"Charlie Hebdo" Comes to Garland.. Fatalaties..

[Whirlaway]

This was NOTHING like yelling fire in a crowded theater.......everyone that attended knew the nature of the event.....

You really aren't "all in for freedom of speech", you just like to pay lip service to the idea.

The dangerous agenda is from radical Islam, not someone who is exercising their 1st amendment rights in an open forum.

Get real.

Originally Posted by Prolongus

There's gotta be more to this...there was a $10,000 first prize for the winning drawing. It's like...the woman who originated this had a seriously stupid and dangerous agenda.

I'm all for freedom of speech but this was like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.

[MooneyFlyer]

Radicalism, in whatever form, is still radicalism.

Whirlie is the living embodiment of mindless . . .well, everything!

[Trill Jackson]

If you think this is about "free speech" then you don't know Pamela Gellar, the keynote speaker. She has advocated the banning of religious books and TV stations she doesn't like.

Pamela Gellar is a sick disgusting person who runs an anti-Muslim hate-group recognized as one by southern poverty law center.

She is an attention whore who doesn't care about people getting hurt, she wanted that to happen, they cheered when the attack happened, this is publicity for her cause.

Local mosques and Dallas Muslims decided not to protest because a protest only brings attention to her, that she do desperately wants and furthers her cause.

Hate groups incite their own and incite others, and that's what they feed off of.

Her and the idiots who attended "erupted in applause" and "sang songs" when they heard of the attack. She then went to her blog to proclaim "This is war! This is war!" This is what extremists on all sides want. To all the peace loving people, don't give it to them.

[motor]

i believe in freedom of speech. But I also believe that just because I have that right, I still don't think I would carry a sign board around in south Dallas, Harlem or any other community that is mostly African American, that says " I support the KKK". It's my right to say it....just not real smart. But, hey that's my opinion.

[Chung Tran]

I don't think either "side" furthered his agenda.. but someone came out a winner.. the advocates of open-carry just advanced their cause enormously..

[Prolongus]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

This was NOTHING like yelling fire in a crowded theater.......everyone that attended knew the nature of the event.....

You really aren't "all in for freedom of speech", you just like to pay lip service to the idea.

The dangerous agenda is from radical Islam, not someone who is exercising their 1st amendment rights in an open forum.

Get real.

Nope..you're WRONG.

The "dangerous agenda" came from her and her event...two people killed (yeah, radicals), one injured (could have been a lot worse) as a result of her and her crew setting this up. They knew exactly what they were trying to do...yelling FIRE in a crowded theater, causing this mess.

I'm sure she was disappointed it wasn't worse than it was.

[Iaintliein]

Originally Posted by Chung Tran

I don't think either "side" furthered his agenda.. but someone came out a winner.. the advocates of open-carry just advanced their cause enormously..

It helped me, reading this thread I added two or three more to my ignore list. I'm not going to waste my time reading opinions on anything by anyone who thinks people shouldn't be able to draw a damned picture.

[Prolongus]

Originally Posted by Iaintliein

It helped me, reading this thread I added two or three more to my ignore list. I'm not going to waste my time reading opinions on anything by anyone who thinks people shouldn't be able to draw a damned picture.

Yeah...this was all about "drawing a damned picture".

[Chung Tran]

Originally Posted by Prolongus

Yeah...this was all about "drawing a damned picture".

you're probably on his ignore list, but so what? ironic how some people see this Garland gathering as a sort of ultimate stand for defending free speech.. but if you think otherwise, you're put on "ignore", they don't want to hear your POV or defend their own position against yours.. easier to just shut you up with a mouse click.

[Fawlty]

Originally Posted by Iaintliein

It helped me, reading this thread I added two or three more to my ignore list. I'm not going to waste my time reading opinions on anything by anyone who thinks people shouldn't be able to draw a damned picture.

If your reading comprehension or ability to draw logical inferences led you to that conclusion, then the ignore list is perhaps your best option.

[Whirlaway]

Holding the Draw Mohammad Cartoon event in Garland is no different that staging The Book of Mormons on Broadway......both mock the respective religion and beliefs.....if one should be considered "hate or provocation speech" so should the other.

Where is your condemnation of the producers of The Book of Mormons?

No need to answer, we understand you are withholding your condemnation until Mormon extremists behead the playwright and actors; then you will rush to condemn the dead for yelling fire in a theater....I can hear you now, "they had it coming."

And if extremists shoot up the annual Hunky Jesus & Foxy Mary Contest in San Francisco? Where is your outrage over this expression of free speech mocking christian beliefs? It shouldn't be tolerated, right? It is hate/provocation speech right?

[Prolongus]

Nope…wrong again…!

I like theatrical/film plays of satire…religious, political, etc. Monty Python and Firesign Theatre come to mind as humorous, biting, entertaining comedy troupes. Free speech and satire at it’s finest…

People pay money to see, laugh and be entertained by them and perhaps the two you mentioned…without the violent history of a Charlie Hedbo or Garland attack happening. Mormans beheading people? Really? The group that staged this cartoon event knew that by doing so, SOMETHING terrible might happen, otherwise, why hire security for it? They attracted a couple of moronic idiots to show up with AK47’s to shoot up the place and could have succeeded.

Here’s where the right to privacy/free speech comes in: I’m out walking my dog that night and bullets are whizzing around me…just because some pinheads wanted to exercise THEIR right to free speech, knowing full well what could happen…all at the expense of the safety of the citizens in the center and the neighborhood.

Your right to free speech ends when it invades my right to privacy and safety.

[Whirlaway]

No it doesn't......you don't know the law or our Constitution.

SCOTUS decided. The decision issued in 2011, 8-1, a nearly unanimous supreme court, the liberals and conservatives joining together, saying notwithstanding the fact that the Westboro Baptist Church, as hateful as they come, offered hurtful and speech which did not contribute hardly all to the public discourse. It was negligible value. Nevertheless, free speech still supposed allowing them to do it.

And the Mohammad Cartoon event was political and religous sarcasm/satire. So again, you contradict your self.

You don't really support free speech as you said; you only support free speech you agree with.

Originally Posted by Prolongus

Your right to free speech ends when it invades my right to privacy and safety.

[Prolongus]

Strike three! Wrong again! Not "everything" is covered by free speech:

In 1942, the U.S. Supreme Court added “incitement” to the list of things not covered by freedom of speech. Depicting a religious figure, when that religion is against it , falls under the definition of "incitement". The two shooters were "incited" enough to blast away at those people drawing the cartoons.

Behavior aimed at a general group is protected by the First Amendment. You can declare a dislike for a whole race of people, or for everyone of a certain religion or sexual preference, and you’d be within your rights. But there’s a fine line that you can’t cross. If what you’ve said causes someone else to act out against these people or hurt them, you’ve incited them. If you make hateful comments ( i.e. Cartoons of a religious leader) to someone else, one on one, based on that person’s religion, sex or race, these are fighting words and not protected.

Three strikes...you're out...

[Whirlaway]

You are making it up as you go along.

There is no case law that says depicting a religious figure, when that religion is against it, falls under the definition of incitement. But if you have the case law, then post the link.

In fact, US case law is pretty clear that it isn't incitement but is protected free speech.

You are misguided regarding our laws - we don't have those kind of blasphemy laws in the US.

A prosecution for blasphemy in the United States would be a violation of the U.S. Constitution and no blasphemy laws exist at the federal level. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides:

"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 . . . ."

Originally Posted by Prolongus

Strike three! Wrong again! Not "everything" is covered by free speech:

In 1942, the U.S. Supreme Court added “incitement” to the list of things not covered by freedom of speech. Depicting a religious figure, when that religion is against it , falls under the definition of "incitement". The two shooters were "incited" enough to blast away at those people drawing the cartoons.

Behavior aimed at a general group is protected by the First Amendment. You can declare a dislike for a whole race of people, or for everyone of a certain religion or sexual preference, and you’d be within your rights. But there’s a fine line that you can’t cross. If what you’ve said causes someone else to act out against these people or hurt them, you’ve incited them. If you make hateful comments ( i.e. Cartoons of a religious leader) to someone else, one on one, based on that person’s religion, sex or race, these are fighting words and not protected.

Three strikes...you're out...