Thread: Two Shot at Muhammad Art Exhibit [W:439, 529, 978, 1489]

Originally Posted by Montecresto

Yes, it's called reap what you sew. Geller's bigoted expression (her right) has caused the injury of one. I'm under no illusion that she's learned a lesson, and in the future will exercise her liberty responsibly. I fully expect her and her psychotic supporters to continue until there's a Charlie Hebdo incident in America.

Last I checked, words and ideas dont cause violence-and AK's and bombs do.

Can you elaborate on how words caused the wound?

Originally Posted by NIMBY

Rightie statists refuse to acknowledge the obvious, even to them.

Cause-and-effect will never be recognized by Rightists, even with a mass murder, and we were close to that as the Garland Mayor attests.

Rightists already have their TPs lined up for such a mass murder--blaming lefties--as per the National Review and Daily Caller .

Nimby if freedom scares you, you are free to pursue other avenues.

Looks like you already may have.

Originally Posted by matchlight

Apparently you imagine that Justice Holmes' famous "crowded theater" example from Schenck applies to Ms. Geller's contest. How, exactly? Please tell us why, under the "clear and present danger" standard from Brandenburg v. Ohio, the speech she engaged in is not protected by the First Amendment.

Ms. Geller's freedom of speech does not depend on whether you think what was said is "irresponsible," or on whether you think it gained anything. Neither does anyone else's. Or maybe you think the First Amendment should be ignored whenever it allows speech that peeves you. If so, your view is thoroughly illiberal.

Leftists lack a basic understanding of the constitution (except in how to exploit it to further their goals), and so its always amusing to hear them try to spin together explanations, its almost superstitious, really.

Originally Posted by US Conservative

Thats nice but the problem is that though we dont have to agree, the constitution protects us both. You are now blaming those protections for the actions of terrorists.

Nice try, but you are going to have to pound sand.

I think the pajama-boy collectivists in this country are feeling pouty because their Islamist pals, who share their hatred of America and its values, got a whipping. And to make it worse, an uppity Jew dared to say something that made them feel all icky!

The collectivists' lack of spine is showing itself. If these drones had been around on December 7, 1941, they'd be denouncing Americans as cowboys who, after having provoked the Japanese into violence, now wanted to overreact with more violence. As more evolved souls than the hoi polloi, they'd be calling for sensitivity toward Japanese culture and organizing workshops for anger management and grief counseling.

Originally Posted by Montecresto

Can you tell me how that security guard would be laying wounded at present were it not for Geller's little immature and provocative exercise the other day.

I can't think of a thing. Last I checked words dont cause injuries guy.

Originally Posted by Montecresto

Actually I don't have to do that. Once more USC, you have no protections to act irresponsible. People have to pay to be irresponsible.

So if terrorists declare that anyone who is Christian or reads a newspaper is subject to execution, the people who do/are therefore are responsible if a terrorist kills them?

Im really loving your interpretation of liberty.