Discussion for article #235950
“Elton Simpson”? That doesn’t sound Arabic at all.
1 Like
Sounds like the police did excellent prep and were great under fire.
I’m surprised they weren’t pulled for Jade Helm defense by state officials…
1 Like
Bingo!
That is his American name like Kareem Abdul Jabbar/Lew Alcindor.
1 Like
A special big Thank You! goes out from the ISIL recruiting staff to the organizers of this inflammatory event. I hope the cowardly bastards enjoy their fame and fortune now that they have done their very best to assure another thousand or so U.S. soldiers die in the Middle East.
2 Likes
He is apparently a black man converted to Islam.
Why did this organization hold such a provocative event? Intended to bolster Pam Geller? They spent an extra $10,000 on security given what they were doing, so they knew that they would be targeted. What gives?
The organization is like the nutwing preacher in Florida that wanted barbecued Kuran.
1 Like
Wait, why does anyone need a reason to do what is one of the fundamental rights of a free society? Regardless of the motives of organizers I would hope everyone, specially those of us who call ourselves “liberals” support the rights of freedom of speech, no matter what is said. Specially when there are people who threaten freedom of speech with DEATH.
3 Likes
We can support the right of anybody to be a damn fool, but don’t expect us to be happy with their lack of judgment.
6 Likes
I am curious, why do we question their judgement? I mean what is the standard or rules for exercising free speech, only if it is “not offensive?” Or if we all as a whole agree it is done with “good judgement?”
So would we also require that protestors who protest in Baltimore, Ferguson, or anywhere else also show “good judgement?” By whose standards?
2 Likes
Why not question Pam Geller’s judgement? Just because she didn’t violate the law doesn’t mean she exercised good judgment in provoking the nut jobs.
Freedom doesn’t require good judgement, but I am not going to give my full throated support to anybody who insists on being a damn fool. In this case Pam Geller’s prayers were answered. She will raise a lot of money because three people were shot. Big woop.
1 Like
I support Geller’s Constitutional right while at the same time considering her to be a dipshit for exercising her Constitutional right in such a manner. Nuance isn’t the latest fragrance from Prince Matchabelli
4 Likes
Again I am not asking about “full throated support.” Also not really arguing against questioning someones judgement. I am sincerely asking a question that seems to not get answered. Which are:
-
Is good judgement a pre-requisit of free speech?
-
Is not offending people a pre-requisit of free speech?
-
Should we have ANY conditions we impose in our support of free speech? I believe the same people who support Snowden and WikiLeaks (both violations of law) due to free speech should not then qualify free speech because it shows “bad judgement” imho.
2 Likes
No, good judgement and being nice are not prerequisites of free speech, per se. Just my opinion. Knock yourself out.
Well the wikileaks thing is kind of a strawman argument. You’re saying the same people who support Snowden want to censor “draw muhammad” parties. What people, “us”? It’s your barrel, shoot all the fish you want.
The supreme court says imminent incitement to violence is not protected speech. They have been very reluctant to restrict. I agree with that. You can burn flags, make piss christs, go Westboro, etc etc. These particular muhammad parties are designer incitements, carefully crafted to offend certain people, IRL trolling. It’s pretty borderline legally, but it’s designed to be that way. If it’s protected, I just feel sorry for the dead innocent bystanders these two crazy trains are going to pile up when they collide. I don’t think restricting speech or not is going to prevent crazy people who want a war from having one.
Again, the law is replete with examples of laws restraining or punishing free speech when it is reasonably anticipated or intended that it incite violence. While there’s been no law enacted to do that in this particular situation, we can still inform our opinion of just where this falls on the free speech spectrum by understanding it for what it was: baiting…a dare…and intentional incitement reasonably foreseeable to result in violence. That doesn’t excuse the violence, but it does highlight that these Geller-worshipping bigots do not have clean hands and were not merely innocently exercising their right to free speech. They were deliberately inciting something like this, knew it, did it anyway and now want to pretend they’re the victim. Frankly, I’d call them accomplices, especially because everyone involved got what they wanted: the bigots got their violent muslim attack they wanted and the muslim extremists got a martyrdom attempt and a big to-do to point at and claim that this kind of hate and bigotry towards muslims is precisely what defines us as Amurikkkans. Win-win.
Of course, if I went out on a street corner in Christiantown, TX and started painting a big wooden Jesus on the Cross with feces, blood and semen, I’d probably get arrested for disturbing the peace because something something how dare I?
2 Likes
Those don’t look like pictures of the “police”. I think “Jade Helm” happened many years ago.
1 Like
My concern with the “incitement to violence” are twofold:
-
So all I have to do is to threaten to be violent if you say you like bunnies, and by acting out on my belief I am starting to set a basis for saying your pro-bunny free speech rallies are “incitement to violence.” I can see how the christian right will quickly start shooting at pro-gay rallies if this was the case, then claim any pro-gay rally is incitement to violence. Talk about a bad idea…
-
Shouldn’t an incitement to violence have at least some elements in which, you know, the speech says “do violence?” I mean if I draw Muhammad handing out free kittens can you really say my speech is inciting violence?
Should have held a “Let’s draw cartoons of all religious figures” to be more inclusive!
2 Likes
They are hoping to instigate a cause celebre, such as this, to persuade more Americans that “we must fight them over there [preemptively in the case of Iraq and possibly Iran], before we have to fight them over here” – and to fundraise of the event, of course. With Pam Geller, it’s a wakeup warning with a gragger for the alarm.