to wear because religious extremists demand burqa? Christian true believers have been known to become incensed and violent as well.
Either the First Amendment is the law of the land or it is not. Muslims are not required to pay attention to these fools any more than I was required to pay attention to Andres Serrano's "Piss Christ".
Either the First Amendment is the law of the land or it is not. Muslims are not required to pay attention to these fools any more than I was required to pay attention to Andres Serrano's "Piss Christ".
The organizers of this event seem to have staged an ambush.
23
Not a good story on any account.
Yes, the event was practicing free speech, just as the participants in the demonstrations by the Westboro Baptist Church do. But this was an intentional provocation. (Does Texas still have "fighting words" statutes on the books?)
No, a provocation does not have to be answered with violence, or at all.
I would have to stand with the right of this reprehensible organization to have this event, choking back my disdain. In the same vein as I stand with the right of flag burners, the above mentioned church, and the Nazi's who had marched through Skokie.
Yes, the event was practicing free speech, just as the participants in the demonstrations by the Westboro Baptist Church do. But this was an intentional provocation. (Does Texas still have "fighting words" statutes on the books?)
No, a provocation does not have to be answered with violence, or at all.
I would have to stand with the right of this reprehensible organization to have this event, choking back my disdain. In the same vein as I stand with the right of flag burners, the above mentioned church, and the Nazi's who had marched through Skokie.
23
Funny, I don't remember anybody calling Charlie Hebdo a "reprehensible" organization even though their offensive depictions of Mohammed were MUCH more widely distributed and public. You seem to have different standards depending on if the depictions are coming from the left or right.
Hate v. Hate. Who will win in the race to moral rock bottom?
18
Probably the ones who kill because they are insulted, kill homosexuals, enslave those who are not the right kind of Muslim, utilize suicide bombers, etc.
Comparing the so-called "atrocity" of insulting Islam against the true horrors Isis has unleashed is quite ludicrous.
Comparing the so-called "atrocity" of insulting Islam against the true horrors Isis has unleashed is quite ludicrous.
2
There's a "bit" of a difference between hateful speech and attempted murder. The former is protected by the constitution. Protecting free speech, even speech we find repellent, is the hallmark of a free society.
1
Thank you Ms. Geller for being brave and in the forefront of efforts to protect our freedoms. Sad to see those freedoms eroding on the campuses of our universities and schools these days, where dissent (which these days includes speaking out on behalf of Israel) is shouted down--or worse. I hope I can be as brave as you (and others standing with you) when confronted by these forces of intolerance.
24
Brave? All she did was mock and demean someone else's religion and prophet. She is full of hate, not courage.
Because you profess to opoose intolerance, I wonder how you feel about the organizing of an event the high point of which was the display of cartoons of the founder of a major world religion? Certainly, the organizers had a right to hold the event, but they don't deserve your praise for a stunt intended to insult Muslims, which will only provoke more violence on the part of Muslim fanatics. Certainly, you don't praise the neo-Nazis who decided to hold their hate-filled march in Skokie, illinois, home of many Jewish Holocaust survivors for exercising their First Amendment rights,
Geller's group sounds like little more than a business for her, a way to make money. If the group was really concerned about Islam in America, they would put all their energy into changing immigration law - and with the current makeup of congress, there is a chance of getting these changes through congress.
But what do they do instead? They agitate about encroaching Sharia, and hold art contests that denigrate the religion of another group. How bizarre is that?
Geller is successfully shaking down Americans to make an income for herself. And that's about it.
But what do they do instead? They agitate about encroaching Sharia, and hold art contests that denigrate the religion of another group. How bizarre is that?
Geller is successfully shaking down Americans to make an income for herself. And that's about it.
14
Why must we willfully try to offend Muslims? And with something as ridicilous as a contest with a $10,000 prize? It is beyond crass. Do we really want to test the limits of free speech in all its uncivil manifestations? Surely with enough effort we can get most any offended group engaging in some form of dreadful retaliation.
The notion of tolerance has taken an odd turn where we are now testing tolerance in these bizarre ways. The right seems to love pushing the Constitution to its limit with guns and free speech. And now...we can see the outcome of that chemistry.
The notion of tolerance has taken an odd turn where we are now testing tolerance in these bizarre ways. The right seems to love pushing the Constitution to its limit with guns and free speech. And now...we can see the outcome of that chemistry.
13
This notion of tolerance has been in existence since the beginning of this nation. Nazi parties are allowed to freely march in this country, as part of freedom of speech, as were the Black Panthers and other controversial groups. There are reasons why activities like this have been upheld by the courts in the name of freedom of speech. If you would be more comfortable with a thought police, I'd suggest any one of the numerous theocracies in the Middle East. Our freedoms should not have to adjust because a couple radicals decide to kill people over their ideology.
That seems like quite a jump Spencer. If you read my remarks, I am not suggesting a law, I am suggesting civility. That simply requires a freedom to choose not to humiliate or denigrate another individual or group. No legislation involved. So, you missed my point in your unneeded vigilance to protect a freedom I was not assailing. Perhaps over-reaction is another matter to ponder in all of these cases.
1
I find it interesting that this suspect has been under surveillance by the FBI and the subject of a major Terrorist investigation since 2007. Arizona court records show that an FBI informant was instructed by the FBI to: “become friends with Mr. Simpson and get to know him better by presenting himself as an individual who was new to Islam and who sought to learn more from Mr. Simpson.” The tape recordings that the informant recorded were used to convict Simpson and then he was put on probation. I would like to listen to all of those recordings and see if the informant planted seeds or encouraged future terrorist attacks. It has happened before in many cases. Is this the best way to combat terrorism? The government seeks out potential terrorist suspects and then gives them ideas for attacks on the American people. The FBI then arrests them, the terrorists go to court, and are forced to plead guilty. Then the court puts them on probation and lets them go to conduct more violence. There is a pattern here, and it is repeating. We are creating the monsters so that the authorities are justified in restricting our freedoms, and gut the Constitution. The same authorities then say that they are protecting us from the monsters that they created. It's absolute insanity...
73
You have an active imagination.
Right. It's entirely our fault, as always!!
In 1977 the National Socialist Party marched through Skokie, Ill., where one out of every six people who lived there was a Holocaust survivor. The right for them to march was challenged and a Federal Court ruled that ordinances intended to prevent the march and display the swastika were un-constitutional because they infringed on freedom of speech and expression.
Just a few Nazis showed up to march and their presence was even further diminished by the many counter demonstrations by Jewish and other groups in Skokie and across the country.
By the way, the right for the Nazis to demonstrate was defended by Joseph Burton, a Jewish Lawyer from the ACLU.
Just a few Nazis showed up to march and their presence was even further diminished by the many counter demonstrations by Jewish and other groups in Skokie and across the country.
By the way, the right for the Nazis to demonstrate was defended by Joseph Burton, a Jewish Lawyer from the ACLU.
46
I thought bored rich divorcee (or otherwise) women in cities like New York are supposed to open an antiques store or a gift shop on Main St. and while their lives away.
Since when did they become fascists armed with blogs?
Since when did they become fascists armed with blogs?
12
To all the apologists who have criticized the event rather than the animals who attacked I have to ask where their outrage is when Bill Maher gets into his anti establishment religion mode and starts bashing Christianity, Judaism, etc? Keep making excuses for these people and all you do is validate their behavior.
34
Bill Maher is much more speaking from a specific long-considered conviction, than hate of a specific group or religion. He's an "equal opportunity offender".
It's more of an aggressive use of free speech, than an actual intended provocation. (BTW, I consider this event to be within free speech as well, but let's be cognizant of the important distinctions.)
It's more of an aggressive use of free speech, than an actual intended provocation. (BTW, I consider this event to be within free speech as well, but let's be cognizant of the important distinctions.)
2
You are wrong. Bill Maher may be a liberal with very good ideas and comments but when it comes to religion, and not just Christianity, he's no more than a hate monger who will never understand the limits of his freedom.
It's one thing to criticize the policies and wrongdoing by leaders of a church (Maher) and another thing to ridicule an entire religion, which Maher has not done.
We should never encourage those who wish to demean others. Our society gives us the right to speak out, even if it entails demeaning speech. We absolutely cannot and must not tolerate those who pick up the gun against such speech.
Our open society is in direct conflict with Islam. I say that because Islam is much more that a belief, it is a political system, a way of life.
In America, we separate religion from government so all can be free to practice the religion of their choice, or none at all. Islam does not permit that freedom. In particular, Sharia law and Wahhabism prosecutes it. Some of its followers war against it.
Make no mistake, those that opened fire on the event were doing so for religious reasons. We may view this action as political, but their violence stems from highly personal religious beliefs.
We try to project an air of tolerance by labeling these shooters as extremists, but the entire concept of Jihad is a fundamental component of their beliefs. Drawing pictures of their prophet is sufficient reason to pick up a gun.
The root problem is then their beliefs. Most Muslims would never chose this path. But some do. Our system allows both to flourish, side by side, and that's the dilemma. How do we stop one while allowing the other?
This will happen again and only Islam can stop it. We cannot.
Our open society is in direct conflict with Islam. I say that because Islam is much more that a belief, it is a political system, a way of life.
In America, we separate religion from government so all can be free to practice the religion of their choice, or none at all. Islam does not permit that freedom. In particular, Sharia law and Wahhabism prosecutes it. Some of its followers war against it.
Make no mistake, those that opened fire on the event were doing so for religious reasons. We may view this action as political, but their violence stems from highly personal religious beliefs.
We try to project an air of tolerance by labeling these shooters as extremists, but the entire concept of Jihad is a fundamental component of their beliefs. Drawing pictures of their prophet is sufficient reason to pick up a gun.
The root problem is then their beliefs. Most Muslims would never chose this path. But some do. Our system allows both to flourish, side by side, and that's the dilemma. How do we stop one while allowing the other?
This will happen again and only Islam can stop it. We cannot.
18
I saw video of the time the shooting took place, with Geller and the other hate-baters hiding behind walls of security, both public and private. I support their right to have any kind of meeting or gathering they wish to have, but I do not think municipal police should have to stand in the firing line to protect them. It's pretty easy to "take a stand" against something when someone else is putting their lives on the line and not you. Kinda reminds me of someone else from Texas.
16
I trust you will be willing to accept the same lack of protection in the event that a rally for your beliefs is attacked by radicalists? Just want to make sure you're being consistent here.
The government and the police should not be making content-based distinctions in who they defend in exercising their free speech. Then you'll have some far right police force in the bible belt saying that they won't defend the a gay pride parade because it's offensive to their christian values. The government cannot be trusted to make the distinctions between speech that should and shouldn't be given police protection, so they must protect it all.
Spencer, if I'm dumb enough to incite Islamic radicals for no other reason to incite Islamic radicals? Sure. I wouldn't ask someone else to take a bullet for my idiocy.
I wish people would not put on events specifically designed to provoke a reaction. But to react to such an event with violence is utterly unacceptable and if the events unfolded as they are initially reported to have, then the terrorists got what they deserved and good for the officers who undoubtedly saved several lives. Being stupid and offensive doesn't entitle someone to gun you down.
By the same token, apparently the latest stupid Internet sensation is posting videos of yourself trampling on an American flag. Now honestly I don't know why people get so worked up about this, but as we know some people are so invested I nationalism that such a display offends them deeply. I saw a video posted by a young US soldier who threatened people with violence for taking part in this ritual. Obviously vague online threats aren't as bad as opening fire, but the irony wasn't lost on me of the parallels between the misguided soldier's message and the Islamic extremists' message. In both cases the message is "if you disrespect a symbol I hold sacred then I am justified to use violence against you." In both cases this is wrong.
Hearing views we don't like is the price we pay for living in a free society.
By the same token, apparently the latest stupid Internet sensation is posting videos of yourself trampling on an American flag. Now honestly I don't know why people get so worked up about this, but as we know some people are so invested I nationalism that such a display offends them deeply. I saw a video posted by a young US soldier who threatened people with violence for taking part in this ritual. Obviously vague online threats aren't as bad as opening fire, but the irony wasn't lost on me of the parallels between the misguided soldier's message and the Islamic extremists' message. In both cases the message is "if you disrespect a symbol I hold sacred then I am justified to use violence against you." In both cases this is wrong.
Hearing views we don't like is the price we pay for living in a free society.
8
I'm fine with people putting on events that provoke a reaction; I wouldn't want it happening on my kids' school facilities though.
America: LAND OF THE FREE, PROTECTOR OF THE COWARDLY. Who else would provoke a group, its beliefs and customs, other than some bizarre, off their rocker group of misfits trying to prove a point and shrouding themselves in the American flag to do so.
15
Don't like it? Move to a country with a thought police. I hear Iran is quite open to violently suppressing freedom of speech. North Korea too.
1
yet, we should not be beholden to the religious beliefs of others. images of the prophet are no more taboo in the koran than the bad on drinking coffee is in the book of morman. i have no allegiance to either group. i leave them alone as long as they do me.
Who won the contest?
14
The organizers produced the violence that was intended and the protesters died defending their faith. The media got blamed for the whole thing.
The First Amendment is a wonderful thing. But it has been perverted as license to do some really despicable things. For example, Westboro Baptist Church protests at the funerals of the war dead, harassment of women seeking medical treatment, Klan marches, and other acts overlapping into hate speech.
And mocking the religious beliefs of others with deliberate provocation falls into this despicable category. I do not think there is a society responsibility to protect those who go out of their way to look for trouble. Voluntarily walk in a swamp, expect to be bitten by snakes, alligators, and mosquitoes. What positive outcomes could come from these provocations escapes me. I am not Charlie Hebdo.
And mocking the religious beliefs of others with deliberate provocation falls into this despicable category. I do not think there is a society responsibility to protect those who go out of their way to look for trouble. Voluntarily walk in a swamp, expect to be bitten by snakes, alligators, and mosquitoes. What positive outcomes could come from these provocations escapes me. I am not Charlie Hebdo.
6
As a Hindu in America, I unequivocally support the right of any group to congregate to offend and insult my Hindu sensibilities and worldview. I would laugh at the group's obtuseness and futility. If I were to even contemplate violence to counter such a silly exercise, that would indicate a fundamental flaw in my worldview.
As an immigrant, my respect of Free Speech right in this country has only increased with time. The right to insult and offend is part of this fundamental pillar of our modern Western civilization. The remarkably high number of comments attacking this misguided group, AFDI, reveal to me how poor is the understanding of Americans of the strengths and weaknesses of their own political and civic system. Maybe it's part of the illiberal underbelly of American "Liberalism". Maybe it's just lousy civic education in our public schools.
Whatever it is, I'll have to spend some time with my kids using this situation as a learning example to distinguish the act of attacking ideas and worldviews from espousing the attacking of people who subscribe to certain worldviews.
As an immigrant, my respect of Free Speech right in this country has only increased with time. The right to insult and offend is part of this fundamental pillar of our modern Western civilization. The remarkably high number of comments attacking this misguided group, AFDI, reveal to me how poor is the understanding of Americans of the strengths and weaknesses of their own political and civic system. Maybe it's part of the illiberal underbelly of American "Liberalism". Maybe it's just lousy civic education in our public schools.
Whatever it is, I'll have to spend some time with my kids using this situation as a learning example to distinguish the act of attacking ideas and worldviews from espousing the attacking of people who subscribe to certain worldviews.
120
I am heartened by your ever-growing respect for Free Speech in this country, a freedom few share around the world. However, the "AFDI" does not use their freedom to enlighten; they use it to create fear among non-Muslims and to provoke Muslim fanatics and the mentally deranged to react with violence. There are legal limits on Free Speech, e,g,, inciting imminent violence, and there moral limits, the condemnation by decent members of the community for words and actions that is only intended to divide the community.
If you haven't already become a US citizen and plan to someday, I am quite sure that you will be a very fine American and have already contributed quite a bit to your adopted country.
One has to wonder about the strength and belief in peoples' faiths when they take it upon themselves to defend their deity by wanton killing. If one's deity is as powerful as one claims it to be, shouldn't one recognize that, if the deity is really angered by peoples' behaviors, that deity is quite capable of inflicting punishment with no help from some gun- or bomb-toting killers? The deity is what these believers should be questioning, not the people who are spoofing it.
What depresses me most about this incident aside from the violent outcome is that Freedom of Speech these days gets confused with the consequences of shouting fire in a crowded theater.
9
This exhibition of cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad was held to insult and provoke Muslims. If the organizers say it was really intended to be an exercise in freedom of expression, would the same people have supported the showing of ants crawling over a crucifix featuring Jesus at the Smithsonian in 2011 or the display of a crucifix of Jesus in a glass of urine in New York City in 1989? Both exhibits produced a storm of protests.
7
Storm of protest, yes. Attacking the exhibit with machine guns wearing body armor, no. Amazing folks don't seem to understand that in the USA you may reasonably express your opinion, as reprehensible as it may be, without threat of public execution or murder. The Islamists were free to picket and carry signs equally hateful around the exhibit. But instead they decided to shoot the place up. See the difference?
1
Protests yes. But not automatic gunfire with the intent to murder. Fortunately for this country, the majority of Americans can see the clear distinction
The drawings (here they are actually insulting cartoons) are not only "considered offensive by many Muslims," as the article says. They are considered insulting by me, a Protestant Christian.
3
Mike D. is correct - the AFDI is a hate group and they didn't hold this event for any other reason than to provoke all believers of Islam. The mission of AFDI wasn't to have an open dialog, to publish a satirical magazine or to express their own beliefs - it was to insult everyone of the Islamic faith. If an Islamic group had held a contest to make offensive cartoons of cherished Christian figures, AFDI would be doing everything they could to shut them down.
I am glad the security officer was not seriously injured because no one, ever, deserves to be shot for their beliefs or free speech. That said, I don't have any sympathy for AFDI in their manufacturing this very dangerous stunt. Free speech comes with responsibilities and we should all be careful when we host events in our communities with a hate group like AFDI.
I am glad the security officer was not seriously injured because no one, ever, deserves to be shot for their beliefs or free speech. That said, I don't have any sympathy for AFDI in their manufacturing this very dangerous stunt. Free speech comes with responsibilities and we should all be careful when we host events in our communities with a hate group like AFDI.
13
The phony art exposition was an act of extreme provocation and affront to sensibility and decency of law abiding people of all religions. More importantly, the specious event was not about free speech because the same people who reward cartoonish depictions of Mohamed decry anti-Israel comments on college campuses. Yes, there are limits to free speech in a civilized country when you intend to harm others for no parent reason other than to incite them.
229
"Yes, there are limits to free speech in a civilized country when you intend to harm others for no parent reason other than to incite them."
No, there are not limits. With all things rhetoric, you are only harmed if you choose to be harmed, unlike our attackers who choose to harm with loaded weapons. They quite explicitly have the right to discuss and protest to their hearts content. You, nor our attackers, have the right to tell them where the line is. That is the civil part of civil rights.
No, there are not limits. With all things rhetoric, you are only harmed if you choose to be harmed, unlike our attackers who choose to harm with loaded weapons. They quite explicitly have the right to discuss and protest to their hearts content. You, nor our attackers, have the right to tell them where the line is. That is the civil part of civil rights.
3
I disagree. If you start to impose limits on free speech then it isn't free. Yes, it's ugly to incite a group in this manner buts its up to the targeted group to react in a civilised manner and not grant them the response they seek.
People need to learn that they can ignore those they disagree with without feeling the need to destroy them or shut them up. Once you open the door on who can speak freely and who can't, that door will never again be closed.
People need to learn that they can ignore those they disagree with without feeling the need to destroy them or shut them up. Once you open the door on who can speak freely and who can't, that door will never again be closed.
6
I agree with you on two points but disagree on your main point. This was a phony art exposition. It was an act of extreme provocation etc. We agree on those items. However, this event was indeed covered by Freedom of Speech just the same as someone who decries anit-Isreal comments on college campuses is covered by Freedom of Speech. We do not have the right to pick and choose which speech is free. In this country, all speech, rude or righteous, is free. And we the people of this great country must defend that right, even if we don't agree with it's approach, cause or meaning. If we don't we will loose our right to Freedom of Speech.
3
Geller and Specncer's movement share common sentiment with anti-Muslim far-right German movement PEGIDA. Irony is that PEGIDA is a neo-Nazi group that has nostalgic views toward Hitler and his policy of racial supremacy. Who would have thought that a day will come when neo-Nazi and Jewish extremist groups will find common grounds in their hatred and intolerance for another minority.
10
Neo Nazi and Muslim extremist groups, White supremist and black nationalist groups have all found a common ground in their hatred of Jews for many decades. Watch the youtube video of Welsely professor Tony Martin (who was chair of the African studies department and a Muslim) speaking in front of a white hate group about Jews and calling the attendees "brother". These bonds have been going on for a long time.
What on earth is wrong with people and their interpretation of freedom. "Drawings of the prophet are considered offensive in most interpretations of Islam" If this is so, why do they insist in mocking and depicting Muhammad in disrespectful ways. Freedom is a not a license to insult other people nor their beliefs. I am a Christian and I certainly not like what ISIS and all their thugs are doing to other Christians but I find these "freedom freaks" that insult Muslims just as despicable. We cannot use our precious and hard earned freedom as an excuse to disrespect what others hold dear and sacred in their lives.
5
Yes we can; it's called freedom of speech, no matter how disrespectful or stupid or upsetting to others .Even allowing neo-Nazis to march in a Jewish neighborhood in Skokie falls under our freedom of speech guaranty.
All law students learn early on that "freedom of speech" is not absolute. You can't create a false alarm in a crowded theater by yelling "fire!" You get sued if you "slander" or "libel" someone. You go to jail if you joke about terrorism when boarding an airplane. In Europe you also go to jail if you deny the Holocaust, etc. Etc. So why does the media just automatically assume that to lampoon, insult, or otherwise seriously disrespect another religion is an exercise of "free speech" that's beyond criticism?
3
Some reports indicate that the shooters were on some sort of observation list of the FBI. Since those on the list have a propensity to this kind of violence, why do we not put them under closer supervision. If they were not citizens by birth, should we be revoking their citizenship and sending them back to their native country?
I am really concerned with the number of Muslim immigrants from Jihadist areas that we take in. Look at the Somalis - many of them have gone to Syria or Iraq to fight for ISIL. Should we let them return to this country, should we not be revoking their citizenship and that of their parents and returning them to Somalia?
We really need to stop admitting refugees, or asylum seekers that come from country where various Jihadist movements have strong roots. Look at what happened in France with Charlie Hebdo. Should we not insist that those people be settled in COuntries in which ISLAM is the main religion?
I am really concerned with the number of Muslim immigrants from Jihadist areas that we take in. Look at the Somalis - many of them have gone to Syria or Iraq to fight for ISIL. Should we let them return to this country, should we not be revoking their citizenship and that of their parents and returning them to Somalia?
We really need to stop admitting refugees, or asylum seekers that come from country where various Jihadist movements have strong roots. Look at what happened in France with Charlie Hebdo. Should we not insist that those people be settled in COuntries in which ISLAM is the main religion?
10
It seems so many of these terror dudes were on someone's radar screen. But no prevention. We are all unprotected.
1
Sad and interesting to read the comments from folks who would rather self-censor themselves in the face of a worldwide campaign of murderous religious fervor than stand up in favor of free expression. Those folks should of course burn their ACLU cards and figure out why they are so supportive of a movement which is avowedly anti-every other religion in the world, kills 13 year old girls for 'adultery" and stones gay people to death.
34
We shall defend our "open society" and never "surrender to terrorism". Yet it is also wrong to denigrate Islam!
It's a war going on between those who attack Islam and provoke Muslims, who are intolerant to anybody, showing disrespect to their religion. Instead of shooting anyone who insults their Prophet Muhammad, they should change their attitude and be more tolerant. They ought to see this bunch of primitive individuals, who have no sense of decency as infidels. Anyway these people don't matter in Islam. So why bother to pay attention to them!
It's a war going on between those who attack Islam and provoke Muslims, who are intolerant to anybody, showing disrespect to their religion. Instead of shooting anyone who insults their Prophet Muhammad, they should change their attitude and be more tolerant. They ought to see this bunch of primitive individuals, who have no sense of decency as infidels. Anyway these people don't matter in Islam. So why bother to pay attention to them!
3
We've now gone from offence to defense. They're here. They're expanding. I'm certain there will be more attacks. Sadly, it's a matter of when.
14
Pamela Geller.... Everything that can be said is said by invoking that one name.
10
An event to oppose Islam via mockery has been converted overnight to "an art contest" and a "free speech event." Sure, Geller has the right to speak, but if she is right that we are involved in war with Islam, does it make practical good sense to draw fire down on Garland Texas? Ms. Geller would have a right to burn her electric lamps during the London Blitz too, but would that have made good, practical sense.
The war is internecine, between two branches of Islam, and provoking all of Islam is a really stupid idea.
The war is internecine, between two branches of Islam, and provoking all of Islam is a really stupid idea.
22
Just a small addition: "The war is internecine, between two branches of Islam"
Sectarianism is propagated by the US Congress as well as Administration policies and its directives to the media including this esteemed paper.
Sectarianism is propagated by the US Congress as well as Administration policies and its directives to the media including this esteemed paper.
1
It merely follows a good old Roman practice of leaving the prosecution and punishment of blasphemy to the supposedly insulted deity, which is, presumably, perfectly capable of defending itself.
1
And really part of a much larger internecine war among the three major Abrahamic religions and their various sects and sub-sects.
I love it, liberals trying to weave a contrast between Hebdo's and Geller's art.
42
Yes, they've rather missed the point, haven't they?
1
There's no need to weave a contrast. Hebdo is an equal-opportunity offender. Geller is a rabid partisan provocateur who staged an inflammatory event, in all likelihood for the express purpose of provoking the kind of violent response which in fact happened. Granted, this is probably a few notches shy of shouting "fire" in a crowded theater and she is probably within her rights under the First Amendment. Even so, it doesn't make her a martyr to free expression nor does it immunize her from legitimate criticism for her gross irresponsibility and recklessness in creating a situation that put innocent lives at risk just so she could make a political point.
1
I imagine Ms. Geller also supports the second amendment which gave these jihadis the right to bear ak47's.
Interesting that one amendment is used to squash another amendment.
Interesting that one amendment is used to squash another amendment.
26
The Second Amendment can also be used to help individuals who feel unsafe in public feel more comfortable...Especially when they are expressing controversial speech.
Two wrongs cannot make one right. Wrong for these guys to attack the center in Garland, wrong for those who gathered there to spew their own hatred.
30
No - one of those wrongs was intended to end people's lives in the name of religious fundamentalism; the other was a piece of silly but nonetheless protected free speech that threatened no one's life, only some religious sensibilities. Conflating the two as equal is nonsense.
2
It is wrong to "spew hatred" but by my moral compass this pales in comparison with trying to murder people because you don't like what they are saying.
1
The question should not be, "Why do they get so offended?"
The question should be, "Why do you go out of your way to offend them?"
Freedom without fraternity is no freedom at all. The Far Right is using "freedom" as a stick to beat and provoke Muslims. Cartoons depicting the prophet Mohammed do not advance the cause of freedom one iota. It is provocation, pure and simple, and designed to offend an entire community. Pamela Geller is directly responsible for this mental thuggery.
The question should be, "Why do you go out of your way to offend them?"
Freedom without fraternity is no freedom at all. The Far Right is using "freedom" as a stick to beat and provoke Muslims. Cartoons depicting the prophet Mohammed do not advance the cause of freedom one iota. It is provocation, pure and simple, and designed to offend an entire community. Pamela Geller is directly responsible for this mental thuggery.
105
If you somehow think that speech—no matter how vile— justifies attempted murder, then you're part of the problem.
10
You don't understand the concept of free speech, do you? It isn't given out according to the quality or intent of the speech: which means that silly, offensive speech by silly, offensive people is protected - whether it advances the cause of freedom or not. And that "entire community" does seem to have a problem with western values, just not with western money and better economies.
6
I agree. Plus, the prohibition on drawing is trivial compared to, say, the treatment of women, or internecine warfare. But drawing is an easy thing for middle-brow intellects to get obsessed about.
1
It is ironic that Pamela Geller stages an event at a public school in Garland, Texas far away from her home in Hewlett, New York. Public school teachers can be fired for encouraging acts of religious intolerance like Ms. Geller and her fanatical right wing gang. Public schools are taken to task for favoring one religion over another which is why teachers make a point of inclusiveness rather than religious bigotry. Public schools are required, in most districts, to avoid offending one religion thus creating an atmosphere of contempt and exclusion remedied by a court of law.
So it seems, Ms. Geller purposefully intended to make a name for herself through staging this sting operation. Similar to the police deploying a bait car (i.e. honey trap) to catch a car thief. The right wing fanatics will be drawn to her extremism as she was responsible for defending free speech. The only religion she is defending is one of hatred, religion baiting and gross dereliction of responsibility. Of course, these ethical consideration never seem to interfere with the success of extreme right wing groups that thrive on exciting their negative base. Perhaps we have met the enemy and it is people who incite violence like Ms. Geller and her unabashed supporters. What a poor example for innocent young children. Although if she were a teacher, she would be stripped of her teaching credential and sentenced to jail for a crime far more egregious than encouraging children to cheat on a standardized test.
So it seems, Ms. Geller purposefully intended to make a name for herself through staging this sting operation. Similar to the police deploying a bait car (i.e. honey trap) to catch a car thief. The right wing fanatics will be drawn to her extremism as she was responsible for defending free speech. The only religion she is defending is one of hatred, religion baiting and gross dereliction of responsibility. Of course, these ethical consideration never seem to interfere with the success of extreme right wing groups that thrive on exciting their negative base. Perhaps we have met the enemy and it is people who incite violence like Ms. Geller and her unabashed supporters. What a poor example for innocent young children. Although if she were a teacher, she would be stripped of her teaching credential and sentenced to jail for a crime far more egregious than encouraging children to cheat on a standardized test.
86
Ms. Geller confuses poking Muslims in the eye with giving them helpful critiques.
1
Ever hear of the idea of freedom of speech? Even speech you don't like? Where is your liberal sensibility now? Does that have limits too?
1
The law enforcement purpose of a "sting" operation is to remove criminals from society. Under your analogy, Geller's sting has removed two murderous, intolerant thugs from society and, apparently, that's a bad thing.
This is a good time to remember the aphorism: "My right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." Which means that even though I have the right to freedom of speech, once that speech enters another's private territory, such as when that person perceives blasphemy, that person has an equal right to swing back.
11
They have the right to "swing back" with counter-speech, not guns.
5
So you're saying that the shooters had a right to murder the event organizers? Got it.
2
Yeah, and as long as they also swinging with words they are well within their rights. Bullets are a bit different.
2
Why is this characterized as an anti-Islam event, and perhaps not a "freedom of speech" event? I agree, the event is provocative and not in good taste, I doubt I would have attended if I lived nearby, but free speech must be defended.
71
The event was INTENDED to offend and incite. It was intentionally hateful. For Ms. Geller to use her money for hate speech (and her organization has been identified as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center) is far worse than simply "provocative and not in good taste."
1
Free speech. I'm sure that an event promoting the stupidity of Texans wouldn't draw any violence, right? Oh, and nice touch, throwing such a provocative event on or near school grounds. I am sure the intellectual force behind this, Pam Geller was not going for cheap publicity.
18
Sharia enforces successfully flushed out of the weeds. Si or no?
6
So looking at the initial comments condeming the organizers of the event in Texas, I start to wonder if the same critics would express the same outrage at the Iranian Gov't sponsored cartoon conference designed to mock and deny the holocaust.
67
I can think of one difference between those two: depictions of Mohammed are considered blasphemy by Islam, and denial of the Holocaust is not considered blasphemy. Lying, sure. Crazy, sure. But the Torah does not say that Iran cannot lie about a historical event that occurred thousands of years after the Torah was written. So there's that difference.
No, their hypocrisy forbids them.
1
Yes we do, but what Iranians do does not merit ground for us doing the same stupid and insulting things. If not then we would be just the same as they are.
A plague on both your houses. Hate is hate. Baiting others into violence which in this case led to the injury of a security guard and could have been far worse is sick and morally reprehensible.
And for elected officials to hide hate between the cloack of freedom of expression is not leadership, its weak, ignorant, and politically expedience.
People of good character please step forward and condemn hate baiters Pamela Geller and Geert Wilders and the politicians that defend them.
And for elected officials to hide hate between the cloack of freedom of expression is not leadership, its weak, ignorant, and politically expedience.
People of good character please step forward and condemn hate baiters Pamela Geller and Geert Wilders and the politicians that defend them.
47
It isn't Islamophobia when they really are trying to kill you.
But leaving aside the Jihadi violence which has claimed the lives of hundreds of thousands across the world, and injured a few hundred more thousand since 9/11, i do agree that "hate is hate."
We need to limit free speech in this country.
From now on, especially when it comes to Muhammad, no more mean things.
The NYT got it right when it self-censored.
Please, more censorship, if it helps not to offend.
But leaving aside the Jihadi violence which has claimed the lives of hundreds of thousands across the world, and injured a few hundred more thousand since 9/11, i do agree that "hate is hate."
We need to limit free speech in this country.
From now on, especially when it comes to Muhammad, no more mean things.
The NYT got it right when it self-censored.
Please, more censorship, if it helps not to offend.
1
Baiting? No one was baited. The shooter made the conscious decision to load his gun and take it to this event specifically to inflict harm. Where is your condemnation of those who respond to reversible and one dimensional imagery with very irreversible violence?
3
"Baiting others into violence"…no such thing, man. Whether it's "Piss Christ" or "Cartoons of Mohammed", it says much much more about the intolerance of the group or individuals provoked than the ones doing the "provoking" or "speaking". Radical Islam is the problem, these are just the canaries in the coal mine.
1
Some years ago you reported on an event displaying several works of art. One piece of art can be describe as a container with a crucifix and the Christ figure in it. The container was filled with human urine. I don't recall the Times calling this "anti-Christian."
177
Interestingly enough I don't recall Christians trying to murder anyone over that "art".
2
Exactly Pb, freedom of speech is always against Christianity, because Christians are soft targets. But with Islam, these tricks are not possible.
2
Did you need for someone to tell you that? Or, was it pretty plain on the face of it?
The point is; that was freedom of speech, because the government didn't step in and say "You can't do this!"
Kind of like when Giuliani closed the museum in Brooklyn for displaying the portrait of the Madonna that had the elephant dung in it. That was the opposite of "Free Speech."
The point is; that was freedom of speech, because the government didn't step in and say "You can't do this!"
Kind of like when Giuliani closed the museum in Brooklyn for displaying the portrait of the Madonna that had the elephant dung in it. That was the opposite of "Free Speech."
Shame on the event organizers. I never believed I would witness a senseless baiting game with human lives in the name of religion. The next exhibition will be of Jesus in porno with a gun in his hand as a homosexual? Where are the religious leaders of this state and why are they not stopping this kind of event. Family values?? This is not represent Freedom of Speech, rather bad taste and run by some pretty sick individuals who have no common decency or common sense. I don't agree with the violence but inciting anyone in this gun totting society especially over religion is awful. And offering a prize to a person who is the most hateful?? What disgusting role models for kids !
588
Well said! it is exactly that, senseless, tasteless baiting in bad taste, run by sick individuals who are horrible role models. Interesting though how the most conservative people turn to ultra liberal, parading the most liberal values when it comes to THEIR agenda.
1
How do you know it was "hateful"? Are you relying solely on the Times' headline?
3
Shame on them? Why not shame on the people who actually went there to shoot them for it?
9
This 'Westboro-clone" organization is clearly overjoyed that its provocative "free expression" event generated a violent response. Whatever happened to laws against "inciting to riot"? Much like the idiot who burns the revered texts of Islam here in FL, the Texas group is less about expressing unpopular ideas in a way consistent with free speech ideals and much more about knowingly causing a violent reaction from those offended. There is a big difference between a publication like Charlie Hebdo and an anti-Muslim hate group. Shameful that Texas lawmakers support it.
19
How is AFDI "Westboro-clone" in any way? AFDI does not spread "hate," they highlight the danger of the ideology of Jihadism, which itself is a form of hate against non-Muslims. Je suis AFDI.
1
Did anyone watch the UN conference on the worldwide persecutions of Christians?
This event is nothing compared to the attacks revealed in the UN conference.
This event is nothing compared to the attacks revealed in the UN conference.
11
You are wrong this event goes the same direction
Are you saying that excuses the meeting in Garland? This is America, remember?
I am saying the event, the meeting is wrong, it was lighting a fuse to an explosive situation, and sure, violence did happen. It all has one name to blame:Geller
Will the PEN American Center give a Freedom of Expression Courage award to the American Freedom Defense Initiative, in addition to Charlie Hebdo?
8
it doesnt take courage to criticize Islam or Muslims, who have little power in the US.
It takes courage to criticize Israel, or Judaism qua religion, or to speak of the disproportionate wealth and power of American Jews.
And if one has the courage, of course, one is either called a nasty name, or precluded from having a forum all together.
http://mondoweiss.net/2011/09/the-drawings-that-terrified-the-the-san-fr...
Free speech?
Give me a break.
It takes courage to criticize Israel, or Judaism qua religion, or to speak of the disproportionate wealth and power of American Jews.
And if one has the courage, of course, one is either called a nasty name, or precluded from having a forum all together.
http://mondoweiss.net/2011/09/the-drawings-that-terrified-the-the-san-fr...
Free speech?
Give me a break.
After this horrible event, I'm left asking why -- no, not why an Islamic extremist would attack it, given that he was effectively lured to the site like a shark to chum in the water, but why on earth a public school district rented out its basketball arena for a known hate group's de facto celebration of its own hatred, in the form of a vile "draw Muhammad" contest?
Pamela Geller is sadly mistaken when she describes Muslims as a "special class" Americans are no longer allowed to offend. As others here have pointed out, no realistic person believes such an event targeted at Christians, e.g. a contest to draw the most offensive depiction of Jesus or Mary, would be allowed without reprisal, quite possibly by similarly offended Christians wielding guns.
Pamela Geller is sadly mistaken when she describes Muslims as a "special class" Americans are no longer allowed to offend. As others here have pointed out, no realistic person believes such an event targeted at Christians, e.g. a contest to draw the most offensive depiction of Jesus or Mary, would be allowed without reprisal, quite possibly by similarly offended Christians wielding guns.
17
Every realistic person believes an exhibit sacrilegious to Christians would fail to trigger murderous attacks - it's already happened many times (e.g. Mapplethorpe).
The faithful, particularly Muslims, need to understand that their theology is not binding on non-members. Outside that sphere, there is nothing wrong or hateful about an illustration of Mohammed.
The faithful, particularly Muslims, need to understand that their theology is not binding on non-members. Outside that sphere, there is nothing wrong or hateful about an illustration of Mohammed.
8
I agree. Where were the adults in the school district to say "No, we don't the rental fee that badly to host this event"?
1
So you would ask "why allow art?" but not "why shoot someone for allowing art?"
4
American Freedom Defense Initiative screamed "fire" in a crowded theater. What the hell else was expected?
16
Good analogy.
Except that screaming fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire threatens harm in the ensuing panic to exit.
And Geller screamed "Jihad" when there is in fact a "Jihad" occurring daily worldwide. And except that no Jihadist was in physical danger until they attempted to murder innocent people.
Otherwise you are right on the money.
Except that screaming fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire threatens harm in the ensuing panic to exit.
And Geller screamed "Jihad" when there is in fact a "Jihad" occurring daily worldwide. And except that no Jihadist was in physical danger until they attempted to murder innocent people.
Otherwise you are right on the money.
2
Well, it's nothing to lose your head over... or be stoned for, or hung in public square with piano wire. Just sayin'...
2
More like they asked the crowd in the theater to put their cell phones on vibrate, but two members of the audience couldn't be bothered.
1
I dont remember any shootings at the last Maplethorpe exhibit.
Did I miss the rampage?
Was there liberal hand wringing over how Christians might be upset?
Did I miss the rampage?
Was there liberal hand wringing over how Christians might be upset?
185
bay: Christians are easy targets . They promote love and forgiveness. Islam, however, has some strange sections of the Koran which apparently promote something quite different : death to ' infidels.'
1
What exactly was so offensive to Christians at a Maplethorpe exhibit?
There may not have been any shootings over Maplethorpe, but do some research -- into bomb threats and vandalism, every time a Maplethorpe or a movie like "Last Temptation of Christ" comes out. Wingnuts there have always been.
1
Pamela Geller and her organization is a hate group akin to the Ku Klux Klan. They are not freedom fighters. The Dutch politician who delivered the keynote has stated that all non-whites should be deported from the Netherlands. If an organization directed as much bile at Jewish people as Geller's organization does at Muslims there would be universal outrage (and rightly so), but there is nothing but silence from the media and politicians. How shameful that anti-Muslim hatred and bigotry is tacitly approved by the mainstream voices of America.
54
Outrage, but not violence. And the KKK was a Democrat creation.
They sponsored an art exhibit. Who is the bigger hate group: the one that lampoons the other with cartoons or the one that shows up to shoot someone for said cartoons?
1
So to quote you " If an organization directed as much bile at Jewish people as Geller's organization does at Muslims there would be universal outrage (and rightly so), but there is nothing but silence from the media and politicians." Sounds like a pretty accurate description of most Middle East countries and their leaders. Yet if we try to show outrage towards their behavior or the behavior of their splinter organizations throughout the world we get labelled as intolerant and Islamophobic. I'll support this group's right to draw cartoons instead of strapping explosive vests on and getting on a crowded bus any day. You should figure out what side you're on.
Elton Simpson, not a typical muslim name. a convert? a crazy drawn towards militancy and choosing Islam as a cover? hopefully we'll find out more about motives.
7
Unlikely since they are dead and we cannot read minds dead or alive.
Two less potential radical muslims in America a positive. A big negative for me is Americans inciting violence with this event.
7
Anti-Islamist group = Free Speech. Anti-Jewish group = Hate speech/anti-semitisim.
And pointing out this obvious fact does not mean I condone violence.
And pointing out this obvious fact does not mean I condone violence.
74
No, both are actually hate speech, but both unfortunately are protected as free speech. Just pointing out the obvious...... Not sure why you felt the need to make that direct comparison to Jewish groups anyway.
8
You're right, and this has been fairly widely discussed in the internet.
A favorite cartoon:
https://penjihad.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/freedom-of-speech.jpg
There is no shortage of genuine anti-Semites, but we live in a country where there are very few Muslims in the media, and - this is just the facts - a disproportionate {by % of population} number of Jewish people. Natually this presents some inevitable pro-Israel anti-Muslim bias.
But some of this bias is profound:
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/media/meet-nyt.html
Now, short of advocating violence, I think one should be able to say what one wishes. But as a practical matter, even reasonable criticism of Israel is censored. Recent riots in Jerusalem by Ethiopian Jews, who *cited Baltimore's riots* - got ZERO coverage... odd, since every single harmless rocket that lands in the Negev gets a front page story.
I'm not sure this will ever change.
A favorite cartoon:
https://penjihad.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/freedom-of-speech.jpg
There is no shortage of genuine anti-Semites, but we live in a country where there are very few Muslims in the media, and - this is just the facts - a disproportionate {by % of population} number of Jewish people. Natually this presents some inevitable pro-Israel anti-Muslim bias.
But some of this bias is profound:
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/media/meet-nyt.html
Now, short of advocating violence, I think one should be able to say what one wishes. But as a practical matter, even reasonable criticism of Israel is censored. Recent riots in Jerusalem by Ethiopian Jews, who *cited Baltimore's riots* - got ZERO coverage... odd, since every single harmless rocket that lands in the Negev gets a front page story.
I'm not sure this will ever change.
3
If someone wants to criticize or satirize the beliefs of a religion that falls under the heading of free speech. That people are offended does not make it hate speech. If you say that Muslims or Jews or Christians are evil and should be destroyed, that's hate speech. The line is not always clear. I don't think every critic of Israel is an Anti-Semite, but there are obviously many who don't separate Israel the country from its people. That's an age-old problem. Similarly, it becomes difficult for people to separate Jihadists from Muslims. We must struggle not to be too broad in our condemnations. And as you point out, we must try to apply the same standards to ourselves that we freely apply to others.
1
On the one hand you have every right to make fun of Mohamed or Jesus or Obama or the pope or god or any other celebrity but is it really necessary to gratuitously rub their faces in it?
That said, if Muslims cannot take a dose of Free Speech then clearly America is not for them.
That said, if Muslims cannot take a dose of Free Speech then clearly America is not for them.
978
I think that pretty much sums it up.
8
I agree, it does seem like they were out to make a statement and got the kind of response they were hoping for to prove their point.
On the other hand, America is not exactly open-minded when it comes to free speech--remember the Dixie Chicks?
http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/Music/03/14/dixie.chicks.reut/
On the other hand, America is not exactly open-minded when it comes to free speech--remember the Dixie Chicks?
http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/Music/03/14/dixie.chicks.reut/
1
With America regularly invading and occupying Muslim nation states their native lands are not for them either.
With America arming and supporting Islamist Sunni Muslim Arab royal tyrants and secular military Arab dictators and Zionist Jewish colonial imperial occupation, blockade/siege and exile the Muslims have no land where they are divinely naturally created equal with certain unalienable rights including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
With America arming and supporting Islamist Sunni Muslim Arab royal tyrants and secular military Arab dictators and Zionist Jewish colonial imperial occupation, blockade/siege and exile the Muslims have no land where they are divinely naturally created equal with certain unalienable rights including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Freedom of Religion just means you cannot have your liberties restricted by the Federal Government based on your religion. No Muslims liberties were affected by this gathering. Freedom of Religion does not mean that you have the right to not have your religion criticized, mocked or made fun of. Freedom of Religion does not mean you have the right to stop anyone from saying or doing something offensive to your religion. Thankfully, Free Speech protects our rights to criticize, mock, satire and say whatever we want. It is truly a beautiful thing.
HBO just released a documentary that calls out Scientology for being crazy. Scientologists were offended and expressed that. HBO doesn't have to pull the documentary thanks to free speech. Thanks to Freedom of Religion, people cannot watch the HBO documentary and then legislate that no one can be a scientologist.
Shouldn't people be more concerned that people are taking shots, literally, at our Freedom of Speech, even if you disagree with that speech? This has NOTHING to do with Freedom of Religion.
HBO just released a documentary that calls out Scientology for being crazy. Scientologists were offended and expressed that. HBO doesn't have to pull the documentary thanks to free speech. Thanks to Freedom of Religion, people cannot watch the HBO documentary and then legislate that no one can be a scientologist.
Shouldn't people be more concerned that people are taking shots, literally, at our Freedom of Speech, even if you disagree with that speech? This has NOTHING to do with Freedom of Religion.
66
The HBO doc and this event aren't even an Apples and oranges comparison. You are comparing two unrelated things.
This event was inspired by and intended to cause hatred. The organisers intended for this shootout to occur. I would say they hoped some attendees would be killed to further their cause with more false "proof".
The HBO doc was intended to explain facts that had not yet been made evident to the general public about Scientology.
This event was inspired by and intended to cause hatred. The organisers intended for this shootout to occur. I would say they hoped some attendees would be killed to further their cause with more false "proof".
The HBO doc was intended to explain facts that had not yet been made evident to the general public about Scientology.
1
Hate begets hate... no surprise here.
33
The problem with such a simple and true adage is that it's not an equation that solves this problem: here, hate did not beget hate; hate begat another potentially murderous rampage. The two are not compatible. I am the biggest ideological enemy of this Long Island hate machine, but I do not believe she should be executed. And, I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would condemn, to the level they've done here, drawing a picture of Mohammed. Everyone should be allowed to draw what ever they want. It's really too bad if it offends. Don't look. Charlie Hebdo's Christian cartoons are much worse than anything else. I can't think of any Christian or group of Christians who think it's kosher to assassinate the cartoonists. And PLEASE don't talk to me about the inquisition. Let's have a 350 year statute of limitations on that one.
We really need to remember that we've seen virutally every other religious figure lampooned at some point. Anyone remember The Onion's interview with Jesus after 9/11. The notion that we need to censor ourselves to appease a group of extremists is absurd. That their particular brand of religion holds a special status is contrary to much of wht this country stands for. To the vast majority of Muslims in the US who, like the rest of us, would never consider such an act my heart goes out to them. There will be no easy answers here and there will be more blood spilled. But, to keep true to ourselves and the meaning of the country we can't let Jihadis like this drive how we think draw or publish. The ideology/theology that condones this and what we've seen from ISIS of late has no place in our society today (if it ever did).
762
Agreed. However, I think that gratuitous nastiness and unkindness and baiting is so unnecessary. I an see where some people who are already on the edge could be tipped over.
6
"The notion that we need to censor ourselves to appease a group of extremists is absurd."
This is not "the notion" one should take from those opposing hate mongering. The notion one should take is one that discourages all hate speech and the abuse of the right to free speech which is meant to protect us from our government, to attack people and groups that we may not approve of or even hate.
The courts may have engaged on this in the past and allowed for stupidity and bad judgment on that level but the simple fact is as Citizens we have to realise that to have a Civil Society We must behave as mature thinking reasoning adults not petulant children seeking to provoke some perceived rival or enemy.
This is not "the notion" one should take from those opposing hate mongering. The notion one should take is one that discourages all hate speech and the abuse of the right to free speech which is meant to protect us from our government, to attack people and groups that we may not approve of or even hate.
The courts may have engaged on this in the past and allowed for stupidity and bad judgment on that level but the simple fact is as Citizens we have to realise that to have a Civil Society We must behave as mature thinking reasoning adults not petulant children seeking to provoke some perceived rival or enemy.
2
Right on! I can think of no reason to allow Islam or any religion to think itself above criticism and, when criticized, reply with bullets and bombs. The greatness of our society depends upon freedom of speech and freedom of the press.
3
The people who put this together got exactly what they wanted.
159
Not exactly. They got what they and others have learned to expect, extreme violence from Muslims unwilling to live under U.S. Law and Free Speech. If Muslims would have peacefully protested against this exhibit (and the hate group hosting it) it would have been a refreshing change.
As if on cue, the NY Times readers begin their logical contortions to justify acts of violence against—wait for it—speech protected by the First Amendment. Whether or not you agree with Geller, she and those targeted—not the gunmen—were the victims here.
178
Not one message here has ben for the gunmen. But clearly this was meant to offend and there was nothing positive about this event.
6
And right on cue as well are the comparisons to the kkk!!! Yet, violence against this art group is continually justified by liberal Times readers.
Nobody is justifying violence when they repudiate the hate speech of Pam Geller's organization.
2
"Smoked 'em out" then "smoked 'em." MIssion accomplished. Any innocent bystanders would have been collateral damage. People have the right to be as stupid as they like, and Pam Geller and her group are plenty stupid. Geller fails to see that she is at the head of the "special class" allowed to offend. If Geller's intent is to bring jihad to the homeland she's succeeding by staging these incidents that are clearly intended to do little more than provoke violence.
37
Precisely. She's managing to target a lot of people who would never in a million years on their own consider being other than good citizens, and causing many of them to seriously consider retaliating. If yo push people too far, they defend themselves. Geller and her ilk are pushing too far, and are going to cause a dreadful situation.
The AFDI is a hate group led by the reprehensible Pamela Geller. It is a group which has helped demonstrate that saying hateful, ignorant and steretypical things about Islam or Arab remains "freedom of speech" and can go on public buses - but criticizing Israel for its apartheid occupation regime, or its unequivocal use of white phosphorus...
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/mar/25/israel-white-phosphorus-gaza
Why *that* is hate speech.
Why was Elton Simpson in the country.
How many times does a "thwarted" or successful attack have to be someone the authorities were aware of [indeed warned of by the Russians in the case of the Boston Marathong bombing]?
Something doesn't add up.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/mar/25/israel-white-phosphorus-gaza
Why *that* is hate speech.
Why was Elton Simpson in the country.
How many times does a "thwarted" or successful attack have to be someone the authorities were aware of [indeed warned of by the Russians in the case of the Boston Marathong bombing]?
Something doesn't add up.
12
When I last checked, freedom of speech was a hallmark of our constitution. It doesn't make any exceptions for what some call "hate speech." Don't forget, one person's so-called hate speech is another person's valued perspective. And all speech is a First Amendment right for all who live in the US...
1
Reprehensible, and really dumb...
"In 2010, federal prosecutors in Arizona charged Mr. Simpson with plotting to travel to Somalia “for the purpose of engaging in violent jihad,” and then lying to a federal agent about his plans. A judge found him guilty of lying to the agent, but said the government had not proved that his plan involved terrorism, and sentenced him to three years’ probation."
I hope the judge is really proud of his decision now to not jail this dangerous jihadist.
Freedom of speech needs to prevail in the west. Political correctness has forced us to kowtow too much to muslim extremist groups. I applaud the brave men and women who dared to stage this event, risking their own lives to defend our first amendment rights. We need to drag the muslims into the 21st century. They can muzzle people in muslim countries, but they can't muzzle us in the west that respect freedom of speech.
I hope the judge is really proud of his decision now to not jail this dangerous jihadist.
Freedom of speech needs to prevail in the west. Political correctness has forced us to kowtow too much to muslim extremist groups. I applaud the brave men and women who dared to stage this event, risking their own lives to defend our first amendment rights. We need to drag the muslims into the 21st century. They can muzzle people in muslim countries, but they can't muzzle us in the west that respect freedom of speech.
19
Since we don't know what evidence was presented concerning Simpson, if is unfair to criticize the judge. He may not have had a LEGAL choice in the matter.
Political correctness has forced us to kowtow to hate groups of all stripes, not just muslim extremist groups.
Political correctness has forced us to kowtow to hate groups of all stripes, not just muslim extremist groups.
Why Texans tolerate these Ms. Geller types is beyond my comprehension...
14
Oopsie! I guess if you don't look out your New York window, you don't have to see this:
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/new-york-ranks-no-3-nation-number-ha...
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/new-york-ranks-no-3-nation-number-ha...
2
You share that that limitation with fellow liberals, most Texans are more open minded.
2
Are you kidding? She's right at home in Texas more than her true home in NYC!
1
I don't know who Geller is. She may well be an anti-Islamic bigot, BUT, this event doesn't exist in a vacuum! We are every day more engulfed in the Western World with Muslim immigrants using violence against the peoples who invited or allowed them to immigrate. The only country immune to this is probably Japan where immigration is discouraged. In that context this event took place. Texans and Californians, where I live, should not be insulted by the NYT for exercising our rights to free speech. Drawing pictures of Mohammed falls under free speech. During the Reformation we Protestants often destroyed pictures and statues of Christ and saints but we can't allow that issue to rise up again in the modern world fueled by immigration of Muslims, and an over indulgence in political rectitude. I believe today what I didn't a few days ago, based on Charlie Hebdo, and a flood of similarly intended events I believe now that if we give up the right to put Mohammed in a cartoon, we will soon be forced to put armed guards around Jewish schools across the Western world, we will be faced with a flood of complaints against women who offend in dress "decency". We will be fools if we, who have turned Sundays into shopping days, ignoring the faith of our grandparents, begin contouring new norms for too pliant society to reflect an alien faith with a violent streak a mile wide.
73
Knuckleheads drawing cartoons and knuckleheads dying while fighting against cartoons. Not a bad mousetrap to let them all self-select for identification and monitoring I suppose.
15
Don't mess with Texas. This is the way to handle domestic terrorrists--plan ahead, wait for them to show, and do your duty.
41
Do you think that if I sponsored an event where people made negative drawings of Jesus that some christian nutbar would not show up and start shooting? Last time I checked most of the domestic terrorists in the US have been white christians.
1
To answer Scott D's question - the answer is "no".
1
Maybe you could build a couple of towers...
1
The cartoon event sounds apocalyptically pointless and stupid - virtually designed, it appears, to draw some kind of response that organizers could lash out at in the name of "freedom." On the other hand, a pair of gun-toting low-lifes (pray tell the 'well regulated militia' they belonged to) rose to the bait. Makes you wonder if the collective IQ involved broke 4 figures. It sometimes seems the only freedom our country truly lacks is that from wanton, purposeless violence.
62
"The cartoon event sounds apocalyptically pointless and stupid - virtually designed, it appears, to draw some kind of response that organizers could lash out at in the name of "freedom."
Did you make a similar statement about Charlie Hebdo? Weren't they being purposefully provocative? After others in Europe had been killed and riots taken place for Mohammed cartoons, weren't they "stupid"? The reaction from several readers is pretty stunning - showing your bias because you believe it was right wingers and it was in Texas.
Did you make a similar statement about Charlie Hebdo? Weren't they being purposefully provocative? After others in Europe had been killed and riots taken place for Mohammed cartoons, weren't they "stupid"? The reaction from several readers is pretty stunning - showing your bias because you believe it was right wingers and it was in Texas.
A very sad day for America when arrogant bigots who sole purpose was to provoke violence were given a platform of legitimacy to do so. Interesting that the extremists were armed and ready to encounter the armed extremists they sought to draw out.
27
Perhaps you need to read the article again. The police rather than the event organizers were the ones who shot back.
1
Both sides are reprehensible.
They were not armed with anything other than pencils. The one's who were armed were law enforcement who were there to keep the peace, not to support the event. Or would you rather that they weren't there so instead the place could have been a slaughter?
3
Maybe PEN will give Pamela Geller a prize too when it honors Charlie Hebdo's reckless attempts to inflame hatred.
18
Another perversion of the right to free speech by ignoramuses.
Even in the 60's they taught us to be responsible in what we said and advocated to prevent what it seems was intended by this event. Free speech is meant to guarantee your right to speak up against the government when you have good reason to believe it is out of line not to protect or create a freedom to abuse groups or people whom you do not approve of.
Even in the 60's they taught us to be responsible in what we said and advocated to prevent what it seems was intended by this event. Free speech is meant to guarantee your right to speak up against the government when you have good reason to believe it is out of line not to protect or create a freedom to abuse groups or people whom you do not approve of.
334
Free Speech is about being able to say whatever you want, about whoever you want (not just the government) without facing a crime. By your analysis, you are blaming the victims of a crime for inciting a criminal to shoot at them. Victim blaming is WRONG.
10
I think you need to brush up on your First Amendment jurisprudence, darling.
8
Meh! So if I draw a picture of the boxer Muhammad Ali and just call it "Muhammad," someone has the right to kill me?
What if I take a picture of a dog urinating on a hydrant and I write Muhammad on the picture? Death penalty for that, too?
All religions are silly in one way or another, but Islamists really need to widen their focus a bit. If a pen and ink drawing can destabilize you, you really need to calm down a bit.
What if I take a picture of a dog urinating on a hydrant and I write Muhammad on the picture? Death penalty for that, too?
All religions are silly in one way or another, but Islamists really need to widen their focus a bit. If a pen and ink drawing can destabilize you, you really need to calm down a bit.
11
Actually, this was a free speech event, not an 'anti-islam' event. The NYT headline here reflects the fact that the NYT isn't courageous enough to honor free speech when it comes to Islam.
87
So that's the meme you're going with? Meh.
3
Exasperated, it was both.
The comment about the media self-enforcing Shariah was striking and valid. I am not sure if I disagree or not, but every killing by supporters of Islam move me towards thinking they are all killers. While I know that is wrong, my emotional response is what it is, and the Muslims need to take action before their entire religion is labeled as terrorist.
57
Holding a contest for the best caricature of Muhammad ? To what purpose was this activity other than to ridicule a religion. Fundamental Christians would be in an uproar if Muslims held that same contest depicting Jesus.
There is freedom of speech and then there is just plain stupid.
There is freedom of speech and then there is just plain stupid.
129
Fundamentalist Christians are frequently mocked. Perhaps the most popular example was the character David Spade played for so long on Saturday Night Live - the Church Lady. The late Sir Bertrand Russell's "Why I an not a Christian" was well-received and freely available. While you are correct in stating that there is free speech and then there is just plain stupid, there is also the imposition of restraint on free speech that is nearly indistinguishable from suppressing opinions we may not like.
11
An uproar is fine.
Shooting is not fine.
Shooting is not fine.
9
In an uproar, maybe. Homicidal? Definitely not.
I'm all for free speech and I think I should be able to create and disseminate cartoons and drawings of whom I please and I think others should be free to do also. Certainly, however, surely the organizers and participants knew this event was a provocation, which, I imagine was their intent.
So, what was their purpose? Provoke Islam and lure jihadists so we could kill 'em? So in this event the score is Us 2 them 0.5 for a wounding? Or perhaps we can score it differently by the magnificent drama and media exposure we have created: Us way up there, them not so much.
So, what was their purpose? Provoke Islam and lure jihadists so we could kill 'em? So in this event the score is Us 2 them 0.5 for a wounding? Or perhaps we can score it differently by the magnificent drama and media exposure we have created: Us way up there, them not so much.
7
To the anti-Islam event organizer, Pamela Geller and to Geert Wilders an anit-Islam bigot from the Netherlands...you're no Charlie Hebdo.
33
Well said, well said, indeed!
1
This has to be absolute torture for the Times. No matter what you say about Pam Geller no matter how you airbrush Islam the thing just kind of speaks for it's self doesn't it. Islam is different from any religion or ideology because it offers in it's sacred texts justification for the acts these would be murders commited. It's really that simple. It may be "just" an interpretation but murdering blashpemers, stoning women and apostates and throwing gays off cliffs are all valid interpretations- they are well suported, you just don't have to look that hard. The last messianic group that openly practiced an unacceptable behavior (polygamy) was threatened with military force. Why are muslims special?
223
It's not the Times, Mr. Kearney, there's the rest of us, regular people, non Muslims, too, who question the necessity of a senseless, hateful, dumb event whose grand prize went to the person who could insult Islam the best. Not one comment here questions why the attackers were killed. You and "Pam" and the one dozen likers of your comment are alone in wanting to use military force against all Muslims. Disgusting.
4
Why were the attackers killed, guys? Anybody?
It doesn't even feel natural, pretending to care about the dead shooters.
It feels...disgusting.
It doesn't even feel natural, pretending to care about the dead shooters.
It feels...disgusting.
1
And Christians killing abortion doctors.
6
Only in America can one do what one loves and make a good living at it. Right, Ms. Geller?
17
Only in America do we criticize those who would rather host an art contest than shoot someone.
2
Only in America the two appear to be the only options.
I love how the NYtimes does not frame the "American Freedom Defense Initiative" as a hate organization, which is what they would do if it was doing anything else but inciting hate of Muslims.
And instead focus on the offensive drawings of Mohamed as the right worth fighting for...
So NY city can't spread its hate for Muslims enough there, so they have to go to Texas, the home of racism to stoke the fires.
But I have to say, it is the NYTimes indifference to the hate that this Geller spreads in America that is most telling. If her organization was spreading such hate about illegal immigrants, the elitist NYTimes would be infinitely more opinionated.
And instead focus on the offensive drawings of Mohamed as the right worth fighting for...
So NY city can't spread its hate for Muslims enough there, so they have to go to Texas, the home of racism to stoke the fires.
But I have to say, it is the NYTimes indifference to the hate that this Geller spreads in America that is most telling. If her organization was spreading such hate about illegal immigrants, the elitist NYTimes would be infinitely more opinionated.
11
You don't get to shoot people in this country for expressing free speech, no matter how vile the speech or hateable the person delivering it (looking at you Pamela Geller).
Kudos to the police for killing these terrorists. Perhaps the $10k prize should be given to the police force in Garland for keeping these bigots alive.
Kudos to the police for killing these terrorists. Perhaps the $10k prize should be given to the police force in Garland for keeping these bigots alive.
240
Sounds like a whole bunch of idiots collided there not just the two who were killed. And as for the horrid Pamela Geller, I'll bet she's delighted since she appears to have been seeking to provoke this sort of thing for years.
52
I'm glad she succeeded.
She didn't force these Muslims to come and try to kill people.
She didn't create them.
All she did was to encourage them to come out of the closet where they were hiding.
We are lucky she got these two to come out of the closet when they did and not later when they would have succeeded in killing people.
Now will you admit she is right or will blame you her for the wrong other people have done..
She didn't force these Muslims to come and try to kill people.
She didn't create them.
All she did was to encourage them to come out of the closet where they were hiding.
We are lucky she got these two to come out of the closet when they did and not later when they would have succeeded in killing people.
Now will you admit she is right or will blame you her for the wrong other people have done..
1
I thought this was just a free-speech event. Why is the New York Times misrepresenting it as an Anti-islam event? You do realize no one had to draw a negative caricature, right? If you so choose, you could draw something of a positive nature.
I'm sad to say I'm losing respect for NYT as an accurate source of the news. I also think Fernandez and Perez-Pena should be ashamed for misrepresenting the facts in the headline just to get a few more clicks, and the editor should be ashamed for allowing. Why not call it a "free-speech event"? Which is exactly what it was.
I'm sad to say I'm losing respect for NYT as an accurate source of the news. I also think Fernandez and Perez-Pena should be ashamed for misrepresenting the facts in the headline just to get a few more clicks, and the editor should be ashamed for allowing. Why not call it a "free-speech event"? Which is exactly what it was.
87
Put to one side that there may not be many Moslems who think there is such a thing as a "positive" visual image of their prophet, can you correct the NYTimes' reporting and tell me how many such positive images were exhibited and describe why they were positive?
2
Islam forbids depicting the Prophet Mohammed. It doesn't necessarily need to be negative.
1
I'm sure Pamela Geller called it that.
3
Once again, I am embarrassed by the actions of people in my home state. Time and time again Texans have demonstrated acts of blatant ignorance and bigotry. Unfortunately, the violence that occurred Sunday night will only further this hatred. Of course I realize that this type of thing can and does happen all across the country, but it just seems that a disproportionate amount of vitriol emanates from the Lone Star State.
15
A lot of that perception is how the Press covers Texas as opposed to podunk Oregon or Idaho which along with all the other states also has ignorant things like this take place.
Still there is a PR stream created by Texans that promotes this sort of ignorant false manhood which is actually based in insecurity rather than the purported "secure manhood".
I think that is called compensation.
Still there is a PR stream created by Texans that promotes this sort of ignorant false manhood which is actually based in insecurity rather than the purported "secure manhood".
I think that is called compensation.
The violence was from non-Texans. The Texans just defended themselves.
1
Would we allow an anti-Jewish event that made fun of that religion? Or any other religion? I guess that it took place in Texas makes sense. Ms Geller and her stupidity.
22
Yes, we would allow it. And we would decry Jews (or members of any other religious group) who attempted to murder the organizers of such events.
12
Since this comments column seems to turning into a forum for those who consider Texas a particularly bigoted place, let us also remember that your progressive Oregon and ever-trendy Portland were the home of a skinhead campaign that targeted and killed police officers. And as long as we are on the subject, are the oversized white supremacist symbols I saw carved in the sand at Cannon Beach still there on weekday mornings.
14
Yes we would. It's called the First Amendment.
15
I don't care if the organizer is an anti Muslim firebrand, no one has the right to attack any gathering of humans with a gun.
People have organized many a provocative event that was seen as anti Catholic or anti Jewish or anti gay in this country; however, no one suggested that shooting them was a good way of objecting to the event. Law suits and counter protests those are the ways you object. Once you pick up a gun, I am not interested in what your grievances are.
People have organized many a provocative event that was seen as anti Catholic or anti Jewish or anti gay in this country; however, no one suggested that shooting them was a good way of objecting to the event. Law suits and counter protests those are the ways you object. Once you pick up a gun, I am not interested in what your grievances are.
1291
Totally agree. I am amazed that so few Americans really understand the First Amendment. As the Supreme Court has long held -- and I learned way back in high school -- provocative, challenging and controversial speech, and even speech that makes one angry, is all protected and part and parcel of U.S. free speech law and practice. Art is speech, too.
I don't remember Christians killing anyone when Serrano showed a picture of a crucifix siting in a jar of urine. Many complained, but no one picked up a gun.
Why do so many so-called liberals want to fence of Islam to any satire or criticism? Why not extend the same privilege to the other major religions? Is it because they worry that only an Islamist will pick up a gun?
I don't remember Christians killing anyone when Serrano showed a picture of a crucifix siting in a jar of urine. Many complained, but no one picked up a gun.
Why do so many so-called liberals want to fence of Islam to any satire or criticism? Why not extend the same privilege to the other major religions? Is it because they worry that only an Islamist will pick up a gun?
9
But picking up a gun is such and All-American thing to do. How could we do anything or solve any problems without guns?
5
You actually bring a good point. It is the very fragility of Islam (readTheodore Dalrymple's "When isalm breaks down) that makes it so brittle with regard to criticism. It needs help. But not by poking it in the eye. If we were to offer them real intellectual criticism in a respectful manner, we could help them a lot more, and also help Christians in the region who are getting persecuted.
3
This appears to be a classic case of "everyone is wrong". That said, there is a matter of vast in difference of severity of the immediate wrongs. The correct answer to intentionally vile speech is not violence but a combination of peaceful protest, e.g. picketing, and more ethical, competing speech.
I am trying not to let my revulsion for the so-called American Freedom Defense Initiative color my reaction to the attack on them. The revulsion stems from their anti-Muslim crusades in New York which went far beyond exhibiting controversial artwork.
I am trying not to let my revulsion for the so-called American Freedom Defense Initiative color my reaction to the attack on them. The revulsion stems from their anti-Muslim crusades in New York which went far beyond exhibiting controversial artwork.
46
So much ignorance. I wonder what would happen in texas if you formed a group to stop the spread of Christianity and offered prizes for the most vulgar drawings of mary.
376
Do you think Christians would shoot up the place? Oh it wou not go over well, there would be protests and they might get out of hand, but thats about all. The left is always trying to equate radical Islam with fudamentalist Christians. The latter can be annoying, the former are a wordwide threat
41
Well this Mr. Ignorance
The mixture of the sacred (Virgin Mary) and the profane (excrement and pornography) became a cause of controversy when the Sensation exhibition moved to New York in 1999. The City of New York and Mayor Rudolph Giuliani brought a court case against the Brooklyn Museum, with Giuliani describing the exhibition of Ofili's work as "sick" and "disgusting". Giuliani attempted to withdraw the annual $7 million City Hall grant from the museum, and threatened it with eviction. The museum resisted Giuliani's demands, and its director, Arnold L. Lehman, filed a federal lawsuit against Giuliani for a breach of the First Amendment. The museum eventually won the court case.[3]
The mixture of the sacred (Virgin Mary) and the profane (excrement and pornography) became a cause of controversy when the Sensation exhibition moved to New York in 1999. The City of New York and Mayor Rudolph Giuliani brought a court case against the Brooklyn Museum, with Giuliani describing the exhibition of Ofili's work as "sick" and "disgusting". Giuliani attempted to withdraw the annual $7 million City Hall grant from the museum, and threatened it with eviction. The museum resisted Giuliani's demands, and its director, Arnold L. Lehman, filed a federal lawsuit against Giuliani for a breach of the First Amendment. The museum eventually won the court case.[3]
16
Probably nothing but a few protests.
13
Freedom of speech has nothing to do with this event, even with the frivolous label of "hate speech" pinned on it. The vulgarity and tastelessness of the artwork had nothing to do with it.
This is about freedom of religion ... specifically freedom from others' religions.
This is about freedom of religion ... specifically freedom from others' religions.
38
This is a textbook case of hate speech and looking for trouble. How could it be any clearer?
6
Explain further? How is this about Freedom of Religion? Were people not allowed to practice their religion? Were people forced to practice someone else's religion? What Religious liberty was deprived that this is a Freedom of Religion issue?
3
I'd say freedom from being shot just because your doodles pissed someone off is up there too.
3
One doesn't have to be a supporter of abominable creatures like Geller or Wilders to applaud the killing of this Elton Simpson mutt. Want to wage jihad? Want to impress your bizarro conception of a fairy-tale daddy in the sky? Go ahead. Just don't expect anyone in his or her right mind to be sad when you're wiped away.
75
I'm against press censorship, and don't want to cause people to get violent, but I do agree with the statement of the Anti-Islamist (gee I hate to do that):
'“The media is self-enforcing a Shariah,” she said, referring to Islamic law. “Under the Shariah you cannot criticize or offend Islam.”'
'“The media is self-enforcing a Shariah,” she said, referring to Islamic law. “Under the Shariah you cannot criticize or offend Islam.”'
174
Media is self-censoring many offensive things, should we purposely offend all minorities, foreigners, people of certain decent, religion?
Truth is, everybody has freedom of speech, but at least be civilized and there is no need to offend people just for a thrill feeling.
Truth is, everybody has freedom of speech, but at least be civilized and there is no need to offend people just for a thrill feeling.
8
A stretch to describe media cowardice with Shariah, don't you think?