Until pornography is outlawed(not saying it should be just illustrating a point) I don't think we'll ever have to worry about whether or not drawing Mohammed will lose us our 1st Amendment rights.
Again: Is the teen contemplating suicide due to bullying, calling for the death of infidels? Is that teen treating others disrespectfully and bullying them, because they practice different beliefs?
And: Is your wife or daughter calling for the death of infidels? Are they supporting the practice of misogyny?
You keep comparing apples to oranges here. Saying something personally hateful just because you're a terrible person and want to hurt others is one thing. Saying (or drawing) something that offends others because you disagree with how they treat people who disagree with their beliefs, is political speech and the highest form of protected speech.
What we have today within Islam is a fascist section of the Muslim population who practice hate speech, act with violence and suppress the free speech of both infidels and their fellow Muslims. They attack anyone who disagrees with them, all while claiming some fantasy right of retaliation against those who offend them. They hide behind their religious beliefs, when their behaviors obviously extend well beyond religious belief protection and into socio-political actions. For these reasons, their claims of persecution are wholly illegitimate. No one has abridged their right of religious freedom. They have a right to do and say as they wish, but they have no right to demand others adhere to their standards.
Please spare us the all the peaceful Muslims bit, because they have the right to ignore Gellers antics. No one is forcing them to observe, participate in or condone the event. Just as we do with WBC (in this respect, we agree). After all, WBC has been pulling their much less legitimate stunts for years and no one has tried to kill them, so again its apples to oranges.
The fastest and easiest way for the Muslim community in America to shut down people like Geller, is to resoundingly denounce actions like those of the Islamic State, Noori and Simpson, while acknowledging that Geller has the right to her views on Islam.
I disagree. Geller is calling attention to the fact that a segment of Islam is intolerant to the point of violence, and they are proving her correct. All they have to do to shut her up, is stop proving her correct.
Last edited:
Which is why they shouldn't draw Mohammed. What U.S. law do they have to "not allow it" by those who aren't Muslims? None.
Look at this article:
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/may/05/garland-texas-attack-muslim-community-reaction
Under what laws? American law? No, Sharia Law. In one breath, they denounce violence and in the next they criminalize free speech in America. Sorry, that doesn't wash. Of course I'd expect nothing less from the "Muslim American" Society.
This is the one thing I agree with that they said:
I disagree. The fear of being killed is a very strong impetus towards self-censorship and loss of free speech rights. Appeasement leads to more and more loss of freedom when you are dealing with fanatical violent groups such as radical Muslims.
Glocktogo said:
Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case based on the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Court held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is directed to inciting, and is likely to incite, imminent lawless action.[1]
Not saying it necessarily applies to this situation (unless getting a violent/lawless reaction was her goal), but incitement is a crime.
Last edited:
First amendment rights do not guarantee that you not suffer consequences for your speech. There are laws to protect individuals from an assault such as you describe. Mohammed is not an individual, Islam is not an individual, the flag is not an individual.
Are you talking about slander or libel? Last I check there was no law against insulting someone. Threatening(which is the only speech that could be considered assault to my knowledge)...yes there are laws. Insulting, not really.
It doesn't and it wasn't, but radical Muslims calling for her death would fall under that statute. Double standard?
If you think her event falls under that statute because it is "likely to incite", then you have to concurrently admit that radical Muslims are incapable of controlling their violent urges. Are you willing to do that?
Not YET.
Give it time. We're heading the same direction as the EU. People will be charged with crimes not just for inciting violence with their speech, but for offensive speech, racially-insensitive or -insulting speech. First the EU and other pansy-nation/states will petition the WHO and UN to push us that direction, and eventually we will get a vocal-enough minority and bunch of home-grown pansies to capitulate. It will become law, and we right-wing, conservative, Constitutionalist, patriot nutjobs will be further marginalized by the politically correct and the media, ending up placed on more military/political/police watchlists.
Give it time.
It doesn't and it wasn't, but radical Muslims calling for her death would fall under that statute. Double standard?
If you think her event falls under that statute because it is "likely to incite", then you have to concurrently admit that radical Muslims are incapable of controlling their violent urges. Are you willing to do that?
Just correcting the untrue statement that "incitement is not a crime in the US."
