Page 158 of 167 FirstFirst ... 58108148156157158159160 ... LastLast
Results 1,571 to 1,580 of 1668

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

  1. #1571
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    05-21-17 @ 09:59 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    28,586

    Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

    Quote Originally Posted by Montecresto View Post
    Of course not, I'm upset that a security guard was injured. I'm glad the attackers were killed, but will be even happier if Geller finds more responsible expressions to advocate her liberties.
    Oh, so is there speech you don't think is, or should be protected?

    Example, if Christians were as violent today as radical Islam would you condemn equally speech against them?
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  2. #1572
    Sage
    Montecresto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Seen
    03-13-16 @ 10:59 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,561

    Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

    Quote Originally Posted by Apocalypse View Post
    Bull****. You said that it falls under unprotected speech, you've claimed it's "incitement to violence".
    You're now retracting your own damned words and that's quite shameful.



    The only one who has no idea how things work, in America and outside it, is you mate.
    Free speech is a key value in every democracy, and the way you oppose it really brings me to ask you why you choose to live in a democracy when you can live in a dictatorship or a theocracy that would fit the ideals you're promoting.
    Yes, it IS/WAS incitement of violence IMO. And I would like to see it brought under the unprotected speech guidelines already in existence. But for the umpteenth time, your laziness to read thru the whole thread to know my whole position instead of breaking in on page 150 blathering like an idiot just earned you no further response from me.
    Killing one person is murder, killing 100,000 is foreign policy

  3. #1573
    Sage
    Montecresto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Seen
    03-13-16 @ 10:59 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,561

    Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    Oh, so is there speech you don't think is, or should be protected?

    Example, if Christians were as violent today as radical Islam would you condemn equally speech against them?
    Yes, as does the Supreme Court. And yes, as I'll tell you the same thing as Armageddon, read thru these 160 pages for the answers to all your questions, I probably have at least 50 posts articulating my position, no mead to repeat ad nauseam.
    Killing one person is murder, killing 100,000 is foreign policy

  4. #1574
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    05-21-17 @ 09:59 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    28,586

    Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

    Quote Originally Posted by Montecresto View Post
    Yes, it IS/WAS incitement of violence IMO. And I would like to see it brought under the unprotected speech guidelines already in existence. But for the umpteenth time, your laziness to read thru the whole thread to know my whole position instead of breaking in on page 150 blathering like an idiot just earned you no further response from me.
    It was only "incitement" if you sympathize with the laughable position that simply mocking ones religous figure in the face of barbarity brought forth by a sect of said religion should be protected here. I say nonsense and that your argument is only a byproduct of your own fear or sympathy or both.
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  5. #1575
    Sage
    Montecresto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Seen
    03-13-16 @ 10:59 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,561

    Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    It was only "incitement" if you sympathize with the laughable position that simply mocking ones religous figure in the face of barbarity brought forth by a sect of said religion should be protected here. I say nonsense and that your argument is only a byproduct of your own fear or sympathy or both.
    It's more because I'm an atheist and don't want to be caught in the middle of a fight two large religions seem determined to have. On that, nobody has been able, though I've challenged several posters on it, to explain to me the value of Geller's deliberate provocation of the sensibilities of an entire religion for no other benefit then the joy she experiences by pissing off an entire religion. Care to be the first?
    Killing one person is murder, killing 100,000 is foreign policy

  6. #1576
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Los Angeles area
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,455

    Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

    Quote Originally Posted by Montecresto View Post
    I said its my position that it should be argued under unprotected speech. And it most certainly did draw out extremists for violence. Which is why I would like to see it successfully argued in court. Your still lacking understanding of how things work in America. And your hyperbole that two posters who happen to be fellow bigots of yours constitutes "everyone" is laughable.
    I am trying to figure out what it means--if anything--to be "argued under unprotected speech," or how something can "draw out extremists for violence." I don't think I'll spend much time trying, though.

    You could always write a couple of your favorite Supreme Court justices and suggest they reconsider Brandenburg v. Ohio. Or, maybe you'd want to suggest they take a "fighting words" approach, ignore R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, and breathe new life into Chaplinsky after seventy-plus years. Who knows, they might send you your very own Supreme Court decoder ring!

    Here is a link to R.A.V., a very important First Amendment case in which that prince of darkness, Justice Scalia, and his fellow bigots on the Supreme Court held that there is a "right" to burn crosses on the lawns of black people! It was a sad day for everyone who wants to suppress hate speech.

    https://supreme.justia.com/cases/fed.../377/case.html

    And here is a link to the transcript of the oral arguments in R.A.V., for anyone who wants to hear the laughable hyperbole these judges are willing to engage in to defend hate speech. They are wrong! No human being should ever have the right to say anything that might make another human being--and especially a Muslim!--feel icky and invalidated, or in any way give his inner child an owie.

    R.A.V. v. St. Paul | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

  7. #1577
    Sage
    Montecresto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Seen
    03-13-16 @ 10:59 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,561

    Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    I am trying to figure out what it means--if anything--to be "argued under unprotected speech," or how something can "draw out extremists for violence." I don't think I'll spend much time trying, though.

    You could always write a couple of your favorite Supreme Court justices and suggest they reconsider Brandenburg v. Ohio. Or, maybe you'd want to suggest they take a "fighting words" approach, ignore R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, and breathe new life into Chaplinsky after seventy-plus years. Who knows, they might send you your very own Supreme Court decoder ring!

    Here is a link to R.A.V., a very important First Amendment case in which that prince of darkness, Justice Scalia, and his fellow bigots on the Supreme Court held that there is a "right" to burn crosses on the lawns of black people! It was a sad day for everyone who wants to suppress hate speech.

    https://supreme.justia.com/cases/fed.../377/case.html

    And here is a link to the transcript of the oral arguments in R.A.V., for anyone who wants to hear the laughable hyperbole these judges are willing to engage in to defend hate speech. They are wrong! No human being should ever have the right to say anything that might make another human being--and especially a Muslim!--feel icky and invalidated, or in any way give his inner child an owie.

    R.A.V. v. St. Paul | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law
    Absolutely I would like to see it argued under "fighting words". Perhaps at the expense of more needless (needless because of the gratuitous nature of it) provocation, you'll feel better if the attackers actually kill somebody next time. Geller started it with her deliberate "stick in hornets nest" wreckless and irresponsible behavior. It's not like she was attacked for not wearing a burka.
    Killing one person is murder, killing 100,000 is foreign policy

  8. #1578
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 08:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

    Quote Originally Posted by Montecresto View Post
    You mean to say that the Americans critical of Gellar constitutes Americans turning on each other?
    That seems clear enough. When they attack the victim rather than the Muslims responsible that is certainly the case. They should be protecting her rights to free speech as covered by the First Amendment rather than what she said which was all, of course, quite legal and proper.

    When cartoons depicting a long dead child molester is declared illegal by the Americans courts then the spirit of the world's greatest experiment in democracy has finally died.

  9. #1579
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 08:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    It was only "incitement" if you sympathize with the laughable position that simply mocking ones religous figure in the face of barbarity brought forth by a sect of said religion should be protected here. I say nonsense and that your argument is only a byproduct of your own fear or sympathy or both.
    I remain convinced he's a foreign born Muslim, probably from the UK.

  10. #1580
    Sage
    Montecresto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Seen
    03-13-16 @ 10:59 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,561

    Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    That seems clear enough. When they attack the victim rather than the Muslims responsible that is certainly the case. They should be protecting her rights to free speech as covered by the First Amendment rather than what she said which was all, of course, quite legal and proper.

    When cartoons depicting a long dead child molester is declared illegal by the Americans courts then the spirit of the world's greatest experiment in democracy has finally died.
    Well I guess you've read the whole thread and that's why your saying "they". I've stated that I'm glad the attackers are gone, that their response to the incitement is beyond anything remotely appropriate, obviously. I also blame Geller for her senseless provocation which ended in violence.
    Killing one person is murder, killing 100,000 is foreign policy

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •