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

Originally Posted by Montecresto

Do you have some special authority to excuse people from debate, hmm?

Why? Because I told you to either back up your claims or move along? Why just a moment ago you posted this:

Originally Posted by Montecresto

Yes, OF COURSE it most definitely is restricted. You do not understand free speech in America, stop talking about it.

And this:

Originally Posted by Montecresto

No wiggling, put up, or shut up. If your going to insist on your brand of morality, then join Geller's gratuitous provocation to the Muslim faith and accept the risks.

So you're not only an horrible poster in the sense that you refuse to back up your baseless assertions, you're also quite the hypocrite.

Now I'll say it again, either put a reference that shows the mockery of religion is unprotected speech or move along.

Other than your own hate for Muslims

Wow. I never talked about Muslims in this thread but suddenly I hate them. You're quite the pathetic one aren't you.

why do you support gratuitously offending the religion. And why would you support inciting violence as we saw in Garland last week. For your satisfaction of having offended Muslim sensibilities???

I don't support her actions but I believe in democracy and I believe in free speech. If you oppose free speech then I don't know what you're doing in America. Secondly her actions do not constitute as "inciting to violence" - that's pretty much outright lying. I don't remember reading on any calls for violence from the event. If you believe otherwise put a reference or move along.

Originally Posted by Montecresto

I don't see any space between us, if you've looked back over 150 pages to see everything I've said on this. This could however be successfully argued as unprotected speech as per its incitement of violence.

The honest and intelligent people among us realize that the word "incitement" is not defined by the overreactions of violent, thin-skinned totalitarians attempting to suppress free speech, but by whether any actual incitement to violence occurred.

If Geller rounded up the troops and told them to go burn down some mosques or shoot your people, she would be guilty of incitement. Saying things you people do not want to hear is not incitement simply because you support violence in your attempt to suppress it.

Originally Posted by Apocalypse

Why? Because I told you to either back up your claims or move along? Why just a moment ago you posted this:



And this:



So you're not only an horrible poster in the sense that you refuse to back up your baseless assertions, you're also quite the hypocrite.

Now I'll say it again, either put a reference that shows the mockery of religion is unprotected speech or move along.



Wow. I never talked about Muslims in this thread but suddenly I hate them. You're quite the pathetic one aren't you.



I don't support her actions but I believe in democracy and I believe in free speech. If you oppose free speech then I don't know what you're doing in America. Secondly her actions do not constitute as "inciting to violence" - that's pretty much outright lying. I don't remember reading on any calls for violence from the event. If you believe otherwise put a reference or move along.

I don't oppose free speech. You came late to the debate and think you're up to speed, I oppose reckless speech, and gratuitously offensive speech, and Geller's brand of speech that serves no other purpose than to anger an entire group of people! That you support it is very telling of your own character.

Originally Posted by Gardener

The honest and intelligent people among us realize that the word "incitement" is not defined by the overreactions by violent, thin-skinned totalitarians attempting to suppress free speech, but by whether any actual incitement to violence occurred.

If Geller rounded up the troops and told them to go burn down some mosques or shoot your people, she would be guilty of incitement. Saying things you people do not want to hear is not incitement simply because you support violence in your attempt to suppress it.

Geller's gratuitous provocation incited violence, unless you think it was the color of her dress that offended.

Originally Posted by Grant

Good to see you back!

thanks!

Originally Posted by Montecresto

I don't oppose free speech. You came late to the debate and think you're up to speed, I oppose reckless speech, and gratuitously offensive speech, and Geller's brand of speech that serves no other purpose than to anger an entire group of people! That you support it is very telling of your own character.

You do oppose freedom of speech and we have plenty of comments in this thread to base that assertion on. Namely the comments that are referring to the mockery of religion as something that "falls under unprotected speech" and thus should be restricted by the law.

That I support free speech is very telling of my character, you are correct in pointing that out, and I am correct in pointing out that the way you oppose free speech is very telling of your character, as well as the way you feel the need to wish posters you disagree with to "get the bullet".

Originally Posted by Apocalypse

You do oppose freedom of speech and we have plenty of comments in this thread to base that assertion on. Namely the comments that are referring to the mockery of religion as something that "falls under unprotected speech" and thus should be restricted by the law.

That I support free speech is very telling of my character, you are correct in pointing that out, and I am correct in pointing out that the way you oppose free speech is very telling of your character, as well as the way you feel the need to wish posters you disagree with to "get the bullet".

That's like saying that DP opposes free speech because they won't allow me to call you what you are. Due to your intellectual laziness, you won't read through these 160 pages to see what my position is. Instead you inject a strawman, and then demand once, twice, three times that I respond to it. That's failed debate young man. While Geller's right to her ignorant and irresponsible hate that she hides behind her constitutional liberties has been acknowledged by me, I have consistently pointed out its failure and imprudence. I've also pointed out that American courts have placed limitations on speech, and that it could be argued that Geller's speech does fall under those limitations, but pointed out that until such argument is made in court, it will just remain stupid, gratuitously provocative and irresponsible speech. All of which you would know if you weren't so damn lazy, and intellectually dishonest.

Originally Posted by Montecresto

I don't see any space between us, if you've looked back over 150 pages to see everything I've said on this. This could however be successfully argued as unprotected speech as per its incitement of violence.

Nope. Saying something that others find offensive isn't incitement to violence, and doing so is no more "unprotected" than the idiots on facebook stomping on American flags.