So it looks as though Pam Geller really did want to provoke a violent response to her little event

[Tommy_Carcetti]

Does anyone think that these two jihadists would have lived quiet lives as peaceable and loyal Americans if we hadn't held the contest? They would have waged jihad elsewhere, on a less-protected target, and killed more people. The jihadists were the end of the line. By drawing them out, we exposed their network. And because we secured the perimeter, we were able to expose the network without getting anyone killed.

http://www.newsweek.com/qa-pamela-geller-woman-isis-wants-dead-330244

That's just lovely. Apparently Pam Geller's group sees itself fit to anoint itself in the position of an FBI advance scout team by creating situations they know may create violence. Law enforcement can come in afterwards to clean up the bloody mess.

So yeah, it was never really about "free speech" in the end.

[KittyWampus]

1. When you erect a lightning rod, lightning will eventually strike.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

2. Pretty much so.

Although watch out for folks who don't understand metaphors.

[Yorktown]

114. Not if the sky is blue

You are proving storm clouds of religious violence are present.

[moondust]

3. "By poking at the hornet's nest

we found out the hornets didn't like it. We weren't sure how many there were or who they would sting to death once we got them fired up. Our team had protective gear but the guests and townspeople didn't seem to have any concerns for their safety."

Hey, she's doing everybody a favor by "drawing them out!"

[leveymg]

4. It's the most poisonous sort of vigilanteism - create a situation that's ripe for mass murder

and incite an already inflamed environment of ethnic and political hatred. The legal metaphor here isn't shouting "fire" in a crowded theater (even though that speech is not constitutionally protected, as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. so famously pointed out in an opinion a century ago), it's more like shouting "fire" to a group of armed vigilantes taking aim at live targets in a range war ambush. Geller should be prosecuted for reckless endangerment, at least.

[notadmblnd]

8. at the very least.

If you go fishing and use worms as bait and the fish eats the bait, who killed the worms, you or the fish?

[Tommy_Carcetti]

13. She gave a can of gasoline to a pyromaniac.

So to warn the public about fire safety.

[trotsky]

138. Your analogy would be more apt criticizing someone who built a home...

providing a target that a pyromaniac simply couldn't resist.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

144. Um, no. Geller's behavior went far beyond that.

As evidenced by the quote, Geller clearly wanted a specific reaction to her actions. She didn't just leave it open ended.

[notadmblnd]

5. well, duh

I don't know how that was not obvious from the get.

[kcr]

6. You would think so

But there seem to be some who genuinely see her as a firebrand free speech advocate who's intentions are pure.

[notadmblnd]

10. she's an ugly hateful person

and she should bear some responsibility in what occurred. Two lives snuffed out because of her.

[Nevernose]

34. The penalty for ugly bigotry isn't death.

However, a couple of religious fanatics thought it should be and got shot by the police for their efforts.

She's a terrible, vile piece of excrement, but IMO bears no responsibility for the actions of wannabe terrorists.

[notadmblnd]

35. I don't recall saying that she deserved to die, so why are you addressing me with that remark?

She put other people in danger, not herself.

[Nevernose]

37. Because you seem to think she bears responsibility

If the Nation of Islam tried to kill a bunch of neo-Nazis at a racism convention, the latter bunch of bigots wouldn't be responsible for the former's actions.

(Both groups are designated by the SPLC)

[notadmblnd]

39. She absolutely should bear some responsibility for inciting violence.

She did not do this to express her 1st amendment right. Nor did she do it to draw out terrorists. SHE IS NOT A HERO! Violence is what she wanted. Violence is what she got.

[Nevernose]

56. She absolutely is a terrible human being

She's a racist, a bigot, and a piece of shit. In my last post I compared her to Nazis. She is in no way a hero. I've said all over this board that she did this out of bigotry, not freedom.

But even bigots have rights. They have the right to go to a convention and say whatever hateful shit they want to. Their bigotry does not make them responsible for terrorists attacking them.

(Before I forget: Pam Geller is just as much a religious fundamentalist as the two guys who tried to kill her, in addition to her many other terrible qualities)

[notadmblnd]

126. If they held the convention in a Mosque and advocated and inspired

violence by their Nazi followers, they would.

[NobodyHere]

69. Seriously?

Two lives were snuffed out because they hated free speech and decided the death penalty was appropriate for drawing cartoons.

[notadmblnd]

71. What she did wasn't about free speech and I don't appreciate her hiding behind the 1st Amendment

nor people defending her with it. If you still think what she did was- then you didn't read the article posted in the OP where she admitted it.

[Oktober]

74. How does one 'hide' behind an inalienable right?

[notadmblnd]

77. By claiming that 1A was her motive for having her "drawing contest"

When, as you can read in the OP- she finally admitted she had a different agenda.

[Oktober]

80. Why does that matter?

Do you believe that there is anything she could have said or did or drawn that could reasonably provoke violence?

[stevenleser]

123. Do you understand that the SCOTUS has defined limitations to that inalienable right?

Going beyond those limitations and claiming 1st amendment protections is hiding behind the 1st amendment.

Pretty simple actually.

[Oktober]

125. Please explain how she went beyond the protections of the 1st..

[stevenleser]

127. I don't think she did. But that wasn't the initial question you asked. nt

[JustAnotherGen]

203. Well played sir!

[notadmblnd]

179. They killed no one. One security guard was shot in the ankle which did not kill him

and thankfully a LEO shot both shooters dead before they could do Ms. Geller's bidding. It is Ms. Geller who has determined that all Muslims deserve the death penalty. She laid a trap and they being the radicals they were- walked into it.

[NobodyHere]

183. I never said they killed anyone.

But it's not Geller's fault that two lunatics are willing to kill over cartoons.

John Stewart has it right:
"I can't believe we have to reiterate this, it is not okay to shoot other people because you are offended by what they draw. Even if they drew it to offend you -- no shooting of them.”

[itcfish]

174. She got What She Wanted

2 Muslims are dead

[notadmblnd]

176. precisely.

[3catwoman3]

85. Her intentions are pure, alright.

Purely vile and repugnant.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

7. Some people insisted she was only doing it for "free speech". nt

[notadmblnd]

9. I know, I saw them here

I really could not understand how they could be blind to the incitement to violence by her group.

[Yorktown]

115. She probably didn't do it for free speech

But the general political converstaion is too complacent in avoiding discussing religious extremists in our midst.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

199. Creating the grounds for violence is not a good way to start such a discussion. nt

[Yorktown]

218. You put your cart in front of the oxen

Geller didn't create the violent jihadists in our midst is what I'm saying.
You know some Americans went to Iraq to join ISIS. How many supporters or would be's?

My point: Geller's methods and motives might be unsound,
but she didn't create the underlying problem which doesn't get enough coverage.

[951-Riverside]

11. Like I've said, what she did is not a Free Speech issue, its a Felony

Her actions lead to an officer suffering a career ending gunshot injury to his ankle and being forced into hiding.

[Nye Bevan]

12. So if some violent Mormon extremists threaten to bomb "The Book of Mormon" show on Broadway,

unless that show (which relentlessly mocks Mormonism) is closed down, would it be a felony not to close down the show?

If not, it seems that you are proposing that insulting religions whose adherents have a reputation for violence and murder should be a crime, but insulting other religions should not. Probably not the best message to send.

[jobycom]

130. A better analogy would be burning a cross on a black family's lawn.

The reason THAT form of expression is generally outlawed is because it is not an attempt at expression primarily, even though it obviously expresses a belief, but is an attack on someone--an attempt to frighten, dehumanize, and provoke them.

Geller's event was the same. If a cartoonist draws a picture of Muhammad to make some point about religion or whatever, that's speech, or expression. If someone draws a picture of Muhammad to flip of Muslims, show them that they are powerless and their values meaningless in our society, then that's an attack on them.

If you want to believe that such "expressions" are acceptable, go ahead. Burn all the crosses (or whatever cultural equivalent you choose) you want. But don't compare what Geller did to "The Book of Mormon." Her event was an act of violent degredation, not expression.

And no, that does not justify anyone dying over it. Both acts should be condemned.

[Nye Bevan]

134. So anytime someone draws Muhammed, the police should investigate them

to determine whether (a) they were "making some point about religion or whatever" (which would be protected free speech) or (b) trying to "flip off Muslims" (which you believe should be a crime)? Would it not be tricky to get into the artist's head to figure out what their intentions were, beyond a reasonable doubt?

By the way, burning a cross is just as legal as burning a flag. Obviously trespassing on someone's lawn, or intimidating someone, is illegal.

[Telcontar]

116. Fascism, it's what's for dinner

I'm offended when people deface the US flag. Makes me uncontrollably violent. Guess I can go on a shooting spree next time I see an anti-war protest.

[jobycom]

133. Do you feel that anti-war protesters have the power to oppress in this country?

Generally fascism is the power a government exerts arbitrarily over powerless individuals. War protesters and Muslims would be the equivalent in your analogy, not flag-wavers and Muslims.

Geller's event was the equivalent, in your analogy of fascism, of Hitler supporters holding an anti-Jewish rally in which copies of the Torah were burned. Or to move to a more current situation, white people in Ferguson holding a "Support the Police" rally while swinging black mannequins from nooses. Yes, that's how offensive depictions of the Prophet are to some Muslims. Neither of those would justify someone opening fire on either event, and both expressions are in themselves completely harmless and simple expressions of beliefs, no matter how disgusting.

[seveneyes]

14. The terrorist shooters still get 100 percent of the blame

Who really gives a fuck why it was done. The terrorists do not get any pass or quarter.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

15. No one's saying they aren't to blame. Of course they are to blame.

However, there can be more than one party at blame, even if one bears primary responsibility and the other merely secondary responsibility.

[seveneyes]

18. Only one party to blame in this case

The ignorant and violent wannabe killers that got their due. Each of them too stupid to own a clue.

I predict the burning of ignorant religious books is coming and those doing the burning won't be to blame either when more of these peckerheads come looking to harm innocents.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

20. Far from it.

Pam Geller knowingly put people at risk for her own agenda. A third party--someone not affiliated with her group--was injured as a result.

Acknowledging that the shooters bear primary responsibility for their actions does not absolve Geller for her own recklessness and unethical behavior.

[Demonaut]

16. what an idiot, she was lucky this time....her ignorance is profound

[Coventina]

17. What Pam Geller wanted was irrelevant.

The fact remains that two people showed up, from out of state, with murderous intent.

If it can be shown that she, in any way, tried to do a "murder for hire" to promote her cause, by all means, throw the book at her.

Just being a loathsome, hateful person having a loathsome, hateful event with other loathsome, hateful people is not incitement to violence.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

19. But if you read her statement, the whole "draw them out" comment....

....clearly she's not saying she wanted people to merely picket her event.

What else could "draw them out" mean?

[Coventina]

22. The quote doesn't make clear if that was her goal ahead of time.

If you're asking my opinion, I really think bigots like her are too stupid to be that "clever."
I think she's just patting her own back after the fact.

Also, bigots tend to be cowards, and I really don't picture HER as the type who would want to go down in a hail of bullets as a free speech martyr.

That's my opinion.

But, the bottom line is, whatever she wanted is irrelevant.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

24. True, but holding it in Garland....

...where several months before there was a major Muslim conference in the very same building that Geller's group picketed, and where she knew there was a large Muslim population, and her knowing the response in Charlie Hedbo, clearly suggests she was trolling the waters beforehand.

And when your entire message is how violent Muslims are, what better to bring home that message than creating a situation where a Muslim does something violent, even if it is a dishonest broadbrush?

[Coventina]

25. You aren't going to get me to defend her actions. I think she's vile and loathsome.

She's the "Westboro Baptists" for Muslims, AFAIAK.

But see the difference: somehow the LGBTQ community have withstood Westboro's invasive, persistent, over-the-top hate without needing to show up at their hate-fests with guns.

And, I would argue, that Westboro's stunts are FAR more personal in nature than anything Geller has done. Holding signs with Matthew Shepperd, for instance, gleefully numbering the days he's allegedly spent in hell. Showing up at funerals to mock the deceased.

And yet....still no violence.....

[tammywammy]

49. The shooters weren't from Garland or even Texas.

So there being a large Muslim population in the area was indicative of nothing, they were actively staying away from the event altogether.

And what I don't understand is how she was inciting anything, even if she was saying hateful things during the event. The shooters weren't at the event. They didn't hear anything she was saying there or the other speakers. Unless we're supposed to consider the event itself, just having a cartoon contest, "incitement" which is ridiculous.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

195. That's actually a notable point.

Because it shows the vast majority of Muslims in this country are indeed good, law-abiding people who wouldn't dream of reacting violently, even if they were deeply offended by the event.

But Geller played a numbers game. She knew that despite the hundreds of thousands of Muslims that wouldn't react violently or would ignore her provocations, all it took was one gullible, violent dupe to create a violent reaction, a violent reaction that she could then attempt to spin on the Islamic religion as a whole on every conceivable talk radio show and cable news show. In the end, she found two. But that's the insidious evil of her thinking and her actions here.

And if you don't understand how she was inciting anything, re-read the quote in the original post and tell me that's not key to understanding what Geller's true motives were.

[Oktober]

75. It doesn't matter...

She can walk to the Muslim section of town and rub her big ol butt on the Koran.

The moment anyone lays a finger on her, they are wrong.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

196. No one actually did lay a finger on her.

And the fault of the shooters themselves does not excuse Geller's own fault in intentionally setting up the situation and placing people at risk for her own agenda.

[Oktober]

202. We've had this conversation at least three times...

Retention... Try it sometime...

[Tommy_Carcetti]

206. And you've refused to listen to the facts at least three times.

Pam Geller was not a victim here. Period.

[guillaumeb]

78. Geller acted in much the same way as Sarah Palin.

Palin superimposed crosshairs over a number of Congressional District maps, including Gabby Gifford's district in Arizona.and implored her followers to "take aim". Gabby Giffords suffered a terrible injury when she was shot in her district. Palin of course stated afterward that she NEVER intended to provoke violence.

They do not directly incite, but their dog whistle tactics are designed to appeal to angry violent people and provoke a response. All so they can get publicity.

[JoePhilly]

27. She set up a bunch of dumb right wingers ...

... and had them audition for the part of martyr in her next book.

I'm good with it.

[Coventina]

30. Maybe they should sue for part of her book royalties.

Assuming her 15 minutes of infamy lasts that long.....

[JoePhilly]

120. They aren't bright enough to think of that.

She knew that our crazies are just as stupid as their crazies.

The more the crazies fight, the more money she makes.

And our crazies, happily obliged her.

[Coventina]

131. Let's not forget that in this case they were all "our crazies."

And that the two shooters were US citizens.

[JoePhilly]

139. Its an overlapping venn diagram.

Our RW (Christian) fundamentalist crazies, against our (Islamic) RW fundamentalist crazies.

Same basic RW outlook, just supporting a different God ... and each thinking their God has a bigger weewee.

[Coventina]

140. But the saddest part is that it's the same god!! That's part of what drives me crazy about the

Abrahamic faith tree.
They are brothers, but they fight each other like gangsters.

[JoePhilly]

145. They like different parts of the trilogy.

[randys1]

28. But a civil case is here, I think. She knew this could happen, she admits it was her goal

if someone is physically or mentally harmed by the incident, a civil lawsuit is very possible.

Suing her to the point of being homeless would of course be wonderful.

Civil and criminal are entirely different.

Creating an environment one knows is dangerous, is practically the definition of liability.

[Coventina]

31. Kudos to them if they can make it happen.

Civil law is a different matter entirely than Constitutional or Criminal law.

[hardluck]

91. The civil lawsuit would fail

The civil lawsuit would fail because the gravamen of the causes of action would be her participating in a protected activity - exercising her right to free speech. She would file a special motion to strike the complaint (anti-SLAPP motion) which would likely be granted. The complaint would be dismissed and she could recover her attorneys fees.

[notadmblnd]

38. it is when it's your goal

[Coventina]

40. Nope. If I ask you to kill me, and you do, you are still a murderer. The law is not going to care

what my intent was in asking.

[notadmblnd]

41. yes I would be

However, she did not ask. She threw out bait hoping the fish would bite. Two did.

[Coventina]

43. Aren't you saying that she was basically asking for an attack?

Forgive me if I'm misinterpreting your argument.

[notadmblnd]

45. she was begging for it!

[Coventina]

47. Asking/begging doesn't matter. It's the person who takes ACTION that bears the responsibility for

that action.

If I begged you to kill me, you would still be a murderer - if you did it.

[notadmblnd]

50. I did not say they were not responsible. I said she bears responsibility too

If I tell my 3 year old to go play in the street and a car runs over him and kills him- then all the responsibility lies on the driver of the car that struck and killed him and I bear no responsibility at all for encouraging him to play in the street?

That's bullshit. I would bear as much responsibility for my child's death as the driver of the car.

[Coventina]

51. Not at all comparable scenarios. As the parent, you are legally responsible for your child.

Depending on the particulars of the scenario you present you may be entirely at fault in that incident.

Geller cannot be held legally responsible for the illegal actions of others, the law simply doesn't work that way.

ETA: I am leaving for the evening. I'll be happy to continue this tomorrow if you're interested.

[notadmblnd]

54. How are they not comparable?

As I said- I would be responsible for that child's death as much as the driver of the car.

[Coventina]

129. If the driver was following the rules of the road and did not see the child s/he would not be

guilty at all!

There is no legal scenario where the shooters in this case are not 100% to blame.

Things offend me on a daily basis, even enrage me from time to time.
But, I'm a grown up about it, and I don't turn to violence.

[notadmblnd]

148. I never said they wer not responsible. However, Ms Geller is responsible for baiting them even

after being warned that violence was likely to occur.

[Coventina]

167. Was Salman Rushdie baiting the Islamic world when he wrote "The Satanic Verses"?

That's what he's calling the Qur'an right there in the title.

How do you determine what is "baiting" and what is not?

I think Geller was being a hate-filled bigot, you won't get an argument from me.
I despise her for that.

But even reprehensible people are still victims when they are attacked.

[notadmblnd]

169. did Mr Rusdie advocate for violence against the Islamic world?

My answer to your question is no.

[Coventina]

170. Did any of the cartoons advocate for violence against the Islamic world?

I have to confess, I haven't seen any of them.

And, that's specifically the grievance over which the shooters took up arms.

[notadmblnd]

224. Ms Geller and her guest do. She inspires people to commit atrocities against Muslims

There's a big difference between a man that writes a book that does not advocate for the death and destruction of a people who practice a religion and a hateful radical that does nothing but advocate for the death and destruction of a people who practice a religion.

[Coventina]

225. Which atrocities has she inspired?

She is a non-stop fountain of hateful nonsense, but so are a lot of people.

And, I haven't actually seen where she has called for the death and destruction of Muslims in general. She's certainly trying to whip up a full-scale war against ISIS, but that's not even alien to the opinion of many other Muslims.

Now, it's entirely possible that Geller HAS called for the death of Muslims in general, but I haven't seen it. If you have, please point me to it because I would definitely want to be aware of that.

[backscatter712]

21. Pamela Geller waving the bloody shirt.

What a piece of trash...

[Skittles]

26. how someone like her can fool ANYONE is DISTURBING

she's DISGUSTING

[Kalidurga]

29. So what

I don't care. I know a couple of people who have been spit on for who they are. They are mocked often. The butt of jokes in sitcoms. And blamed for hurricanes by bigoted lawmakers. Yet, they haven't bombed any churches that preach hate, assassinated any lawmakers that legislate against them, or threatened any writers of sitcoms, or fought back with people that spit on them.

It is ridiculous blaming another person for the violent actions of some fundy theist.

[notadmblnd]

44. And every Muslim in the US did not attack Geller's hate-fest either.

Just because your friends don't take violent action when they are mocked and spit on doesn't mean that there are not people out there like them who wouldn't take violent action if being mocked and spit upon happened to them.

[tanyev]

32. You want to draw them out, Pam? Then you go set up an easel and start drawing your own cartoons.

Don't endanger a bunch of gullible rubes, minimum wage workers, and innocent passers-by.

And didn't I read it was the venue that insisted she provide additional security and she didn't really want to? That could have been disastrous.

[cbayer]

33. Was there ever any doubt?

I like that she has said it so forthrightly though. That should dispel any of the lingering arguments that she is a victim.

[seveneyes]

59. She was not a victim because someone else took the trash out before they could shoot her

And I mean no insult to trash by comparing the two gunmen that bought the farm for their ignorance and stupidity.

[cbayer]

119. She was not a victim because she made sure someone would get them before they got in

because we secured the perimeter, we were able to expose the network without getting anyone killed.

She made very sure she wouldn't be a victim and did everything she could to make sure that there would be trouble.

[n2doc]

36. Duck Dynasty Thinking

[Ilsa]

42. And this is one reason why the British won't let her visit.

At least, this is what I heard on the radio. She's known to be a troublemaker who likes to stir up violent shit.

[seveneyes]

46. stir up violent shit?

What is violent about drawing cartoons of some ancient fantasy figure?

[Coventina]

48. I agree with your point, but I must point out that Muhammad is fairly recent, and well documented.

His historical certainty is pretty guaranteed.

Whether you want to believe that the archangel Gabriel gave him the last revelation of the word of God is a matter of faith, however.

And yes, drawing cartoons of him is not something a grown up should find insulting.

[Ilsa]

52. If they believe her intention is to purposefully antagonize

a select group of people, they may not want her in their country.

Similarly, I wouldn't allow someone into my home that might want to intentionally antagonize my husband or kids.

[seveneyes]

53. I guess it's their prerogative to define stirring violent shit

That shit won't float in America.

[notadmblnd]

57. really? you think what she does is about about drawing cartoons?

You might want to educate yourself as to who this poor excuse for a human being is and what it is she does.

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/profiles/pamela-geller

[seveneyes]

58. Education. This person did nothing to warrant anyone to start shooting

Physician heal thyself.

[notadmblnd]

61. there are none so blind as those who refuse to see

see I can do that too.

I'm certain that you've spent enough time reading this thread that you are aware of my reasoning so I'm not going to repeat myself except to say- I have not attempted to justify what the shooters did nor defend them. I have only advocated for Ms Geller to own her role in inciting the violence that occurred.

[seveneyes]

62. Logic trumps misdirected reasoning

The two gunmen failed the test. More will fail as people express their opinion of the holy trash.

[notadmblnd]

63. Well, you know what they say about opinions ....everybody has one

I'm not sure it is that I know who you are referring to as "Holy Trash" Could you please clarify that for me?

You didn't even bother to read the article I posted. Did you?

[seveneyes]

64. Holy Trash

Those that would do harm to others for making pictures of their deity, saying words negative about their deity or burning copies of their holy books. Humanity has no need for Holy Trash.

Yeah, I read it. The people belittling the faith of ignorance are not to blame for anything related the real problem at hand: The Holy Trash trying to harm others physically.

[notadmblnd]

66. What is the "faith of ignorance"?

[seveneyes]

67. faith of ignorance

It's a term of endearment of those that follow blindly into the night. Like a moth to flame.

They need no pity, they need education.

[notadmblnd]

70. You've been taking dancing lessons I see

There are many faiths and you did not use the plural which indicates to me that you are speaking of a specific faith. I don't understand which one you are speaking of. Could you please be specific? If you can't specify as to which faith you are speaking of, could you please explain why?

[seveneyes]

81. Faith is singular in a logical world

The truth can not be known until it is discovered and proven to be true.

[notadmblnd]

84. your response has nothing to do with what I asked.

It's not even a good dodge.

[99Forever]

55. That files that under "No Shit, Sherlock".

[Tommy_Carcetti]

197. You would think so.

But some people insist that any criticism of Geller's actions and motives here means you are somehow excusing the actions of the shooters and are somehow against the First Amendment.

[99Forever]

213. I hear you there.

A ridiculous form of absolutism if I have ever seen it.

[ashling]

60. Geller:Now that we are all assembled here

exercising our 1st Amendment right to assembly I will exercise my freedom of speech (symbolic( by whacking the ever loving shit out of this hornets' nest

[X_Digger]

92. Ahh, let's compare people to thoughtless insects!

Find another analogy, you're dehumanizing people.

[ashling]

103. I'm not dehumanizing anyone

You are the one who tried to stretch the analogy.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

200. Poster does not understand a metaphor. nt

[Humanist_Activist]

209. So what are you saying about whacking a hornet's nest?

Did the would be killers have control over their own reactions, or not? Because they are Muslims, are they expected to be violent when the founder of their religion is insulted?

[X_Digger]

217. Yes, you are. You're relieving them of agency (and responsibility.) n/t

[justiceischeap]

65. I'd like the record to show 2 people WERE killed

They may have been the bad guys but they're still dead.

[notadmblnd]

68. Those defending Ms Geller don't care.. They don't see the dead men as human beings

I don't condone what those men did. And most of us acknowledge that 99% of those who practice Islam never commit acts of violence. Those men were radicalized for whatever reason. Brain washing, mental illness- hell, I don't know. But GOD DAMN IT they were still human beings and if Ms Geller (who admitted in the article posted by the OP) hadn't set out the bait, no one would have taken it.

I believe her intentions were to instigate a massacre and no one will convince me otherwise. I'm just thankful that law enforcement was aware of threats (because she ignored them) and insisted she provide extra security which resulted in the failure to to meet her objective.

[Humanist_Activist]

79. I see precisely the opposite, its the criticizers who seem to not expect at least...

some Muslims from acting like human beings, saying that Geller stirred a hornets nest, poked a bear, is a lightening rod, etc. Its very dehumanized of the perpetrators of the violence.

[notadmblnd]

83. The criticizers of who? Ms. Geller?

because I'd like to say that I don't see Ms. Geller as human- but it wouldn't be true. I already acknowledged up thread that she's a pretty poor for excuse for one, but that she is indeed human- who is in my view, not much different than those she managed to manipulate into committing violent acts.

[Humanist_Activist]

86. Not her, the shooters, having Geller "share the blame" while using inaccurate...

and downright offensive comparisons is dehumanizing to the guys who died, and while they did try to murder people, they were still human, and hence bear full responsibility for their actions. They weren't bears working on instinct, they weren't children with impulse control problems, they weren't forces of nature who are behaving as such. There were full grown adults, who should have behaved as such, instead they didn't, and that's their fault.

ON EDIT: Unless they did suffer some injury to their cognitive faculties that reduced their culpability, of course.

[notadmblnd]

87. I disagree. she is every bit as radicalized as they were

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/profiles/pamela-geller

[Humanist_Activist]

88. And that's irrelevant to the discussion, people either bear responsibility for their actions...

or they don't. We should respond in kind to Geller and those like her, NOT visit violence upon them. I don't care how "radicalizing" they are.

Recently a humanist/atheist American blogger from Bangledesh was hacked to death by Muslims in his native country. Many there argue that he was a "radical" in his advocacy for humanism and committing blasphemy against Muhammad.

[notadmblnd]

89. I agree and right now she is not bearing any responsibility for those she put in danger

nor those she manipulated into committing violent acts and probably never will. The two shooters were held responsible for their acts, they are dead. And here you are still defending her despite her admission that she had an objective other then exercising her 1st amendment right.

I have never condoned any violence towards her or her group and would challenge you to find anywhere on this thread or DU for that matter where I or anyone else here has- if that is what you are trying to imply.

[Humanist_Activist]

90. "manipulated into committing violent acts", Uhm, how? Blasphemy, committing idolatry...

or whatever else is the excuse of the of the perpetrators of the crime, isn't manipulation unless you want to claim that the men who did this had diminished capacity and were easily duped. Or you can claim that their religion/culture is far less tolerant of differing beliefs to the extent that violence is considered a reasonable response for a non-violent activity.

[notadmblnd]

93. you don't think that people who are radicalized by religion or idealology have diminished capacity?

Because I believe that they have to have a screw or two loose somewhere to commit the despicable acts they commit.

Ms. Geller does indeed believe that violence is a reasonable response for non violent activity in fact, she inspires it!

Geller was one of several prominent anti-Muslim activists cited by the Norwegian terrorist Anders Breivik in the manifesto he posted online hours before killing 77 of his countrymen, mostly teenagers, at a left-wing youth camp in August 2011. In the wake of the attack, Geller downplayed the influence of her views on Breivik, making much of the fact that his screed had only mentioned her by name once. This conveniently ignored the manifesto’s dozen citations of her blog and 64 mentions of her SIOA partner, Robert Spencer. At the same time, Geller couldn’t help displaying some sympathy for Breivik’s actions against the young multiculturalists. “Breivik,” she wrote, “was targeting the future leaders of the party responsible for flooding Norway with Muslims.

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/profiles/pamela-geller

[Humanist_Activist]

95. Only if brainwashed or heavily manipulated by that ideology/religion...

but all that does is indict the religion or ideology in question, not those the religious fanatics react against.

And, again, I don't give a flying fuck about Geller in particular, I'm more concerned about the knock on effect of the attitude you display, which could lead to a chilling affect on, particularly those of a secular bent, from criticizing, mocking, and ridiculing religions.

[notadmblnd]

96. You don't think she's brainwashed or heavily manipulated by her ideology?

because I do. It's not about criticizing religion. Ms. Geller does not criticize religion. She criticizes one religion exclusively and she criticizes that religion to the extent that she defends and praises those who commit violent acts against Muslims by those who have been inspired by her. It's about advocating violence exclusively against one group of people and manipulating those radicalized by it into committing acts of violence while putting innocent lives in danger. That is what she needs to be held accountable for, not or merely criticizing religion.

[Humanist_Activist]

97. Does she go out and shoot people? How would she be held accountable at this time?

And please bear in mind, I'm talking about the most recent incident, I don't care about the other shit you brought up, but from what I can tell, none of it is illegal, thank goodness.

The attitude you display is disturbing, it creates an atmosphere of fear, where we cower from those who are radicalized and willing to commit violence against those of us who criticize what they consider sacred.

Honestly, I shudder to think of what your thoughts are on this, somewhat similar incident.

[notadmblnd]

98. No.

but let me ask you this- Is a man who hires a hit man to kill his wife guilty of murder?

[Humanist_Activist]

100. Yes, because he committed an overt act, hiring someone to kill someone else...

let me ask you. If I were to insult your mom, do you have the right to punch me?

ON EDIT: Just an FYI, I was actually threatened(probably not seriously) with physical violence, on DU of all places, for the great crime of criticizing Christianity.

[notadmblnd]

101. My mother would slap you herself.

I've never laid a hand on another person in a violent manner. I've never felt a need for revenge when wronged and calling my mother a name or verbally insulting her would not motivate me to become violent. However, my fruitloop of a sister might see the same situation diferently. it may not be right, but that don't mean you shouldn't expect it to happen. Especially if you had been forewarned.

Personally, I have no use for religion. I think it's the root o all evil in the world. I try to stay out of the religion forum, but I'll occasionally get sucked in. There's a small group of what I will refer to as subtle bullies who defend religion rabidly. They remind me of dogs running in circles chasing their tails. I've had veiled threats tossed at me too. They're not as clever as they think they are.

[Humanist_Activist]

105. So you demonstrate that your mother is willing to use violence in response to insults?

Last edited Wed May 13, 2015, 03:46 AM - Edit history (1)

That's not impressive. I guess thank you for the restraint, but it sounds like you were raised in an uncivilized manner.

[notadmblnd]

124. Yes I was. I had a horrible childhood and I reject how my parents behaved

However, I didn't get to pick mine. Did you get to pick yours?

So why did you feel the need to make this personal? Does that make you fee like your're a better person then me? Because I think you just demonstrated that you aren't.

[notadmblnd]

102. if a violent death results, yes both the inspired and the one who inspired the violence bear blame

The first amendment protects us from the government, not each other.

Is it legal to stand on a street corner in a predominantly African American neighborhood and shout the n word at passersby? Yes. Is it a wise thing to do? Probably not. If I took my friends and family with me and did this despite knowing harm would come to us, would I bear any responsibility if violence occurred as a result of insulting people passing by? Maybe it's just me, but I think I would.

[Humanist_Activist]

106. So basically all victims of violence brought it on themselves?

People such as Ananta Bijoy Das, or what about threats of violence, such as what occurred against Jessica Alquist? Did she bring those on herself? There are plenty of examples of others who get similar threats, thankfully, most are from Christians, and most of them rarely follow through with their threats.

[notadmblnd]

122. She is not s victim. She is an instigator. she has admitted this in the article in the OP

she bears responsibility for her actions which put others in danger.

it's one thing for me to stand on a corner shouting insults at people despite the danger. It's quite another for me to drag others into it with me which is what she did.

[Humanist_Activist]

151. It doesn't fucking matter, I don't care how many insults are made or in what context...

the first person to instigate violence are 100% at fault for creating said violence.

And you didn't answer my question, so I'm assuming you think all people who have violence visited upon them deserved or provoked it.

[notadmblnd]

154. It's a rediculous question and has nothing to do with what Ms. Geller did.

You can assume all you want, but I'm sure you know what has been said about people that assume.

[Humanist_Activist]

190. Of course it has to do with what Geller did...

we are talking about people responding to things they find offensive with violence, is that acceptable or not?

[notadmblnd]

193. your comment below has nothing to do with Ms. Geller

So basically all victims of violence brought it on themselves?

and it is ridiculous in regards to Ms. Geller. Again, she is not an innocent victim.

[Humanist_Activist]

205. Who is an innocent victim? Define them, please.

That's why I created the list I did, were any of the people I mentioned innocent victims? And if not, why not? They have done or said things that are, at the very least, comparable to the incident that brought about a violent reaction against Geller and her group.

[notadmblnd]

207. I'm not familiar with those people and you provided no context

Ms Geller admitted that her goal was to provoke a violent act. Why can't you acknowledge it?

[Humanist_Activist]

208. I do acknowledge it, and I dismiss it as irrelevant.

Her intentions didn't matter, what she did was not illegal, but falls under free expression. What the would be killers did was illegal, and their intent to murder is relevant.

Did you even bother to read the articles I linked to? How about using the almighty Google?

[notadmblnd]

211. No, if you are too lazy to provide context in your posts,

then I am under no obligation to visit your links. Hell, since you decided to take this conversation to a personal level earlier, how do I know that your links are not malicious?

yeah, I could use the google but I'm interested in what Ms. Geller did not what those other people did or had done to them.

[Humanist_Activist]

212. OK, under what context would it be acceptable to attack someone physically?

Did Geller's actions warrant such a response? If not, explain why.

Since you want to confine this to just Geller's actions, is she the exception or the rule?

[notadmblnd]

214. I never ever said t was ok to attack anyone pysically

I never advocated harm to Ms Geller nor anyone else in her group. And I never said what the shooters did was ok. At no time have I ever condoned it. So I really am at a loss as to why this conversation keeps devolving deeper into the realm of ridiculousness.

[CBGLuthier]

108. No if she were as radicalized as them she would go out and murder people.

as those two assholes attempted to do.

[notadmblnd]

121. She is every bit as radicalized

you can disagree, I do not care. This woman inspires and encourages others to do her dirty work. OBL did not get his hands dirty either, would you defend him by saying he was not radicalized?

[Skittles]

107. that is what I believe too

she was hoping for many people to be killed - she is a crazy

[trotsky]

136. I still have yet to see anyone defend Pam Geller.

The right to free speech, yes. Why are some so intent on trying to make this about the individual versus the rights we must protect?

Can I ask you something? Let's say Geller announces another event just like this one. What do you think should happen to her?

[notadmblnd]

146. I think that If she decides to do it in the middle of an Islamic enclave

as she did with her recent event that the authorities should require extra security nd liability insurance on such a grand scale that it would render her event cost prohibitive.

That is what I think should happen.

[trotsky]

147. Wait, Garland TX is an "Islamic enclave"?

What exactly does that mean?

[notadmblnd]

160. yes, Garland Texas is home to one of the largest Muslim populations in the US

Dearborn Michigan is another. In fact fake preacher Terry Jones was arrested and prohibited from carrying out a protest in Dearborn when he failed to post a 1 million dollar peace bond. IIRC, this occurred in 2011

[trotsky]

164. "one of the largest" - how big? What percentage?

With your statement, you imply that there would be more acceptable locations for Geller's event. Is that correct?

The ACLU fought for the KKK's right to march through heavily Jewish Skokie, IL. By your logic, they were wrong to do so.

[notadmblnd]

168. It's not the official US census, but I think the source is reliable

"Residents of this Dallas suburb are hurt and angry that outsiders have been allowed to come in and leave an indelible and distressing mark on their city.

“I think the most disturbing thing is that both the organizers of the event and the perpetrators of the crime are outsiders,” Alia Salem, the executive director of the local chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), told the Guardian.

“Both entities approached Dallas, Texas, with hatred in their hearts,” she said, of the AFDI and the perpetrators of the brazen attack, that had shaken her community “and brought turmoil and fear into our midst”.

Garland’s mayor also rejected associations between his city and the event itself.

“This [event] does not involve Garland,” Mayor Douglas Athas said on Monday. “Garland was not participating in this as a city in any way.”

This was a sentiment echoed by several other residents and business owners in the area, who felt let down by the officials who allowed this event to take place.

“I’m angry that they allowed this group to hold their event here,” said Kelli Sinquefield, 49, a longtime Garland resident. “They were obviously trying to incite.”

Garland, a city of roughly 235,000 people, has a sizable Muslim population. Though estimates vary, the number of Muslims in north Texas is at least 100,000. The area was recently deemed the fifth most diverse neighborhood in the country, according to city’s mayor.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/may/05/garland-texas-attack-muslim-community-reaction

[trotsky]

171. The article doesn't seem to support your assertion.

Garland has a "sizable Muslim population." But the number of 100,000 applies to all of North Texas, not just Garland.

I'd like to know exactly what makes you classify Garland as an "Islamic enclave."

[notadmblnd]

173. Oh c'mon Garland is a suburb of the Dallas Fort worth area,

You expect me to believe that there are only 100k people in the DFW area?

[notadmblnd]

175. then do yoour homework and prove my assertion wrong.

[trotsky]

181. That's not how the burden of proof works.

Take care.

[notadmblnd]

186. Last I checked, DU was not a court of law

Look, I gave you information you asked me for which I didn't have to do, you don't like it. As I said when I posted it for you "It is not the official US census of the area". You are perfectly free and capable of typing population + Muslim + garland texas in your google search bar.

[notadmblnd]

149. Ms Geller was not exercising her 1st amendment rights

She was baiting radical Muslims as she admitted in the article that the OP posted.

[trotsky]

150. So what?

If some radical Christian brought a gun to a Pride parade and tried to shoot someone, should the organizers of the parade be prevented from having one again? Surely they knew someone would be offended. There are lots of homophobes around, unfortunately. Should we respect their religious beliefs and protect them from being offended?

[notadmblnd]

153. If those organizing the event was advocating, inciting and inspiring violence- yes, they should be

held responsible for what occurs. I never said she should be prevented from holding her event by any government official. My argument has always been that she bears responsibility for what occurred and that she should be held responsible.

As I pointed out in another post. I am free to go into a predominately black neighborhood, stand on a street corner and begin tossing out racial slurs to passers by. Would it be a wise choice? I don't thinks so and I shouldn't be surprised when someone who doesn't like it kicks my lily white ass.

Now how bout if we change it up. How bout I take others along with me, but i don't tell them that I'm taking them to one of the largest African American neighborhoods in the country to hurl my racial epitaphs. Would you still think I bear no responsibility if those who were attracted to attend my little hate fest were put in danger when violence breaks out?

[trotsky]

158. But how can one be responsible for all possible reactions?

Including misunderstandings?

On another thread, someone actually suggested that if the work of art "Piss Christ" was on display somewhere, and the museum/gallery didn't have adequate security, and someone got offended and hurt someone else, that the gallery would be responsible. Do you agree?

I also believe that attempting to equate racial slurs with the drawing of a cartoon is absurd. One is insulting people, the other one an idea. Do you see the difference?

[notadmblnd]

162. yes, I do think the gallery bears responsibility

I do see the difference. However, I'm not the one committing violent acts as did the two shooters. Nor am I the one orchestrating them as did Ms. Geller.

[trotsky]

165. Wow, that's incredible.

"Piss Christ" is actually a piece that protests the commercialization of religious icons.

So the devout believer who is offended by it is actually WRONG in thinking it insults Christianity.

You are therefore promoting the notion that someone exercising their first amendment rights needs to predict not only how everyone will take the idea, but also every possible incorrect interpretation of it, and then be responsible for whatever reaction occurs.

I would not like to live in the society you propose.

[notadmblnd]

172. I haven't proposed any sort of society.

No, but the gallery chose to display something they knew to be provocative and controversial. I don't think it is unreasonable to assume they should have been aware of possible violence. If the gallery failed to provide extra security or failed to notify attendees there could be possible violence and violence occurred, yes, they bear responsibility.

[trotsky]

180. Well thanks I guess.

I'm done talking to you.

[notadmblnd]

187. have a nice afternoon.

[GeorgeGist]

72. America's sweetheart

[Warren DeMontague]

73. What she wanted is irrelevant to whether free speech is at issue.

What did the cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo want?

[Tommy_Carcetti]

198. Free speech wasn't at issue in Geller's case.

Free speech was an ancillary side matter. She just took it upon herself to make it the central issue in order to shield herself from any criticism.

[Warren DeMontague]

201. I dont get the feeling she gives a shit about "criticism". Criticism is attention. Im sure she loves

It.

But as long as there are people on the planet who think massively losing their shit over a cartoon someome draws is a rational response, she will continue to get press on this particular point.

[scarletwoman]

76. I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you. nt

[Humanist_Activist]

82. Doesn't matter, she doesn't deserve death for what she did. n/t

[X_Digger]

94. What she wanted has exactly fuck-all to do with whether or not the event was protected speech.

You can't say, "But she didn't do it for the right reason" and make the right not apply.

Rights aren't predicated on intent. Fucking duh.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

194. Free speech is but an ancillary issue to Geller's behavior.

I could draw a picture of Mohammed while I sit here at my desk. That would be free speech. I doubt anyone would shoot me dead over it.

I could draw a picture of Mohammed in front of hundreds of people at a highly publicized "Draw Mohammed" event. Technically, that would also be free speech on my own part. Of course, given the pre-existing publicity of that event, the chances are much greater of a violent reaction, as is the danger to people who are not directly participating in the event. So the issue shifts from my own expression of free speech to "What the fuck were the organizers thinking?"

But it doesn't stop there. Because if the answer to "What the fuck were the organizers thinking?" isn't just, "Oh, they just wanted an demonstration of free speech and that's it" but is rather, "They wanted a violent reaction to the event to prove their pre-existing biases against Muslims and give them a media platform to spread those pre-existing biases", then you get into the area of extreme reckless, unethical behavior on the part of the organizers.

And that, my good sir, is exactly where we are at here in the discussion. Geller wants to cloak herself in the "free speech" cloak of immunity from criticism, and you are giving it to her.

In the end, the discussion isn't about free speech. It's about Geller's own recklessness and lack of ethnics in her motivations to host this event.

[X_Digger]

220. It's speech regardless of motive or intent.

Hell, I've said before, I wouldn't cross the street to piss on Gellar if she were on fire, but confirming that yes, her actions are protected speech is no more a 'cloak of immunity' than saying Charles Manson has a right to a fair trial is not a 'cloak of immunity'.

The fact that you can't seem to wrap your head around the difference.. doesn't do you proud.

[Ken Burch]

99. Didn't she get the security guard killed? n/t.

[oberliner]

117. No

No security guard was killed.

[haikugal]

104. Am I alone in never thinking this was anything but provocation?

However, killing people you don't agree with is abhorrent. That includes RWNJ's that attack and kill Gays, abortion doctors etc. etc. etc.

This woman is well known and well paid for her actions to foment Islamaphobia.

[Oktober]

111. She was askin' for it...

Ammirite ?

[haikugal]

112. Huh? She wanted something to happen that would prove her point..

I don't condone violence and I don't think anyone should be afraid to speak out...even disgusting racist hate speech is protected. Is that what you mean or are you referencing how rape victims are portrayed by some people "she was asking for it"...

[Oktober]

113. Hey, I'm just going with what you said...

She spoke out, angered some folks and now she has 'paid for her actions'.

That seems to imply some kind of debt... Who exactly does she owe?

[haikugal]

142. You need to read what I said...

She is well paid for her actions to invoke Islamaphobia....she is a paid operative.

[JI7]

109. so why not react the way LGBT do to the Phelps Trash ?

yeah, she is a piece of shit who wanted to see people killed but doesn't make those who react in such a way any better.

[Warren DeMontague]

110. That's been my point, too. Mocking and ridicule have made Westboro a giant joke.

but I suspect that anyone who takes shit so seriously that they feel they have a mandate from the sky to kill people who draw the wrong kinds of cartoons, isn't going to be able to "do" satire real well.

[Bluenorthwest]

141. I'll come back later to see if the OP manages to respond to that very relevant question.

I highly doubt that he will.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

155. I'm not saying they shouldn't have. That's not the point here.

No one is excusing the individuals who shot up the event for doing so.

What I, and others, have pointed out is that while the shooters were primarily and criminally responsible, Ms. Geller bears secondary responsibility for her reckless and unethical behavior in intentionally seeking a violent reaction to her event, thus placing other people at risk.

These aren't mutually exclusive concepts here.

[oberliner]

118. Drawing a cartoon should not be a situation that creates violence

That fact that it apparently is ought to be addressed by someone less vile than Pam Geller.

Personally, I think something is wrong with the fact that folks in this country feel very free to make fun of Mormonism, Scientology, etc but fear for their lives when drawing a picture of the prophet.

The winning cartoon in this contest was pretty benign.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

157. Absolutely. But that's besides the point.

The point is we shouldn't be giving a free pass to someone who intentionally set up a situation where she knew violence could occur, and that she would use such violence for her own selfish, personal means.

[oberliner]

189. Would you support something like what Molly Norris did?

Everybody Draw Mohammed Day (or "Draw Mohammed Day&quot was an event held on May 20, 2010, in support of free speech and freedom of artistic expression of those threatened with violence for drawing representations of the Islamic prophet Muhammad. It began as a protest against censorship of an American television show, South Park, "201" by its distributor, Comedy Central, in response to death threats against some of those responsible for two segments broadcast in April 2010. Observance of the day began with a drawing posted on the Internet on April 20, 2010, accompanied by text suggesting that "everybody" create a drawing representing Muhammad, on May 20, 2010, as a protest against efforts to limit freedom of speech.

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

What are you feelings on that?

[Tommy_Carcetti]

191. Norris did not create a centralized physical event.

Also, Norris did not appear to have any pre-existing agenda to prove against Muslim people other than what she viewed as hypersensitive reactions to the depiction of Mohammed. Unlike Geller, she did not appear to be out to prove how inherently violent Muslim people are. Therefore, she wasn't organizing this event to provoke violence. She was organizing simply as a matter of tackling what she thought were sacred cows.

So I would say what she did was far different than what Geller did, and more grounded in a legitimate free speech issue. Whereas Geller simply used free speech as an excuse to provoke violence and push her agenda.

I wouldn't say I "support" what Norris did; I'm not sure how much good it actually did, but I do think it was far more legitimate than what Geller did. Same with Charlie Hedbo.

[DetlefK]

128. Actually, this is exactly how the FBI creates fake terror-attacks.

The FBI cooks up a terror-plot, talks disenfranchised Muslims into joining that ready-to-use plot where they won't have to do pesky stuff like planning or scouting or building a bomb, and then charges them with terrorism.

If that qualifies for terrorism, then "shoot the liberals" qualifies for attempted murder.

[trotsky]

132. The anti-Muslim bigotry on this thread is repulsive.

Apparently many people think that Muslims are naturally violent, and that we must EXPECT them to murder when offended.

That's pretty disgusting.

[Nye Bevan]

135. Yep. Those who refer to "poking the hornet's nest" are comparing Muslims to angry insects (nt)

[trotsky]

137. On other threads I've seen them compared to "sharks" and even "bears."

Cold, unthinking, aggressive animals following an instinct. Are we the weird ones here, thinking that they should be treated like human beings who made a conscious, calculated decision to try and kill someone?

[Tommy_Carcetti]

143. You completely miss the point of a metaphor.

A metaphor, unlike an analogy, doesn't seek to draw as many comparisons between two different situations as possible as it does seek to note a similar underlying theme.

Thus, phrases like "kicking the hornets nest" or "chumming the water for sharks" isn't meant to compare Muslims to animals. It's not even necessarily comparing anything to Muslims in general. It is meant to imply a certain danger, any danger, that someone willfully seeks to invite. In this situation, it is the known danger of a violent reaction to the drawing contest.

In other words, whatever danger you wish to evoke is the MacGuffin in the metaphor.

[trotsky]

159. I understand perfectly well what the underlying theme is.

And it's disgusting. You and others are suggesting that Muslims just can't help themselves, and that others must take responsibility for not offending them.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

163. You see, I don't think you really do.

The metaphor speaks entirely towards Ms. Geller's behavior in the situation. It doesn't compare Muslims to animals. It's meant to reference a danger that someone willingly invited for their own agenda. Hornets, bears, pyromaniacs, it doesn't matter.

You're completely missing the point here.

[trotsky]

166. Nope, I get the point.

And you just reinforced it. "To reference a danger" - again suggesting that a group of people are just naturally (and murderously) dangerous, and that everyone else needs to take precautions against doing something that will enrage that group to the point of violent reaction.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

178. Danger = a shooting or violent event. Danger =/= a religion or entire group of people.

Pam Geller knew there was a danger of a shooting or other type of violent event in reaction to her stunt. She intentionally held it with that very risk in mind, because such a violent event would provide her a media platform to spread her pre-existing views.

Do you get it now?

[trotsky]

182. Oh, so it could have been anyone that might be provoked to violence...

by a "Draw Mohammed" cartoon challenge?

Your desperation is getting ridiculous.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

184. Again, you missed the point of the metaphors.

The point is that Pam Geller knew that there was a danger that might follow her action, and she intentionally engaged in that action for the specific purpose of wanting that danger to take place.

A.K.A. reckless behavior.

[trotsky]

185. Sorry man, guess I'm just really, really stupid.

You tried your best.

[Dr. Strange]

216. But...

The point is that Pam Geller knew that there was a danger that might follow her action

why does she "know" that?

Why don't the South Park guys "know" that Christians will violently attack them for their portrayal of Jesus in the show?

Why doesn't SNL "know" that Jews will violently attack them for having a skit where Elijah shows up and starts cracking jokes?


Why do some insist that we treat this one religion so differently, expecting them to be violent?

[randome]

156. Not necessarily.

It's more like an assumption that the violent elements of Islam can be 'counted on' -when one goes out of one's way to insult and belittle them- to strike back with violence.

I don't think that's the same as assuming that all Muslims are violent.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[trotsky]

161. It's comparing a group of human beings to thoughtless animals.

And it implies that we're just supposed to accept that murder is an inevitable consequence of criticizing an idea. Not a person, but an IDEA. The notion that you shouldn't draw a picture of a character from someone's religious book.

Where does the line get drawn? What ideas need to be protected from criticism and mockery lest the offended react violently? Which ones are we allowed to criticize?

[Dr. Strange]

215. Yes.

It's amazing how many people (not just on DU), in their zeal to attack Geller, have unwittingly promoted the anti-Islamic bigotry that she espouses. I've seen Muslims compared to bears, snakes, insects, and three-year-olds.

[GoneFishin]

152. Of course she did. She incited violence. The fact that she technically is allowed to be coy about it

because she didn't pull the trigger herself is disgusting and passes as civilized behavior only to the small minded and gullible.

[Hekate]

177. That's exactly what I said when she claimed victimhood. Free speech my rosy roseola.

She wanted bloodshed-- and she got it.

[Goblinmonger]

188. So what? What she did was still protected free speech.

Illinois Nazis and all. Take it up with SCOTUS.

Can't believe what I see on a progressive site.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

192. And that's a secondary, incidential issue.

What you see on display with this quote is Geller's own reckless, unethical behavior and willingness to provoke violence for the good of her own agenda. She's using free speech as a smokescreen for criticism.

[Humanist_Activist]

210. If what she did is all that is needed to provoke violence, then the ideology...

of the perpetrators of the violence need to be examined to explain why such violence took place.

[Goblinmonger]

221. She held a draw the prophet cartoon contest.

If that provokes violence, then how about we talk about those that think that should provoke violence and call them fuckers, huh? In this country, we ALL (even the racist, asshole bigots) get to exercise free speech and not expect to be shot doing it. Those that wanted to kill them are the assholes opposed to free speech here. I loathe Geller and her group. But I will defend her to the end in this issue. EVEN SHE gets free speech rights. And the assholes that need calling out for what they did in this instance are those that felt they should try kill someone for drawing a cartoon of their prophet because: religion. Fuck that. And fuck them.

[notadmblnd]

219. Point to a post in this thread that states it would deny her right to exercise 1A rights

I don't think you can. The posts in this thread that I have read or written only advocates her taking responsibility for the actions that occurred while she was exercising her precious right.

So you can quell your disbelief of what you imagined you saw on a progressive sight

[Goblinmonger]

222. Um, the OP

Says at the end:

So yeah, it was never really about "free speech" in the end.

Which would very clearly mean that what she was doing--because some religious fuckwits decided they wanted to try shoot up the place because of the cartoon drawings--is not free speech therefore not protected. Though SCOTUS has said very clearly that things like what Geller did are protected speech. So right off the bat we have someone trying to deny her that right.

And every other person that is trying to say that this "isn't free speech" is doing the same thing. Everyone that is making excuses as to why this cartoon drawing was a bad, bad thing to do are trying to deny her that right.

And why does she need to take responsibility for what some fucking idiots did in the name of their religion. THEY are the problem in this example. Unless you are claiming that their reaction was going to happen because that's what radical muslims do and we should just never make them angry. Because I don't think you are saying that. But I don't know the point you are making otherwise. So help me out.

[notadmblnd]

223. her agenda was not about exercising her 1st amendment right

she admitted that. She is the problem, she provoked and baited after being warned that there had been threats. She is not an innocent victim. She is just as evil and as radical as the shooters.


No where did I see the OP say that her 1st amendment right should have been denied.

[Goblinmonger]

226. Her agenda was to do take part in speech that is protected

Provoking and baiting is something that is protected. Lots of liberal people provoke and bait. Is DU going to condemn them, too? I doubt. This just seems to be because Geller is a piece of shit. I agree with that assessment. But those are the cases when we have to also protect the speech.

She is the problem

In this instance, no, she isn't. The people that felt they should try and kill other people for drawing cartoons of their religious prophet are the problem. People exercising protected free speech are never the problem.

She is just as evil and as radical as the shooter.

Has she tried to kill someone because they are Muslim? She's a piece of shit. I'll say that as many times as I need to. But to say that her exercising free speech puts her at the same level of shit as someone who is going to kill another because they draw cartoons of a religious prophet is just ridiculous.

How is it not trying to deny her her free speech rights when people are doing pretzel twists of consistency to try and say that what she was doing is not protected free speech. "But she's mean and evil land she wanted to provoke people." Yeah, that's called free speech.

[Sunlei]

204. doubt she will ever be able to draw a crowd of families and kids again to her next hatefest.