Free speech, Garland Tx.

[jfssms]

Dwight is the David.

 

[Lurker66]

Strange, Lurker....

I'd have to go back and find the quote, but you said something about Geller and her ilk having the right to hold their annoying or insulting celebration or exhibit. That is, until the magnitude of the response becomes a public hazard. This is illogical and not in keeping with the First Amendment. You are saying she has rights, UNTIL people disagree with her ENOUGH.

So it has nothing to do with her or her demonstration or her free expression - it is 100% totally dependent upon the response of others to her.


Curious - you have degrees in Philosophy and Religious Studies? Do you support the right of the KKK to hold a rally or a march, provided they are not actively disruptive and are not actually inciting violence? Do blacks have a right to riot in the midst of a KKK rally? Or can Jews storm a Nazi Party or Communist Party private meeting? Do you actually support the right of those with whom you disagree to peacefully and lawfully assemble and declare their views?

If the "mooslims" - an intentionally derogatory misspelling you are actively using while you advocate getting along with them and not offending their sensibilities (for which the hardcore ones would kill YOU, as well) - if the "mooslims" decided that the pornography industry was safe to attack, if it offended them enough, and they staged an assault on their filming studios, would you blame the pornography industry? If they decided eating pig was an abomination and that they should attack all BBQ joints with AK47s and slaughter anyone who dared to consume an unclean animal, would you blame the patrons? Or blame the cooks? I mean without the cooks, the patrons couldn't partake - but without the patrons, the cooks would be out of business. So they are both equally guilty of inciting the "mooslims" by publicly consuming something so obviously offensive to the "mooslim" radicals out there.

At what point does the magnitude of the response to a non-violent message become illegal or unacceptable in American society? Well... usually, the measuring stick we use is when the response becomes violent. But then, when do we blame a non-violent speaker for the actions of those responding to him?

I'm just not seeing the "rightness" of determining the limits placed on someone's rights based on the improper and intolerant actions of responders. Perhaps you can help clear that up. I don't know.



I have to point out, however... your very use of the derogatory spelling of "mooslim" is doing EXACTLY WHAT PAMELA GELLER'S GROUP DID. Exactly. Completely. Totally. WITHOUT any difference.

Just sayin'.

tR, You asked alot of questions of me. If you really want me to I'll answer as many as possible.

You are the only one who caught my very intentional spelling, good catch.

Here's my short answer. Her right to free speech is OK with me. Her right to choose a religion is OK with me. Her right to carry a gun is OK with me. Her right to vote is OK with me.

Her right to cause trouble, not only for people at the art show but for the homes and businesses in the area are not justified to be considered a good or right action. She had no intention of using Free Speech for anything but hateful purposes....much like the KKK. Her kind of individual Free Speech will lead to the erosion of our collective right to Free Speech. She's not furthering our Constitution or Rights, she's being divisive. Much like people who abuse the 2A. From the 2A we know that rights can be restricted or abolished or modified by people who did not have the best interest of the 2A.

Let me paraphrase Kant, if an action is good, it's always good, most of the time. If an action has any wrong, then it is wrong always, everytime.

I'll also use Aristotle, again I'm paraphrasing but for an action to be considered good or right, it must be done for the right reasons, at the right time and get the right results.

And of course I'd paraphrase Jesus or the Golden rule, which only applies to individual actions....do unto others as you would have them do unto you. That means be nice, not offensive, or mean or hateful or spiteful ect.

I'm of the opinion that Gellar put on this "show" to illicit a response. She got it. 2 people died, I dunno, couple injured. I do know this, the guy that killed the 2 muslims, he lives with it until he dies. Maybe he'll handle it ok, maybe he'll wonder if he was used as a political tool to further Gellars agenda.

Maybe next time, Gellar will fill your ER up with 500 injured....why? So she could incite some wackos into committing mass murder, by drawing a few cartoons.

You'll stay busy Doc, job security, free speech and all.

 

[Lurker66]

The sun rises from the east and sets in the west.

Ever been to the exact North Pole? It does neither. Just a big ol circle.

 

[Lurker66]

I stand corrected. You are less than a troll.

That's just how I would handle the situation. Ymmv. Now quit instigating honey or I'll make a woman out of you.

 

[dennishoddy]

Ever been to the exact North Pole? It does neither. Just a big ol circle.

I've been close. Remember the Dew line? That's not what I meant.

 

[Lurker66]

I've been close. Remember the Dew line? That's not what I meant.

Yes, I've never been there. Got close to Antarctica, seen penguins an icebergs.

 

[dennishoddy]

I was at the Perth dew line as well.

 

[Lurker66]

I was at the Perth dew line as well.

I've just been to Perth, I much preferred the Philippines until that big ol volcano ran us out.

 

[Shootin 4 Fun]

tR, You asked alot of questions of me. If you really want me to I'll answer as many as possible.

You are the only one who caught my very intentional spelling, good catch.

Here's my short answer. Her right to free speech is OK with me. Her right to choose a religion is OK with me. Her right to carry a gun is OK with me. Her right to vote is OK with me.

Her right to cause trouble, not only for people at the art show but for the homes and businesses in the area are not justified to be considered a good or right action. She had no intention of using Free Speech for anything but hateful purposes....much like the KKK. Her kind of individual Free Speech will lead to the erosion of our collective right to Free Speech. She's not furthering our Constitution or Rights, she's being divisive. Much like people who abuse the 2A. From the 2A we know that rights can be restricted or abolished or modified by people who did not have the best interest of the 2A.

Let me paraphrase Kant, if an action is good, it's always good, most of the time. If an action has any wrong, then it is wrong always, everytime.

I'll also use Aristotle, again I'm paraphrasing but for an action to be considered good or right, it must be done for the right reasons, at the right time and get the right results.

And of course I'd paraphrase Jesus or the Golden rule, which only applies to individual actions....do unto others as you would have them do unto you. That means be nice, not offensive, or mean or hateful or spiteful ect.

I'm of the opinion that Gellar put on this "show" to illicit a response. She got it. 2 people died, I dunno, couple injured. I do know this, the guy that killed the 2 muslims, he lives with it until he dies. Maybe he'll handle it ok, maybe he'll wonder if he was used as a political tool to further Gellars agenda.

Maybe next time, Gellar will fill your ER up with 500 injured....why? So she could incite some wackos into committing mass murder, by drawing a few cartoons.

You'll stay busy Doc, job security, free speech and all.

Why do you insist on blaming Geller? She did nothing to incite muslims.

 

[Lurker66]

Why do you insist on blaming Geller? She did nothing to incite muslims.

Because she put on the show with Ill intentions. She's the first mover. She caused 2 muslims to move. She moved them. They did exactly what she intended. We'll kinda, she was prolly hoping for a jihadist nuclear attack but has a settle for a injured cop.