Suspects Shot Dead At $10K Muhammad Cartoon Contest

[Shady]

While I agree with the legal right to hold such a event as this, I fail to see what valid outcome could possibly be intended. The AFDI which Geller heads has been designated a hate group, both in the US and the UK, and she has been barred from entering the latter. Butt head stupid is probably a fair assessment.

Outcomes or intent is irrelevant. There is no "but clause" when it comes to political speech. It's only stupid becomes there are some people that use it to justify killing. It's butt head stupid to protest a soldiers funeral with God hates fags signs. But it's protected speech and mureder is not an accepted form of retaliation. Constitutional rights don't stop at the Koran.

[msj]

The winning cartoon I think was worth it: http://fawstin.blogspot.ca/2015/04/i-won-mohammad-cartoon-contests-peoples.html

I think it is important for us to use our rights whether anyone or everyone agrees with the outcome or not.

[On Guard for Thee]

Outcomes or intent is irrelevant. There is no "but clause" when it comes to political speech. It's only stupid becomes there are some people that use it to justify killing. It's butt head stupid to protest a soldiers funeral with God hates fags signs. But it's protected speech and mureder is not an accepted form of retaliation. Constitutional rights don't stop at the Koran.

I wouldnt be quite so quick to dismiss intent. But yeah, people do butt head stupid things all the time.

[Shady]

I wouldnt be quite so quick to dismiss intent. But yeah, people do butt head stupid things all the time.

I don't dismiss intent, but it's legally irrelevant when it comes to political free speech rights. Besides, the intent to be offensive is also protected. As the people with the God hates fags signs.

[Topaz]

There are limits even to Freedom of Speech, like you can't shout "fire" in building if there's no fire, because a group people would rush to get out and some may even get killed, just because some dude wanted to shut "fire"! Now, under C-51, our freedoms are even more limited because the government can monitor private talks, like here or e-mails. The US news said the woman said she knew exactly what would happen when she did it and she went and did it anyway.

[Shady]

There are limits even to Freedom of Speech, like you can't shout "fire" in building if there's no fire, because a group people would rush to get out and some may even get killed, just because some dude wanted to shut "fire"! Now, under C-51, our freedoms are even more limited because the government can monitor private talks, like here or e-mails. The US news said the woman said she knew exactly what would happen when she did it and she went and did it anyway.

Nobody yelled fire in a public place. The event was held in private behind close doors. Pencils and pens were used on pieces of paper.

[Michael Hardner]

There are limits even to Freedom of Speech, like you can't shout "fire" in building if there's no fire, because a group people would rush to get out and some may even get killed, just because some dude wanted to shut "fire"! Now, under C-51, our freedoms are even more limited because the government can monitor private talks, like here or e-mails. The US news said the woman said she knew exactly what would happen when she did it and she went and did it anyway.

That would be an argument against having no limits on freedom of speech, but that's not what we're talking about. People should be free to criticize whatever institution they want to, and should be able to expect safety when they do so. Whether they reasonably can expect safety is not the point, they are testing that point right now.

[Je suis Omar]

Exactly. A perverse reward system is created when we suspend our free speech rights because certain people don't respect those rights. Muslims are just gonna have to accept that their religion might be mocked, the same way other religions are. They're not special. Constitutional rights don't stop at the Koran. You can be angry and feel insulted. You can think badly of those who are doing it. You can even protest or boycott. You cannot kill under any circumstances. That's illegal.

When this is put in the necessary context, it's easy to see just how perversely insignificant this tempest in a teapot is.

That same freedom of speech isn't extended to those in the countries that the USA has invaded, either militarily or thru the CIA.

Take for example the USA sponsored Indonesian genocide of 1965-66, where the US made up lists for military death squads and then checked off names when the people on those lists were bludgeoned, garrotted, beheaded (take note any ISIS detractors out there), shot, ... .

The Model Pupil

[indonesia]

excerpted from the book

The New Rulers of the World

by John Pilger

...

In 1990, the American investigative journalist Kathy Kadane revealed the extent of secret American collaboration in the massacres of 1965-66 which allowed Suharto to seize the presidency. Following a series of interviews with former US officials, she wrote, 'They systematically compiled comprehensive lists of communist operatives. As many as 5,000 names were furnished to the Indonesian army, and the Americans later checked off the names of those who had been killed or captured.' One of those interviewed was Robert J Martens, a political officer in the US embassy in Jakarta. 'It was a big help to the army,' he said. 'They probably killed a lot of people and I probably have a lot of blood on my hands, but that's not all bad. There's a time when you have to strike hard at a decisive moment.' Joseph Lazarsky, the deputy CIA station chief in Jakarta, said that confirmation of the killings came straight from Suharto's headquarters. 'We were getting a good account in Jakarta of who was being picked up,' he said. 'The army had a "shooting list" of about 4,000 or 5,000 people. They didn't have enough goon squads to zap them all, and some individuals were valuable for interrogation. The infrastructure [of the PKI] was zapped almost immediately. We knew what they were doing . . . Suharto and his advisers said, if you keep them alive you have to feed them.'

READ ON, AS I KNOW YOU WILL, AT,

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Pilger_John/Model_Pupil_TNROTW.html

Now what possible right does the USA have to create death squads (and then check off on their list those executed at their behest) in other peoples' countries?

Where is the outrage over this Indonesian "perverse reward system is created when we suspend our free speech rights because certain people don't respect those rights"?

Edited May 9, 2015 by Je suis Omar

[cybercoma]

Right. Because only other news networks are allowed to interview this particular Imam. Fox shouldn't.

What are you talking about? Tell me why Fox News picked THIS Imam in particular.

[Bonam]

The winning cartoon I think was worth it: http://fawstin.blogspot.ca/2015/04/i-won-mohammad-cartoon-contests-peoples.html

I think it is important for us to use our rights whether anyone or everyone agrees with the outcome or not.

Seems like a pretty reasonable drawing to me!

[msj]

Thanks for getting it to show bonam.

Although no picture is worth killing over I think the "think of the poor offended religious zealots" crowd is really out to lunch on this one.

[Je suis Omar]

Although no picture is worth killing over I think the "think of the poor offended religious zealots" crowd is really out to lunch on this one.

One of those interviewed was Robert J Martens, a political officer in the US embassy in Jakarta. 'It was a big help to the army,' he said. 'They probably killed a lot of people and I probably have a lot of blood on my hands, but that's not all bad. There's a time when you have to strike hard at a decisive moment.'

Ibid.

Could you explain to me the difference between ISIS and the US/UKgovernment officials who were acting at the behest of the US and UK governments?

Their death squads often beheaded people.

[Shady]

Could you explain to me the difference between ISIS and the US/UKgovernment officials who were acting at the behest of the US and UK governments?

Their death squads often beheaded people.

Start a new topic. This is about political free speech, not about the worlds death squads past or present.

[Shady]

When this is put in the necessary context, it's easy to see just how perversely insignificant this tempest in a teapot is.

That same freedom of speech isn't extended to those in the countries that the USA has invaded, either militarily or thru the CIA.

Take for example the USA sponsored Indonesian genocide of 1965-66, where the US made up lists for military death squads and then checked off names when the people on those lists were bludgeoned, garrotted, beheaded (take note any ISIS detractors out there), shot, ... .

Yes. I know it's weird, but the American constitution only applies to American citizens. As does every other constitution that applies only to a particular countries citizens. Everyone's constitution is different. Shocker!

[Je suis Omar]

Yes. I know it's weird, but the American constitution only applies to American citizens.

Don't you think it's important to have at least a basic understanding of the issues before you participate in a forum?

As does every other constitution that applies only to a particular countries citizens. Everyone's constitution is different. Shocker!

Finally some honesty. Thanks for admitting that the USA is no different than the worst war criminals and terrorists on the planet, Shady. I knew you had it in you.

International law applies to everyone, except rogue nations. Thank you for also clearing that up for us; we all agree - the USA is a rogue, terrorist, war criminal nation.

[Je suis Omar]

Start a new topic. This is about political free speech, not about the worlds death squads past or present.

Precisely, Shady. I am exercising free speech to illustrate how the USA, the bastion of freedom, regularly, and with the connivance of other western nations, like Canada, takes away not only others right to free speech, they regularly murder people who want to have the same rights we enjoy, right in their own lands.

After such an incredible abuse of power, from these oh so righteous western nations, they then steal the very bread from children's mouths, the ones that they haven't managed to blow to smithereens or have their death squads dispatch, or get with their land mines and bomblets left around for kids to play with.

Now do you really want to advance the ludicrous notion that this tiny contretemps that you folks are obsessing over is more important than the lives of some 3/4 of a million people, just in Indonesia, that the USA and the UK arranged to have slaughtered?

You do, of course, realize that the USA and the UK permanently took away those folks right to express themselves freely.

Edited May 9, 2015 by Je suis Omar

[eyeball]

So I take it you are ok with that atheist blogger in Saudia Arabia getting lashed 1,000 times?

Is that all they gave him?

/facepalm

And since religionists can justify violence against gay people (because their special book says so!) I think you are drawing some pretty crude lines here.

Basically you are saying "no, you ought not draw a cartoon because someone may use it as justification for violence because, Allah."

No, I'm just questioning the wisdom of confronting abject ignorance with butt-headed stupidity.

Then the religionists will go further and justify the violence against gays, atheists bloggers (apostates) etc because they are special (since they have read the sacred holy book) and if their book tells them that it is wrong to do something then that means no one, even non believers ( no, especially non believer) can't do it too.

As my signature line reads: the problem with fundamentalists is that they want me to act as they think.

It's a world gone mad alright.

[eyeball]

The suspension of constitutional rights aren't subject to extortion. Especially political speech taking place behind closed doors.

Who said anything about extortion or suspending free speech? I'm using mine to mock and ridicule anyone who thinks ignorance can be defeated with stupidity.

But like I said stupidity is perfectly legal and I for one will defend the right to be stupid to the death - the comic relief and lesson the stupid provide people with a capacity to give pause to consider are too important.

[Je suis Omar]

So I take it you are ok with that atheist blogger in Saudia Arabia getting lashed 1,000 times?

.

Absolutely! Any super close friend/ally of Uncle Sam is a super close friend/ally of mine.

[Je suis Omar]

Yes. I know it's weird, but the American constitution only applies to American citizens. As does every other constitution that applies only to a particular countries citizens. Everyone's constitution is different. Shocker!

You hear of a massive genocide where, with the able assistance of US/UK death lists, half a million plus people were slaughtered, untold numbers were imprisoned and for you it's not worthy of a mention.

You'd rather dither back and forth with other like minded compassionate folk on something you seem to know precious little about.

[cybercoma]

Yes. I know it's weird, but the American constitution only applies to American citizens. As does every other constitution that applies only to a particular countries citizens. Everyone's constitution is different. Shocker!

You're wrong.

[T]here is little reasoned support for the widely held notion that noncitizens are entitled to substantially less constitutional protection than citizens.

Feel free to educate yourself here: http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1302&context=facpub

[eyeball]

That would be an argument against having no limits on freedom of speech, but that's not what we're talking about. People should be free to criticize whatever institution they want to, and should be able to expect safety when they do so. Whether they reasonably can expect safety is not the point, they are testing that point right now.

I note they paid for security for their venue and I wonder if it would be appropriate they be sent a bill for the public resources that had to be mobilized. Does free-speech mean Scot-free-completely-off-the-hook free? Edited May 10, 2015 by eyeball

[Shady]

You're wrong.

Feel free to educate yourself here: http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1302&context=facpub

You're the one that needs educating. You're the one that thinks that the U.S. constitution applies to you, and somehow overrides the Canadian constitution. Absurdity.

[Shady]

I note they paid for security for their venue and I wonder if it would be appropriate they be sent a bill for the public resources that had to be mobilized. Does free-speech mean Scot-free-completely-off-the-hook free?

Perhaps the perpetrators, if still alive should get the bill. Because the event is perfectly legal, and perfectly within the bounds of political free speech. Once again, you and your ilk are blaming the victim. It's tantamount to blaming a woman for being raped because she was wearing revealing clothing. It's disgusting. Regardless, this incident has been valuable in illustrating (pun intended) the wing-nuttery that is Islam. They can't see what's going on, but if you tell them that a drawing is going on, they try to kill you. I guess if Christians have any issues with being mocked, by the likes of Maher or Dawkins, etc. They just need to be more violent. Threaten or even commit murder.

[WestCoastRunner]

There is a fine line between hate speech and free speech. Many writers have opined that this is such the case with her events.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/07/opinion/free-speech-vs-hate-speech.html?_r=0

http://www.salon.com/2015/05/06/pamela_gellers_south_park_idiocy_satire_hatred_and_the_rights_faith_based_fear_mongering/

http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/04/opinions/moghul-texas-shooting-gellar/

Some quotes:

"Geller’s project demands that her followers work entirely off of fear-based emotions, leaving all reason aside. This, of course, may be her greatest insult to the idea of free speech. Free speech is not a license to be stupid; in fact, the very right to free speech depends on the idea that humans are rational subjects. Sure we defend all sorts of speech under the notion of the first amendment, but we would never have even had such an amendment without a firm belief that the rights of the citizen should be grounded in reason and not faith. And there is no greater testament to reason than satire. Satire requires the brain to understand layers of meaning, to unpack irony, and to form independent ideas."

"Whether fighting against a planned mosque near ground zero, posting to her venomous blog Atlas Shrugs or organizing the event in Garland, Ms. Geller revels in assailing Islam in terms reminiscent of virulent racism or anti-Semitism. She achieved her provocative goal in Garland."

"After the attack, she didn't call for dialogue, for understanding, for bringing people together, which is what real leaders do.

Instead, she went on Fox news and called it a war. And that appears to be what she wants. That's why she's dangerous, not brave. She's not celebrating hate speech for the sake of free speech, but to provoke reactions that polarize America, set people at odds, and alienate Muslims, who are American citizens and often first in line to report planned terrorist attacks. (American Muslims are allies, not enemies.)"