TX Shots fired at a free-speech "draw Muhammad " event in Garland TX

[Ausgirl]

Yeah, they knew the terrorists would be unable to refrain from violence. They shouldn't have drawn such provocative cartoons.

And if indeed they KNEW it, then they stupidly and carelessly put their own lives, and the lives of the SWAT officers they requested, and the lives of all the law-abiding citizens in the immediate vicinity in danger. On top of being a pile of racist idiots.

How fail is that.

There has to be better, more responsible, less racially offensive ways to protest about terrorism.

But wait.. that's not what they were protesting is it.

 

[Sulamith]

I don't care what or who she's offended by, as long as she doesn't start shooting people for holding beliefs that she doesn't agree with.

She won't shoot people but she might rile up some of her followers to lash out.

 

[sonjay]

She won't shoot people but she might rile up some of her followers to lash out.

Has she advocated or entreated any of her followers to resort to violence?

In the U.S., we do NOT restrict people's rights to free expression on the basis of some vague belief that someone, somewhere, might someday get "riled up" and "lash out" as a result. Period, full stop.

 

[krimekat]

Problem with this POV is, these "radical" groups (ie, violent, ignorant, hateful people) are just as offensive to the majority of Muslims as they are to anyone else.

And those cartoons aren't just offensive to "radical" Muslims. They're offensive to peaceful ones as well. It's loathsome hate speech, the end.

Do Geller & deserve to be shot? No. Were the cops doing 100% the right thing, in protecting their lives? Of course they were.

But trying to make out that what that group were doing isn't blatant hate speech designed to provoke violence is just an exercise in fail.

um, my Muslim friends in MSP don't care one iota about cartoons -- I guess my opinion of radicals is far different from others' opinions & I can draw whatever I want to draw -- ain't America Great!!!

I saw nothing "hateful" about these cartoons -- and it was PEACEFUL assembly; at least there's one less radical jihadist (well 2) in America & that's okay with me. Maybe there should be more contests

 

[Ausgirl]

I do not think that our nation is going to end up under sharia...but neither do I think we should have to censor our speech just to keep one religion from being offended. As is usual in the US if you are offended well hey, no one says YOU have to listen/look at the offending speech.

Aren't there laws against anti-Semitic hate speech over there?

 

[sonjay]

Aren't there laws against anti-Semitic hate speech over there?

Read up on the Nazi Skokie case. All you need for google are the two words nazi and skokie.

We have very very strong free speech protections in the U.S.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

If they were just creating these cartoons organically I might feel differently, but the way this event was put about was to deliberately provoke .. as if to wave a flag and say 'Hiiiiiiiiiiii here's us, hey we're mocking the prophet .. whooooooooo .. check it out, free speech YO!!!' which is a pretty childish way to deal with the fact that extremists have an unhealthy reaction to depictions of the prophet, and hardly opens up healthy discourse.

 

[Ausgirl]

at least there's one less radical jihadist (well 2) in America & that's okay with me. Maybe there should be more contests

Yes, more violence and death and chances to get passerby harmed would be awesome. :facepalm:

 

[BayouBelle_LA]

And if indeed they KNEW it, then they stupidly and carelessly put their own lives, and the lives of the SWAT officers they requested, and the lives of all the law-abiding citizens in the immediate vicinity in danger. On top of being a pile of racist idiots.

How fail is that.

There has to be better, more responsible, less racially offensive ways to protest about terrorism.

But wait.. that's not what they were protesting is it.

Fortunately in turned out well with no serious injuries to innocent citizens. I support the right to free speech even if it's speech I don't agree with.

 

[sonjay]

Yes, more violence and death and chances to get passerby harmed would be awesome. :facepalm:

I prefer to direct my anger over the violence at the people who actually took guns to the event and attempted to kill people.

Cartooning is not violence. Personally, I find it awesome to live in a country in which people are free to say, write, draw and otherwise express any point of view. Even those points of view that people find offensive. Especially those points of view that people find offensive. That's what's awesome!

Suggesting that some people's free speech should be curtailed because some other people find it offensive is ... well... offensive.

 

[krimekat]

Yes, more violence and death and chances to get passerby harmed would be awesome. :facepalm:

not in America -- we can legally carry weapons & most legal carriers know how to use them -- honestly, jihadists don't stand a chance in America IMHO

And I did NOT imply innocents would die & it would be "awesome" WTF ?! -- how many innocent people are being slaughtered around the World; keep that sand available

wow -- I didn't realize there were so many posters not familiar with American law . . . Peace

 

[Ausgirl]

Fortunately in turned out well with no serious injuries to innocent citizens. I support the right to free speech even if it's speech I don't agree with.

Well, as long as the injuries weren't serious, I guess it's all okay.

 

[Montjoy]

I prefer to direct my anger over the violence at the people who actually took guns to the event and attempted to kill people.

Cartooning is not violence. Personally, I find it awesome to live in a country in which people are free to say, write, draw and otherwise express any point of view. Even those points of view that people find offensive. Especially those points of view that people find offensive. That's what's awesome!

Suggesting that some people's free speech should be curtailed because some other people find it offensive is ... well... offensive.

Just using this post as a jumping off point, truly, but I do wonder how some of the staunch defenders of the first amendment as per hate speech think about harassing talk in workplaces or in public? Based on what I've read here, I'd have to guess that many of this thread's more prolific posters would celebrate the right of someone to say whatever they want to anyone in any circumstance. After all, if hateful speech is a sacred right, I can't see how sexually offensive speech would be any different.

 

[krimekat]

Love this: Suggesting that some people's free speech should be curtailed because some other people find it offensive is ... well... offensive.

 

[Curious Guy]

Free speech, LOL they were baiting Muslims with this stupid conference .. what a joke.

I could slap someone.

The jihadists did you one better. They brought bombs.

 

[Ausgirl]

I prefer to direct my anger over the violence at the people who actually took guns to the event and attempted to kill people.

Cartooning is not violence. Personally, I find it awesome to live in a country in which people are free to say, write, draw and otherwise express any point of view. Even those points of view that people find offensive. Especially those points of view that people find offensive. That's what's awesome!

Suggesting that some people's free speech should be curtailed because some other people find it offensive is ... well... offensive.

You can prefer whatever you like. As can I.

I would prefer that terroristic extremism didn't exist. I would prefer that racist ignorant bigots didn't exist. Sadly, both do. So I would therefore more realistically prefer that free speech was tempered with intelligence, plus respect and concern for other people's lives, and I would prefer terrorist extremists get rooted out at a level that doesn't involve public shootings.

But you know, if wishes were fishes.

 

[krimekat]

And if indeed they KNEW it, then they stupidly and carelessly put their own lives, and the lives of the SWAT officers they requested, and the lives of all the law-abiding citizens in the immediate vicinity in danger. On top of being a pile of racist idiots.

How fail is that.

There has to be better, more responsible, less racially offensive ways to protest about terrorism.

But wait.. that's not what they were protesting is it.

who was protesting? and what?

I thought it was a cartoon drawing contest . . .

What's wrong with drawing a false prophet in America where it is NOT against any law that we follow ?

Next women will be force to wear burkas, oh wait . . .

 

[Curious Guy]

Has she advocated or entreated any of her followers to resort to violence?

In the U.S., we do NOT restrict people's rights to free expression on the basis of some vague belief that someone, somewhere, might someday get "riled up" and "lash out" as a result. Period, full stop.

Of course not. This thread has veered into absurdity.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

You can prefer whatever you like. As can I.

I would prefer that extremism didn't exist. I would prefer that racist ignorant bigots didn't exist. Sadly, both do. So I would therefore more realistically prefer that free speech was tempered with intelligence, plus respect and concern for other people's lives, and I would prefer extremists get rooted out at a level that doesn't involve public shootings.

But you know, if wishes were fishes.

I guess you can't ask racist ignorant bigots to temper their statements with intelligence, or have respect for others, but of course they blame the people they provoke for reacting, so I guess we'll just :banghead:

 

[KaaBoom]

I had no idea that a SWAT team could be hired out.

You can hire off duty police officers, for what ever you want. If you attend any event that has police officers there to provide security, chances are they were hired by the event organizers.