It is absolutely OK to spew hate and incite violence.

[cali]

against any group or religion.

It's fine to call MLK a "commie N----r" and trumpet that black people are filthy animals. It's "provocative". It's equally fine to hold a contest that awards a prize for the winner of a cartoon depicting Jews as baby killers.

The American Nazi Party had the right to march in Skokie Illinois, home to many holocaust survivors. But does anyone thing that they should have exercised that right?

Does anyone think that the KKK should march through an AA community in full regalia just because they have the right to?

Yes, I'm comparing Pamela Geller's little gathering in Garland to the above. It may seem like an innocuous little cartoon contest, but context means something and the context is that Pamela Geller advocates for banning Islam in the U.S., spews the most outrageous hate and lies about Muslims and endorses genocide- as long as it's Muslims. Geller sure as hell was trying to provoke violence. Why else hold her "awards ceremony" in the same place as a pro-Islam meeting was held in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo killings, in January? Why have an awards ceremony at all? Couldn't she have just announced a winner from NY? I'm NOT NOT NOT saying she didn't have the right to do these things. I am saying that she does this shit because she's trying to gin up a war against Muslims. I am NOT NOT NOT condoning the assholes who attacked her little hate fest.

So no, it's not fine. It's vile. Yes, it's free speech but it's speech that should be condemned not condoned or worse yet, lauded.

Condemn the gunmen, but don't forget to condemn the purveyors of hate and those trying to instigate violence against others- and Pamela Geller has been doing that, with the thinnest of veils, for years.

[polly7]

1. I agree.

She fired off her own shots hoping they'd harm as many Muslims worldwide as possible, she was just too chicken* to actually do it with a gun. And no, I also don't condone the acts of the assholes who were every bit just as full of hate. Geller's got an ugly, rotten soul and she's lucky hate speech is protected there, I notice she's never trotted over to the ME to open her venomous trap.

[LittleBlue]

3. Welcome back

Serving your time like a boss

[polly7]

4. Why thank you!

[justiceischeap]

2. It seems to me some folks don't want to accept that

though we have the freedom to say whatever we like in the US, we can also be held responsible for said language. It doesn't mean that you support the gunmen (in the case of Geller) but you realize that some language is so extreme that sometimes you get an extreme response to that language.

I try to be responsible with the language I use because I know that, even though I have the freedom to say whatever the hell I want, that hateful language can provoke people.

[Binkie The Clown]

5. It's also OK to say things that are true, even if they are insulting.

Not every insulting comment is untrue or unfair.

Heaven knows we do enough Republican bashing on DU. Much of what we say about Republicans is insulting, vile, hateful, and rude. And it's mostly true. So we can't let "political correctness" stifle truth, even when that truth is insulting, vile, hateful, and rude.

[cbayer]

7. I am not clear what you are saying here. Are you saying that what Pamela Geller says

about Muslims is true and that we need to acknowledge that?

Because that is sure what it sounds like you are saying.

[Binkie The Clown]

11. "what Pamela Geller says"

Are you justifying hate speech against Pamela Geller? It seems that you are claiming its OK to hate on Pamela Gellar, which is different from her hating on Muslims how, exactly?

What I am proposing is that we stop labeling people and making generalized insulting, hateful comments based on those labels. However, will something that high-minded ever occur on DU with regard to Republicans? Will we talk about Republicans respectfully, and complement their good points? Or consider seriously their proposals? Or will we continue to hate on them because they are Republicans?

Now, replace "Republicans" in the above with "Muslims" and replace "DU" with "Geller". Or replace "Republicans" with "Jews" and replace "DU" with "Hitler", or... I'm sure you can find other examples.

The problem is not that Geller is saying hateful, ugly things about Muslims. The problem is that she is saying hateful, ugly things about group for whom we have not approved the saying of hateful, ugly things, such as, for example, Republicans. Because we here at DU have certainly sanctioned the saying of hateful, ugly things about Republicans.

I say we should eliminate all hate speech, instead of sanctioning only hate speech that we approve of, and condemning hate speech we do not approve of. There should be no double standards. Geller's anti-Muslim hate speech is wrong, and DU's anti-Geller hate speech is wrong. No double standards.

However, that includes examining each other's claims on their own merits, and not using the broad brush of "hate speech" to reject every claim, even if that claim makes us uncomfortable, or is not politically correct.

[bullwinkle428]

12. "talk about Republicans respectfully, and complement their good points" - perhaps

you can enlighten us great unwashed DUers as to all of the good points Republicans are making these days!

[Binkie The Clown]

14. Ha! You fell into my trap

and committed anti-Republican hate speech. I knew somebody would do that.

[cali]

17. OK, now you've erased all doubt: You don't know what hate speech is.

Do elaborate on how the post you are referencing was hate-speech, Bt Clown?

[theboss]

37. I don't believe that any speech is "hate speech"

I'm a free speech absolutist.

[cali]

39. so? I'm also a free speech absolutist. That has nothing to do with it.

Am I calling for criminalizing any speech? why no. All speech is not equal. Some of it damn well is hate speech. You seem to be under the rather quaint misapprehension that you have to believe that all speech is somehow noble because of the first amendment.

[theboss]

40. Very little speech is noble

Most people are dumb.

Speech in and of itself is harmless - with extraordinarily narrow exceptions.

[AgingAmerican]

44. Do you believe that folks have the right

To stand in front of a grade school with an assault rifle, and a bullhorn, egging passersby to rise up and murder school children? Cuz, you know...your a free speech, 'absolutist' and all....

[theboss]

83. Take away the assault rifle....and maybe

The rifle puts that right on the edge of an actual threat/assault.

But articulating the need to kill school-age children? I'd read their literature.

[AgingAmerican]

84. You gotta be kidding me

nt

[theboss]

85. What's the criteria for banning speech?

I've never been able to find a line I could deal with short of an actual, seemingly actionable threat.

"I'm going to kill that SOB next time I see him" said drunkenly in bar = OK.


"I'm going to kill that SOB next time I see him" sad drunkenly in bar while tapping gun while said SOB walks into bar = not so OK.

[AgingAmerican]

86. So you believe it's OK to incite folks to murder children

Go out and try it and see how long you last.

You're sick in the head, IMHO, if you actually believe that.

[theboss]

87. No, it's morally reprehensible

Same as advocating slavery or exterminating Jews or being a Browns fan.

You have a right to express reprehensible thoughts though.

[cbayer]

18. Hate speech? You really need to google that term before you continue to use it.

[cali]

13. your posts in this thread strike me as digressive and somewhat inane

"hate"here against Geller isn't about her religion or the color of her skin; it's about her her words and actions. Was it hateful of the UK Home Sec to bar her from the country? If you can't see the difference between despising someone for what they do and despising people for their religion or sexuality or ethnicity, then you are missing something essential and obvious.

Same goes with Republicans- though as someone who voted for and liked my Republican Senator, Jim Jeffords, before he became an independent, I do agree that a handful (and alas it really is only a handful now) of Republicans don't espouse hateful oppressive crap.

And you are flat out wrong about the "problem" with Geller. I refer you back to the op.

I say you should educate yourself. Seriously.

[cbayer]

15. I'm not sure you answered my question here.

I think it's perfectly ok to be very negative about Pamela Geller, a hate mongering bigot who has few equals in this country.

But I don't support advocating violence against her or that she be removed from this country or calling her a savage or saying that I am at war with her.

I think we should judge people on what they say and do. She's despicable and should be despised. That's not labeling or generalizing. That's my response to what she says and does.

Hate speech has a very specific definition. Much of what she says and does would meet that definition. Comparing it to how DUer's talk about republicans makes no sense at all, because that's not hate speech.

It sure sounds like you are defending her and her agenda, Binkie. You think DU's anti-Geller "hate speech" is wrong? Are you sure you want to go there?

My initial question to you was in response to you saying that some hateful things people say are true. I asked whether you thought what Geller says about muslims is true.

Do you?

[cali]

19. Some folks out themselves without having to be explicit about, say,

whether they agree with Pamela Geller.

[cbayer]

22. Yes and there is a pattern being established here.

[Scootaloo]

60. "Hate speech against Pamela Gellar"?

Well, as soon as there are entire communities of Pamela Gellars, with a diversity of thought and opinion and life, that is being targeted by people making calls to eradicate them, we'll talk about hate speech against Pamela gellar the way we talk about Pam Gellar's hate against Muslims.

In the meantime, your slip is showing.

[Binkie The Clown]

63. I think Pamela Geller is the scum of the earth.

But being a DU curmudgeon is a tough job, and somebody has to step up to the plate to do it.

[Pooka Fey]

70. Let's not make the mistake of confusing ridicule with hate speech

Ridicule: How many Wing-Nuts can one fit in the 2016 Election Clown Car?

Hate Speech: I think we should round up all the Wing-Nuts, put them on a spaceship, and send them into space because they don't deserve to share our oxygen. Or something else.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have never seen speech calling for Wing-Nut genocide on DU.

Ridicule is protected speech in Western style democracies. We have the right to offend and criticize people's bad ideas and behavior, including their religious and political doctrines.

Hate Speech, such as speech calling for the elimination of a specific group, in something entirely different. In the USA, there are no laws preventing hate speech. In Canada, and many other Western style democracies, there are laws which regulate this sub-set of speech. (See my post below)

[cbayer]

6. I think it's also important to note that she clearly chose Garland because it is a

hotbed of anti-muslim hate and is the perfect medium for her to plant her warmongering seeds.

The Islam meeting that you speak of elicited large anti-muslim protests.

[cali]

8. thanks for adding that- a whole bunch

And illustrating the point so starkly with those photos.

[beevul]

64. Interesting.

"she clearly chose Garland because it is a hotbed of anti-muslim hate and is the perfect medium for her to plant her warmongering seeds."

If in fact Garland is a " hotbed of anti-muslim hate", why was it chosen for the Islam meeting?

Has there been some sort of "tit for tat" going on between opposing groups in Garland?

[cbayer]

65. Because it also is an area with a very diverse population, including a significant muslim population

The protest against it was a rallying cry for the part of the population that wants muslims out of there community, city, state and country, as can clearly be seen by the posters they carried.

She chose it because she knew she had a rabid audience in the area who could be incited by the reaction her conference was likely to get.

[Chathamization]

9. People seem to understand this when it's right-wingers talking about "Second Amendment remedies"

and how the government is going to come for you so you better be ready. Sure, you have the right to say these things, but it doesn't mean that trying to incite violence is beyond criticism.

[Novara]

10. Yes, criticizing her for spewing hate is not the same thing as....

....saying she doesn't have a First Amendment right to do it.

When you think about it, it's really childish to provoke a response just because you can. Most people grow out of that by the time they leave middle school. But this is far more dangerous that just being a jerk. Innocent people could have been caught in the crossfire.

I have the right to do a whole lot of things that my better judgment tells me not to do. That's the distinction. Most people have more sense than to deliberately provoke a response just to be a jerk.

[Bluenorthwest]

16. The Pope spews hate toward LGBT people and DU cheeers for him. You will claim his hate speech is

'not the same' because he attacks gay people not 'real humans' but that in itself is more of the bigotry he teaches. He says LGBT rights are Satan's idea, that gay people disfigure God, that LGBT families with kids are guilty of child abuse just by having kids, we are 'inherently disordered' and fighting our rights he says is 'God's war, which we must fight'. In the US there are about 3 attacks on LGBT people every day, but it is in heavily Catholic places like Uganda that the worst fruits of his trashy mouth are seen in pogroms and murders of LGBT people.

So what are your actual metrics, cali? Do you have any? Is it all situational ethics, or is it just that religion can do no wrong in your mind?

You folks who announce that you love and adore a hate mongering bigot confuse the fuck out of me when you later affect to care about hate speech and such.
You straights subjected us to Rick Warren at our Inaugural. So it's really hard for me to see any principle, any consistency here.

[trotsky]

46. Great counter-example, BNW.

No wonder you haven't gotten a response.

[AuntPatsy]

76. + 1

[Jamastiene]

79. *crickets* n/t

[cherokeeprogressive]

20. Not sure where it's OK to incite violence.

[cali]

21. Pamela Geller has been doing it for years.

and yes, people here have defended her, cast her as a victim- even going so far as to compare her to a rape victim.

There's a reason Great Britain barred her from entering their country.

[closeupready]

23. Thank you for this thoughtful and bold post, cali. K&R

[cali]

24. thank you so much for your kind words n/t

[closeupready]

27. ...

[KittyWampus]

25. Ms Toad pointed out yesterday it's a false dichotomy. It's legally protected AND morally abhorrant.

Just because something is legally doesn't mean it's morally defensible.

[SidDithers]

26. You're equating race and religion...

and that's why you're wrong.

Race is an inherent characteristic.

Religion is a set of learned ideas. And ideas should never, ever, be immune from criticism and ridicule. We criticize and ridicule ideas every day at DU.

Religious ideas don't deserve the special status that you want to accord to them. They don't get some level of protection above economic ideas or political ideas or any other type of idea. They're equally open to criticism, mocking, ridicule and derision as any other idea.

Sid

[cali]

28. fair point

but I see a difference between criticizing religion and bigoted hatred directed at adherents to a religion.

when Pamela Geller advocates banning Islam and endorses the genocide of Muslims, that's a hatred that is much closer to bigotry against someone because of their race or sexual orientation than it is to ridicule or satire of an idea.

Again, in context, Geller's event wasn't about ridiculing an idea, it was about fomenting hate toward Muslims. As I've pointed out, Great Britain barred her from the country in 2013, for those reasons.

Sometimes things aren't as simple as your post tries to make them.

[Bluenorthwest]

32. If I made a list of every politician or clergy member who has called for violence against LGBT

people we'd need the admins to add a server just to handle the data. It's constant, consistent and has continued for my entire lifetime. In addition to calls for violence are the legislated efforts to deny us various rights, marriage, pizza, employment and housing, to fire all the gay teachers it just goes on and on and on.
Obama had a surrogate in 07 in South Carolina named Donnie McClurkin. A hate preacher, McClurkin had become infamous for appearing on Pat Robertson's 700 Club and calling for Christians to go to war against gay people 'the gloves must come off, this is war, they are trying to kill our children'. Think about that for a moment. No one ever apologized, and we kicked right into the honoring of Rick Warren, who had just days before equated all gay relationships to crimes, pedophilia and incest on camera.

So without even going into Phelps or Anita or the Pope or Huckabee, I have to say that the affectation that Geller is unusual in American society, or even the worst example of her kind, strikes me as aggressively delusional.

In 2013, the FBI had over 7,000 cases they officially deemed as bias crimes against persons. That's about 20 a day. The largest number of victims are African Americans in race bias crimes, second largest number are LGBT people, then in third place come equally terrible crimes motivated by bias against the victim's religion in '13 there were about 1,200 such crimes. Of the 1,200, 60% were against Jewish people, about 14% against Muslims.
Now I rarely see anyone on DU upset at any of the many raging anti gay preachers. Some of them are actually popular on DU. If you think the words of men like Francis are not connected to the daily global anti gay violence, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you in Uganda.

People who are really opposed to hate speech oppose it all. They do not excuse some of it because they like the speaker or because they don't much care for his victims themselves.
DU does not discuss the anti black bias crime wave that is America, nor does DU even oppose those who stoke the fires of anti LGBT bias consistently. Reading DU, would you think that there are that many anti-Jewish crimes a year? No.

So yeah. Geller is a shit. But many a shit stains the great American undergarment.

[cali]

34. no so much bullshit, so much hypocrisy

I only took you off ignore because a duer sent me a pm re your post- someone who identifies as gay. He wrote that he was chagrined by your nastiness. I had you on ignore because you have the thoroughly distasteful habit of twisting the words of others, of dissembling and misrepresenting- precisely as you do here. I find it contemptible.

You are the only person I have on ignore. Back on it you go.

[Bluenorthwest]

49. A personal attack containing the 'my gay friend does not

agree with you and gays should all agree' meme. Heard that one before as well. The fact that you can not respond with anything but venom to a vast amount of fact about bias crimes in the US says it all.
You do not want to discuss the actual issue.

[Violet_Crumble]

71. Speaking of opposing all hate speech. Do you oppose the hate speech of Pamela Geller? n/t

[Bluenorthwest]

80. Did you even read what I wrote? It's obvious I think she's a shit, I called her a shit.

Being dismissive of the actual words spoken by a person is very often indicative of prejudice. Care to respond to what I have written? To me, Geller is very similar to Fred Phelps and Westboro Baptist or other bigoted public activists. I'm a gay man, so I have spent my entire life being subjected to the very pointed attacks of such groups, they stalk us you know, they come to our funerals and harass us with signs saying God hates us, using vicious slurs.
This country has anti gay rallies, conventions, politicians, billboards, pop stars, athletes, books, TV shows, and especially clergy. Every single day there is another report of some bigot attacking an LGBT person physically or with words, they pass laws for 'religious freedom' so they don't have to serve us pizza, they make statements to the press that LGBT people cause natural disasters, wars, disease. I had a DUer tell me that our 'brazen flaunting of our rights' cost the Democratic Party the last election. DU allows that poster to remain.
I think people who speak hate against other people are rotten. I also think they are very common in our culture and affecting that Geller is a new sort of creature is not accurate. She's just another one of them.
I would advice people to respond to her in much the same way LGBT people responded to Phelps. No violence, just wit and words and righteousness.
Of course, straight white folks like yourself have little experience dealing with organized hate groups. And most straights pay zero attention to the regular hot and cold running invective that is constantly delivered to LGBT people. But if they were to take a look, they'd see that we've been dealing with all that and much worse for years, and doing so with grace.

Of course when I condemn hateful invective and call Geller a shit and you then ask me if I oppose her, what you are doing is called 'bullying'. Ignoring what a minority says in order to simply taunt them based on nothing they have said or done is a bully's tactic. I do not respect it.

[Fix The Stupid]

45. Fuckin eh... This right here. Cheers. n/t

[NCTraveler]

58. Better than I could have said it. +1. nt.

[msongs]

29. religion is the ultimate spewer of hate and violence & if you disagree you are going to hell :-) nt

[cali]

30. forget for a moment that that isn't universally true

MLK, Thomas Merton, Berrigan brothers, Gandhi and many more didn't spew hate and employed their religious beliefs for the betterment of humanity.

But even if it were true, how is that germane to what Pamela Geller does?

[Pooka Fey]

31. No question that Pam Geller is a self-serving lunatic

Last edited Wed May 6, 2015, 01:21 PM - Edit history (1)

Is America ready for European style hate speech laws? Maybe yes. Maybe no.

As I've said many times, I have residency here, and I'm glad that these laws exist. Maybe this incident will get that conversation started in the USA because people like her are dangerous - as are imams who preach jihad and radical Islam in mosques in the USA (if so), as some imams do in Britain and continental Europe.

FYI I strongly refute any linking of the Charlie Hebdo massacres with what Pam Geller pulled in Texas - not that I condone the violent response. I had (very happily) never heard of her before 2 days ago.

I do not state that all mosques preach jihad and radical Islam.

On edit: I consider the Christian Fundie Rapture Fanatic book series "Left Behind" to be an example of hate speech.

[Telcontar]

47. Fuck that nonsense

Europe lost all my respect with their "hate speach" laws. You are either free to speak your mind or you are not free.

[Pooka Fey]

50. Your opinion on the subject is duly noted.

[Telcontar]

51. I have other opinions available

[Violet_Crumble]

72. Most other western democracies have laws against hate speech....

I'm in Australia and we have state and federal laws against hate speech. Off the top of my head I know of two cases where people have been charged under the racial vilification act. One was the owner of a Holocaust denial website, and the other was a RW writer for a Murdoch rag who wrote an article with some really racist shit about indigenous Australians.

If you think that having laws against speech inciting hatred means that everyone who utters an opinion on anything is at risk of being charged, then you'd be wrong.

When it comes to not respecting a country, I don't really care if a country has hate speech laws or not. Far more important to me is the death penalty, and I have no respect for the US for still having it...

[Telcontar]

81. I like Australia, even respect it a little

But I don't consider it a free country. Any country with thought crimes can't be free.

I too abhor the death penalty in the US.

[MellowDem]

52. Hate speech laws are terrible...

Because "hate speech" is completely subjective. It's "hate speech" in much of the world to blasphemy.

Most of Europe has only been experimenting with free speech for a couple decades, the U.S. has a 200 year start, and you can see that European laws are still pretty amateur at understanding the consequences of banning speech that is "offensive".

[Pooka Fey]

54. USA modeled its Bill of Rights on 18th C French philosophers such as Voltaire

You have it exactly backwards. The USA got it's political ideas about human rights from EUROPE - specifically FRANCE. I'm so sorry that you are so confused.

http://billybuc.hubpages.com/hub/The-Origins-of-the-United-States-Constitution

You just claimed in writing that Europe has only had free speech for 2 decades, so since 1995.

Most of Europe has only been experimenting with free speech for a couple decades, the U.S. has a 200 year start, and you can see that European laws are still pretty amateur at understanding the consequences of banning speech that is "offensive".

Goodbye now.

[MellowDem]

55. When did free speech go into effect in Europe?

You're right that the ideas came from the Enlightenment, but those have only been relatively recently introduced into post world war 2 governments as more than ideas.

Hate speech laws don't make society better. They just provide another avenue to oppress.

[Pooka Fey]

56. Dude

I don't want to be a dick, but I can't teach you on DU why you're so terribly absolutely wrong about free speech in Europe. I don't have time to redo your eduction.

Have you spent much time in Europe? Do a semester abroad in you're still in school, or find a cheap airfare and go there.

[MellowDem]

57. I did a research paper on this topic...

and spent six months in Europe, which is not to brag or argue from authority, but to say that I've looked into this topic. Europe didn't have free speech similar to ours until recently, the U.S. is unique in that regard. Europe was still dominated by monarchies when the Constitution was written.

[Pooka Fey]

61. That's great.

What languages do you speak? Because in order to judge what people are saying, and how free they are in their expression, you need to understand and speak their language. Just a hypothetical question - you don't need to answer.

[MellowDem]

66. Don't see what that has to do...

With when free speech laws went on the books for governments in Europe, for some it was as recent as the fall of communism.

[Pooka Fey]

67. "On the books" in 1789 in France, you do the research for the other 27 countries in the EU

The concept of free expression began during the French Monarchy. It further developed during the Enlightenment, notable figures include Voltaire and Rousseau.

Freedom of Speech was encoded into the law during the French Revolution in the "Déclaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen du 1789".

Article 10 "respect of opinions" and Article 11 "freedom of expression of thoughts and opinions"

You're welcome.

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libert%C3%A9_d%27expression

[MellowDem]

68. I already did...

France was one of the earliest, for most of Europe it's relatively new.

[Pooka Fey]

69. Doesn't it bother you at all that you persist in being wrong on this subject?

Apparently not. BTW you don't need a written law "on the books" before people will fight for their rights with their speech - there are lots of other considerations - such as can they be arrested and guaranteed an impartial trial? Or can they just be whisked away to a black site and disappeared for no stated reason, as someone can be in the USA - a so-called beacon of free speech?

399BC Socrates speaks to jury at his trial: 'If you offered to let me off this time on condition I am not any longer to speak my mind... I should say to you, "Men of Athens, I shall obey the Gods rather than you."'

1215 Magna Carta, wrung from the unwilling King John by his rebellious barons, is signed. It will later be regarded as the cornerstone of liberty in England.

1516 The Education of a Christian Prince by Erasmus. 'In a free state, tongues too should be free.'

1689 Bill of Rights grants 'freedom of speech in Parliament' after James II is overthrown and William and Mary installed as co-rulers.

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2006/feb/05/religion.news

This isn't a subject that can be adequately discussed in a Wiki article - this is one of those subjects that takes volumes to begin to understand.

What languages do you speak? To have helped you understand European culture on your 6 month stay?

Since you've kept posting to me, I need an answer.

[MellowDem]

82. Are you serious?

Nothing you have stated shows that most of Europe has enjoyed freedom of speech until relatively recently. You've been posting irrelevant wiki links.

The idea has been around, so what? It didn't go into widespread effect until much later.

If you think hate speech laws are good for society, state why.

I think they're bad because hate speech can be defined in any way. Blasphemy laws operate under a similar principle.

[Pooka Fey]

88. Which foreign language did you say you spoke?

That was a question from 2 posts ago. When we clear up the old stuff, we can get to the more recent stuff - you know, to show that we are each serious about the dialogue.

[MellowDem]

90. I don't think you are serious...

Asking red herrings. Honestly, in this forum I don't care about the topic of when Europe gained free speech, I'm interested in discussing why hate speech laws are ever good for society.

What languages I speak and what countries I've been to is irrelevant, and just seems like a logical fallacy waiting to happen. You are focusing on me rather than on the topic.

[Pooka Fey]

91. ...

[JI7]

33. i condemn her for being a hateful bigoted disgusting piece of shit

[MisterP]

35. there's nary a Latin American "interrogator" or death-squad hangman who doesn't have a fave

cartoonist: what people said definitely inspired the men working the secret jails and cemeteries

dictators absolutely and most definitely DO know how to laugh

[theboss]

36. I've been condeming Geller for years

She has the right to do anything she wants.

She's not to blame when someone reacts violently. You shouldn't react violently to speech or art.

[cali]

38. Whooh. the sound of something flying right over someone's head.

[theboss]

41. Your point is that Geller is an awful person with bad intentions

No argument there.

She won because people reacted stupidly to her stupidity.

[Telcontar]

48. Because Europe is full of people afraid of what might happen if they offend someone

Europe isn't a free society.

[Adrahil]

73. Who gets to set those limits?

What if the wing nuts get in power and decide that Gay Pride parades are so offensive to Christians that they are banned?

This is a very dangerous road. And when does legitimate political speech become hate speech?

Sorry, but those kinds of laws are moronic.

[Pooka Fey]

53. For discussion and consideration: Hate speech laws in Canada

Just because the thread was kicked up, and because higher up on the thread, someone called for a definition of hate speech, I googled it and found Canada's laws on the subject.

Hate speech laws in Canada include provisions in the Criminal Code of Canada, provisions in the Human Rights Act and in other federal legislation, and statutory provisions in each of Canada's ten provinces and three territories. The Criminal Code prohibits "hate propaganda." The Canadian Human Rights Act prohibits discrimination on various grounds. Legislation in the provinces and territories prohibits discrimination on the same grounds as Canada's Human Rights Act in matters of provincial or territorial concern such as employment and accommodation. These laws are considered controversial by many commentators because of the perceived threat they pose to rights.

Sections 318, 319, and 320 of the Code forbid hate propaganda.[4] "Hate propaganda" means "any writing, sign or visible representation that advocates or promotes genocide or the communication of which by any person would constitute an offence under section 319."

Section 318 prescribes imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years for anyone who advocates genocide. The Code defines genocide as the destruction of an "identifiable group." The Code defines an "identifiable group" as "any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation."

Section 319 prescribes penalties from a fine to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years for anyone who incites hatred against any identifiable group.

Under section 319, an accused is not guilty: (a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true; (b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text; (c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or (d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.

Section 320 allows a judge to confiscate publications which appear to be hate propaganda.

Pam Geller apparently endorses genocide of Muslims, so in Canada, she could be pursued under that country's hate speech laws. If convicted, she would be subject to a fine and imprisonment not exceeding two years.

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

[Adrahil]

74. well...

the fact that she might be considered an advocate of "genocide" of Muslims does not mean that criticizing or mocking Islamic beliefs is endorsing genocide.

I criticize and mock Christian beliefs all the time. I do not advocate killing Christians or restricting their rights in any way.

[Pooka Fey]

89. Um, exactly.

See post n° 70.

[Douglas Carpenter]

59. knr

[jwirr]

62. This is not the first time a spewer of hate has been the instigation behind an act of violence.

Hate radio has been telling people to do these things for decades now. Beck, Limbaugh, etc. This time she was challenging other people.

And I do not want to blame free speech for this - I want to blame PEOPLE who preach hate.

[Agnosticsherbet]

78. We can condemn Geller's hatred and recognize and that she had the right to her hate fest.

The gunmen were the ones at fault. It was 100% their crime.

Of course, if anyone hurt wants to take Geller to court for endangering their lives with her ill conceived plan and the failure of security at her event and take everything she has, I would applaud.