Congratulations to Garland, Texas!

[ClydeR]

If you live in Garland, Texas, then congratulations on living in the city that gets to host this event! It's being held in your school's auditorium. Garland, in case you didn't know, is basically the same place as Dallas, and it's close to President Bush's new museum.


The American Freedom Defense Initiative will host a “Muhammad Art Exhibit and Contest” on May 3. It offers a cash prize for art and cartoons featuring the Islamic prophet. The headline speaker will be Geert Wilders, a right-wing Dutch lawmaker known for a hard-line stance against Islam.

The school district’s arena near the Bush Turnpike was booked by Sound Vision Foundation Jan. 17 for an event titled “Stand With the Prophet.” The event’s stated mission was to combat Islamophobia. It drew about 2,000 attendees and 200 protesters. There were no incidents or arrests.

The “Muhammad Art Exhibit and Contest” was intentionally booked for the same site. AFDI co-founder Pamela Geller of New York organized the protest against “Stand With the Prophet.”

More... (http://www.dallasnews.com/news/community-news/garland-mesquite/headlines/20150216-anti-islam-group-books-program-at-garland-isd-center.ece)

The AFDI is the same group that opposed the Muslim community center near Ground Zero, as well as opposing a lot of other Muslim things.

The grand prize for the best drawing will be $10,000!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXhRIVcxiBI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXhRIVcxiBI

[ClydeR]

A day after police killed two gunmen who tried to ambush a Garland, Texas, event featuring controversial cartoons of the Muslim Prophet Mohammed, details began to emerge about the shooters.

More... (http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/04/us/garland-mohammed-drawing-contest-shooting/)

This was completely foreseeable. If I predicted it three months ago, the local police should have been able to do the same.

[Grey]

And they did, which is why they had extra security for the event. Extra security on top of the already beefy security the organizers hired.
In other news, I predict a blue sky tomorrow. Stay tuned for my big follow up post if I'm correct.

[Astray]

This event was basically "let's piss off a bunch of extremists" and when that occurred, "omg those extremists tried something but why would they omg". Kinda pisses me off that I'm in the same state as this.

[Thondalar]

This event was basically "let's piss off a bunch of extremists" and when that occurred, "omg those extremists tried something but why would they omg". Kinda pisses me off that I'm in the same state as this.

Personally, I find it more troubling that a cartoon contest would send anyone into a murderous rage. Sorry, but I'm gonna side with free speech on this one.

[Astray]

Personally, I find it more troubling that a cartoon contest would send anyone into a murderous rage. Sorry, but I'm gonna side with free speech on this one.

To be fair, the depiction of the prophet isn't a violation of any tenants or laws depicted in the Quran. It's more of a fad that came into existence some 60 years or so ago. It's the extremists that enforce it as law, as stupid as that is.

I digress, good for free speech to win on this one.

[Back]

Personally, I find it more troubling that a cartoon contest would send anyone into a murderous rage. Sorry, but I'm gonna side with free speech on this one.

My view is... yes, we have free speech. We are comfortable in knowing that. Does that mean you can say whatever you want without thinking there are going to be consequences? No, killing people over a cartoon is not right. But if you know it is going to piss someone off isn't that inciting in purpose? Isn't it enough to know that we have it while using common sense not to abuse it?

[Tgo01]

Personally, I find it more troubling that a cartoon contest would send anyone into a murderous rage. Sorry, but I'm gonna side with free speech on this one.

Yeah I saw some people on Facebook saying they don't agree with free speech that "purposefully incites violence." A cartoon is purposefully inciting violence? Holy shit the liberals are losing their minds on this one.


My view is... yes, we have free speech. We are comfortable in knowing that. Does that mean you can say whatever you want without thinking there are going to be consequences? No, killing people over a cartoon is not right. But if you know it is going to piss someone off isn't that inciting in purpose? Isn't it enough to know that we have it while using common sense not to abuse it?

Holy shit liberals are losing their minds on this one.

[Tgo01]

I wonder how far we can stretch Back's line of thinking on this one.

Muslims tell you they are going to kill you at the polling station if you vote Republican.

Well let's not piss the Muslims off on purpose, isn't it good enough to know we have the freedom to vote without abusing it to piss someone off?

[Androidpk]

My view is... yes, we have free speech. We are comfortable in knowing that. Does that mean you can say whatever you want without thinking there are going to be consequences? No, killing people over a cartoon is not right. But if you know it is going to piss someone off isn't that inciting in purpose? Isn't it enough to know that we have it while using common sense not to abuse it?

No, Back. Just no.

[Grey]

To be fair, the depiction of the prophet isn't a violation of any tenants or laws depicted in the Quran. It's more of a fad that came into existence some 60 years or so ago. It's the extremists that enforce it as law, as stupid as that is.

I digress, good for free speech to win on this one.

Most of Islam isn't based on the quran. And the prohibition against depictions isn't a 60 year old fad.

[Astray]

Most of Islam isn't based on the quran. And the prohibition against depictions isn't a 60 year old fad.

Meh, that's what I get for studying religion in a Community College I guess.

[SHAFT]

My view is... yes, we have free speech. We are comfortable in knowing that. Does that mean you can say whatever you want without thinking there are going to be consequences? No, killing people over a cartoon is not right. But if you know it is going to piss someone off isn't that inciting in purpose? Isn't it enough to know that we have it while using common sense not to abuse it?

Pretty much back. The people behind this draw Muhammad thing were asking for this. Dumb fucks. They're nearly as bad as the people doing the shooting. Inciting anger and violence for what?

[Androidpk]

Meh, that's what I get for studying religion in a Community College I guess.

Stick to your expertise on ticks and dicks.

[Astray]

Stick to your expertise on ticks and dicks.

I'll tick your dick.

[Grey]

Meh, that's what I get for studying religion in a Community College I guess.

There are good ones out there. Was it online? Those things are all scams.

The majority of Muslims belong to branches that use hadiths to justify their rules. After all, that's how the "prophet" did it back in the day. Violence, hypocrisy, contradictions and all.

[Astray]

There are good ones out there. Was it online? Those things are all scams.

The majority of Muslims belong to branches that use hadiths to justify their rules. After all, that's how the "prophet" did it back in the day. Violence, hypocrisy, contradictions and all.

It was in Arizona. Which explains things further.

[Grey]

At least you could bring your guns with you. I assume celebratory firing in the air is encouraged too.

[Androidpk]

At least you could bring your guns with you. I assume celebratory firing in the air is encouraged too.

:lol:

[Taernath]

Pretty much back. The people behind this draw Muhammad thing were asking for this. Dumb fucks. They're nearly as bad as the people doing the shooting. Inciting anger and violence for what?

It's like ordering white wine at a dive bar.

[Silvean]

There are good ones out there. Was it online? Those things are all scams.

The majority of Muslims belong to branches that use hadiths to justify their rules. After all, that's how the "prophet" did it back in the day. Violence, hypocrisy, contradictions and all.

Your editorializing aside, it is correct that Muslims rely on the normative example of the prophet (sunnah) as recorded in narrations (hadith) transmitted from person-to-person and canonized in written form. The classic example of their importance is that Muslims would not know how to pray without hadith; the proper way to pray is not explained in the Qur'an.

Muslims developed a sophisticated process for examining the transmission of hadith to separate the forgeries from the authentic. They were well aware of problems created by seeming hypocrisy or contradiction. Some western critics have said they are almost all forged and some believers think all hadith judged authentic by by the tradition are just that. I think the truth is somewhere in the middle.

[Androidpk]

Pretty much back. The people behind this draw Muhammad thing were asking for this. Dumb fucks. They're nearly as bad as the people doing the shooting. Inciting anger and violence for what?

Because they can.

[Grey]

Your editorializing aside

You're going to have to explain where I editorialized. I don't see it.

[Back]

Hey, the people holding this event are embarrassing to me first as an American and second as a good Baptist Texan, third as a basic human being.

I do not condone the killing of people for freedom for doing what they want but I do criticize people who do things looking for a fight.

[Androidpk]

Hey, the people holding this event are embarrassing to me first as an American and second as a good Baptist Texan.

I do not condone the killing of people for freedom for doing what they want but I do criticize people who do things looking for a fight.

Yeah, damn those Americans for exercising their freedom of speech!

/s

[Silvean]

You're going to have to explain where I editorialized. I don't see it.

From the Muslim point of view, hadith are used in conjunction with the Qur'an to establish rather than justify laws. It seems like you were also trying to make a point by putting prophet in quotation marks.

I should note, however, that some western scholars believe Muslims borrowed much of their legal tradition from Roman or Persian law and then used forged hadith to Islamicize it but that's a debatable proposition. That said, I didn't mean to poke a stick at you and I don't want to have a prolonged conversation about sharia on a video game message board.

[Gelston]

Meh, that's what I get for studying religion in a Community College I guess.

It is based on later writings by Muhammad. He felt that Christianity had fallen into idolatry and that he didn't want to depicted the same as Jesus, which would encourage the same.

[Back]

Yeah, damn those Americans for exercising their freedom of speech!

/s


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndiJdx2Jrtk&feature=youtu.be

[Warriorbird]

Pam Gellar's a fucking idiot. I still support Draw Mohammad Day.

Life is complex!

[Gelston]

Why would you feel embarrassed for the actions on someone else? I was born in Texas too, and while I feel this wasn't the smartest idea, it is their rights.

[Grey]

a prolonged conversation about sharia
Oh dear god that's the last thing I want as well.

[SHAFT]

Because they can.

Of course they can. But should they?

The U.S. could drop a nuclear bomb on an ISIS-infested city. Should they?

I could drink a fifth of jack Daniels in one sitting. I love jack Daniels. Should I?

[Gelston]

Of course they can. But should they?

The U.S. could drop a nuclear bomb on an ISIS-infested city. Should they?

I could drink a fifth of jack Daniels in one sitting. I love jack Daniels. Should I?

No one ever said there aren't consequences. The consequences here were that a couple of idiots got so offended they wanted to kill people. Good thing they failed.

[Androidpk]

Of course they can. But should they?

The U.S. could drop a nuclear bomb on an ISIS-infested city. Should they?

I could drink a fifth of jack Daniels in one sitting. I love jack Daniels. Should I?

Yes, yes and yes.

[Back]

Why would you feel embarrassed for the actions on someone else? I was born in Texas too, and while I feel this wasn't the smartest idea, it is their rights.

My family are from Texas and they are a humble lot. I love my family.

My family they were good people. The kind of people who help other people.

My family were not people looking to harass other people. They were the kind of people who were welcoming and accepting of others.

[Gelston]

My family are from Texas and they are a humble lot. I love my family.

My family they were good people. The kind of people who help other people.

My family were not people looking to harass other people. They were the kind of people who were welcoming and accepting of others.

And what does that have to do with the people who did the exhibit in Garland? I mean, if it was your family doing it, maybe. Otherwise you are just being another self hating idiot.

[Back]

And what does that have to do with the people who did the exhibit in Garland? I mean, if it was your family doing it, maybe. Otherwise you are just being another self hating idiot.

Why are you so hostile?

[Gelston]

Why are you so hostile?

I am only asking a question. Why do you feel the need to be embarrassed or mention that you are?

[Back]

And what does that have to do with the people who did the exhibit in Garland? I mean, if it was your family doing it, maybe. Otherwise you are just being another self hating idiot.

The people in Garland knew very well what they were doing.

Believe me. I know Texas. I know all about every aspect of the thoughts of the people who live there.

This is me being smug, Gelt.

Put a real Texan in office, not some oil baron, and you might get a winner.

[Fallen]

From what I heard few of the attendants were local. This was an event planned by a largely outside organization that chose the town as a staging ground.

The source is BBC, but it was on air, so I can't find an article to link.

[Gelston]

This is me being smug, Gelt.


Oh okay.

[Back]

From what I heard few of the attendants were local. This was an event planned by a largely outside organization that chose the town as a staging ground.

Planned by bigots. What is the etymology of bigot?

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=bigot

[Astray]

Believe me. I know Texas. I know all about every aspect of the thoughts of the people who live there.

I call bullshit.

[Gelston]

I call bullshit.

Nothing Back says is eeeeeeever bullshit.


Except when it is.

[Back]

I call bullshit.

Dallas/Forth Worth, then later Houston kid.

[Astray]

Dallas/Forth Worth, then later Houston kid.

Yep, still calling bullshit here buddy.

[Back]

Yep, still calling bullshit here buddy.

How can I prove it?

El Phenix?

[Astray]

How can I prove it?

El Phenix?

You can stop being such a cock, for starters.

[Gelston]

Dallas/Forth Worth, then later Houston kid.

Tell me about Texans then, Back.

[Fallen]

Planned by bigots. What is the etymology of bigot?

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=bigot

Any religion willing to kill over a drawing is one which should be actively opposed. That being said, actions have consequences and those that hosted that event are in part responsible for the results of their provocation. At the very least they need to make it clear to everyone involved the risks posed by attending such an event.

[Androidpk]

Well, it is Tuesday after all. Back is right on time!

[Back]

The people who spent money on this little bit of "hate speech" are probably weapon dealers.

[Androidpk]

You can stop being such a cock, for starters.

You live in Phoenix?

[Gelston]

The people who spent money on this little bit of "hate speech" are probably weapon dealers.

Show me the connections you made for this.

[Astray]

You live in Phoenix?

Nope. Born there but I've never lived there.

[Back]

Well, it is Tuesday after all. Back is right on time!

It is not Tuesday until I wake up tomorrow. (Yes, it is my Friday night, and I am not in any way repentant, or otherwise apologetic, about it.)

[Gelston]

It is not Tuesday until I wake up tomorrow. (Yes, it is my Friday nigh, and I am not in any way repentant, or otherwise apologetic, about it.)

Well, at least your own actions don't embarrass you, just other people's that you are in no way connected to.

[Androidpk]

Nope. Born there but I've never lived there.


I used to have an apartment on the east side, right next to a Jack in the Box. It was heaven.

[Astray]

I used to have an apartment on the east side, right next to a Jack in the Box. It was heaven.

I spent a summer with my tio in Phoenix. I'm pretty sure Hell was visiting that summer too.

[Back]

Well, at least your own actions don't embarrass you, just other people's that you are in no way connected to.

Other than being human? Knowing what respect for other humans is?

Guilty.

[Astray]

Other than being human? Knowing what respect for other humans is?

Guilty.

Do you need a hand getting on that cross of yours?

[Gelston]

Other than being human? Knowing what respect for other humans is?

Guilty.

So you must be HEAVILY embarrassed by ISIS.

[Androidpk]

Other than being human? Knowing what respect for other humans is?

Guilty.

Then you should respect their right to freedom of speech and assembly.

[Androidpk]

I spent a summer with my tio in Phoenix. I'm pretty sure Hell was visiting that summer too.

I used to have the AC on in December :/

[Astray]

I used to have the AC on in December :/

Brutal, man.

[StainlessSteelRat]

The South makes all Americans look bad.

[Back]

We must ask ourselves... what is freedom?

Is freedom lawless and chaotic? Should an individual not have complete freedom to do whatever they want without question from some autonomous authority?

Is freedom a commodity to protect? Is it really a product of well armed government?

[Astray]

We must ask ourselves... what is freedom?

Is freedom lawless and chaotic? Should an individual not have complete freedom to do whatever they want without question from some autonomous authority?

Is freedom a commodity to protect? Is it really a product of well armed government?

You suck.

[Gelston]

We must ask ourselves... what is freedom?

Is freedom lawless and chaotic? Should an individual not have complete freedom to do whatever they want without question from some autonomous authority?

Is freedom a commodity to protect? Is it really a product of well armed government?

You sound like an idiot trying to sound smart.

[Back]

You sound like an idiot trying to sound smart.

I'm fully engaged in the conversation.

Do you think freedom of speech excludes idiots from getting what they ask for?

[Gelston]

I'm fully engaged in the conversation.

Do you think freedom of speech excludes idiots from getting what they ask for?

You have the right to be an idiot, yes.

[Grey]

I'm fully engaged in the conversation.

Do you think freedom of speech excludes idiots from getting what they ask for?

No, we think right to life does. Excluding you. Kill yourself.

[Back]

You have the right to be an idiot, yes.

We agree. End of story.

[Astray]

You have the right to be an idiot, yes.

He's like a guy that listens to "Freedom isn't free" and nods silently to himself on the bus. Meanwhile everyone is looking at him like "please don't fucking blow up the bus you psychopath".

[Gelston]

We agree. End of story.

....k.

[Back]

No, we think right to life does. Excluding you. Kill yourself.

http://www.technologytell.com/gadgets/files/2014/05/JqS6luU.gif

[Warriorbird]

I'm fully engaged in the conversation.

Do you think freedom of speech excludes idiots from getting what they ask for?

This is the stance of the people who defend those who attacked Charlie Hebdo. It's a bullshit stance.

[Gelston]

No, we think right to life does. Excluding you. Kill yourself.

Yeah, we had a PC member do just that. Probably not a good idea to leave traces of you egging that sorta thing on.

[Astray]

No, we think right to life does. Excluding you. Kill yourself.

Whoa. Calm down there buddy.

[SHAFT]

Yes, yes and yes.

You're absolutely right!

[SHAFT]

No, we think right to life does. Excluding you. Kill yourself.

Whoa now. That's not cool. You obviously weren't around for the warclaidhm incident.

It's fun to talk shit but encouraging suicide kind of crosses the line.

[Back]

This is the stance of the people who defend those who attacked Charlie Hebdo. It's a bullshit stance.

Yes, any outward expression of antagonism is bullshit. You want a fight? I'm not looking for one.

[Grey]

It's fun to talk shit but encouraging suicide kind of crosses the line.

I couldn't disagree more.

[Back]

I couldn't disagree more.

I recognize you from the Baltimore thread.

You threw around anecdotes as a man on the streets.

[Astray]

Welp, I bail.

[Grey]

Funny, I don't recall any anecdotes.

[Back]

Funny, I don't recall any anecdotes.


LOL.

When's the last time you visited Baltimore?

Yep.

[Grey]

A question now counts as an anecdote?

There I go again I guess.

[Parkbandit]

Tuesday started early!


http://forum.missouriquiltco.com/attachments/general-chit-chat/92938d1416307031-tuesday-greetings-happy-tuesday-30.jpg

[Silvean]

It is based on later writings by Muhammad. He felt that Christianity had fallen into idolatry and that he didn't want to depicted the same as Jesus, which would encourage the same.

The majority opinion in the Muslim tradition is that Muhammad was illiterate. There's a Qur'anic source for this (7:157) where Muhammad is described as "Nabi al-Ummi." "Nabi" means prophet and "Ummi" could mean illiterate but, like most Arabic, it has a wide range of other possible meanings. Underscoring the prophet's supposed illiteracy may be seen to add something to the case of those who believe the Qur'an itself is a great miracle.

Either way, neither the Qur'an nor the hadith were collected in written editions until well after the death of the Prophet and the decision to collect them was controversial. These materials were preserved orally just as they are today with some Muslims learning to recite the entire Qur'an from memory as children. In the case of the Qur'an, the argument for preserving it in writing was bolstered by the death of 400+ Qur'an reciters during what are called the Apostasy Wars.

[Tgo01]

Back, do you ever get tired of being the whipping boy for Democrats and Muslims? Or do you get paid for your shenanigans?

[Parkbandit]

I recognize you from the Baltimore thread.

You threw around anecdotes as a man on the streets.

From the guy who gave you this gem of stupid, just 90 minutes earlier:


Believe me. I know Texas. I know all about every aspect of the thoughts of the people who live there.


Sleep it off today Pack. We look forward to next Tuesday.

[Androidpk]

Sleep it off today Pack. We look forward to next Tuesday.


You be quiet!

[Parkbandit]

Back, do you ever get tired of being the whipping boy for Democrats and Muslims? Or do you get paid for your shenanigans?

http://images.sodahead.com/polls/0/0/4/3/3/6/5/7/1/3455455065_liberal_tolerance_rant.jpeg

[Parkbandit]

You be quiet!

He's a lightweight.. he won't be back until late.. and even then it won't be a typical Tuesday for us.

:sniff:

[phantasm]

Two violent extremist muslims, that were living in Texas, are shot. I fail to see the problem here? Maybe we should have more of these events.

[Back]

Bottom line shooting someone over a cartoon is obviously worse than drawing a cartoon with the intent to offend someone. But going out of your way to offend someone and then hiding behind "freedom of speech" is a dick move. A Westboro Baptist Church move.

[Tgo01]

Bottom line shooting someone over a cartoon is obviously worse than drawing a cartoon with the intent to offend someone. But going out of your way to offend someone and then hiding behind "freedom of speech" is a dick move. A Westboro Baptist Church move.

I don't think anyone should be shooting at Westboro Baptist Church members either.

Back, do you realize that by "understanding" the terrorists' "side" in this you are quite literally letting the terrorists win?

[Archigeek]

Sleep it off today Pack. We look forward to next Tuesday.

Why do you call him Pack? I assume that it is supposed to be something funny? Is there a joke in there somewhere?

[Back]

Why do you call him Pack? I assume that it is supposed to be something funny? Is there a joke in there somewhere?

It's a homophobic slur. He is pretty unimaginative when it comes to actual debate so he uses pictures or slurs when he gets backed into a corner.

[Parkbandit]

It's a homophobic slur. He is pretty unimaginative when it comes to actual debate so he uses pictures or slurs when he gets backed into a corner.

How is a Packer a homophobic slur???? It's the name of a great NFL team and it started out as a team name that gave homage to their sponsor.. the INDIAN Packing Company.

[Androidpk]

You know something must be true if Tgo and I agree on it.

[Astray]

Stop giving Back shovels. That hole is deep enough already.

[Parkbandit]

Stop giving Back shovels. That hole is deep enough already.

The only real way to give Back a shovel:

http://www.gifpins.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Hit-in-the-head-with-a-shovel.gif

[Kembal]

How is a Packer a homophobic slur???? It's the name of a great NFL team and it started out as a team name that gave homage to their sponsor.. the INDIAN Packing Company.

While it is the name of Green Bay Packers, last I checked, packer also is short for a homophobic slur in another context. I'm surprised you don't know this.

[Androidpk]

While it is the name of Green Bay Packers, last I checked, packer also is short for a homophobic slur in another context. I'm surprised you don't know this.

He knows this. It is precisely why he says it to Back.

[Astray]

gif

If you do that he'll cry.

[Parkbandit]

While it is the name of Green Bay Packers, last I checked, packer also is short for a homophobic slur in another context. I'm surprised you don't know this.

So, you are saying that the Green Bay Packers are a team full of homophobes???

[Candor]

I still get surprised by how much threads can digress on this board. Someone could start a topic as to whether there is life on Mars, and it could digress into a discussion as to whether anyone who can ever touched a piece of ivory is a heartless conservative who despises all animals.

[Tgo01]

I need Back's expert opinion on this:

http://unclesamsmisguidedchildren.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/foxpic.png

Clearly these people are provoking those of us who don't like to see the American flag disrespected like that. So obviously this gives me the right to shoot them, yes?

Back, I need your help!

[Fallen]

I need Back's expert opinion on this:

http://unclesamsmisguidedchildren.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/foxpic.png

Clearly these people are provoking those of us who don't like to see the American flag disrespected like that. So obviously this gives me the right to shoot them, yes?

Back, I need your help!

I was also thinking of this example throughout this whole incident. I would imagine you'd need about $10,000 worth of security for an advertised event like this as well.


The potential of a new attack was why the Garland police officer was at the convention center, which the Texas city's school district operates. He had plenty of company: Harn didn't specify the number of law enforcement officers on site, but did say the event's organizers paid $10,000 for beefed-up security.

[Androidpk]

I was also thinking of this example throughout this whole incident. I would imagine you'd need about $10,000 worth of security for an advertised event like this as well.

[/FONT][/COLOR]

I don't think so. People upset over the flag trampling are more apt to make angry facebook posts or start a petition on change.org, not show up to the event and kill people.

[Parkbandit]

I don't think so. People upset over the flag trampling are more apt to make angry facebook posts or start a petition on change.org, not show up to the event and kill people.

This.

But from the Left.. one is considered hate speech and the other is considered free speech.

[Tgo01]

I don't think so. People upset over the flag trampling are more apt to make angry facebook posts or start a petition on change.org, not show up to the event and kill people.

Pretty sure Fallen was being sarcastic and that was his exact point.

ETA: Or maybe not, it is kind of hard to tell.

We need clarity, Fallen!

[Fallen]

I think people would come to blows over an event featuring people publicly desecrating an American flag, but I doubt they'd come shoot up the place. I honestly believe you'd need to spend that much money to stop protesters from disrupting it, especially if held in Texas.

[Tgo01]

I think people would come to blows over an event featuring people publicly desecrating an American flag, but I doubt they'd come shoot up the place. I honestly believe you'd need to spend that much money to stop protesters from disrupting it, especially if held in Texas.

Well there is this story that happened just recently on a college campus:

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/georgia-university-shuts-down-ahead-flag-protest-n347586

From what I've heard the flag walking was an advertised 3 day event before something finally happened, and that something that happened was an anti protester being arrested and supporters showing up waving American flags.

I'm not gonna pretend that it could never happen that someone wouldn't show up with guns and start shooting people over disrespecting the American flag, there are a lot of hillbilly rednecks out there, but I think enough of these demonstrations have happened to show it's certainly not the norm for that to happen. I don't think the same could be said for Muslims going batshit crazy over the prophet thing.

Also if someone did show up and start shooting people for walking on the American flag I would be the first to admonish the shooter and tell everyone that the other people had the right to step on the flag, I sure as fuck wouldn't start making excuses for the shooter's behavior.

That last line isn't directed at you, Fallen.

[Fallen]

Interesting article. Definitely sounds like there was a potential for violence.


Police were searching for another protester who the university says brought a gun on campus in his backpack.

I respect free speech as much as anyone else, but I would also be pretty damned upset if such an event were held at my school.

[Tgo01]

Interesting article. Definitely sounds like there was a potential for violence.

The article isn't too clear but that actually could have been one of the protesters who were walking on the flag. The whole thing turned into a cluster fuck because after they arrested the Air Force veteran because news sites started doing some digging and it turns out the people who organized the events were a bunch of thugs (GASP!) to begin with and were constantly shouting racial slurs at non black students and have been in trouble with the law before. I think 3 of them ended up being wanted for various crimes after this shit and they disappeared. I dunno, I should read more on that.

[Tgo01]

Yup, the gun did belong to one of the three thugs who walked on the flag:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/25/michelle-manhart-support-rally-held-in-georgia-vet/


This week campus police found a backpack containing a handgun and traced it to one of the flag-walking protestors, Eric Sheppard.

Police issued a warrant for Mr. Sheppard’s arrest on charges of bringing a firearm onto a college campus. Mr. Sheppard fled and has not been found by authorities, according to Fox.

Apparently these students were always causing trouble on campus, shouting their anti white and anti American bullshit all the time.

[Fallen]

Somewhat related to this discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_Desecration_Amendment


The Flag Desecration Amendment, often referred to as the Flag-burning Amendment, is a proposed constitutional amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_amendment) to the United States Constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution)that would allow the United States Congress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congress) to prohibit statutorily the physical desecration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_desecration) of the flag of the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_the_United_States). The concept of flag desecration continues to provoke a heated debate over protecting a national symbol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_symbol), protecting free speech (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech), and protecting the liberty represented by a national symbol.While the proposed amendment is frequently referred to colloquially in terms of expression of political views through "flag burning," the language would permit the prohibition of all forms of flag desecration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_desecration), which may take forms other than burning, such as using the flag for clothing or napkins.

The most recent attempt to adopt a flag desecration amendment failed in the United States Senate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate) by one vote on June 27, 2006.

What do you think? Are you (general) for or against such an amendment?

[Tgo01]

Somewhat related to this discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_Desecration_Amendment



What do you think? Are you (general) for or against such an amendment?

Against. Hasn't the SCOTUS already ruled on this?

[Fallen]

If it was a constitutional amendment the SCOTUS wouldn't be involved.

[Methais]

This thread gives me a new idea. Instead of waterboarding or whatever to get information, threaten them with a Muhammad tattoo.

On their dicks.

[Astray]

On their dicks.

Tip or base? This could be the deciding factor.

[Androidpk]

It's called free speech for a reason, not politically correct/censored speech.

[Methais]

Tip or base? This could be the deciding factor.

Tip, shaft, base, and balls.

[Gelston]

The majority opinion in the Muslim tradition is that Muhammad was illiterate. There's a Qur'anic source for this (7:157) where Muhammad is described as "Nabi al-Ummi." "Nabi" means prophet and "Ummi" could mean illiterate but, like most Arabic, it has a wide range of other possible meanings. Underscoring the prophet's supposed illiteracy may be seen to add something to the case of those who believe the Qur'an itself is a great miracle.

Either way, neither the Qur'an nor the hadith were collected in written editions until well after the death of the Prophet and the decision to collect them was controversial. These materials were preserved orally just as they are today with some Muslims learning to recite the entire Qur'an from memory as children. In the case of the Qur'an, the argument for preserving it in writing was bolstered by the death of 400+ Qur'an reciters during what are called the Apostasy Wars.

Yeah, he didn't write the stuff. I meant to say it was his sayings and such after the Quran.

[Gelston]

I still get surprised by how much threads can digress on this board. Someone could start a topic as to whether there is life on Mars, and it could digress into a discussion as to whether anyone who can ever touched a piece of ivory is a heartless conservative who despises all animals.

It is a ClydeR thread, who gives a fuck what it digresses to?

[Tgo01]

It is a ClydeR thread, who gives a fuck what it digresses to?

Clyder threads are super serious.

[Thondalar]

My view is... yes, we have free speech. We are comfortable in knowing that. Does that mean you can say whatever you want without thinking there are going to be consequences? No, killing people over a cartoon is not right. But if you know it is going to piss someone off isn't that inciting in purpose? Isn't it enough to know that we have it while using common sense not to abuse it?

Follow that line of thought to its conclusion. I know it will be difficult for someone of your inferior intellect...but try. Try very hard.

"They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. "

[Androidpk]

>"They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. "

- Snoop Dog

[Thondalar]

Pretty much back. The people behind this draw Muhammad thing were asking for this. Dumb fucks. They're nearly as bad as the people doing the shooting. Inciting anger and violence for what?

Because they must.

Liberalism only exists because of free speech. Communism, Fascism, Nazism...these things exist as governments in places where free speech is denied, but are somehow still championed by vocal minorities where free speech is allowed...usually undereducated teenagers that don't understand the fundamentals of their own beliefs...but that's a different topic...

The core of our Constitution is that the freedoms therein are granted to us by "[our] creator"...not by man. It is fact that no man on Earth can define who or what that "Creator" is; any of us can only give our (usually taught) assumption...so therefore our Rights, as granted by our very existence, cannot be denied by any other person...at least according to our Constitution.

Let me put it like this...if your child called another child a doodoo-head, and the other child punched your child in the face and broke his little nose...would you admonish your broken-nosed child, or would you question the parenting skills of the parents of the other child, which apparently taught him that violence was the correct way to handle a problem? Sure, your kid was bad for insulting them in the first place, but, could you honestly get behind the idea that the insult your child threw was WORSE than the physical attack the other child responded with?

If so, you have a seriously fucked up view of the world. Just sayin'.

[Whirlin]

Actually... freedom of speech isn't as cut and dry as the term implies. There are limitations and social constructs that exist that inhibit one's absolute freedom of speech. For example, yelling "GUN" in a crowded mall or other place is bound to cause an uproar, and cause a disruption of the peace. Similarly, we're not allowed to make bomb statements on planes for similar peace maintaining efforts. Even protests typically have defined boundaries from public buildings/etc (well, at least legally). Abortion clinics typically had defined protest spots across the street or at least 10 meters away from the entrance as to not impede upon individuals entering, or endager the workers. There was an important delineation that came out of the Snyder v. Phelps case where Westboro Baptist Church picketed the Phelps funeral:

The court's opinion also stated that the memorial service was not disturbed, saying, "Westboro stayed well away from the memorial service, Snyder could see no more than the tops of the picketers' signs, and there is no indication that the picketing interfered with the funeral service itself." The decision also declined to expand the "captive audience doctrine", saying that Snyder was not in a state where he was coerced to hear the negative speech.

This is the reason WBC has been relatively successful in skirting the law, because they know is a legal precent to a time and place for their protests.

Beyond rage speeches and protests, which have time, place, manner restrictions, there are also additional exclusions. The only one relevant for this thread is "Intentional Infliction of emotional distress". There's a whole slew of restrictions on freedom of speech in place actually.


One more legal tangent... in Texas v. Johnson, the supreme court ruled in favor of Johnson, who, during a protest burned an American Flag to express the ideals of the protest. This was actually upheld in the supreme court, and lead to the nulification of 48 of 50 states' laws on flag desicration. It's actually never made it back on the books as a law since for burning the flag... at least according to this single wikipedia article I read, that must be fact.

The audience is not being held captive to endure the hate speeches of the anti-muslim extremists that are simply hosting a cartoon effort purely to insight rage. It's absolutely poor form, clearly bigotry, and I'm glad that people are actually acting violently against them, because they deserve it, and they're the type of racists that the world would be better off without. However, legally, I can't find anything wrong with what they're doing.

[Parkbandit]

Actually... freedom of speech isn't as cut and dry as the term implies. There are limitations and social constructs that exist that inhibit one's absolute freedom of speech. For example, yelling "GUN" in a crowded mall or other place is bound to cause an uproar, and cause a disruption of the peace. Similarly, we're not allowed to make bomb statements on planes for similar peace maintaining efforts. Even protests typically have defined boundaries from public buildings/etc (well, at least legally). Abortion clinics typically had defined protest spots across the street or at least 10 meters away from the entrance as to not impede upon individuals entering, or endager the workers. There was an important delineation that came out of the Snyder v. Phelps case where Westboro Baptist Church picketed the Phelps funeral:

The court's opinion also stated that the memorial service was not disturbed, saying, "Westboro stayed well away from the memorial service, Snyder could see no more than the tops of the picketers' signs, and there is no indication that the picketing interfered with the funeral service itself." The decision also declined to expand the "captive audience doctrine", saying that Snyder was not in a state where he was coerced to hear the negative speech.

This is the reason WBC has been relatively successful in skirting the law, because they know is a legal precent to a time and place for their protests.

Beyond rage speeches and protests, which have time, place, manner restrictions, there are also additional exclusions. The only one relevant for this thread is "Intentional Infliction of emotional distress". There's a whole slew of restrictions on freedom of speech in place actually.


One more legal tangent... in Texas v. Johnson, the supreme court ruled in favor of Johnson, who, during a protest burned an American Flag to express the ideals of the protest. This was actually upheld in the supreme court, and lead to the nulification of 48 of 50 states' laws on flag desicration. It's actually never made it back on the books as a law since for burning the flag... at least according to this single wikipedia article I read, that must be fact.

The audience is not being held captive to endure the hate speeches of the anti-muslim extremists that are simply hosting a cartoon effort purely to insight rage. It's absolutely poor form, clearly bigotry, and I'm glad that people are actually acting violently against them, because they deserve it, and they're the type of racists that the world would be better off without. However, legally, I can't find anything wrong with what they're doing.

You're a fucking nutjob. I wanted to quote this before you realize it though.

[Parkbandit]

Actually... freedom of speech isn't as cut and dry as the term implies. There are limitations and social constructs that exist that inhibit one's absolute freedom of speech. For example, yelling "GUN" in a crowded mall or other place is bound to cause an uproar, and cause a disruption of the peace. Similarly, we're not allowed to make bomb statements on planes for similar peace maintaining efforts. Even protests typically have defined boundaries from public buildings/etc (well, at least legally). Abortion clinics typically had defined protest spots across the street or at least 10 meters away from the entrance as to not impede upon individuals entering, or endager the workers. There was an important delineation that came out of the Snyder v. Phelps case where Westboro Baptist Church picketed the Phelps funeral:

The court's opinion also stated that the memorial service was not disturbed, saying, "Westboro stayed well away from the memorial service, Snyder could see no more than the tops of the picketers' signs, and there is no indication that the picketing interfered with the funeral service itself." The decision also declined to expand the "captive audience doctrine", saying that Snyder was not in a state where he was coerced to hear the negative speech.

This is the reason WBC has been relatively successful in skirting the law, because they know is a legal precent to a time and place for their protests.

Beyond rage speeches and protests, which have time, place, manner restrictions, there are also additional exclusions. The only one relevant for this thread is "Intentional Infliction of emotional distress". There's a whole slew of restrictions on freedom of speech in place actually.


One more legal tangent... in Texas v. Johnson, the supreme court ruled in favor of Johnson, who, during a protest burned an American Flag to express the ideals of the protest. This was actually upheld in the supreme court, and lead to the nulification of 48 of 50 states' laws on flag desicration. It's actually never made it back on the books as a law since for burning the flag... at least according to this single wikipedia article I read, that must be fact.

The audience is not being held captive to endure the hate speeches of the anti-muslim extremists that are simply hosting a cartoon effort purely to insight rage. It's absolutely poor form, clearly bigotry, and I'm glad that people are actually acting violently against them, because they deserve it, and they're the type of racists that the world would be better off without. However, legally, I can't find anything wrong with what they're doing.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyJ07p72lZ4

Pay "special" attention from 1:50 - 4:00.. he even dumbs it down for people like you who believe violence solves everything.

Derp, derp.

[Parkbandit]

By the way, it takes a special kind of idiot to make Backlash the 2nd dumbest poster in a thread.

But you nailed it.

[Whirlin]

I didn't say violence was the answer... but what the fuck did they think was going to happen? They created this event with a purpose to enrage a group of people that are already known for radical behavior by underminding and belittling their beliefs. It's akin to punching a beehive, making statements that you're protected in your right to punch the beehive, and then being shocked when you get stung. I have no sympathy for that people. It's not preaching violence, it's preaching darwinism.

[Parkbandit]

I didn't say violence was the answer... but what the fuck did they think was going to happen? They created this event with a purpose to enrage a group of people that are already known for radical behavior by underminding and belittling their beliefs. It's akin to punching a beehive, making statements that you're protected in your right to punch the beehive, and then being shocked when you get stung. I have no sympathy for that people. It's not preaching violence, it's preaching darwinism.

I think President Shepard said it best:

"America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You gotta want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country can't just be a flag; the symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then, you can stand up and sing about the "land of the free"."

And speaking of darwinism.. where are those 2 that thought like you.. that free speech has to be violently opposed? Oh right, they are fucking dead.

Seriously, you have issues.

[Androidpk]

Islam is not a race..

[Whirlin]

Are you even reading what I'm writing? Or just reading what you want to think I'm writing? I'm not saying that this is a violation of free speech, in fact, I highlighted multiple court cases that identified that this is clearly NOT a violation of free speech, and he is absolutely protected by law in his actions.

This isn't about free speech, it's about acting like an idiot, and being surprised at the repercussions. Freedom is speech is not a magical shield that going to magically permits conducting social taboos without recourse.

[Fallen]

The audience is not being held captive to endure the hate speeches of the anti-muslim extremists that are simply hosting a cartoon effort purely to insight rage. It's absolutely poor form, clearly bigotry, and I'm glad that people are actually acting violently against them, because they deserve it, and they're the type of racists that the world would be better off without. However, legally, I can't find anything wrong with what they're doing.

That's the part where people think you went off the rails. I'm inclined to agree.

[Parkbandit]

That's the part where people think you went off the rails. I'm inclined to agree.

Exactly this.

[Whirlin]

That's the part where people think you went off the rails. I'm inclined to agree.
That's fair. I can see where PB was coming from. But the intent was to convey my intolerance for their level of intolerance, and less about their ability to convey their ideas under freedom of speech.

[Parkbandit]

That's fair. I can see where PB was coming from. But the intent was to convey my intolerance for their level of intolerance, and less about their ability to convey their ideas under freedom of speech.

When you applaud violence against free speech, you've taken a left turn into crazy Loony Town.

For fuck sake, even Backlash didn't make that left turn.. and he fucking LIVES in Loony Town.

Grats on becoming Mayor.

[Whirlin]

When you applaud violence against free speech, you've taken a left turn into crazy Loony Town.

For fuck sake, even Backlash didn't make that left turn.. and he fucking LIVES in Loony Town.

Grats on becoming Mayor.
It's violence against intolerance, not violence against freedom of speech.

[Androidpk]

That's fair. I can see where PB was coming from. But the intent was to convey my intolerance for their level of intolerance, and less about their ability to convey their ideas under freedom of speech.

We should be tolerant of radical Islamists!??

[Parkbandit]

It's violence against intolerance, not violence against freedom of speech.

So, in your mind, drawing a cartoon isn't free speech?

You have the same twisted definition of tolerance that Backlash does.. as long as you agree with the subject, it's free speech.. but the second you don't, it's hate speech. Only difference is, you believe that hate speech should be countered with violence.

[Parkbandit]

We should be tolerant of radical Islamists!??

What did they ever do to you??

Islamophobe ALERT!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Androidpk]

http://img13.deviantart.net/0e77/i/2015/104/7/c/transnigger_by_znoflats-d8pownb.png

[Vorpos]

It's violence against intolerance, not violence against freedom of speech.

So what is your opinion on Piss Christ?

[Warriorbird]

I think Geller is a fucking idiot.

I simultaneously defend her right to be one.

-some card carrying ACLU member

[Androidpk]

I think Geller is a fucking idiot.

I simultaneously defend her right to be one.

-some card carrying ACLU member

That about sums up my feelings on the subject of free speech. I may not like what you say, and I may mock you and call you an idiot, but I will stand up and defend your right to say said shit.

[Latrinsorm]

Personally, I find it more troubling that a cartoon contest would send anyone into a murderous rage. Sorry, but I'm gonna side with free speech on this one.
Yeah I saw some people on Facebook saying they don't agree with free speech that "purposefully incites violence." A cartoon is purposefully inciting violence? Holy shit the liberals are losing their minds on this one.
Then you should respect their right to freedom of speech and assembly.Brandenburg v. Ohio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio)

"The Court held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is directed to inciting, and is likely to incite, imminent lawless action."
This is the stance of the people who defend those who attacked Charlie Hebdo. It's a bullshit stance.Does criticizing one side of a dispute mean you are defending the other? If you criticize a Democrat, does that make you a Republican-lover? Or is that a b***shit false dichotomy?
Follow that line of thought to its conclusion. I know it will be difficult for someone of your inferior intellect...but try. Try very hard.The conclusion is that incitement to violence is unacceptable. Brandenburg v. Ohio has been in place for 45 years. The infringement on free speech you fear (a) already happened decades ago and (b) in no way led to any further infringement. There is no slippery slope. There never has been.
The core of our Constitution is that the freedoms therein are granted to us by "[our] creator"...not by man.That's the Declaration of Independence. I told you Jefferson was your guy, didn't I? :) The source of rights in the Constitution is in fact "We the people". Hamilton is (still) not your guy.

[Tgo01]

Brandenburg v. Ohio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio)

You're dumb.

You're referring to a case that is dealing with someone saying, for example, "All Muslims must go to this cartoon contest and kill the infidels! Kill them all!" See, that speech wouldn't be protected because we all know Muslims are crazy and would have taken his word seriously and they would have went there and killed all of the infidels.

Holding a peaceful cartoon contest which causes other people to lose their shit does not fall under this. You are literally saying the peaceful party in this situation should be held accountable for the batshit crazy party.

Get off my planet!

[Latrinsorm]

I'm referring to a case where speech incited violence. These people exercised their speech to incite violence. They should not pass GO. They should not collect $200. They should go directly to jail.

[Tgo01]

I'm referring to a case where speech incited violence. These people exercised their speech to incite violence. They should not pass GO. They should not collect $200. They should go directly to jail.

You're referring to a case that deals with the free speech itself advocating violence or lawless behavior, not just the fact that violence or lawless behavior followed speech. You have failed, Latrin. Quite badly I might add too :(

[Thondalar]

"The Court held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is directed to inciting, and is likely to incite, imminent lawless action."

As usual, you're missing the context. If this was brought before a court, the summation would go something like "we cannot, and will not, allow the threat of possible violence to override the free speech of citizens." THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO DO.

Brandenburg vs. Ohio had nothing to do with radical Islam. What Geller did was point out the fact that these people are absolutely fucking insane...that's what this was about. It wasn't about doing something for the distinct purpose of causing panic, like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater...it was about doing something that most people wouldn't do because they're afraid of violent Islamic extremists. Why can't we draw cartoons of Muhammad? We draw cartoons of Christ all the time.

This is exactly the sort of free speech that Brandenburg vs. Ohio has nothing to do with, and exactly the sort of free speech that NEEDS to be protected with the heaviest protection we can muster. Why won't there be a Texas vs. Geller? Because people with brains already recognize this.


The conclusion is that incitement to violence is unacceptable. Brandenburg v. Ohio has been in place for 45 years. The infringement on free speech you fear (a) already happened decades ago and (b) in no way led to any further infringement. There is no slippery slope. There never has been.

see above.


That's the Declaration of Independence. I told you Jefferson was your guy, didn't I? :) The source of rights in the Constitution is in fact "We the people".

You're so annoying when you split hairs. The source of our rights is not from "We the People", the declaration and enumeration of those rights was. I know it's a little bit twisty there, but you have to understand context and intent...two things you've never been able to grasp.


Hamilton is (still) not your guy.

Federalist 84. Just because he later kowtowed under duress doesn't change the truth of his original words, which we're seeing more and more now.

[Back]

Talking about drawing cartoons is one thing. Drawing the cartoons is a physical act.

[Thondalar]

Talking about drawing cartoons is one thing. Drawing the cartoons is a physical act.

Rofl. I'm not even gonna bother.

[Tgo01]

Talking about drawing cartoons is one thing. Drawing the cartoons is a physical act.

Do you think free speech literally refers to just spoken words?

[Gelston]

Talking about drawing cartoons is one thing. Drawing the cartoons is a physical act.

Talking is a physical act too you know...

[Back]

Talking is a physical act too you know...

Good point. I suppose thinking is as well.

[Warriorbird]

"Does criticizing one side of a dispute mean you are defending the other? If you criticize a Democrat, does that make you a Republican-lover? Or is that a b***shit false dichotomy?

There's a big difference between saying "Yes, these stupid people were tempting fate." and "No, these stupid people cannot be allowed their speech."

I most certainly said that the Hebdo people did some racist stuff and that Geller is stupid. It doesn't mean that either deserve to be attacked.

[Parkbandit]

Talking about drawing cartoons is one thing. Drawing the cartoons is a physical act.

Whirlin goes and completely bails you out from being the dumbest poster in this thread... and you go and post this?

http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/wtf_reaction_gif.gif

Well played. Whirlin is going to need a hail mary to win this one..

[Whirlin]

Whirlin goes and completely bails you out from being the dumbest poster in this thread... and you go and post this?

Well played. Whirlin is going to need a hail mary to win this one..
I thought I was mayor of crazy town now? :( You can't just take my title away from me!

[Thondalar]

I thought I was mayor of crazy town now? :( You can't just take my title away from me!

To be fair, Back reclaimed his title. Had nothing to do with PB.

[Parkbandit]

I thought I was mayor of crazy town now? :( You can't just take my title away from me!

Blame Backlash... You are going up against the champion.

[Androidpk]

Brandenburg v. Ohio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio)

"The Court held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is directed to inciting, and is likely to incite, imminent lawless action.

That is a pretty broad stroke of the brush.

[Parkbandit]

http://static.ijreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/0e25a82c-3107-43c2-b004-f4e25b969405.jpg

[Latrinsorm]

As usual, you're missing the context. If this was brought before a court, the summation would go something like "we cannot, and will not, allow the threat of possible violence to override the free speech of citizens." THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO DO. Brandenburg vs. Ohio had nothing to do with radical Islam. What Geller did was point out the fact that these people are absolutely fucking insane...that's what this was about. It wasn't about doing something for the distinct purpose of causing panic, like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater...it was about doing something that most people wouldn't do because they're afraid of violent Islamic extremists. Why can't we draw cartoons of Muhammad? We draw cartoons of Christ all the time. This is exactly the sort of free speech that Brandenburg vs. Ohio has nothing to do with, and exactly the sort of free speech that NEEDS to be protected with the heaviest protection we can muster. Why won't there be a Texas vs. Geller? Because people with brains already recognize this.How am I missing the context?
-The speech was directed to incite violence
-The speech was likely to incite violence
That's illegal, period. You seem to believe such a ruling would excuse or otherwise take the side of those committing the violence - this is also incorrect. The criminal justice system is more than happy to convict all sides of a dispute, and anyone who was nearby, and anyone who wasn't technically nearby but wanted to be (probably).
You're so annoying when you split hairs. The source of our rights is not from "We the People", the declaration and enumeration of those rights was. I know it's a little bit twisty there, but you have to understand context and intent...two things you've never been able to grasp.Doesn't it worry you that you can move so effortlessly between strict constructionism and "context and intent"? Anyway, feel free to cite supporting documents that demonstrate how non-Jefferson Founders believed our rights come from anywhere other than ourselves and our works.
Federalist 84. Just because he later kowtowed under duress doesn't change the truth of his original words, which we're seeing more and more now.That you continually misinterpret Hamilton's words (in the same ways, no less) is only more evidence for my position. :D
There's a big difference between saying "Yes, these stupid people were tempting fate." and "No, these stupid people cannot be allowed their speech." I most certainly said that the Hebdo people did some racist stuff and that Geller is stupid. It doesn't mean that either deserve to be attacked.I said they deserve to be punished by the government. I did not say they deserve to be attacked. Stupid speech is not and should not be illegal on the basis of being stupid. At no point have I said that, either.
You're referring to a case that deals with the free speech itself advocating violence or lawless behavior, not just the fact that violence or lawless behavior followed speech. You have failed, Latrin. Quite badly I might add tooThe whole point of Brandenburg is that mere advocacy of violence is not enough to render the speech criminal, which was the Ohio law that they (correctly) overturned. You can say "burning down theaters is great" in a theater. You can't say "fire" in a theater because that incites violence, because you intended it to do so, and because you knew the outcome of violence was likely.

[Tgo01]

The whole point of Brandenburg is that mere advocacy of violence is not enough to render the speech criminal, which was the Ohio law that they (correctly) overturned. You can say "burning down theaters is great" in a theater. You can't say "fire" in a theater because that incites violence, because you intended it to do so, and because you knew the outcome of violence was likely.

It's also because shouting "fire" serves no purpose but to incite violence/panic/whatever. You are basically saying the law says we can bully each other into not expressing our freedom of speech because we just have to get pissed enough at their speech that they should expect violence if they keep pushing us.

That's not the law. Stop it.

Holding a cartoon contest is not inciting violence. It's not advocating violence. It's not akin to shouting "fire!" in a movie theater.

[Androidpk]

Yelling fire in a theater would possibly incite panic, not violence.

[Warriorbird]

I said they deserve to be punished by the government. I did not say they deserve to be attacked. Stupid speech is not and should not be illegal on the basis of being stupid. At no point have I said that, either.

So if Charlie Hebdo were an American publication would you ban them from making fun of Muslims but not other religions?

[Archigeek]

Latrinsorm, you're forgetting a key issue here. I think having this contest was a dick move, but not illegal, because of one simple word:


"The Court held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is directed to inciting, and is likely to incite, imminent lawless action."

Imminent is a very important word, and nothing that those who set up the contest did met that test. Saying "fire!" in a theater is a far cry from saying "we're having a contest in a few months, with a prize for whomever can draw the best cartoon of Mohammed!" The former causes an imminent panic, the latter requires malice aforethought by those who would respond, before any lawlessness occurs.

[Latrinsorm]

It's also because shouting "fire" serves no purpose but to incite violence/panic/whatever.That is not part of the Brandenburg test. The ruling says what is says; no more, no less.
You are basically saying the law says we can bully each other into not expressing our freedom of speech because we just have to get pissed enough at their speech that they should expect violence if they keep pushing us.That is not what I am saying. Threatening someone is illegal. Assaulting someone is illegal. Inciting someone to assault someone is illegal. If the gunmen had lived, everyone should go to jail. We don't put dead people in jail, though, so just the people who incited the gunmen should go to jail.
Holding a cartoon contest is not inciting violence. It's not advocating violence. It's not akin to shouting "fire!" in a movie theater.If they didn't expect violence, why did they hire so much security?
Yelling fire in a theater would possibly incite panic, not violence.Violence in the sense of destruction.

[Tgo01]

That is not part of the Brandenburg test. The ruling says what is says; no more, no less.

I'm sure courts are smart enough to see the difference, Latrin, even if it's not specifically spelled out in black and white.


That is not what I am saying. Threatening someone is illegal. Assaulting someone is illegal. Inciting someone to assault someone is illegal. If the gunmen had lived, everyone should go to jail. We don't put dead people in jail, though, so just the people who incited the gunmen should go to jail.

How is this not saying that we can bully people into suppressing their free speech? I'll just start going around the internet and on TV and radio talk shows and traveling the world and letting everyone know that if they make fun of Jesus then I'll kill them. BAM! If anyone makes fun of Jesus they are inciting me to violence and therefore should go to jail.

Stop it.


If they didn't expect violence, why did they hire so much security?

Expecting violence and inciting violence are not the same thing.

[Androidpk]

The Philadelphia Inquirer has a smart op-ed (http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/thinktank/Double-standard-on-offending-Christians-and-Muslims.html) about the Garland attack by former federal prosecutor George Parry. He points out the left’s agonized reaction to Garland—We’re for free speech! But these people using free speech are horrible and hateful!

In 1987, Andres Serrano submerged a crucifix in a glass of his own urine and took a picture. Entitled “Piss Christ,” the photograph won first place in a contest sponsored by the National Endowment for the Arts.

In 1996, another avant-garde artist, Chris Ofili, smeared elephant dung on a portrait of the Blessed Mother and displayed it in a government-funded Brooklyn museum.

And so the stage was set for the ensuing nightmare of Christian terror and violence that descended on the American art community. Just kidding. Nothing of the sort happened. There were no canonical death warrants issued and no attempts on the lives of the artists or anyone else associated with these presentations.

To be sure, Christians objected to “Piss Christ” and the feces-covered Holy Virgin. And they rightfully wondered why their tax dollars had been used to promote these blasphemies. But their objections and questions were condescendingly dismissed by the secular left in the media and intelligentsia. As one prominent art critic sniffed, Ofili’s “The Holy Virgin Mary” was “deliberately provocative” in order to “jolt viewers into an expanded frame of reference, and perhaps even toward illumination.”

As if in one voice, the mainstream media and self-anointed intelligentsia argued that antiquated religious sensitivities must not be allowed to interfere with either an artist’s free expression or his right to government funding regardless of how offensive his work may be to Christians.
But of course it hasn’t been like that this time around. Here’s Parry again:

What has been the response of the liberal media to this act of lunacy? Have the talking heads come to the defense of the cartoonists’ right of free expression in a pluralistic society? Has anyone publicly observed that drawings of Mohammed might “jolt” Muslims "into an expanded frame of reference” or “illumination”? Far from it. The overall media consensus has been to blame the intended murder victims for recklessly provoking the terrorists. Such provocation, we are told, is unacceptable and irresponsible behavior given the risk of retaliation by offended radical Muslims. . . .

For the mainstream media and chattering classes, dumping on peaceful, law-abiding Christians is good, safe sport. But pointing the finger of blame at murderous Muslim fanatics? Well, let’s not get carried away. Rather than draw the ire of radical Muslims by firmly and unequivocally condemning the attack, the infotainment industry has concentrated its attention on the provocative nature of the draw-Mohammed contest. After all, like a drunken, immodestly dressed rape victim, weren’t the draw-Mohammed contestants just asking for it?



You can read the whole article here..

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/lefts-insane-response-texas-terror-attack_940964.html

[Latrinsorm]

So if Charlie Hebdo were an American publication would you ban them from making fun of Muslims but not other religions?To my knowledge, Charlie Hebdo satirized everyone, but I think you already know what my response would be to this day's lawlessness.
Imminent is a very important word, and nothing that those who set up the contest did met that test. Saying "fire!" in a theater is a far cry from saying "we're having a contest in a few months, with a prize for whomever can draw the best cartoon of Mohammed!" The former causes an imminent panic, the latter requires malice aforethought by those who would respond, before any lawlessness occurs.Saying fire in a theater is distinct from this situation in many ways, but I would say none of them are pertinent. Protected speech would be "some people should draw cartoons sometime!", as demonstrated by Hess v. Indiana. Unprotected speech is "these people will draw cartoons of Muhammad at this specific place at this specific time!" That those who responded had malice aforethought is immaterial, unless you want to argue the KKK didn't have malice aforethought as a defining characteristic.

[Androidpk]

TLDR - It's okay to mock Christians but if you mock Islamists you're a terrible person and deserve everything that comes your way.

[Latrinsorm]

I'm sure courts are smart enough to see the difference, Latrin, even if it's not specifically spelled out in black and white.I strongly discourage you from believing that the courts are "smart enough" to follow what you think is common sense.
How is this not saying that we can bully people into suppressing their free speech? I'll just start going around the internet and on TV and radio talk shows and traveling the world and letting everyone know that if they make fun of Jesus then I'll kill them. BAM! If anyone makes fun of Jesus they are inciting me to violence and therefore should go to jail. Stop it.Because you would be put in jail for making those threats, and if you are in jail you can't follow through on them, thus there is no threat of violence.
Expecting violence and inciting violence are not the same thing.I encourage you to reread the OP.
You can read the whole article here..No thanks, I read enough straw man arguments from Warriorbird. ⌐■_■

[Tgo01]

Protected speech would be "some people should draw cartoons sometime!", as demonstrated by Hess v. Indiana. Unprotected speech is "these people will draw cartoons of Muhammad at this specific place at this specific time!"

They are both protected free speech. For the love of all that is holy in this world, how can you possibly say the latter is not protected free speech? How is drawing a cartoon inciting anyone to violence? How is drawing a cartoon advocating violence?

It's amazing the hoops you are willing to jump through to make this situation fit what you think that law is saying.

Again you keep saying that since violence happened then the ones who exercised their free speech are to blame. That's stupid.

What if violence didn't happen? Would we even be having this conversation? Would anyone really be that stupid to be sitting there saying "Well! Holding a cartoon contest! They are just damn fucking lucky no one shot them up for inciting such violence!"

My Bull-Shit-O-Meter is saying "Nope!"

But since we have all gotten used to Muslims losing their shit every time their faith is slightly insulted I guess we should just consider making fun of Muslims to be off limits now too.

[Tgo01]

Because you would be put in jail for making those threats, and if you are in jail you can't follow through on them, thus there is no threat of violence.

You're dumb.


I encourage you to reread the OP.

Yeah, okay. What did I miss in the OP?

[Latrinsorm]

How is drawing a cartoon inciting anyone to violence? How is drawing a cartoon advocating violence?I will explain this once more for you. Advocating violence is legal. Inciting violence is not. This probably strikes you as splitting hairs. Welcome to the justice system.
Again you keep saying that since violence happened then the ones who exercised their free speech are to blame. That's stupid.Luckily it is not what I have said, ever, at any time. Ask yourself this: isn't it more likely that I'm looking down my nose at and blaming everyone? Doesn't that sound more like me?
What if violence didn't happen? Would we even be having this conversation? Would anyone really be that stupid to be sitting there saying "Well! Holding a cartoon contest! They are just damn fucking lucky no one shot them up for inciting such violence!" My Bull-Shit-O-Meter is saying "Nope!"I can't speak to what you people would talk about. I am sure ClydeR and I would have a long, productive conversation on the fascinating subtleties and gray areas of American law.
But since we have all gotten used to Muslims losing their shit every time their faith is slightly insulted I guess we should just consider making fun of Muslims to be off limits now too.And you simultaneously ask how this event was an incitement to violence. You can't even keep your position straight for a single post. You know what I call that?

Racism.

[Androidpk]

I am sure ClydeR and I



Psychosis? Schizophrenia? Multiple personality disorder?

[Thondalar]

Psychosis? Schizophrenia? Multiple personality disorder?

I didn't know Latrin smoked weed.

[Tgo01]

I will explain this once more for you. Advocating violence is legal. Inciting violence is not.

Advocating violence that incites violence is illegal. I really do think you're misunderstanding how all of this works.


Luckily it is not what I have said, ever, at any time.

Right Latrin, sure. Are you calling my Bull-Shit-O-Meter a liar? If nothing happened and no one was shot you would still be sitting here saying they should be thanking their lucky stars no one shot up the place for inciting violence by drawing a cartoon?


And you simultaneously ask how this event was an incitement to violence.

So you are saying we just have to start bullying others into stop expressing speech we don't like and eventually they will have to because they will incite violence if they don't.

[Archigeek]

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/what-constitutes-imminent-lawless-action


The Supreme Court has said that for speech to lose First Amendment protection, it must be directed at a specific person or group and it must be a direct call to commit immediate lawless action. The time element is critical. The Court wrote that “advocacy of illegal action at some indefinite future time … is not sufficient to permit the State to punish Hess' speech.” In addition, there must be an expectation that the speech will in fact lead to lawless action.

"Imminent" means in very short order, not months from now.

[Valthissa]

What I have learned from this thread

1) Latrin either has no idea what he is talking about or he is a failing as a troll (possibly both?)

2) WB and I agree (Geller is rude and free to do so)

also, Volokh has a nice overview on the actual case law over at the Washington Post

[Parkbandit]

What I have learned from this thread

1) Latrin either has no idea what he is talking about or he is a failing as a troll (possibly both?)



You seriously JUST learned that from THIS thread?

Come on man...

[Latrinsorm]

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/what-constitutes-imminent-lawless-action "Imminent" means in very short order, not months from now.I already cited Hess, hence the distinction I drew on indefinite. The point that the event occurred months after it was originally announced only demonstrates that the announcement was protected speech. Has anyone argued otherwise? The attack took place a matter of hours after the event started, surely we can agree that counts as imminent?
Right Latrin, sure. Are you calling my Bull-Shit-O-Meter a liar?I have never called you a liar, you liar. That you are mistaken some (most) [all] of the time is an entirely different matter, altogether.
If nothing happened and no one was shot you would still be sitting here saying they should be thanking their lucky stars no one shot up the place for inciting violence by drawing a cartoon?I can't "still" be doing something I'm not doing now. I would say that people who incite or commit violence should in general go to jail, and I would further say that in this specific case there are no extenuating circumstances.
So you are saying we just have to start bullying others into stop expressing speech we don't like and eventually they will have to because they will incite violence if they don't.If you're willing to go to jail to stop another person's expression of speech, there are a lot more direct means you could use, but yes. The purpose of the government is to insure domestic tranquility.
also, Volokh has a nice overview on the actual case law over at the Washington PostThe only disagreement I find from Volokh is on the basis of hate speech, and if you think that's the basis of my argument perhaps it is you who have no idea what I'm talking about. :) Quoting from his article of two days ago: "it’s illegal to make true threats and incite imminent crimes against anyone and for any reason". That is actually a weaker standard than the one I have set, which requires that the incited crime is a likely outcome of the incitement.

As a general point, I don't need to defend speech on the basis of my not liking it, I don't need to prove how broadminded I am. I've got facts on my side. That's all I need, and it's all anyone should need.

[Tgo01]

The purpose of the government is to insure domestic tranquility.

The purpose of the government is to protect my rights, not tell me my rights become invalid as soon as I hurt someone's poor feelings.

[Latrinsorm]

The purpose of the government is to protect my rights, not tell me my rights become invalid as soon as I hurt someone's poor feelings.Freedom is sixth on the list. Domestic tranquility is way higher. If you don't like it, write your own Constitution.

[Valthissa]

The only disagreement I find from Volokh is on the basis of hate speech, and if you think that's the basis of my argument perhaps it is you who have no idea what I'm talking about. :) Quoting from his article of two days ago: "it’s illegal to make true threats and incite imminent crimes against anyone and for any reason". That is actually a weaker standard than the one I have set, which requires that the incited crime is a likely outcome of the incitement.

I'll bite

So you are not saying that the 'imminent threat' standard written about in Brandenburg v Ohio has anything to do with whether or not the event in Texas would be be protected by the first amendment. Because only a fucking loon would claim that a group of people assembled to draw cartoons of Mohammed was the same as incitement to violence (since incitement is directly urging others to break the law).

Since 'the event in Texas may not be speech that is protected by the first amendment' isn't your point (avoiding the 'fucking loon' option) you must just be pointing out that the supreme court has said laws can be crafted that restrict speech in narrowly tailored ways.

Tell me Geller is vicious. Or mentally unstable. I'll just nod my head yes. Tell me the event in Garland is not protected by the first amendment and you just can't be taken seriously. Maybe that's what you're going for.

[Warriorbird]

What I have learned from this thread

1) Latrin either has no idea what he is talking about or he is a failing as a troll (possibly both?)

2) WB and I agree (Geller is rude and free to do so)

also, Volokh has a nice overview on the actual case law over at the Washington Post

I really like what Volokh wrote. Lead to an interesting discussion with some graduating seniors.

[Latrinsorm]

The event was clearly designed to incite violence. I don't understand how this is a controversial claim. Even Papa Bear (http://www.billoreilly.com/b/Defeating-the-Jihad-by-Not-Being-Dumb/250143775297720127.html) has said the AFDI "spurred a violent attack".

I really think you've convinced yourselves that defending speech that you don't like is some mark of honor, regardless of whether that speech is actually protected under the law. Put aside the concept of hate speech, as I did. Put aside whether you like the speech or not, as I did. Do you really, truly believe that the AFDI just wanted to draw some cartoons, and had no idea what kind of reaction that would generate? Consider the security they hired, the specific building they selected, or just go through Ms Geller's history. Exactly like the WBC, only the very credulous can believe the motivation is anything but intentional provocation.

[Kembal]

The event was clearly designed to incite violence. I don't understand how this is a controversial claim. Even Papa Bear (http://www.billoreilly.com/b/Defeating-the-Jihad-by-Not-Being-Dumb/250143775297720127.html) has said the AFDI "spurred a violent attack".

I really think you've convinced yourselves that defending speech that you don't like is some mark of honor, regardless of whether that speech is actually protected under the law. Put aside the concept of hate speech, as I did. Put aside whether you like the speech or not, as I did. Do you really, truly believe that the AFDI just wanted to draw some cartoons, and had no idea what kind of reaction that would generate? Consider the security they hired, the specific building they selected, or just go through Ms Geller's history. Exactly like the WBC, only the very credulous can believe the motivation is anything but intentional provocation.

you're reading the law wrong. Inciting violence under Brandenburg requires you to be urging people to attack someone else. Holding an event hoping someone comes to attack you doesn't qualify under that standard. I doubt the Supreme Court thought of people dumb enough to want others to try and kill them.

Had someone besides the attackers actually got seriously hurt (or even worse, killed) because of Geller's antics and thus a lawsuit was filed against Geller, you might get a court ruling that defined the issue. Right now, though, it's going to be speech covered under the 1st amendment.

[Archigeek]

I already cited Hess, hence the distinction I drew on indefinite. The point that the event occurred months after it was originally announced only demonstrates that the announcement was protected speech. Has anyone argued otherwise? The attack took place a matter of hours after the event started, surely we can agree that counts as imminent?

No, I don't agree. It's very clear that the attackers were not there because they had just then heard that some people were drawing mean cartoons. They were there because they had planned the attack well in advance (due to the protected speech) and then showed up on the scheduled day, at an event that they were neither welcomed to attend nor invited. How can the privately held drawing behind closed doors and under tight security be considered unconstitutional? By your argument, any speech that is unpopular, that someone "might" want to attack becomes illegal, and that makes zero sense. Which speech is next? We might as well not have protected speech if "threat of violence" becomes the litmus test by which free/not free is measured, because that is the result that we get if we follow through on what you are advocating.

[Warriorbird]

Latrin's also neglecting that the Court has consistently come down FOR WBC's right to protest. It makes a really dubious example.

[Latrinsorm]

you're reading the law wrong. Inciting violence under Brandenburg requires you to be urging people to attack someone else. Holding an event hoping someone comes to attack you doesn't qualify under that standard. I doubt the Supreme Court thought of people dumb enough to want others to try and kill them.Volokh is very clear: "crimes against anyone". Like I said to Terrence, applying common sense to the law is generally a bad idea.
No, I don't agree. It's very clear that the attackers were not there because they had just then heard that some people were drawing mean cartoons. They were there because they had planned the attack well in advance (due to the protected speech) and then showed up on the scheduled day, at an event that they were neither welcomed to attend nor invited. How can the privately held drawing behind closed doors and under tight security be considered unconstitutional?The event was open to the public. I'm not sure how that matters, but we should be clear on the facts. Many things that go on behind closed doors can be considered unconstitutional; for example, slavery. The Constitution doesn't stop at your porch. You aren't allowed to incite violence.
By your argument, any speech that is unpopular, that someone "might" want to attack becomes illegal, and that makes zero sense. Which speech is next? We might as well not have protected speech if "threat of violence" becomes the litmus test by which free/not free is measured, because that is the result that we get if we follow through on what you are advocating."Might" want to attack is not the threshold of Brandenburg, but "likely" attack (or any other illegal act). Again, I don't think this matters, but facts. As I said to Terrence, the purpose of the Constitution is explicitly to insure domestic tranquility. It is also to secure the blessings of liberty. How to balance these two diametrically opposed goals? We leave it up to the Supreme Court (not offhand remarks by Ben Franklin) to interpret the Constitution, and the Supreme Court has come down in favor of tranquility in this specific case. I also want to reiterate that this ruling took place over 40 years ago. "Which speech is next?" Look around. There is no next. There is no slippery slope.
Latrin's also neglecting that the Court has consistently come down FOR WBC's right to protest. It makes a really dubious example.WBC's aim is not to incite violence (against themselves or otherwise), their aim is to make money. If Joe Sixpack slugs them, what are they going to get out of suing him, five figures? Maybe? The intended target of WBC's provocation is the government itself. Sue the government, you can make all kinds of money.

[Tgo01]

WBC's aim is not to incite violence (against themselves or otherwise), their aim is to make money.

But it doesn't matter what their aim is! It only matters if their speech incites violence! -- Latrinsorm

So Westboro protesting the funerals of gay military members by showing up with signs saying "God hates fags" doesn't incite violence in Latrinsorm land, but a cartoon contest does?

You're gonna have to explain that one before we go any further.

[Latrinsorm]

But it doesn't matter what their aim is! It only matters if their speech incites violence! -- LatrinsormThis is not a correct description of the Brandenburg test and therefore not a correct description of my position. Like murder, intent is a necessary condition for incitement as defined here.
So Westboro protesting the funerals of gay military members by showing up with signs saying "God hates fags" doesn't incite violence in Latrinsorm land, but a cartoon contest does? You're gonna have to explain that one before we go any further.Two people took guns and fired upon the cartoon contest. Nobody has ever fired upon the WBC.

[Tgo01]

Two people took guns and fired upon the cartoon contest. Nobody has ever fired upon the WBC.

You make no sense.

You: "You can't scream 'fire' in a crowded theater! You can't explain that!"
Me: "But the person's only intent is to cause panic."
You: "Doesn't matter! Doesn't matter!"
Me "..."

You: "WBC's intent is to make money, not incite violence, therefore science."

You: "This cartoon contest's intent was to incite violence, proof? They hired security and violence happened."

I can't keep up with the twists and turns of following your logic.

[Warriorbird]

Nobody has ever fired upon the WBC.

This is an awful dodge for the fact that violence has been directed towards them many times. They like it. Gives them grounds for suits like you said.

[Archigeek]

You're twisting in the wind on this one Latrin.

[Latrinsorm]

You make no sense. You: "You can't scream 'fire' in a crowded theater! You can't explain that!" Me: "But the person's only intent is to cause panic." You: "Doesn't matter! Doesn't matter!" Me "..." You: "WBC's intent is to make money, not incite violence, therefore science." You: "This cartoon contest's intent was to incite violence, proof? They hired security and violence happened." I can't keep up with the twists and turns of following your logic.If I can offer a recommendation, try reading it. :D Here's how it actually went:
Shouting fire in a crowded theater incites violence -> illegal.
The WBC's various nastiness does not incite violence -> legal.
The AFDI's contest incites violence -> illegal.
And read "incites violence" as "is intended to and can be reasonably foreseen to incite imminent lawless acts". I have held the same position since the start. It is you people that have had the malleable position. First it was FREEEEDOMMMMUHHHHHH, then it was "oh so they deserved to be attacked???", then it was that the AFDI wasn't inciting violence, then it was "okay but these terrorists were bad before they were incited", then it was criticizing me for citing a hate speech exception, then it was "anyone doesn't mean anyone, it means something else besides anyone". I have patiently addressed every one of these arguments, which was generally pretty easy because they were mostly straw men, and I have stuck to my guns the whole way. As a neutral third party, I've gotta say there's a 100% chance I'm correct here.
This is an awful dodge for the fact that violence has been directed towards them many times. They like it. Gives them grounds for suits like you said.I can find suits they filed against the city of Topeka, the state of Kansas (and various officials thereof), and the city of Bellevue. I can't find a single one filed against a private citizen.
You're twisting in the wind on this one Latrin.In what sense?

[Androidpk]

Latrin, you've gone full on bat shit crazy.

[Tgo01]

If I can offer a recommendation, try reading it. :D Here's how it actually went:
Shouting fire in a crowded theater incites violence -> illegal.
The WBC's various nastiness does not incite violence -> legal.
The AFDI's contest incites violence -> illegal.
And read "incites violence" as "is intended to and can be reasonably foreseen to incite imminent lawless acts".

Exactly, thank you. I said this earlier with the fire thing but you shunned me like a red headed step child and claimed that the courts don't look into such silly things as "intent." Shouting fire in a theater is obviously all about causing panic/violence/whatever because there is literally no other reason to shout fire in a crowded movie theater.

Did the people who held this content intend to incite violence or did they intend to hold a cartoon contest to make fun of people they don't like? Your argument now is (which again you wagged your finger at me before for even suggesting this) is "Well violence did happen therefore they incited violence." Yes...but...did they intend to incite violence, if so, where is your proof? You can't say it's because violence happened because that's stupid. That's like saying me giving a speech praising MLK for being a great man incited violence because someone fired into the crowd.

[Thondalar]

How am I missing the context?
-The speech was directed to incite violence
-The speech was likely to incite violence
That's illegal, period.

So why isn't Geller in handcuffs? I would think that would be a wonderful proof for your hypothesis. Wait a second...this isn't math!


You seem to believe such a ruling would excuse or otherwise take the side of those committing the violence - this is also incorrect.

That's not at all what I believe. Your extremely narrow perception of this event was expected.


The criminal justice system is more than happy to convict all sides of a dispute, and anyone who was nearby, and anyone who wasn't technically nearby but wanted to be (probably).

Ain't that the truth.


Doesn't it worry you that you can move so effortlessly between strict constructionism and "context and intent"? Anyway, feel free to cite supporting documents that demonstrate how non-Jefferson Founders believed our rights come from anywhere other than ourselves and our works.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html


That you continually misinterpret Hamilton's words (in the same ways, no less) is only more evidence for my position. :D

In what other possible way could they be interpreted?

"Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing, and as they retain every thing, they have no need of particular reservations. "We the people of the United States, to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America." Here is a better recognition of popular rights than volumes of those aphorisms which make the principal figure in several of our state bills of rights, and which would sound much better in a treatise of ethics than in a constitution of government...."

What part of that is unclear to you?

[Warriorbird]

I can find suits they filed against the city of Topeka, the state of Kansas (and various officials thereof), and the city of Bellevue. I can't find a single one filed against a private citizen.

We can tell you're not a lawyer.

[Latrinsorm]

Exactly, thank you. I said this earlier with the fire thing but you shunned me like a red headed step child and claimed that the courts don't look into such silly things as "intent." Shouting fire in a theater is obviously all about causing panic/violence/whatever because there is literally no other reason to shout fire in a crowded movie theater.What you said was that shouting fire in a theater had no other purpose (http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?94523-Congratulations-to-Garland-Texas!&p=1774722#post1774722). What I said was that has nothing to do with Brandenburg, which is correct. If you had only said that intent matters, I would have agreed with you. This will somehow be my fault, I know.
Did the people who held this content intend to incite violenceYes.
or did they intend to hold a cartoon contest to make fun of people they don't like? Your argument now is (which again you wagged your finger at me before for even suggesting this) is "Well violence did happen therefore they incited violence." Yes...but...did they intend to incite violence, if so, where is your proof? You can't say it's because violence happened because that's stupid. That's like saying me giving a speech praising MLK for being a great man incited violence because someone fired into the crowd.The analogy only holds if someone else recently gave a speech praising MLK, many people threatened to fire into that crowd because of that reason, someone did, and many people celebrated that act and promised more of the same to anyone else giving such a speech.

[Tgo01]

What I said was that has nothing to do with Brandenburg, which is correct. If you had only said that intent matters, I would have agreed with you. This will somehow be my fault, I know.

It is your fault because you're the master at splitting hairs.


Yes.The analogy only holds if someone else recently gave a speech praising MLK, many people threatened to fire into that crowd because of that reason, someone did, and many people celebrated that act and promised more of the same to anyone else giving such a speech.

So let me see if I understand Latrin logic; the speech and intent doesn't change in the two speeches in your scenario, the only thing that changes is the actions of others, and you think outlawing the second speech is how free speech works.

I want what you're having.

[Latrinsorm]

So why isn't Geller in handcuffs? I would think that would be a wonderful proof for your hypothesis. Wait a second...this isn't math!A white person in the South got away with what the Supreme Court has declared a crime. This is not surprising.
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.htmlJefferson wrote the Declaration, hence my request for "non-Jefferson Founders".
In what other possible way could they be interpreted?Correctly.
What part of that is unclear to you?To me? None. :D

Look, the first thing you're missing about Hamilton is his fear was that enumeration of certain rights would be (erroneously) construed to disparage others. This concern was settled by the Ninth Amendment, which is why he changed his stance on the matter. He didn't kowtow to anything, he had a concern and it was addressed, so he vigorously participated in and advocated for the central government, up to and including military force against dissenters. Can you imagine if Obama deployed the United States Army against Cliven Bundy? This is exactly what Hamilton would have told him to do.

The second thing is that the decline you perceive today is due to too many rights, not too few. In the beginning we didn't have the freedom from racial discrimination, now we do, and the Congress still has all powers necessary and proper to execute the Laws of the Union. More rights requires more government (which should not be construed as saying that more government denotes more rights). That you don't personally benefit from any of the rights secured since 1791 does not make them any less worthwhile than (for example) your freedom of speech.

[Latrinsorm]

We can tell you're not a lawyer.I have never claimed to be. All I'm stating are facts. WBC to my knowledge have never filed a suit against a private citizen, and we know they are not averse to filing suits, thus we can conclude it is not their aim to instigate responses from private citizens (i.e. getting socked in the jaw). Don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.

[Latrinsorm]

It is your fault because you're the master at splitting hairs. So let me see if I understand Latrin logic; the speech and intent doesn't change in the two speeches in your scenario, the only thing that changes is the actions of others, and you think outlawing the second speech is how free speech works. I want what you're having.If you'll recall, part of the Brandenburg test is that the speech is likely to result in lawless acts. This is not a matter of logic, it is a matter of reading. You can't intuit how this works, you have to actually read the ruling. I will paste it again for you with added emphasis:

"The Court held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is directed to inciting, and is likely to incite, imminent lawless action."

[Warriorbird]

I have never claimed to be. All I'm stating are facts. WBC to my knowledge have never filed a suit against a private citizen, and we know they are not averse to filing suits, thus we can conclude it is not their aim to instigate responses from private citizens (i.e. getting socked in the jaw). Don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.

Are most suits against private citizens published?

Is sovereign immunity handily waved when somebody intentionally "batters" or batters a member of the WBC to go after the deep pockets of an institution? Yes and yes.

The Court's not going after Westboro. Even this conservative court is very cautious about authoritarian chilling of free speech. Wanting isn't going to make your interpretation of these events hold.

[Grey]

A white person in the South got away with what the Supreme Court has declared a crime.

You're not the Supreme Court. At no point did the cartoon contest advocate violence against itself, even if you believe that they intentionally incited it. You don't have the slightest clue as to how legal tests are reasoned or applied. I can dare you to punch me in the face. That is protected speech no matter the outcome or intent. How your constant uninformed trolling hasn't been banned is a testament to the patience or apathy of this boards moderators. Either way it's deplorable the way you waste these people's time spouting nonsense.


If you'll recall, part of the Brandenburg test is that the speech is likely to result in lawless acts.

Half the test, and even then it isn't likely to incite a reasonable person. Die in a fire.

[Tgo01]

If you'll recall, part of the Brandenburg test is that the speech is likely to result in lawless acts. This is not a matter of logic, it is a matter of reading. You can't intuit how this works, you have to actually read the ruling. I will paste it again for you with added emphasis:

"The Court held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is directed to inciting, and is likely to incite, imminent lawless action."

Intent, Latrin. Intent.

Do I need to post the that part of the ruling or would you continue to ignore that part anyways?

[Latrinsorm]

Are most suits against private citizens published? Is sovereign immunity handily waved when somebody intentionally "batters" or batters a member of the WBC to go after the deep pockets of an institution? Yes and yes.I mean, if the answer is yes it should be pretty easy to cite a case, no? It took me a few minutes to find cases against the entities I mentioned before.
The Court's not going after Westboro. Even this conservative court is very cautious about authoritarian chilling of free speech. Wanting isn't going to make your interpretation of these events hold.I have repeatedly said they wouldn't restrict the speech of WBC because they don't meet the Brandenburg criteria.
You're not the Supreme Court. At no point did the cartoon contest advocate violence against itself, even if you believe that they intentionally incited it.As I've said before, the whole point of Brandenburg is that the state law criminalizing advocacy of violence was unconstitutional. I don't know why people keep talking about advocacy, it's wholly irrelevant.
You don't have the slightest clue as to how legal tests are reasoned or applied. I can dare you to punch me in the face. That is protected speech no matter the outcome or intent. How your constant uninformed trolling hasn't been banned is a testament to the patience or apathy of this boards moderators. Either way it's deplorable the way you waste these people's time spouting nonsense.Well, I've cited cases and other facts, and given clear and unambiguous reasoning for my position. You've resorted to character attacks in your first response to me. Whom should I believe? As to your counter case, anyone on this board (including the patient moderators) can tell you I'm a pleasant, easygoing man. Your dare is not likely to result in my punching you, thus that speech does not meet the Brandenburg criteria. Seems sensible to me.
Intent, Latrin. Intent. Do I need to post the that part of the ruling or would you continue to ignore that part anyways?Objection, your Olivier, asked and answered (http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?94523-Congratulations-to-Garland-Texas!&p=1776152#post1776152).

[Tgo01]

Objection, your Olivier, asked and answered (http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?94523-Congratulations-to-Garland-Texas!&p=1776152#post1776152).

Not so fast there, hotshot. We are talking about my MLK analogy. If I'm reading your post correctly (which I am but you will claim I am not) you are saying that if Person A gave a speech praising MLK, and their intent was just to praise MLK and not to incite violence, but violence happened anyways and people promised to do more violence if another MLK speech is given, then if Person B gives the exact same speech and for the exact same reasons then the second person is guilty of crime. You think this is how our free speech works. It's not. Stop it. Now.

Also I noticed you answered my question that you believe the people who held the cartoon contest intended to incite violence but you conveniently didn't answer my question as to why you believe that.

[Grey]

As I've said before, the whole point of Brandenburg is that the state law criminalizing advocacy of violence was unconstitutional. I don't know why people keep talking about advocacy, it's wholly irrelevant.

Then your entire point is wrong, because the exemption that the test is designed to determine is when restricting speech is constitutional. You're probably mystified because you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.


Well, I've cited cases and other facts, and given clear and unambiguous reasoning for my position.

You don't understand the material that you're citing. I firmly believe that you're not a troll, just a fucking idiot.

[Gelston]

Why do you people argue with Latrin? You could have a 5 month discussion on whether 1+1=2 or not.

He is 100% completely wrong, he knows it, you know it, move on.

[Fallen]

Why do you people argue with Latrin? You could have a 5 month discussion on whether 1+1=2 or not.

He is 100% completely wrong, he knows it, you know it, move on.

http://static1.squarespace.com/static/524eca7fe4b008299350301f/t/529d63fce4b0793e6bbe7c90/1386046461135/someone-on-the-internet-is-wrong.jpg

[Warriorbird]

Why do you people argue with Latrin? You could have a 5 month discussion on whether 1+1=2 or not.

He is 100% completely wrong, he knows it, you know it, move on.

Boredom. Also sometimes we want to see if he can somehow get more wrong. The answer, here, is it'd be pretty tough.

[Parkbandit]

Why do you people argue with Latrin? You could have a 5 month discussion on whether 1+1=2 or not.

He is 100% completely wrong, he knows it, you know it, move on.

http://pegfitzpatrick.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/trolls-einstein1.png

[Back]

Why do you people argue with Latrin? You could have a 5 month discussion on whether 1+1=2 or not.

He is 100% completely wrong, he knows it, you know it, move on.

Latrin is far superior at making a case and backing it up with tangible references than anyone here. If anything he wears people out of arguments with his tenacity.

[Gelston]

Latrin is far superior at making a case and backing it up with tangible references than anyone here. If anything he wears people out of arguments with his tenacity.

Shut up, Latrin.

[Parkbandit]

Latrin is far superior at making a case and backing it up with tangible references than anyone here. If anything he wears people out of arguments with his tenacity.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/d4/62/92/d4629220384431967336b9fe8f79b48d.jpg

[Latrinsorm]

Then your entire point is wrong, because the exemption that the test is designed to determine is when restricting speech is constitutional. You're probably mystified because you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.Advocacy is always Constitutional, so laws restricting speech on the basis of advocacy (such as the state law Brandenburg was convicted on) are unconstitutional, hence his conviction being overturned. It is only when that advocacy rises to the level of incitement that it can become unconstitutional, if certain other conditions are also met.
Not so fast there, hotshot. We are talking about my MLK analogy. If I'm reading your post correctly (which I am but you will claim I am not) you are saying that if Person A gave a speech praising MLK, and their intent was just to praise MLK and not to incite violence, but violence happened anyways and people promised to do more violence if another MLK speech is given, then if Person B gives the exact same speech and for the exact same reasons then the second person is guilty of crime. You think this is how our free speech works. It's not. Stop it. Now.This is an amazing piece of rhetoric. You intentionally get my position wrong, so when I tell you it's wrong you get to complain that I'm splitting hairs. Amazing! Take a bow, Terry.
Also I noticed you answered my question that you believe the people who held the cartoon contest intended to incite violence but you conveniently didn't answer my question as to why you believe that.I have examined the history of the speaker. I in fact did answer your question by urging you to do the same.
Latrin is far superior at making a case and backing it up with tangible references than anyone here. If anything he wears people out of arguments with his tenacity.:D

[Grey]

Advocacy is always Constitutional, so laws restricting speech on the basis of advocacy (such as the state law Brandenburg was convicted on) are unconstitutional, hence his conviction being overturned. It is only when that advocacy rises to the level of incitement that it can become unconstitutional, if certain other conditions are also met.

Man, fuck you so much. If there's a subject that you're not a complete retard in please just stick to that.

[Androidpk]

Man, fuck you so much. If there's a subject that you're not a complete retard in please just stick to that.

That is Latrin the troll for you. Arguing with him is always a fruitless endeavor as he will twist and turn his words until people just get fed up and stop bothering.

[Tgo01]

Advocacy is always Constitutional, so laws restricting speech on the basis of advocacy (such as the state law Brandenburg was convicted on) are unconstitutional, hence his conviction being overturned. It is only when that advocacy rises to the level of incitement that it can become unconstitutional, if certain other conditions are also met.This is an amazing piece of rhetoric. You intentionally get my position wrong, so when I tell you it's wrong you get to complain that I'm splitting hairs. Amazing! Take a bow, Terry.I have examined the history of the speaker. I in fact did answer your question by urging you to do the same.:D

This is a weird apology for being so wrong but I'll accept it nonetheless.

[Latrinsorm]

Man, fuck you so much. If there's a subject that you're not a complete retard in please just stick to that.I don't get how you make statements like this and I'm the one that gets accused of being argumentative and/or trolling. These things happen. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
That is Latrin the troll for you. Arguing with him is always a fruitless endeavor as he will twist and turn his words until people just get fed up and stop bothering.In what way has my argument changed since my first post?

[Androidpk]

I don't get how you make statements like this and I'm the one that gets accused of being argumentative and/or trolling. These things happen. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯In what way has my argument changed since my first post?

Stop trolling.

[Latrinsorm]

I have just realized that "trolling" in this context in fact means "saying something that Androidpk disagrees with". I can't help it that you're wrong about this, and about me! I can lead your dolphin-horse to water, but I cannot make it drink. This is a little embarrassing, because dolphins drink like a fish, but these things happen.

[Tgo01]

I have just realized that "trolling" in this context in fact means "saying something that Androidpk disagrees with".

Finally Latrin gets something right.

[Androidpk]

I have just realized that "trolling" in this context in fact means "saying something that Androidpk disagrees with". I can't help it that you're wrong about this, and about me! I can lead your dolphin-horse to water, but I cannot make it drink. This is a little embarrassing, because dolphins drink like a fish, but these things happen.

Wrong

[ClydeR]

This is a little embarrassing, because dolphins drink like a fish, but these things happen.

Dolphins are mammals that live in salt water. They do not drink water. Adult dolphins don't drink anything at all. So says Clyde.

[Androidpk]

Dolphins are mammals that live in salt water. They do not drink water. Adult dolphins don't drink anything at all. So says Clyde.

They don't drink the water because of the salt. They do need water though and get it from the food they eat.

[Thondalar]

A white person in the South got away with what the Supreme Court has declared a crime. This is not surprising.

Rofl. A highly publicized event and they're not even charged? I could MAYBE follow your line of thought if it was a local incident swept under the rug, but this is clearly not that.


Jefferson wrote the Declaration, hence my request for "non-Jefferson Founders".

55 others signed it. Since they're not alive for questioning, I'm going to go out on a limb and say they agreed.


Correctly.

So...explain? How is the common interpretation of those words somehow different now? We all agree on what those words mean individually...we have dictionaries for that.


To me? None. :D

Look, the first thing you're missing about Hamilton is his fear was that enumeration of certain rights would be (erroneously) construed to disparage others.

False. His fear, and correctly so, was that stating individual rights would give grounds for those rights to be undermined at later dates. He stated this quite clearly on multiple occasions, and now it's coming true.


This concern was settled by the Ninth Amendment, which is why he changed his stance on the matter.

Really? The 9th amendment didn't mean anything when it was written, and still doesn't. The fact we're now talking about it proves that. It is quite possibly the most ignored amendment. Can you name one SCOTUS case where the 9th amendment was even referenced?


He didn't kowtow to anything, he had a concern and it was addressed, so he vigorously participated in and advocated for the central government, up to and including military force against dissenters. Can you imagine if Obama deployed the United States Army against Cliven Bundy? This is exactly what Hamilton would have told him to do.

Sorry, but I disagree with that. I have posted his own writings backing up my statements, can you do the same?


The second thing is that the decline you perceive today is due to too many rights, not too few. In the beginning we didn't have the freedom from racial discrimination, now we do, and the Congress still has all powers necessary and proper to execute the Laws of the Union.

This is so jacked up...here's a clue. Discrimination is a freedom.


More rights requires more government (which should not be construed as saying that more government denotes more rights).

Why do you believe this? Government exists to enforce rules. Less rules = less government. Math so simple even you could figure it out.


That you don't personally benefit from any of the rights secured since 1791 does not make them any less worthwhile than (for example) your freedom of speech.

The rights of every American were equally secured since then. The fact that we had, at various times, laws that went against the Constitution that deprived lawful citizens of those rights isn't any reflection on me.

[Latrinsorm]

Rofl. A highly publicized event and they're not even charged? I could MAYBE follow your line of thought if it was a local incident swept under the rug, but this is clearly not that.You have heard of Bull Connor. How many of his crimes was he charged with?
So...explain? How is the common interpretation of those words somehow different now? We all agree on what those words mean individually...we have dictionaries for that. False. His fear, and correctly so, was that stating individual rights would give grounds for those rights to be undermined at later dates. He stated this quite clearly on multiple occasions, and now it's coming true.As demonstration, this is a quote from Fed 84 with added emphasis mine: "I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power." That is; people would lie about what the Constitution actually said. The only way to prevent that, obviously, is to not have a Constitution at all. It's a meaningless argument against the Constitution...
Really? The 9th amendment didn't mean anything when it was written, and still doesn't. The fact we're now talking about it proves that. It is quite possibly the most ignored amendment. Can you name one SCOTUS case where the 9th amendment was even referenced?...and so it was settled with a meaningless Amendment. :D I don't know what the Supreme Court has to do with anything, Hamilton never served on it and we are discussing his beliefs.
Sorry, but I disagree with that. I have posted his own writings backing up my statements, can you do the same?Gladly! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion#Resistance)
This is so jacked up...here's a clue. Discrimination is a freedom.You say this as though two freedoms cannot interfere with each other, when in fact in the vast majority of cases freedoms WILL do so. My right to life interferes with your right to murder. My right to property interferes with your right to theft. My freedom from discrimination interferes with your freedom to discriminate.
Why do you believe this? Government exists to enforce rules. Less rules = less government. Math so simple even you could figure it out.Because we only enjoy rights when they are enforced. I think you're referencing the idea that the Constitution should only regulate the interaction between government and citizens, but...
The rights of every American were equally secured since then. The fact that we had, at various times, laws that went against the Constitution that deprived lawful citizens of those rights isn't any reflection on me....slaves were never lawful citizens, that was the point of the 14th Amendment. You can say they had rights that the government infringed on, if you really want to. You can't say their rights were secured, that's just not accurate. Leaving the regulation of citizen interaction to the states and local governments was literally catastrophic: the country tore itself apart. The Constitution did not explicitly give the federal government the power to regulate citizen interaction, but "implied powers are to be considered as delegated equally with express ones" (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bank-ah.asp) and "The Congress shall have Power to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessary_and_Proper_Clause).

You have repeatedly responded that to take a single step beyond the boundaries specially drawn around the powers of Congress is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition. And every time you have been wrong, as Jefferson was in 1791. You say our rights are being undermined, but cannot provide any evidence of that happening without resorting to cartoonish misinterpretations of what our rights were in the first place.