Free speech, Garland Tx.

[dennishoddy]

We have discussed the shooting of the radical Muslims, done.
Not all Muslims are radical Jihadists, done.

Lets discuss the issue of Free Speech in relationship to a cartoon contest held in Garland contest that awarded a prize for the best caricature of the Prophet Mohammed.

PLEASE keep the discussion on track and not have personal comments against other members in the discussion. It serves no purpose and is against forum rules. Thank You.


Political blogger Pamela Geller, American Freedom Defense Initiative's Houston-based founder, speaks at the Muhammad Art Exhibit and Contest, which is sponsored by the American Freedom Defense Initiative, in Garland, Texas May 3, 2015.

In that contest, various caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed were displayed for a prize.

It has generated a National Debate about freedom of speech.

Pundits have said the event was provocative, others said the event was the true meaning of the 1st amendment.

What is your opinion about this subject?

 

[dennishoddy]

I'll start.
I believe we have a core belief in the constitution that we have free speech. Not only did Ms. Geller have the legal right to do it, but the event was important in stating those core rights were backing up those rights in the face of "I believe in the 1st Amendment, but......

 

[RETOKSQUID]

I'll start.
I believe we have a core belief in the constitution that we have free speech. Not only did Ms. Geller have the legal right to do it, but the event was important in stating those core rights were backing up those rights in the face of "I believe in the 1st Amendment, but......

Agree, kind of falls under just because you can, doesn't mean that you should.

 

[dennishoddy]

Agree, kind of falls under just because you can, doesn't mean that you should.

That's not what I said. I agree 100% that this event should have occurred. There is a faction on both sides of the aisle that says they agree, But......

 

[Coded-Dude]

It certainly falls under the protection of the 1st Amendment, but was it really necessary? Of course it will incite anger, everybody there knew that it was offensive to Muslims . The whole event is no different than Westboro using the 1st Amendment to get under people's skin at funerals. It is allowed and protected, but what purpose does it serve other than to anger a group of people? If you respect Islam, why draw Muhammad, if you don't respect Islam, why waste your time?

Transmitted via Tactical Telecommunications Device

 

[caojyn]

I hope it opens the door for more controversial art, like the "Piss Jesus."

 

[Coded-Dude]

Or the satanic statue at the Capitol. Or the mobile billboards of aborted fetuses. Or people walking on the flag. Grown adults acting like children trying to push each other's buttons....

Transmitted via Tactical Telecommunications Device

 

[NightShade]

It certainly falls under the protection of the 1st Amendment, but was it really necessary? Of course it will incite anger, everybody there knew that it was offensive to Muslims . The whole event is no different than Westboro using the 1st Amendment to get under people's skin at funerals. It is allowed and protected, but what purpose does it serve other than to anger a group of people? If you respect Islam, why draw Muhammad, if you don't respect Islam, why waste your time?

I agree and we most certainly need to use our rights to the fullest extent possible. The way I look at it is my rights exist right up until I step on someone else's rights. Some things don't work as well because a lot of people are easily offended in one way or another but I do my best to respect everyone else out there and in turn be respected. It's been a fairly good policy so far and when someone tries to bait me into something I generally just ignore it and move on.

 

[briarcreekguy]

I think that what Ms. Geller did, is in the true spirit of the 1st Amendment. What is the purpose of free speech if it is not used to express opinions that are controversial. I think that Islam and it's most radical adherents, have become another one of those subjects that is taboo to discuss. The MSM turns a blind eye to the rapes, kidnappings, be-headings, etc. giving only minimal attention to these atrocities. If American troops take pictures of naked prisoners, piled in a dog pile, we hear about it for years (not saying that it was right), but some of these Islamic groups are killing indigenous groups, selling the women and children into slavery and we hear crickets from the MSM. It is good that Ms. Geller is willing to shine a light on the intolerance of the Muslim world.

 

[TedKennedy]

Pam Geller hopes to incite radical Muslims to react to her offensive gestures. This will boost support for her positions and lend "evidence" that Muslims here are out to get us.
Legal though it may be, she is using a tried and true tactic, and it's working.
I 100% agree that her actions are and should be legal, but just like someone publicly making racist or inflammatory statements (burning flags), let her reap what she sows. Unfortunately, she'll incite violence, and sooner or later an undeserving victim will pay the price for her selfishness.