I have the First Amendment right to draw Muhammad, Jesus, Buddha, and Doctor Strange

[derby378]

Seeing that there's a copyright on Doctor Strange, I certainly can't sell pictures of him without either explicit authorization from Marvel or a team of lawyers banging down my door. The rest, however, are up for grabs.

Freedom of religion, freedom of speech. I don't have to condone that exhibit in Garland, and maybe they are a bunch of troublemakers with racist tendencies, but I'll draw what I wanna draw.

Discussion?

[tazkcmo]

1. Just cuz you can

Doesn't mean you should. Actions have consequences.

[derby378]

4. How long must we be afraid of "consequences?"

Are we to be cowed into submission every time someone voices disapproval or even threatens sanction?

I agree that discretion is the better part of valor - and, as Democrats, we do try to accommodate - but you have to draw a line in the sand somewhere.

[tazkcmo]

66. Then we're on the same page.

"I agree that discretion is the better part of valor - and, as Democrats, we do try to accommodate - but you have to draw a line in the sand somewhere."

We should never be afraid to stand up for our convictions. I believe we're saying the same thing with different words.

[Katashi_itto]

131. Geller is a reverse Stochastic terrorist, the person who is responsible for the incitement.

For example they go on radio or television and stir up hatred toward a particular person or group.

In her case she stirs up hate hoping extremists go to one of her events and kill people attending there. Thereby proving her views, the people killed show that.

She set those event attendees up.

She wanted a slaughter.

In essence she is as much a murderer as the gunmen.

She got what she wanted and now will walk away. Her hands "clean" and will now work on setting another incident up.

It's like going to a popular beach pouring chum in the water and walking away.

[riqster]

156. Like Limbaugh, Fox et.al.

They incite, and then pretend they had no impact on the events resulting from said incitement.

[derby378]

162. Assuming everything you said about Geller is true (and I'm inclined to agree)...

...my OP didn't even defend Geller or her latter-day Merry Pranksters. At least I don't think it did.

[trotsky]

180. "It's like going to a popular beach pouring chum in the water and walking away."

The problem with making that kind of analogy is that you're implying Muslims are like sharks - unthinking animals who react violently when provoked.

That's not cool.

[Katashi_itto]

193. Every group has it's sharks. Look at Westboro.

[PeaceNikki]

7. Just because you do doesn't open you up to injury and death

Those are not appropriate or legal consequences

[tazkcmo]

71. Not appropriate or legal.

But possible consequences anyway. I do agree with you though and even in the face of illegal and inappropriate threats we all can hopefully find the courage to stand up for our convictions.

[PeaceNikki]

72. Sure. Like being gay in public or walking into an abortion clinic.

[progressoid]

114. +1

[Bluenorthwest]

8. Tell that to every religious loudmouth that berates LGBT people all day every day.

Which is their right under the same Constitution that allows me to call their holy historic figures silly old bigots or draw pictures of them indicating the vast hypocrisies that are practiced in their names.

[derby378]

17. It's like the Westboro Baptist cultists learned the hard way...

You can only scream "faggot" for so long before the object of your hate starts getting creative with their response.

[Bluenorthwest]

34. We create, they destroy.

But Westboro had the right to do what they did, just as we had the right to respond with speech in the form of mockery and satire and legislation. If we were sharks, we'd have to react with violence but we are human beings so we react with ideas.
I would notice that DU's anti free speech division never ever speaks up to say religious figures and groups should be prevented from delivering hateful sermons and publications. Never. Not even Westboro.

[Mosby]

50. +1

[tazkcmo]

74. I do.

And this just supports what I'm saying except in your example it's a should and a battle worth fighting.

[pintobean]

12. Jesus Christ on a trailer hitch

Gee, I hope that doesn't put any DUers in danger.

[FLPanhandle]

20. If religious people attempt to make consequences, then we should not submit

Enough kowtowing and submissive reactions to fundamentalists bullying.

[Codeine]

21. Standing up for voting rights used to mean a lynching.

Would you have blithely shrugged that off with "actions have consequences" then?

The very statement is profoundly fucking disgusting. Shame.

[Behind the Aegis]

41. Many of these "objections" from people are starting to sound like the Indiana law.

If it offends your religion or is contrary to your religion, it supersedes all other things, including free speech and even the right to live.

[Codeine]

44. Precisely.

"Gay marriage has consequences!"

Dumbasses.

[Warren DeMontague]

137. Spot on.

And depressingly predictable.

[Behind the Aegis]

140. Yes, very predictable.

Some don't seem to understand there are two groups involved; one that acted within the confines of the law, and one that didn't. Pointing it out doesn't mean the message or the messenger are "OK". It doesn't make the event or Gellar "1st Amendment champions/crusaders." What is also interesting is how this contest wasn't even news...until it was.

[SlipperySlope]

38. Just cuz you can

> Doesn't mean you should. Actions have consequences.

So you are saying that women who dress provocatively are responsible for being assaulted?

Please don't start blaming the victim.

[NutmegYankee]

54. Well, you CAN as a North Korean make fun of Dear Leader

It just has some steep consequences - very steep.


If it has consequences, it isn't freedom.

[WinkyDink]

55. And some "consequences" carry penalties.

[GoneOffShore]

94. Sometimes - especially in the case of religion - one can and one should.

Pointing and laughing and satirizing is one of the best ways to shut down the religiously insane.

[Scootaloo]

110. Those consequences should be in kind, though

For instance, Derby wants to draw ugly pictures of Mohammed because he wants to piss off Muslims. proper response? Pointing out that he's a vile, reprehensible fucking Islamophobe. Maybe share some of his "artwork" on the facebook page of his employer. You know, proportional shit. Meet words with words.

(sorry derby, I'm sure you're not a gibbering Islamophobe, just making the example with what you provided )

[oberliner]

130. What about drawing respectful pictures of Mohammed?

That would be ok, right?

[derby378]

166. It's cool

You had me worried for a moment, but I see what you're driving at. Definitely not that guy.

[lapislzi]

2. You will certainly get no argument from me.

There's enough assholery in Garland to go around. But being an asshole isn't against the law, nor should it be. I think I prefer the assholes to be out in the open, so I know who to avoid.

The correct response to someone expressing moral outrage at their religious sensibilities being offended is "I'm sorry you feel that way." A very wise person once correctly pointed out that that statement is a polite way of saying "go fuck yourself." But that's just me. YMMV..

[Capt. Obvious]

3. You also have the first amendment right to burn a cross

[derby378]

10. True, but what good would that do anybody?

Drawing a portrait of anyone - prophet, priest, or king - should not be considered a threatening act.

[Capt. Obvious]

15. The same good that drawing a muhammed cartoon would

[WinkyDink]

58. Your point? I can burn the flag, too. On my own property.

[nadinbrzezinski]

5. As far as Doctor Strange,

you would be surprised how they treat this, because there is much fan work, some of it for sale, at Comicon

[derby378]

19. Point taken

[SwankyXomb]

128. Frankly I'm surprised that Disney has not

dropped the hammer on this yet. I fully expect to see it happen before 2017.

[nadinbrzezinski]

129. Actually Marvel Characters you see a lot

bambi, except for the infamous bambi v godzilla, not so much.

[SwankyXomb]

132. Disney's owned Marvel for a while now

Some bright penny in the legal department would surely think of Artists Alley as low hanging fruit.

[nadinbrzezinski]

133. They might

but they will have to face a nice boycott if they do. Fans are rabid about their hobby...(I have to be careful with the words here). And strictly as a copyright issue...

[earthside]

6. Of course you can.

I'm not even seeing this latest violent incident as a 'free speech' issue -- as much as Geller and her little group may want to call it that.

This is a case of two groups of religious fanatics hating each other, baiting each other, and I don't think either side really has much compunction about killing each other, either.

This incident needs to be identified for what it really is: good old fashioned religious warfare.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

14. "good old fashioned religious warfare."

It seems like only one side is interested in actually killing people.

[earthside]

27. Oh, Geller is for killing Muslims.

She just wants it to be the U.S. military that does the slaughter under cover of the 'war on terror' or the Bush/Cheney Iraq war, or confronting Iran, etc.

And I probably should have written "bad old fashioned religious warfare."

[uppityperson]

16. ++++++++

[derby378]

23. I hate to see my hometown become ground zero

Last edited Mon May 4, 2015, 04:49 PM - Edit history (1)

If Pamela Geller is really "not anti-Islam," I'd like to see her put her money where her mouth is and sit down for a talk with some Muslim community leaders.

[nadinbrzezinski]

9. And here is a far more nuanced legal argument

that was also taken out of context.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026617788

Shoot us, we cover the courts among many other things these days, due to a little known statue (even inside California) called 182.5 Just freedom of speech and association at risk.

[Kablooie]

11. The First Amendment prevents the government from stopping you but ...

other people also have a First Amendment right to express their views on your actions and you have to accept dealing with the fallout.

(Of course violence is not within their First Amendment purview.)

[PeaceNikki]

13. Death and violence are not legal expressions of free speech.

[Kablooie]

18. That's just what I said.

[951-Riverside]

24. Re: "you have to accept dealing with the fallout. " (I disagree)

Innocent residents and officers caught up in this should not be put in a position to "deal" with the fallout. This is why I'm calling for the arrest of racist hate mongers like Pam Geller.

Like I said before, free speech ends when your actions put the lives of others in danger.

[metalbot]

33. What about things like civil rights movement in the 60's?

They certainly put lives in danger, including some who had no affiliation with the civil rights movement (other than perhaps skin color).

[WinkyDink]

60. Sorry, that's not how the U.S. Constitution works.

[Codeine]

95. Bullshit.

She didn't put anyone in danger. Fucktards should be able to control themselves in the face of people drawing shit. If they can't, that's their fault.

[Telcontar]

146. How delightfully fascist

So refreshing to see it on display without apology.

[Starry Messenger]

161. Like we said, you aren't fooling anyone.

[WinkyDink]

59. Funny how your parenthetical IS THE POINT IN QUESTION.

[Codeine]

22. Dormammu's followers say otherwise!! nt

[derby378]

28. Would it help if I offered to coif his hair?

[Tommy_Carcetti]

25. Free speech is indeed free.

But when the purpose of that free speech is simply to incite, that free speech is also worthless.

[JCMach1]

96. But when the simplest little things incite, what then?

Cartoon?
Music?
Dancing?
Comedy?
Tank Tops?

[Comrade Grumpy]

26. You also have the right to remain silent (or in this case, leave your canvas blank).

Just because we have a right doesn't mean we need to exercise it in ways that hurt or inflame. We can do that, but then we'd be dicks.

[951-Riverside]

30. +1000 n/t

[lapislzi]

37. Says you.

Legally, dickishness is a moot point. I intensely dislike religion to the point where I am sometimes a dick about it. I'm also a flag-burner. I feel no compunction to self-censor because my expression *might* offend someone.

See what I did there?

I acted dickishly and now I expect not to be shot.

[Comrade Grumpy]

47. I recognize your right to be a dick. I just try not to encourage it.

[lapislzi]

56. Eh, most of the time I try not to be.

I just get ornery around flag-thumpers and bible-wavers. But as you can see, you and I can enjoy a civil conversation, even while I'm being a dick. I think many DUers are more highly evolved

[FLPanhandle]

49. No, the dicks are the ones stopping people from putting something on the canvas.

You have the right to put whatever you want on canvas and if it upsets some people, so what? That's what artists have been doing for a millennium.

Hell, people were offended by Michelangelo's nudes. Using your logic, he was a dick to paint something someone found offensive.

Jeez, it's sad to see DU'ers supporting the suppression of art, speech, etc. just because some group might be inflamed.

[Comrade Grumpy]

53. They're dicks, too. Murderous ones, as opposed to merely offensive.

You also have the right to carry a KKK banner through West Baltimore.

[get the red out]

79. I agree

I always thought supporting suppression in order to not offend religious sensitivities was a right wing position?

[Codeine]

92. Being a dick is actually a big part of much art. nt

[Maedhros]

29. I'll defend the right of anyone to say or draw anything they want.

I will NOT put racist cretins up on a pedestal for insulting Islam.

[PeaceNikki]

31. Blaming the attackers =/= putting that asshole on a pedestal.

[derby378]

35. Well said (n/t)

[Sunlei]

32. you can but it's probably not to smart to retain a venue for a picture show, surround yourself with

a crowd of people, 200 of your fans and followers but some brought children, offer $20,000 prize, publish the heck out of the event on social media and pose for pictures inside the venue with 10 security men dressed in battle gear.

Then outside your venue only the lone man in the parking area of the venue is in danger of being killed by the flies that shit attracts.

[derby378]

42. I agree that the GISD was quite negligent, if not flat-out stupid, to host this venue

The press they're getting now is the type of press that no school district wants.

[Sunlei]

75. when one looks at events this venue holds, I don't see any 'similar' events at all.

Wonder who in Texas State Politics got the School Venue approved for a $20,000 prize, picture contest, pictures known globally to incite violent reactions.

Makes me wonder if the radical republicans and/or the CIA uses her crazy speak, gives that speak a public venue- a physical well advertised street address (with a cash prize!)- to attract other nutcases to incite violence in America.

[muriel_volestrangler]

159. it was the venue for a pro-Muslim event earlier in the year

Israel came to protest an event called Stand with the Prophet Against Terror and Hate. It's a fundraiser by the Chicago-based Islamic multimedia foundation Sound Vision.

About 500 people have paid to hear a number of Islamic speakers, "To raise money for their program to educate others about Islam and Muslims for the purposes of combating Islamaphobia, terrorism and hate," explained Alia Salem with the North Texas chapter of the Council on American Islamic Relations, or CAIR.

Because the Islamic group rented Garland ISD's Culwell Center for the event, opponents blasted school board members this week.
...
A district spokesman said Garland ISD does not discriminate against facility renters based on religion.

http://www.kvue.com/story/news/state/2015/01/17/hundreds-expected-to-protest-islamic-meeting-in-garland/21915707/

[Sunlei]

178. yes, but look at the list it is majority school functions. never had a hate group.

[muriel_volestrangler]

181. Do you expect a school district to make the judgement on whether people are a hate group

rather than a group talking about religion? This is a group that a court has just confirmed should be allowed to put anti-Islamic adverts on buses. I consider them a hate group, but the American legal system does not. I cannot expect a school district to be partisan like me.

[Sunlei]

183. yes, the person using the venue has to pay for insurance, security. Venues are not open to lease to

every hate group with enough cash.

[WinkyDink]

62. "Not smart" is not synonymous with "illegal" here. But "murder in retaliation? Yeah, ILLEGAL.

[99Forever]

36. Okay.

Draw away. Just be advised that some angry person might decide to harm you because of it. Are they wrong to do so? Of course. Is that going to stop them? Perhaps, maybe not. If not, at least you'll still have your 1st Amendment right, eh? Bully for you.

[PeaceNikki]

43. Same goes for the gay couple holding hands walking down a public street, huh?

Some angry person might decide to beat the shit out of them for offending his delicate religious beliefs...

Fuck tiptoeing around the Neanderthals.

[99Forever]

46. Is that what I said?

Fucking strawman much?

[PeaceNikki]

48. How's it different?

[99Forever]

51. ...

[PeaceNikki]

52. It's not.

There, answered that for you.

It's not different.

Offensive actions are only offensive to people who find them offensive. We can expect people to sometimes be offended by our words or actions but, in a fucking SANE society, we should NEVER expect harm or death for non-violent expression.

Never. Not about religion, sexuality, choices, anything.

Ever.

[Behind the Aegis]

69. Good post.

Some of the "arguments" are sounding like a version of the Indiana law or even a version of the "gay panic defense."

"I freaked out, panicked, when my religious beliefs/sexuality was "challenged", and therefore, I was provoked into a negative, illegal action, making me the real victim, and the victim the real perpetrator."

[99Forever]

77. Having a tiff with yourself?

[Lordquinton]

136. Dunno why you're laughing, you just got wrecked nt

[99Forever]

144. If you say so.

[Warren DeMontague]

148. I say so too.

Apparently no one should ever do or say anything that might offend the sensibilities of religious fundamentalists.

Like gay people, holding hands.

What the everloving FUCK.

[99Forever]

151. WTF?

Did I say a word about gays? You freakin' people need to work on your putting words in other people's mouth skills. You REALLY suck at it.

[Warren DeMontague]

153. She asked how it's different.

You rolled your eyes, and didn't answer.

Because the real answer is, it's a totally arbitrary distinction. Either we sanitize the universe to suit the sensibilities of fundamentalists- be they offended by "blasphemy" or "the gay lifestyle", or we don't.

Or, as is more likely, I suspect, we plug this shit into some totally arbitrary formula which allows us to come up with a totally hypocritical scale whereby the exact same sort of action is either condemned or tolerated and/or apologized for, if not lauded.

Speaking of

[99Forever]

155. Let me see... who else uses that "I gotta RIGHT" line?

Oh yeah, I remember now...


Those fucking clowns going into restaurants and retail stores with their semiautomatic weapons strapped over the shoulder. Oh yeah don't forget the fine folks from Westboro Baptist Church. Yessir, hey and then there's Ol' Clivin Bundy and his happy "I gotta RIGHT" supporters.

Brilliant fucking ideology you've got there.

[muriel_volestrangler]

160. It's also used by the organisers of gay pride marches

and civil rights marchers.

"I gotta right" is the ideology of the American constitution.

[derby378]

164. Can I be your friend?

[99Forever]

179. I see.

So trying to incite a bloody war is just like standing up for human rights. Got it. It all makes sense now.

[muriel_volestrangler]

182. You were trying to paint "I've got a right" as a bad thing to say

You should expect counter-examples.

[Warren DeMontague]

184. Wow, that's an impressive logic fail you've got, there.

You know who else used logic fails? Hitler, that's who.

[Call Me Wesley]

188. 'You freakin' people,' 'REALLY suck at it.'

I guess it's a sheer pleasure to have an intelligent discourse with you until you start a fist fight and spit.

Thanks for insulting all of us. REAL classy.

[99Forever]

191. Don't attempt to put words in my mouth and ...

... pretend it's intelligent discourse and you won't qualify as one of those freakin' people. As in, don't try to run a intellectually dishonest game and think I won't call you on it. I wasn't speaking to "all of you" and you sure as hell don't speak for "all of you" either. Don't like that? Then put me on fucking Ignore, Wesley. That's where you'll be.

[get the red out]

80. +1000

[Dr. Strange]

85. It's not.

All deflecting aside...it just isn't.

[NutmegYankee]

67. Hell Yeah!

Fuck tiptoeing around the Neanderthals.

I'm tired of being told how I should live by fundies.

[stone space]

158. Please don't compare gay couples walking hand in hand with virilent racists Islamaphobes.

Same goes for the gay couple holding hands walking down a public street, huh?

The comparison is offensive in the extreme.

Thank you.

[Vinca]

39. Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should.

I can take off all my clothes and jog around the yard, but it wouldn't be a wise thing to do . . . or pretty. LOL.

[WinkyDink]

63. Not comparable.

[Vinca]

81. Okay. Am I free to enter a movie theatre and yell "fire?" No.

[Dr. Strange]

86. And this is why we must never protest against our government.

Especially in times of war.

[Vinca]

122. What's that got to do with yelling "fire" in a theatre and creating panic?

Or chumming the water with hate in Texas in the name of free speech and being surprised when things go south.

[Dr. Strange]

125. Look at the history of the phrase.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater

It was literally concocted to justify censorship against an individual who spoke out against the government. (Specifically against the draft.)

And it often pops up by those who want to curtail speech they don't like. And it NEVER seems to pop up in the context of speech they agree with.

[WinkyDink]

152. Yeah, Geraldo Rivera tried this one, too. NOT COMPARABLE. The "FIRE!" argument is based on an

assumption of GENERAL HARM FROM PANIC.

The example has ZERO to do with one's being somehow "offended" at art, good, bad, lousy, or great.

[NutmegYankee]

73. That would also be because you do not have the freedom to do so.

Public nudity laws and such.

[Vinca]

82. Maybe that was a poor example.

How about I paint my house day-glo orange and cut all the trees so no one will miss it? Nothing illegal there, but my neighbors who just built a million dollar home won't be too happy. The beautiful, rural landscape will be ruined. But I can do it. If I want to.

[NaturalHigh]

40. Yes you do, and anyone who thinks otherwise...

doesn't really believe in freedom of speech. It's easy to support the 1st Amendment when you agree with what is being said (or drawn in this case), but the 1st Amendment was inserted in the Bill of Rights to protect points-of-view that are not always popular.

[derby378]

45. My point exactly

It applies to The Turner Diaries and The Autobiography of Malcolm X in equal measure.

[Cleita]

57. There is no limit to what you can draw or write as long as you don't publish it.

Otherwise, there seems to be a maze of laws, rules and just cultural standards that stand in your way. Maybe we need to sit down and define what freedom of arts and letters standards should be, much like how free are you to drive your car as you wish. The minute you drive on the wrong side of road and don't obey traffic signs, you put others and yourself in danger. Otherwise, you can careen across certain wilderness areas like the Utah salt flats pretty much as you like.

[WinkyDink]

65. Are you REALLY comparing a physical danger from a CAR to people's being sensitive about a drawing?!

"Maybe we need to sit down and define what freedom of arts and letters standards should be,...."

I'm at a loss for words over how totalitarian this notion is.

[Cleita]

70. Maybe not a good metaphor. I'm not saying anything. I'm saying we need to start discussing

parameters. In real life, anything goes isn't workable in a peaceful society.

[Codeine]

90. We have had a discussion about free speech.

We've had it many times. The upshot -- blasphemy is free expression.

[Cleita]

97. Esch. No one cares about blasphemy actually if directed toward some if not all

religions. About other expressions though, I find I don't have complete free speech on DU for certain words cuz it offends some of the alert squads here. So it seems to me that absolute free speech is not a reality in spite of the ideology.

[Humanist_Activist]

141. Aww, someone here is still upset that their use of bigoted words was alerted on...

boo fucking hoo.

It was your choice to use them, after all.

In addition, why weren't you banned again?

Do you still claim your church isn't anti-gay?

[Cleita]

174. Could you tell me what word I used that were bigoted? I used plain

English which is heard on TV channel and radio every day. I will tell you the word I have been alerted on and that was the word liar which I addressed to a liar and disruptor who is still here along with his/her buddies who are disruptors and on line trolls. Oh yeah. I used the word troll, too.

I was never banned.

I don't have a church.

Try again.

However, I wasn't talking about me, but many good DUers who have been censored by a small and viscious group who is trying to squelch any opinion but their own. Of course, if you aren't one of them then you have nothing to worry about do you?

[Warren DeMontague]

185. Maybe we dont.

Also you might notice that "the press" is written right into the 1st Amendment.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

61. I actually drew Dr. Strange once.

He looked something like this:

[Dr. Strange]

84. I will smite your ass in great and furious anger.

That's how I roll.

[ileus]

64. In America we shouldn't have to worry about our Rights drawing gunfire.

We have a better population than that.

[justiceischeap]

76. You're right, we shouldn't have to but...

we shouldn't be surprised either when it leads to something like this.

Extremism attracts extremism and this, unfortunately, is a perfect example of that. One could successfully argue that if Geller didn't hold this convention, these gunmen wouldn't have attempted to shoot and kill people (at this event anyway). Cause and effect, which isn't about placing blame but pointing out the obvious... do something really extreme, even if it is allowed by our Constitutional rights, and there's a likelihood that something equally extreme can happen.

[Bonx]

87. Then this needs to be done even *more* often

and weed out the violent psychopaths.

[LondonReign2]

68. Absolutely, there is no question about that

I have the right to opine that there is no justification for violence in response to the drawing of a cartoon AND that Pam Geller is an absolute <insert your phrase of choice that would result in a DU ban>.

Two sides of religious fanatics warring. I wish we could send both sides off somewhere to squabble over their make believe deities.

[get the red out]

78. No discussion

You are absolutely right. I don't understand why freedom of speech is supposed to be only speech we agree with? I thought that hypocrisy was more fitting for the far right.

[Skittles]

83. do you understand it had NOTHING to do with the freedom to draw?

it was teabagging NUTCASES provoking religious NUTCASES and using cartoons as an excuse

[Bonx]

88. You have a problem with the 'teabagging NUTCASES' exercising free speech ?

[Codeine]

91. Provoking them with drawings.

That's a pretty low bar for "provocation."

[cbayer]

93. That is the bare, naked truth and it sickens me that people think this is about freedom of speech.

Pamela Geller wins and she's got support from the left.

[derby378]

98. Like it or not, it is

Morgan Spurlock created a simple caricature of Muhammad for an episode of 30 Days without catching any noticeable flak about it - and it featured practicing, observant Muslims. Forget Gellar for a moment; what about Spurlock? Do we impose a retroactive clamp on his freedoms?

[cbayer]

101. I haven't at any point suggested that anyone's freedoms be curtailed.

[Skittles]

102. that's the latest meme, cbayer

let's pretend it's a FREEDOM OF SPEECH issue

[cbayer]

107. Yes, and this is going to be some hard crow to eat, but

if people don't step back and see this for what it really is, she is going to win.

And that would be a very, very bad thing.

[Skittles]

111. she has already won

everyone played right into her hands

[cbayer]

112. Not everyone, Skittles, but far too many.

[muriel_volestrangler]

163. So, you agree with calling those religious people 'nutcases'; surely that's provocative?

Is it that we on DU, being neither teabaggers nor nutcases, can call religious people names with impunity, but that teabagging nutcases should be blamed for provoking religious nutcases when they offend them?

[cbayer]

165. What? I have no issue with being provocative. You?

And I wouldn't make the assumption that no one on DU is a tea bagger or a nutcase, but that's another issue.

I'm really not sure what you are on about Muriel. You seem intent on having an issue with my position here.

I think both the religious nut cases who perpetrated the violence and the political nut cases who intentionally and methodically provoked others have responsibility here.

What do you think? So far all I've seen is you attack other positions. What is yours?

[muriel_volestrangler]

167. So if this isn't about 'provocation', are you saying that we should just expect attacks on Geller

permanently, without reference to what she does; and that we should not blame the attackers? That if Geller and Wilders had been having afternoon tea, that blaming the attackers rather than her would be 'supporting her'?


"I have no issue with being provocative ... and the political nut cases who intentionally and methodically provoked others have responsibility"

You seem to be contradicting yourself. If you have no issue with being provocative, then why mention that they provoke other people?

I think (and I thought I'd said this already) that the 2 gunmen are solely responsible for the injury of the officer, and their own deaths. I think Geller and Wilders have an unreasonable hatred of Muslims, but that they are not breaking any American laws, which are governed by the First Amendment, and is an important factor here. I think drawing Mohammed is fine, and I have posted such drawing on DU at times.

[cbayer]

168. Why are you putting words in my mouth instead of just listening to what I am saying.

I have never said that anyone, including Geller, should expect to be attacked for expressing their first amendment rights.

I have never said that blaming the attackers is supporting her.

I do think that the gunmen are absolutely responsible for the crimes they committed.

I have no problem at all with people drawing Mohamed.

I do think that Geller is a domestic terrorist who wants a war and orchestrated this event in order to further that goal.

I do think that Geller doesn't give a shit about the first amendment and is using it to further her sick agenda.

Thanks for finally sharing your own views. I agree with you for the most part.

[muriel_volestrangler]

169. You have accused people who point out her 1st amendment rights to hold the exhibition

and that, thus, she does not hold responsibility for the gunmen opening fire, of 'supporting' or 'celebrating' her.

If you say (as you do, at times) it's not about her provoking them, and it's not about the 1st amendment, then it must just be about her existence.

[cbayer]

170. I have done no such thing.

You have made this personal, as usual. We agree for the most part.

See you around.

[muriel_volestrangler]

171. "You have made this personal, as usual". That's even more personal.

[cbayer]

172. Yes, it is. You seem intent in finding something wrong with what I have said

when we basically agree on it.

You seem intent on twisting what I say into something else in order to be able to disagree with me.

Clearly I push some buttons with you that makes you respond in a way that is, to put it nicely, very unbecoming.

It's frustrating. I generally like and respect you. I think you are thoughtful and well informed, but this personal vendetta that you pursue against me is really aggravating.

I can't recall a single time when you have actually said you agree with me. Not one, even when it is clear that we agree.

That's personal.

[muriel_volestrangler]

173. I'm referring to what you have said on this subject; you refer to something I do 'as usual'

That's you making it 'personal'. I'm talking about what you're currently saying; you're saying that this is something I usually do. See? You're critcising the person; I'm criticising your comments on this topic, which is not 'personal'.

[cbayer]

175. You are distorting what I am actually saying.

That is what is personal.

Your response gives me no hope that there can be any reconciliation and I am sorry about that.

[Skittles]

189. YES I THINK PEOPLE WHO SHOOT PEOPLE OVER CARTOONS ARE NUTCASES!!!!!!!!!!!

*AND* I think the teabagging pieces of SHIT trying to provoke violence are NUTCASES!!!

[muriel_volestrangler]

190. My post was about the inconsistency of 'provoking'

I have seen many DUers, including, I think, cbayer, saying Geller was wrong to provoke Muslims by drawing Mohammed. But I think calling them 'nutcases' is provoking them too. I think you are inconsistent if you criticise Geller for provoking them, and then you provoke them yourself.

[Skittles]

192. DONE HERE

[Cleita]

177. Yep. That subtlety seems lost on the hair on fire crowd. eom

[Dr. Strange]

89. For the record: if any of you draws a picture of me...

I will write a very nasty note and place it in your permanent file.

[darkangel218]

109. Hmmmm.. is that a promise??

[Dr. Strange]

119. It's a threat.

With thunder and lightning, and great foreboding. And frogs. Lots of frogs.

[darkangel218]

120. Lmao!!!

As long as there are no lizards. I'm petrified of lizards.

[progressoid]

117. What about cosplay?

[Dr. Strange]

121. Those are acceptable.

This however



is most UNACCEPTABLE.

[alarimer]

99. The response to cartoons you find offensive is NEVER to get a gun.

You don't like it, well, that's your right. But it is absolutely BARBARIC to shoot people who simply say things you do not like, whatever their motivation. And of course, you play right into their hands if you react with violence.

Fuck religion anyway. It is nothing but a force for evil in the world.

I really, really hate being on the same side as wingnuts like Pam Geller, because it was likely deliberately provocative. But the points still stands.

[Rex]

100. Yeah, reall easy to say and do in a free society...try doing that in an Islamic country and then

get back with us. Hate speech is just that and so is hate illustrations. One if vocal and the other vision. BOTH are meant to start a riot or a war between certain groups of peoples.

[derby378]

108. QED

There is no First Amendment in the Middle East, certainly not in the bandit kingdom that is ISIL or DAESH or Islamic State or whatever the fuck they call it today. But there is a First Amendment here. We might as well use it.

Nobody's saying you have to draw a picture of Muhammad. I'm just saying you have the right to. Quit trying to hide your rights under PC camouflage.

[panader0]

103. post not complete without:

I'm curious-has anyone seen the cartoons from the contest?

[darkangel218]

104. You forgot Satan. and the god of Beer.

Just to be fair.

I support free drawing. Screw censorship.

[derby378]

113. Funny you should mention that...

I just finished listening to a recorded lecture by a Satanic priest about politics, egalitarianism, and Satanism as a worldview. Also protected by the First Amendment. Something tells me the Arizona gunmen would not have approved.

[darkangel218]

115. Do you mind sharing with me who the priest was?

I'm always up for more learning. Thanks!

[derby378]

118. No problem - check your PM. (n/t)

[darkangel218]

126. Thank you. Very interesting and eloquent presentation.

Cheers.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

106. The first amendment is a shield, not a sword.

It's meant to protect you from a tyrannical government. It does not protect you from your peers, terrorists, or anyone but the government. And it does not turn you into a martyr of any sort when you use your freedom of speech to bully those you don't like, even if you can goad some small percentage of the people you don't like enough that they resort to violence.

[derby378]

116. Ever listen to the FRIENDLY FASCISM album by Consolidated?

In short, I would counter that 1A is a very sharp sword - one to be used against outdated ideas, not people. Even if you reject the messages found in songs such as The Sexual Politics of Meat, they are meant to challenge your previous notions of the way things are and cause you to contemplate an alternative and possibly better way of living.

What Geller did could be considered taunting or bullying. But it also challenges the status quo, albeit with the subtlety of a slab of pork tossed in front of a mosque. The goal is to change bullying speech into something a bit more positive and less inflammatory.

[Warren DeMontague]

139. Those Charlie Hebdo cartoonists FORCED those people to shoot them!

[Warren DeMontague]

138. More victim blaming.

Ugh.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

142. Pam Geller is not a victim.

A security guard was a victim in her fight with Islam, just like lots of Palestinians and a few Israelis are victims in the fighting between Hamas and Netanyahu.

[Warren DeMontague]

143. Oh, give me a break. You know EXACTLY what I'm saying.

And the people who are responsible for the attack are the attackers. Same with Charlie Hebdo. No one else. Period. Full Stop. End of fucking story.

I don't care if "they asked for it by drawing a cartoon our sky friend doesn't want them to!" fuck that, yes, victim-blaming noise.


Unbelievable.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

145. Yes, you're saying

that when a schoolyard bully torments another kid for the entire school year, and the bullied kid finally slugs the bully, the entire fault lies with the kid that was tormented, because the bully never did anything that was physical.

[Warren DeMontague]

147. Yep, you are now apologizing for people who shoot guns at cartoonists.

Thought so.

I'll just let your post speak for itself, here.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

149. I'll let my post speak for itself too.

Because I'm not excusing or apologizing for anyone. I'm just pointing out that bullying people sometimes ends up with the bullied folks responding with violence. It's happened quite a few times now in our schools, with bullied kids coming back with firearms. It happens with women shooting husbands who mentally and emotionally abuse them.

Pointing out how things happen in the world is not an 'excuse' or an 'apology'.

[Warren DeMontague]

150. Right, or when gay people bully christian fundamentalists by getting married or not hiding their

sexuality.

Absolutely, the feelings of religious fundamentalists are paramount.

And someone drawing a cartoon someone else doesn't like is TOTALLY the same thing as domestic abuse.

Hell, imagine if, rather than cartoonist-shooting religious fundamentalists, this had been about gamergate trolls saying nasty shit on twitter to Anita Sarkeesian; then I suspect DU would unanimously agree that anyone going on about how the victim "asked for it" or "provoked it" should be roundly condemned.

But those folks are indefensible, amirite?

Not like the poor put-upon souls abused -bullied!- by having to see - or, more likely, seek out- cartoons they find offensive, so much that they are incited into acts of violence and murder.

[LynnTTT]

123. My right to free speech does not mean

I should do my best to antagonize anyone. I'm an atheist and will gladly discuss why I think all religions are ridiculous.

However, I would never stand up in a restaurant and start berating people who are praying before their meal, nor would I march around a synagogue waving strips of bacon or go to an outdoor Easter service and stamp on crosses.

Respect for everyone's personal beliefs is important. This meeting in Texas was simply anti-Muslim.

[darkangel218]

124. I disagree.

I like metal music.
Sometimes , there are inverted crosses on stage. And anti religious lyrics.
Should the bands get shot at? Of course not.

[WinkyDink]

154. But your examples are not "in kind." Creating a vocal public disturbance is illegal; destroying

property is illegal.

Is taking bacon into a synagogue illegal? I don't know. But I doubt you'd be slain for it.

And being "anti-Muslim" might not be a swell attitude, might not even meet our social mores today----BUT IT AIN'T AGAINST OUR LAWS.

People have Free Will, and can choose not only to be provocative, but also can choose NOT TO BE PROVOKED.

MAYBE WE NEED TO EDUCATE SOME PEOPLE IN THE "STICKS AND STONES" ADAGE.

[Call Me Wesley]

127. A nation of fear, divided by the 1st amendment.

I'd rather see the hate groups and private idiots perform under the 1st amendment in the open than to see them going underground. The first amendment, although now totally perverted, is a good thing. Censorship is not. Fear is not, but it was fed into your system continuously.

Fact is, we don't care much about it. (I'm a foreigner, and this is just my opinion, so go ahead and tell me that I'm inferior and shouldn't even join a discussion about a constitutional freedom I have no clue about it.) As individuals, we just don't really have the power to express it. The first amendment doesn't work so well unless you're either Scientology or NRA.

Be gay in some sort of school and get beaten to death. Be black in some some sort of suburbia and get shot. In the back. Be Muslim, pray like those Christians do and be seen as someone who wants to blow up your neighborhood. So fucked up. Freedom of religion, freedom of speech has become corporate.

The whackos are using it. Why don't you? Let's take it back.

Funny to say this on a 'democratic' website where we can't even discuss topics that are in the news, especially guns. There's two groups for this. There's two LGBT groups; it's like if 'gay stuff can only be posted there.' Out of sight, out of mind. We already have started to self-censor ourselves.

And no, I don't address the people here who hate to have being politically correct because they can't say bad words anymore, even as jokes. These trolls have no place here, anyway.

All I want to say is that the 1st amendment needs to be untouched. I want to see these bigots, racists, idiots, loud-mouths, scum, in the open.

[Major Hogwash]

134. So, tell us what you really think!

Haven't seen your moniker around here in awhile, Wesley.
How's life treating you?

[Call Me Wesley]

186. Well, it's a sloppery slope.

Ethics might help.

I'm hardly around much here, but life's good, and I hope for you as well.

[Dr. Strange]

135. Yeah, well, you're a foreigner and therefore inferior.

PS: to Heidi!

[Call Me Wesley]

187. Heh!

I'm sure you can see our house from there. And I delivered the to Heidi.

Ohhh, typewriter! :drool:

You take care and thrive on!

[deathrind]

157. People really should read

The first amendment... I am constantly amazed at how so many know so little about it.

[Buzz Clik]

176. Go ahead.

Draw them all, and put them up in a local gallery with lots of hype preceding the opening. Only one of your images will get much attention.