Can We Stop Saying "Pam Geller Has Free Speech?"

[TygrBright]

What she has, is Constitutionally protected speech.

Hate speech carries a heavy, terrible, sometimes generations-long, price tag.

It is not, and never has been "free."

Someone always pays for it.

Usually innocents.

Constitutionally-protected speech, used to urge the denial of life, rights, and equity to others, has nothing to do with "freedom," so it's not "free" that way, either.

I'm willing to concede hate speech its Constitutional protection.

I am not willing to miscall it "free" in any way.

That is all.

obstinately,
Bright

[Aerows]

1. She has a right to say whatever

she wants to say. I have the right to ignore the shit out of her.

[AngryDem001]

19. That should be a universal message.

THEY have a right to say whatever THEY want to say. I have a right to ignore the shit out of THEM.

[Aerows]

36. As a species, we have got to start

ignoring the ones that are spouting lightning tendrils designed to spark discord.

That is exactly what they wish to do - spark conflict. We need to ignore those that want to fight, and lend a hand to those that are injured. We should look at those that need our aid, and ignore the ones that have brought us here.

I will always favor taking care of people that need aid. As should we all.

[itcfish]

143. Actually There are Exceptions

The main exceptions to free speech protection include:

1. Defamation (includes libel and slander): discussed in greater depth below.

2. Obscenity: The Supreme Court test for obscenity is as follows: (a) whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.

3. Fighting words: As defined by the Supreme Court, fighting words are "those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace."

4. Causing panic: The classic example of speech causing panic is someone yelling "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater. Speech may be suppressed where a reasonable person would know that his speech is likely to cause panic and/or harm to others.

5. Incitement to crime: Speech that spurs another to commit a crime.

Sedition: Speech that advocates unlawful conduct against the government or the violent overthrow of the government.
The government also has the right to restrict speech in order to promote a "compelling government interest," such as national security. This standard is extraordinarily strict and hard to prove, making it a rather narrow exception to free speech

https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/free-speech-primer-what-can-you-say

[samsingh]

27. agreed

[Jesus Malverde]

41. Exactly..nt

[Aerows]

54. The more attention people like her get

the more harm they do.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

2. That's correct. The Constitution gives people the right

to say just about any damn hateful, nasty thing they want without interference or suppression by the government. There are a few narrow restrictions relating to time, place and manner; and the Supreme Court has also held that some speech can be prosecuted when it poses a danger of "imminent lawless action." Pamela Geller's disgusting, provocative little escapade does not fall into even that category, although one might wonder whether it could be considered a form of stochastic terrorism. But I think we can all agree that the government does not have the power to stop her from saying what she says, as reprehensible as it is.

But I also have the right to condemn and deplore everything that comes out of her mouth. This is not "blaming the victim," as some have said, nor is it an attempt to restrict her right to express her foul bigotry. Fuck the shooters for their fanaticism, but fuck Pam Geller, too.

[samsingh]

28. someone decides that you can't wear the color green and will become violent if you do.

do you stop wearing green?

[elehhhhna]

48. what if youd never worn green before

Thenwear it on purpose to be provocative? Fine. But shit can and does happen.

[Chemisse]

71. A better analogy might be:

You go out and buy all the same clothes as someone else, and mock that person by wearing them to the same events. That person is so angry, she is becoming violent.

Do you stop wearing those clothes?

Sure, it's perfectly legal to wear whatever you like, but you are knowingly and cruelly provoking someone.

[samsingh]

73. beheading and shooting people is far more cruel than anything you've described

when putting them in a comparable way is shocking.

wtf

if that's what it took, I'm sure there will be many other instances where an islamist is offended - e.g. no halal meat.

[Chemisse]

121. So now you are equating Islam with terrorism.

It's a scarce few of the millions of Muslims in this world - who all would presumably be offended by these cartoons - who would respond with violence.

Also, I was using an analogy. I hardly expect people will become violent over clothing.

[samsingh]

135. these scarce few are killing thousands? what is being done to stop them?

[bvar22]

138. I disagree with you.

Watching your children have their arms & legs blown off by a drone bomb is crueler,
and creates MORE terrorists.

[samsingh]

139. yes that is bad. but the drones emerged after the attack on us.

[samsingh]

140. children being crippled or worse is horrible

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

99. Wearing green isn't "speech" unless it symbolizes something.

If somebody beats me up because I'm wearing green and they just don't like green, they are guilty of assault. If I've been threatened because I wear green, maybe I won't wear it in the presence of the person who threatened me. If I wear green because it symbolizes something, it then becomes speech and the government can't prevent me from wearing it. Some asshole who either hates green or hates the thing it symbolizes then beats me up. That person is still guilty of assault. But whether I want to continue wearing green knowing someone might be violent because of it is up to me.

But I don't see how this example applies to the situation at hand.

[Telcontar]

122. I must (respectfully) disagree

The Constitution grants no rights.

It recognizes their existance.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

137. That's true. Thank you for the correction.

And thank you also for being respectful. Seems like there's not very much of that around here lately.

[951-Riverside]

3. +1000. The 1st and 2nd amendments are the problem here

Racist hate mongers like Pam Geller would have been jailed long ago for her hate speech in progressive countries like Britain. Our first amendment allows trash like her to put others in harm way over so-called "free speech" just like the 2nd amendment allowed the 2 perpetrators to obtain military grade firearms.

I'm all for a constitutional convention to abolish or update both.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

5. Abolish free speech?

Nice.

[951-Riverside]

47. Progressive nations like Britain are doing just fine without those amendments n/t

[SickOfTheOnePct]

51. Yay for Britain

I'll stick with free speech, thanks.

[GGJohn]

68. Last time I looked, we weren't in Britain,

we're in the US were we have the right to freedom on speech and the right to own firearms.
You want British style laws? Then fucking move to Britain.

[VScott]

57. Ditto on the 'right to keep and bear arms' as well.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

58. I'm personally not in favor

of eliminating any of our Constitutional rights.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

6. That's a slippery slope.

I wouldn't change what we have now - because what constitutes prohibited speech is going to depend on who's in power. I don't want Republicans deciding that question.

[cherokeeprogressive]

69. 951 fancies himself to be the arbiter of what's allowed...

and what would get ya jailed. His absolute lack of foresight makes it impossible to see what might happen after he assumes room temperature.

[Throd]

10. You attitude scares me as much as the fundamentalists.

[Lizzie Poppet]

11. Any constitutional convention that was even remotely representative...

...of the will of the people would handily elect to endorse both of those amendments. Just sayin'...

[Lochloosa]

15. The one thing in our Constitution that scares the shit out of me is...

A constitutional convention

[seveneyes]

16. You can have your own version of sharia law to yourself

Try that shit here in America and you won't have to ask Britain what the results can turn out to be.

[samsingh]

29. after this incident, i respect Pam Geller

[gollygee]

88. You respect her?

She certainly has a right to say whatever she wants, but she has not earned anybody's respect.

[samsingh]

90. good point. i respect the bravery in free speech - i don't respect

her atlas shrugged crap

[gollygee]

93. That makes more sense

Although I question how much bravery was involved. She was hoping something horrible would happen because she wants a religious war. I don't know if I'd call that bravery. I agree that it is generally brave to practice your right to free speech when the speech is unpopular, I just wonder if that's the right word for this situation. I think practicing your right to free speech is more brave when you're speaking out against the government or some other group with a great deal of power because it's the right thing to do and you can't stay silent, no matter the consequences. I don't feel that way when you're trying to draw people into a religious war.

[samsingh]

158. at least one of the would be killers was known to be in contact with terrorists

i would think that he was going to attack some type of event at some time to kill innocent people.

killing him here probably saved innocent lives.

[JustAnotherGen]

155. I respect her willingness to say anything

To make a buck. It's a big cash grab - that's all. She found a way to part people with their money and she's uh - done well by it? ;/)

[Jesus Malverde]

44. Lulz always so provocative.

[Warren DeMontague]

157. Yakno, Some day we will be able to ARREST people for saying stuff we don't like!

Ooooh, just thinking about it makes me feel all warm in my underoooooos!

[Adrahil]

152. Fuck. No.

Political speech is political speech and needs to be protected, even if it's offensive. I consider your position reprehensible.

[Matrosov]

154. What about hate speech against hate groups?

I can agree on the hate speech against homosexuals, minorities, women, and so forth, but considering that Abrahamic religions are inherently homophobic and misogynistic, I'd say hate speech against Christianity and Islam is about the same as hate speech against the Ayrian Nation or some women hating group.

[tanyev]

4. At the very least this incident should put her 'Freedom Defense Initiative' in a high risk category

when trying to book future venues. And I wonder if school districts and local governments that have meeting space to rent will take another look at their policies and ban events that are political or religious in nature, like the MTA in NYC did. It's very common here for new churches (mostly Christian, I'm sure) to pay a fee to meet in school buildings on Sunday mornings.

[hollysmom]

7. well, I have to look at it this way, if she wants to

attract terrorists to Texas and away from NYC, I am good with that.

[samsingh]

31. i think the terrorists are the bad people

[elehhhhna]

55. I think if they'd taken out Gellar with themselves I would not give a rip

Evil evil evil. Three evil sick people there, minimum.

[samsingh]

61. she hasn't or threatened to kill anyone. how is she in the same league as those disgusting

would be killers?

[elehhhhna]

145. she provoked them and got exactly what she hoped for.

Blood on her hands.

[samsingh]

148. again blame the victim mentality. sickening.

but your words will serve to embolden terrorists everywhere.

[samsingh]

32. so there are terrorists and the only question is what they will attack?

[WinkyDink]

8. No, I won't, for I don't accept your hair-splitting.

[freshwest]

9. Especially if it's paid for speech. Re: Faux Noise, et al. n/t

[Yo_Mama]

12. Hate speech maligns persons as a group or class.

Muhammed cartoons do not malign people as a group or class.

This wasn't hate speech as I understand it.

If we let people react violently to others' ideas, then we will LOSE ALL OUR FREEDOMS.

[delrem]

14. I call bullshit.

Geller is probably one of the most full-on racist haters going in the USA today.
Her hate-inspired racist event wasn't about "Muhammed" or "cartoons", it was about promoting hatred for an entire people.
Nobody is suggesting that we "let people react violently to others' ideas" -- people are explaining the context of flat out truth that Pamela Geller's "ideas", her organizations, are evil, intended to promote and inspire a war against an entire people. A war that *exists*, has been killing Arabs, Muslims, in the hundreds of thousands and is escalating daily, and is not a figment. Any more than Pamela Geller's evil racist hatred is just some figment -- as if she were just an advocate for free-speech promoting an event for the good of the cartoon industry.

Your absolution for Pamela Geller's evil racist hate requires the total elimination of a context the Pamela Geller freely provides, to anyone who can stomach turning over the rock.

[totodeinhere]

20. Yes she is a hater but her anti-Muslim crusade is not racist.

Muslims are of all races including whites. It is a religion not a race. I think it would be more accurate to call her a bigot. I might be splitting hairs here but I am a fan of using words accurately.

[delrem]

21. Oh, cut the bullshit semantics.

PLEASE.
Reminds me of people who pretend not to know what "anti-Semitic" means, by playing semantics with the term "Semite".

[totodeinhere]

24. How can being anti-Muslim be racist when Islam is a religion, not a race?

Semantics are not bullshit. Semantics are important. If we can't express ourselves succinctly then our argument fails.

[delrem]

38. http://pamelageller.com/

[samsingh]

64. alright - she's very disgusting too. atlas shrugs - ewwwwwww.

[delrem]

67. yes. she is.

[samsingh]

85. anyone who support atlas shrugged is sick and twisted in my opinion

[delrem]

98. Then stop it.

[Scootaloo]

43. because in the United States and Europe, "Islam" is heavily racialized, particularly by islamophobes

Most Muslims in both areas of the world are nonwhite minorities. Most of the bigots against them are whites, and usually part of the christian majority. What's more, is that these bigots aren't too worried about islam. Theirs is not a philosophical or theological conversation about a religion. No, they hate Muslims. And people who they think are Muslims. Or who they associate with Muslims.

So while no, Islam is not a "race," it serves pretty much the same function, for the same people. For instance, DU's hero of hte hour Pam Gellar, does like many bigots, and simply conflates middle eastern people and Muslims. She does so, incidentally, while supporting the mass murder of Norwegian children by Anders Breivik. When geert Wilders rants about "Immigrants," he means Muslims. We know because these are the only immigrants he is ever referring to, and his hatred for Muslims outside the realm of immigration is also well-established.

[delrem]

49. thanks for that.

I'm outa here. I can't take the Geller apologetics.
The dishonest fucks.

[samsingh]

72. islamists have beheaded thousands of people in the middle east. i don't have any support for that

type or any type of brutality. hearing other people who seem to try to deflect attention (or point to crusades 500 years ago) shows that it's not only a few. there is no peace here. and using freedom of religion laws while going against freedom of speech laws is dishonest, dangerous and hypocritical. In fact, many of the terrorists in the US mainland left countries that were Islamic or for some reason they did not like living there. but blowing up innocent joggers seems to fill them with purpose and they get the support of their mothers and sisters.

these are facts.

[delrem]

78. You're supporting Pamela Geller.

Don't you try to say that I support ISIS.
That kind of sliming is as bad as what's found at
http://pamelageller.com/

[samsingh]

82. don't try to say i'm supporting geller. i hate atlas. your name calling is interesting and

you jumped to that extreme very quickly.


keep posting your little link.

[delrem]

87. You have been channelling Geller like nobody's business, samsingh.

[samsingh]

91. both are evil

[Scootaloo]

96. Which has nothing to do with what I just explained to you

[totodeinhere]

104. You have your facts wrong. In the United States for instance 30% of Muslims are whites.

23% are blacks, 21% are Asians and 19% are other/mixed and 6% are Hispanic. So actually a plurality of Muslims in the United States are the same race that Geller is. So I can't possibly see how her opposition to Islam is racist. That of course doesn't make her right and I am not defending her. I also am not so sure that most bigots against Muslims are whites. As you know right now there is a great conflict between Muslims and Christians in Sub-Saharan Africa. In that part of the world most opposition to Muslims comes from black Christians, not whites.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/26/muslim-american-demographics_n_5027866.html

I am just trying to get the terminology straight. If you have some different stats to back up your claims please post it.

[Scootaloo]

105. You knowthat 30% is not "most" by any measure, correct?

And that when I'm talking about North america and Europe, I'm not talking about Africa?

Correctly or incorrectly, it has become racialized, especially in the rhetoric of bigots like Gellar. What you're doing is trying to derail and divert. You know damn well what's going on, and are simply trying to speedbump. I don't know why - i have my suspicions - but nowthat the issue has been explained, you can stop.

[totodeinhere]

106. I didn't say "most," I said a plurality.

And who do you think you are to impute my motives? I already said that my motive was to get the terminology straight. I am not trying to derail and divert. I already said that she is a bigot. What else do you want from me?

BTW, here is my dictionary's definition of racism.

The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.

Notice that the definition had nothing to do with religion. As I already said, Islam is a religion, not a race.

[Scootaloo]

108. I said most are not white. And they are not.

I did not impugn your motives - I have no idea what they are. I am recognizing a stalling tactic for what it is, however. As i said, correctly or incorrectly, the term has been racialized and is used as such by bigots. it doesn't matter that Islam is not a race - of course it's not. This does not stop Muslims from getting the same sort of hatred and other treatment from bigots, as if they were.

[totodeinhere]

110. I have to go to bed. But my definition of "impute" is...

Ascribe (righteousness, guilt, etc.) to someone by virtue of a similar quality in another.

[nomorenomore08]

109. Because it nearly always goes hand in hand with prejudice against scary evil brown people.

Most Muslim-haters don't make much if any distinction between Arabs, Persians/Afghanis, Indonesians, etc. And when they're thinking of scary evil Muslims, I'm pretty sure most of them aren't picturing "white" Muslims like, say, Bosnians or lighter-skinned Turks.

[seveneyes]

35. Fuck the bullshit and semantics

Post the quotes or be done with it.

[delrem]

37. http://pamelageller.com/

[seveneyes]

39. You made the claim

I don't play hide and seek.

[delrem]

42. http://pamelageller.com/

[samsingh]

34. i call bullshit but not against Geller.

[delrem]

40. http://pamelageller.com/

[samsingh]

50. should we link to islamist fundamentalist sites and isis? i would feel very dirty

[delrem]

53. http://pamelageller.com/

Now feel dirty.

[samsingh]

62. i would feel dirtier on the other sites. but then beheading tens of thousands

of innocent people offends me more than drawings or pictures.

[delrem]

75. Well, it's you that makes a choice in favor of exonerating Pamela Geller.

And presumably the killing of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi and other arabs.
I didn't say fuck all that could be construed as defending ISIS, to say nothing of defending "beheading".

What fucking bullshit nonsense.

[samsingh]

84. i think the constant terrorist attacks are worse than geller

[gollygee]

94. Isn't religion a protected class in the US?

I thought it was.

[Warren Stupidity]

125. protected from your right to free speech?

no. You have the right to freely exercise your religion, within acceptable boundaries, you do not have right to not have your stupid ass religion mocked.

[gollygee]

129. That's not what I'm responding to

She said that hate speech is speech against a protected group. It is also protected by the 1st Amendment. But religion is a protected group in the US.

[Warren Stupidity]

133. there are no laws against hate speech.

such laws would violate the 1st amendment.

[gollygee]

134. I specifically said that

Why don't you read the post I'm responding to. That person is defining "hate speech" as speech against a protected class. In the US, religion is a protected class, so speech against Muslims is defined as hate speech, but yes, AGAIN, hate speech is protected by the first amendment. I don't know why you're reading that I've said anything else.

[Warren Stupidity]

124. There is no law against hate speech nor should there be.

[Binkie The Clown]

13. Let us say instead: "Pam Geller has limited free speech."

And since we are in the business of limited freedoms because someone might be offended by them, we need to take another look at allowing women to vote. Many Muslims are deeply offended by that.

[delrem]

17. Oh really.

Those "Muslims"....

wow

Not even bothering to hide it.

[samsingh]

26. shooting people up in the name of a religion may prove the 'those' comments to have some truth

[delrem]

52. Only to a racist who impugns an entire people for the acts of a few.

[samsingh]

66. what's a few? is isis only a few?

[delrem]

70. ISIS is the current US enemy in the war on terror.

To be distinguished from "the moderate rebels" and from "The House of Saud", etc., who are "the good guys in the US war on terror".
The discussion isn't about ISIS. It's about Pamela fucking Geller, who you've been defending by broadbrushing 1.7BILLION people.

[samsingh]

79. house of saud i not good guys. that's the disgusting joke

I don't care how people pray, but I do take offense when they tell me what to say, wear and behave.

btw - where do most of the 1.7 billion live? which countries? would you want to live in the countries they are dominant?

fing Indonesia just executed half a dozen people based on hearsay evidence. executed.

Pakistan routinely kills people for blasphemy because someone said that someone did something offense.

in Iraq and Syria, isis is throwing gay men off buildings to their deaths.

in Africa, thousands of children are stolen, raped, and killed.

add these numbers up. I don't think it's a handful. anyone who says it is, has a different motive.

what broadbrush?

[delrem]

81. Your broadbrush.

It's *identical* to Geller's.

[samsingh]

83. you forgot to post your link

[delrem]

86. I responded directly to your post.

[samsingh]

92. btw-you have posted alot of geller - i understand - she's pathetic

where is your horror against what the two jihadists were trying to do? the passion against their attempt to massacre people?

[delrem]

97. The two nutcases are dead. Geller is thriving. Thanks to people like you.

[samsingh]

113. you must have issues - i didn't even know about her until today

and if those barbaric idiots hadn't done what they did, I still wouldn't know about her.

but while we are slinging shit, I think it's terrorists that get their support from people willing to blame victims.

[nomorenomore08]

112. What broadbrush? Implying that Muslims, as a group, are responsible for these atrocities.

Should all Americans be condemned as evil, because our country killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis in an unnecessary war? I certainly don't believe so.

Reminds me of right-wingers trying to smear African-Americans as thugs and criminals, because of a minority of AA's who happen to commit crimes.

No, it's not "a handful" we speak of, unfortunately. But that doesn't mean all Muslims should be tarred with the same brush.

[Binkie The Clown]

107. So instead of blaming Germans for WWII

we narrow it down to the guilty parties and blame the Nazis.

Being German is a matter of birth, and being a Nazi is a matter of choice. That's the distinction.

It is not racist to criticize Nazis. "Nazi" is not a race, it's a belief system. Same with "Muslim". It's not a race, it's a voluntary belief system. So the word "racist" does not apply. The word "bigot", however, does apply.

As for "the acts of the few", the "many" become irrelevant if they don't stand against the few.

The majority of Germans who didn't want WWII are irrelevant, because the the radical minority exercised their will and the "silent majority" did not.

And, in fact, we really don't know if the majority of Germans did not want WWII because the majority of Germans said nothing about what they wanted. Their silence could even be interpreted as tacit approval.

And since we don't seem to be hearing outrage from the "vast majority of peace-loving Muslims", the fact that it is a "vast majority" is, itself in question, since we are not hearing from them in "vast" numbers. We are hearing a single isolated voice here and there. The very fact that the majority of Muslims seem to be silent on the matter leaves it open as a possibility that they do not, in fact, object to what the terrorists are doing. We really won't know until they speak up, en mass. (I've read somewhere that something like 15% to 20% of Muslims worldwide support the radicals. There are 1.6 billion Muslims in the world, that means that a mere 20% is 320 million Muslims who support the terrorists. That means that given a U.S. population of 318 million, there are more Muslims in the world that support the terrorists than there are PEOPLE in the United States.

Let me hear, en mass, from the Muslim community that they do not condone the terrorist acts and then I will begin to believe that they do not condone them. But the deafening silence I hear from the vast majority of Muslims seems to me to leave their desires open for speculation.

And in case I have to say it again, this is NOT racism, because the choice to be a Muslim radical is not a race.

[nomorenomore08]

114. So the other 80-85% should be lumped in with the terrorists and radicals, and treated accordingly?

That's what you seem to be implying.

I don't think you want to open the collective-blame can of worms, honestly. Especially if you happen to be white, American, and/or a Christian.

[Binkie The Clown]

116. That's NOT what I'm saying.

I'm saying I hear nothing from the other 80%-85% so I don't really know where they stand. And I won't know, and can't know until they, themselves, speak up. All I hear is second hand accounts about how "the vast majority" is so peaceful, but I don't hear from the vast majority themselves. Instead I hear it from self-appointed spokespersons like yourself.

If "they" oppose terrorism, then why do "they" not say so? Not the one or two at a time that we actually hear, but en mass? If "they don't say what they do or don't support, then we have no way of knowing what "they" do or don't support. Believe what you want, but you have no hard facts to back up your faith. I hope you are right, but I don't know for a fact that you are.

[nomorenomore08]

118. For one thing, speaking out against extremism is punishable by death in some places.

Another aspect is that religious moderates in general aren't known for rocking the boat. You could just as easily ask why more moderate/liberal Christians don't speak out against the Christian Right.

Otherwise, I agree it would be great if more Muslims publicly opposed violent extremism. But I also wish more Christians would speak up in places like Uganda or Jamaica, which are just as hostile to gender and LGBT equality as all but the most extreme Muslim nations.

[WinkyDink]

126. The poster mentioned women's voting. Either it's allowed in Muslim countries or it is not. Facts

speak for themselves, and are not "racist."

[muriel_volestrangler]

18. Since the first amendment uses the phrase "freedom of speech"

maybe you should complain to the ghosts of those who wrote it.

[delrem]

22. Re-read the OP. nt

[muriel_volestrangler]

23. It's wrong. If appears to not understand what the word 'freedom' means, and what 'free speech'

means. 'Free speech' does not mean speech about freedom. It does not mean speech obtaining without effort or cost. It means speech exercised with freedom, and that's why Americans have constitutionally-protected free speech.

[delrem]

45. The OP provides context for a distinction.

The OP doesn't challenge the US constitution.

Whether the distinction is sound or viable is another matter, but it makes the distinction.

[samsingh]

25. she is exercising free speech and the attack by the two jihidists

and the defense of those violent jihidists who would have willingly massacred any innocent people that they came across shows that she has a point. In fact, she has not massacred anyone or supported any massacres, unlike many of the people who attack her freedom of speech.

[Scootaloo]

30. And further, her right to it is not in question

What's more, not only is her speech well-protected, it's actually rather popular in this country.

There is no fucking "crisis." There's two idiots who got killed trying to commit murder.

[WinkyDink]

128. "her right to it is not in question"? Not if you've been reading DU!

[DefenseLawyer]

33. Whatever gets you through the night.

Call it whatever you want. Just don't shoot anyone.

[Aerows]

46. Somebody always has to clean up

after the people Geller addresses.

Is that fair to the people that have to clean up behind her?

It is irrelevant, though, because those that have humanity in their hearts will do it anyway.

Foment war, and we will still aid you. Foment discord, we will still quell the fires that are burning. When there are none of us left, do not blame those that did their best and put out the fires, and stood for peace.

[Keefer]

56. I'm sorry but, no,

we CAN'T stop saying she has the right to constitutionally protected speech. As soon as we do that, our right to constitutionally protected speech ends.

[Blue State Bandit]

59. That security guard PAID for her speech.

This was incitement pure and simple.

[boston bean]

60. I can't stand Geller. But drawing Mohammed is not hate speech.

[Skittles]

80. did you read who the actual organizers / speakers at this event were?

THAT is hate speech

[delrem]

100. I think it gets a pass.

After 14 fucking YEARS of an insane "war on terror", we've got an entire generation weaned on it.

Isn't it wonderful?

[WinkyDink]

130. THAT is not illegal in the United States.

[Skittles]

144. NO ONE SAID IT WAS ILLEGAL

they are free to do as they please and am free to think they are VILE PEOPLE

and comparing that trash Geller to a rape victim? OMG - that is seriously demented

[Warren Stupidity]

127. so what if it was? Our right to free speech is not limited to "non hate speech".

Nor should it be.

[seveneyes]

63. No, we should educate those that say she does not have free speech

Logic is required, bullshit is optional.

[Depaysement]

65. That's what the founders of the nation called it

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights as well.

I for one shall cling to it.

[Yorktown]

74. This OP has got its facts upside down

The OP contends a cartoon contest is 'hate speech'. It's ludicrous.
Islam is an ideology. Geller attacks an ideology, Islam.
If attacking ideologies is off bounds, then nobody can say anything about nazism or racism.

Back to basics: Islam is an ideology that calls for the death of adulterers, gays and apostates.
This ideology is therefore a legitimate target for criticism.
And caricature is one form of criticism.
Political caricatures have existed for centuries, and killing the cartoonists was not accepted.
Why on earth should caricature now be deemed inacceptable hate speech when it's Islam?

Unacceptable special pleading.
And this fake 'hate' label becomes worse when uttered less than 24 hours after an attack.

[nomorenomore08]

115. I don't consider most such depictions "hate speech" either.

On the other hand, I don't think "Islam" should be considered synonymous with its most extreme variants.

[Yorktown]

117. Well, you nailed the snag about Islam.

When he wrote the Quran, muhamad boxed his followers of the future in a corner
He said that book was the word of god. And that book calls for extreme punishments for imaginary crimes.
So the problem is not 'extreme variants' of Islam, it's how to neutralize the extreme parts of the Quran.
Which is a highly perilous exercise for any reform minded imam because it could be viewed as heresy.
Which, of course, is punishable by death. Catch 22.

[nomorenomore08]

119. Much the same can be said of the Christian Bible. People were executed for "blasphemy" and "sodomy"

just a few centuries ago, and their executioners and torturers found ample justification in verses from the Old Testament. Of course, most majority-Christian nations have long since moved on from such practices, though I would argue the reasons for that are just as much economic and cultural as religious.

One of the biggest problems with religion in general is fundamentalism, i.e. believing that the "Word of God" is infallible and unalterable. Of course, in contemporary times, Islam in many ways has more of an issue with this than other faiths, but I don't think the reason for that is as simple as you make it out to be. As I said above, the Bible/Torah has verses commanding the slaughter of "infidels" too.

[Yorktown]

120. No, there is one big difference: the assumed writer.

All these books were imagined and written by men.
That's why Christians can and do interpret and twist their texts.
I haven't heard of lapidations in Israel, and yet, the Torah's Deuteronomy mandates such stonings.
Conclusion: Jews (or Christians) are not pinned down to the violence of their texts.
Outcome: over time, common sense prevails and the violent injunctions get buried and forgotten.

The tragedy of Islam is the belief the text came directly from god via an archangel and muhamad.
Conclusion: in a theological debate, the muslim closest to the text wins
Outcome: quasi impossiblity to do away with the insane death pronouncements for imaginary crimes.

[nomorenomore08]

151. I think you underestimate the number of Christians who still take the Bible literally (or claim to).

And while fundamentalist Christians, as a whole, may not be as extreme as their Muslim counterparts, the thought of them gaining any political power at all (see: today's GOP) is still rather frightening. IMO it's more a difference of degree than kind - claiming a rape victim wasn't "really" raped is not as bad as stoning her to death, but it's rooted in a similar (or at least comparable) mentality.

[Yorktown]

153. You are right in practical terms, not in theoretical terms.

Yes, you are absolutely right fundamentalist Christians are, for lack of a better word, 'weird'.
(I was about to type stronger words, but let's keep it nice)

But the point I was making was about the possibility (or not) of amending the doctrine.
Fundamentalist Chtristians can have their own interpretation, but their rejection of the Big Bang or of Darwinian evolution is not even shared by the Vatican. Not to mention the female or gay bishops of the Church of England. The point here is that the original sacred book did not stop the evolution of practice, notably because the sacred book is not held to be an immutable word from God.

Whereas muhamad boxed the muslims in a corner. It's very difficult to evolve towards acceptance of gays (let alone have a gay ayatollah) when the Quran itself says homosexuality is forbidden. And, and that's where I want to underline, when the Quran is the word of God. IF the Quran is the word of god, THEN society is blocked from evolving towards accepting gays.

Don't even think about letting blasphemers get away with it.
That's how the shooters of Charlie Hebdo or Garland, Texas can think they are right.

[fadedrose]

76. I always feel bad when I hurt someone's feelings

and never do it on purpose. I feel bad enough when I do it in ignorance....even though the first amendment tells me that it's alright to hurt anyone or everyone's feelings anytime because it's my right to make stupid, wrong, or hateful remarks.

Is that what the founding fathers were saying or is there some misunderstanding somewhere?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

132. I'm fairly certain that what the Founders were after was a protection from a tyrannical government.

That you could not be killed or imprisoned by the government or it's representatives just because you said some government official was a 'poopyhead', for instance.

The First Amendment is so nuanceless simply because they didn't want to provide 'weasel-outs' that let the government get around the intent on a technicality.

Unfortunately, as a side effect, it allows people to be complete assholes and bully others mercilessly without fear of legal repercussions. And then to pretend they bear 0% responsibility for inciting violence when humans, being human, finally respond with violence, because that's what some portion of the population inevitably does.

[Skittles]

77. that this has to be explained on DU is pitiful

yes indeed

[alphafemale]

89. Actually, depicting any living person or animal is forbidden.

How about we start acquiescing to that next and properly cleanse all the art galleries so some religious ass-hats don't get offended and start beheading people on the street?

Because it is obvious that "Art" is the offensive thing.

[UTUSN]

95. R#21 & K n/t

[Hissyspit]

101. She is a demagogue.

[delrem]

103. That's the nicest thing a person could say about her, and still be true. nt

[WinkyDink]

131. She wishes to ASPIRE to being a demagogue!

[CBGLuthier]

111. No

The expression is, has, and will always be FREE SPEECH and no amount of semantic bullshit changes what we call, FREE SPEECH.

[Warren Stupidity]

123. no. Freedom of speech - aka "free speech" is the exact language used to describe this right.

It is the correct and accurate description. And it is a fundamental right, it precedes any document.

Pam Geller has Freedom of Speech. As do you. As do I.

[nomorenomore08]

149. +1

I despise Geller, but I don't care for these semantic games either.

[GOLGO 13]

136. Pam Geller Has Free Speech

Pam Geller Has Free Speech & so do you.

[samsingh]

141. how did the Boston marathon insult the boston bombers?

it doesn't seem to take anything to set these extremists off.

[EX500rider]

142. In case any body is curious, this was the winning cartoon: (warning-depiction of Mohammed)

Apparently the artist was born into a Muslim family but left the religion.

[Shoulders of Giants]

146. Hatespeech is absolutely constitutionally protected,and I'm gonna engage in hate speech in this post

I hate the morons who killed people over a cartoon. Its time society stops yielding to people who are willing to kill people over a freaking cartoon. They are right wing anti human fanatics, even worse than people like Santorum or Huckabee. I see no difference between what murderers did and a rapist blaming a women for looking like a "slut." I think whatever Pam Geller's viewpoints are is irrelevant. She seems to have some kooky conspiracy theories, but her followers have the right to believe whatever the hell they want to believe, and draw whatever stupid cartoon they want to without being murdered.

[lumberjack_jeff]

147. Am I free to disagree?

I'm having a hard time getting past the irony of the subject. "We should all say the same thing about free speech"

[Rex]

150. I don't have a problem with her use of the Constitution, I have a problem with her and her kind.

Fundies are dangerous people...as we saw when two groups of fundies got together. Two dead and one innocent security guard hurt.

All over scribble scrabble.

[Warren DeMontague]

156. Sorry, I'll blaspheme all I want. Thanks.