• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

Montecresto said:
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.
Click to expand...

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/federal/us/505/377/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
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

matchlight said:
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/federal/us/505/377/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
Click to expand...

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.
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

Montecresto said:
You mean to say that the Americans critical of Gellar constitutes Americans turning on each other?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

j-mac said:
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.
Click to expand...
I remain convinced he's a foreign born Muslim, probably from the UK.
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

Grant said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

Grant said:
I remain convinced he's a foreign born Muslim, probably from the UK.
Click to expand...

Haha. I hate all religion, including the Muslim faith. I consider them all stupid. But I know better than to stick my hand in a vipers den.
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

Montecresto said:
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.
Click to expand...

Muslim jihadists can go straight to hell, and take their fifth columnists with them.
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

matchlight said:
Muslim jihadists can go straight to hell, and take their fifth columnists with them.
Click to expand...

Well on that we could agree.
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

Montecresto said:
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.
Click to expand...
You don't have to "incite" terrorists. They will kill innocent people anywhere and don;t need an excuse.

Geller has decided, at the very real risk of her life, to confront the islamists head on. Others have done the same thing, like Hersi Ali, Geert Wilders, Wafta Sultam, Brigette Gabriel and their lives have been under threat as well. But no one has suffered the invective in America, from some quarters, as has Pamela Geller, and I suspect that's because she is a Jew.
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

Grant said:
You don't have to "incite" terrorists. They will kill innocent people anywhere and don;t need an excuse.

Geller has decided, at the very real risk of her life, to confront the islamists head on. Others have done the same thing, like Hersi Ali, Geert Wilders, Wafta Sultam, Brigette Gabriel and their lives have been under threat as well. But no one has suffered the invective in America, from some quarters, as has Pamela Geller, and I suspect that's because she is a Jew.
Click to expand...

Even terrorists kill for a purpose. Do you know what the definition of terrorism is? I'm glad that others haven't suffered any attacks and hope they never will. I personally don't worry about it because much as I despise all religion, I won't be drawing disparaging cartoons of Mohamed or sculpting a piss Jesus. Both are immature, hate filled and needlessly provocative, and they strike at the sensibilities of an entire group of people. Stupid. And I have no surprise to the names of the DP supporters of Geller's behavior.
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

Montecresto said:
Even terrorists kill for a purpose. Do you know what the definition of terrorism is? I'm glad that others haven't suffered any attacks and hope they never will. I personally don't worry about it because much as I despise all religion, I won't be drawing disparaging cartoons of Mohamed or sculpting a piss Jesus. Both are immature, hate filled and needlessly provocative, and they strike at the sensibilities of an entire group of people. Stupid. And I have no surprise to the names of the DP supporters of Geller's behavior.
Click to expand...
Her 'behavior' is immaterial. She is a very small player in all of this.

Many people, as we see from the PEN withdrawals, didn't support Charlie Hebdo either but Charlie was a bit player in all of this also.

The idea is to silence any criticism of Islam, hype "Islamophobia, have Muslims treated as separate when the conditions favor them and, over the long term, Islam will prevail. Geller and the rest, most former Muslims, understand this, and you can also discover this by just listening to Islamist leaders. They make no secret of it.
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

Grant said:
Great!! Then you'll now defend her right to say whatever she wants. Happy you came to your senses!
Click to expand...
If I know anything about Kobie, he never wanted to stop her from saying anything in the first place, so "came to your senses" would be inaccurate.
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

Montecresto said:
And too lazy to read thru the thread to educate yourself of my position, you project a strawman that I never claimed. I'm not alone, there are other free speech advocates that take issue with Geller's expression.

Freedom of Expression vs. Inciting Violence
Click to expand...

You're so far from being a "free speech advocate" it's laughable.
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

Montecresto said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well you've gotta decide. One moment you're saying you never claimed it should be restricted by the law then a moment later you claimed you haven't made such statement and now you're claiming again that you believe the law should label the mockery of religion an unprotected speech.

Well I'll simply repeat what I told you in the beginning of this discussion; if you believe it's a bad move that's your own opinion and it's really carrying no political relevancy. If you believe that it should be restricted by the law then you are opposing free speech since it isn't, as you claimed it was, an "incitement to violence" - it was the mockery of religion period.

An incitement to violence is defined in the law as a call for violence to be used against a person or a group of people. This is not the case here. What you believe should be restricted is purely the mockery of religion. You are opposing the value of the freedom of speech, which is a key value in every Democracy. You are thus opposing Democracy and are in support of dark dictatorships and backwards theocracies that forbid the mockery of religion.
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

Apocalypse said:
An incitement to violence is defined in the law as a call for violence to be used against a person or a group of people. This is not the case here. What you believe should be restricted is purely the mockery of religion. You are opposing the value of the freedom of speech, which is a key value in every Democracy. You are thus opposing Democracy and are in support of dark dictatorships and backwards theocracies that forbid the mockery of religion.
Click to expand...

Do Jews in Israel perform these Geller rituals ?
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

NIMBY said:
Do Jews in Israel perform these Geller rituals ?
Click to expand...

What's your obsession with Israel mate?
No we don't have these dumb draw a Mohammad cartoon contests here, we've never had them here before as far as I recall, and I do believe it's not an American concept either but a European one. Hopefully this answers your question.
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

Apocalypse said:
What's your obsession with Israel mate?
No we don't have these dumb draw a Mohammad cartoon contests here, we've never had them here before as far as I recall, and I do believe it's not an American concept either but a European one. Hopefully this answers your question.
Click to expand...

It does answer my question and I thank you for that.
I didn't expect that Israel would be so stupid as to allow these dumb draw a Mohammed cartoon contests and invite trouble they don't need.

I can see this Geller obsession with our fright-wing spilling over into the ME.
Just as with the Pastor Jones burning of the Qurans did, which was opposed by Gen. Patraeus so the frighties backed off.
Not so in the last decade with Bush/Cheney and not again if we get a GOP President in 2017--Geller-types will be quietly banned again .
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

Montecresto said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well, in that you have NO control...Religion is one of the biggies when it comes to armed conflict and its causes....So, like I said, your best bet would probably be to not appear as if you side with the enemy of the nation you reside in...Just sayin'

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?
Click to expand...

Well, I am not in Pam Geller's mind, nor do I know her personally, but to listen to her explain it, she says it has to do with not giving in to the absurd demand of a religion in our own country, where free speech is protected.

You speak of provocation, then atheists are in that boat too Monte...Consider all of the tactics used by the "Freedom FROM religion" coalition of atheists out there that seek out religions, and memorials to target for removal in communities that want them there....They are the personification of the term "tyranny of the minority".... If Christians were to be violent against them how would that be different than what Islamists are attempting to do to the rest of the world with their superficial intolerance of someone drawing a cartoon of Muhammad?

I am not one that thinks that people should be mocking religions, however, in the great scheme of things, you as an atheist, and me as an agnostic should at least be united in the call that the barbarism of killing over something like that is ridiculous...
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

NIMBY said:
It does answer my question and I thank you for that.
I didn't expect that Israel would be so stupid as to allow these dumb draw a Mohammed cartoon contests and invite trouble they don't need.
Click to expand...

You do have a good point. I imagine that such events would be banned in Israel using a variety of existing laws. Furthermore, I have a strange feeling that the Shin Bet, the Israeli internal security service, monitors Jewish secular and religous right wingers in an effort to pre-empt similar stunts.

That aside, we are not facing the same situation as Israel, so there is no real reason to ban Geller. Rather, she should just not be facilitated (cant rent govt owned buildings to host the event, no designated police protection- she must provide private security etc).

j-mac said:
You speak of provocation, then atheists are in that boat too Monte...Consider all of the tactics used by the "Freedom FROM religion" coalition of atheists out there that seek out religions, and memorials to target for removal in communities that want them there....They are the personification of the term "tyranny of the minority".... If Christians were to be violent against them how would that be different than what Islamists are attempting to do to the rest of the world with their superficial intolerance of someone drawing a cartoon of Muhammad?
Click to expand...

Well said.

I too would not support any similar event out of respect for Christ's admonition against giving "needless offense". At the same time, banning Geller would not only an afront our system (where everybody must tolerate some kind of provocation, whether it is muhammand cartoons or Christians having to put up with largely out of state atheists attempting to socially "cleanse" all communities of even token references to Christianity) but could lead to more demands.
 
Last edited:
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

X Factor said:
You're so far from being a "free speech advocate" it's laughable.
Click to expand...


Come on, Man, be fair.

Montecresco is Debatepolitics champion of free speech just like Lindsey Lohan is Hollywood's champion of sobriety and I dare anybody here to say otherwise!
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

j-mac said:
Well, in that you have NO control...Religion is one of the biggies when it comes to armed conflict and its causes....So, like I said, your best bet would probably be to not appear as if you side with the enemy of the nation you reside in...Just sayin' Well, I am not in Pam Geller's mind, nor do I know her personally, but to listen to her explain it, she says it has to do with not giving in to the absurd demand of a religion in our own country, where free speech is protected. You speak of provocation, then atheists are in that boat too Monte...Consider all of the tactics used by the "Freedom FROM religion" coalition of atheists out there that seek out religions, and memorials to target for removal in communities that want them there....They are the personification of the term "tyranny of the minority".... If Christians were to be violent against them how would that be different than what Islamists are attempting to do to the rest of the world with their superficial intolerance of someone drawing a cartoon of Muhammad? I am not one that thinks that people should be mocking religions, however, in the great scheme of things, you as an atheist, and me as an agnostic should at least be united in the call that the barbarism of killing over something like that is ridiculous...
Click to expand...
Many are trying to make this into an Islam versus Christianity thing but of course it goes well beyond that. Islamists will murder Christians certainly, as they are doing now in the ME, and they will happily murder Jews. But they will also murder Hindus, Atheists, Agnostics, Buddhists, and anyone else they choose. Their record says as much.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom