All Speech Has Consequences-Just because You Are Free To Say Something, Should You? Attack in Garland is an assault on free speech By Washington Examiner | May 5, 2015

KHH1

Attack in Garland is an assault on free speech

By Washington Examiner | May 5, 2015 | 5:00 am
Let there be no confusion: The First Amendment exists precisely to protect speech offensive...
On Sunday night, two Islamic fanatics were killed right as they began their attack in Garland, Texas. They failed to kill anyone in their assault against a gathering of the American Freedom Defense Initiative which had been advertised as a contest to draw cartoons of Mohammed, the prophet of Islam.
Some have recognized the attack as an assault on the freedom of speech the sort of attack that has inspired groups like AFDI to wage public campaigns against the Islamic faith. Others have denounced AFDI as a hate group that routinely demonizes Muslims and in this case tried to provoke them.

Perhaps everyone is at least partly right but that doesn't mean everyone is morally equal.

In the late 1980s, a U.S. government grant for artist Andres Serrano's "Piss Christ" showed the lengths to which some bureaucrats and artistic elites will go in order to offend religious sensibilities. At the time, those Christians who objected were given high-handed lectures about how, in a pluralistic society where freedom of speech is paramount, they must tolerate (and perhaps even fund) provocations against their religion.
Likewise, the event in Garland was surely provocative, even if it wasn't government-funded. Islamic tradition prohibits the depiction of sentient beings, but depictions of Mohammed are considered especially sacrilegious the rough equivalent of the desecration of Christian images or relics.

But as provocative as a Mohammed-drawing contest may be, what about all of those lectures from the times of "Piss Christ?" Do those no longer apply now, when free speech offends a group less distasteful to the cultural elite? Are offenses against Christian sensibilities the only ones permitted by the First Amendment?

And will the lecturers maintain their silence if other events that represent potential provocations to some Muslims say, gay-pride parades begin to inspire attacks as well?

Let there be no confusion: The First Amendment exists precisely to protect speech offensive enough to motivate a coercive response. To say otherwise is to defeat its purpose. If no one expressed themselves in ways that made others uncomfortable, there would be no need for the Constitution's near-absolute prohibition on laws about what people can and cannot say. This is why the Garland group's provocation is an insignificant matter compared to the lack of restraint shown by the two deceased malefactors. The worst possible response to this attack is to say that those who staged the Garland event are cranks who hold offensive opinions, and therefore somehow their rights are less equal than those of other Americans.

Neither compassion nor toleration permits the drawing of any moral equivalency between provocative speech and violence.

Most Americans learn at a young age that they have no business using violence or threats to force others to conform to or even respect their own religious beliefs. The future must not belong to those unwilling to absorb that very basic lesson of good citizenship.

jelun

KHH1 wrote:

Attack in Garland is an assault on free speech

By Washington Examiner | May 5, 2015 | 5:00 am
Let there be no confusion: The First Amendment exists precisely to protect speech offensive...
On Sunday night, two Islamic fanatics were killed right as they began their attack in Garland, Texas. They failed to kill anyone in their assault against a gathering of the American Freedom Defense Initiative which had been advertised as a contest to draw cartoons of Mohammed, the prophet of Islam.
Some have recognized the attack as an assault on the freedom of speech the sort of attack that has inspired groups like AFDI to wage public campaigns against the Islamic faith. Others have denounced AFDI as a hate group that routinely demonizes Muslims and in this case tried to provoke them.

Perhaps everyone is at least partly right but that doesn't mean everyone is morally equal.

In the late 1980s, a U.S. government grant for artist Andres Serrano's "Piss Christ" showed the lengths to which some bureaucrats and artistic elites will go in order to offend religious sensibilities. At the time, those Christians who objected were given high-handed lectures about how, in a pluralistic society where freedom of speech is paramount, they must tolerate (and perhaps even fund) provocations against their religion.
Likewise, the event in Garland was surely provocative, even if it wasn't government-funded. Islamic tradition prohibits the depiction of sentient beings, but depictions of Mohammed are considered especially sacrilegious the rough equivalent of the desecration of Christian images or relics.

But as provocative as a Mohammed-drawing contest may be, what about all of those lectures from the times of "Piss Christ?" Do those no longer apply now, when free speech offends a group less distasteful to the cultural elite? Are offenses against Christian sensibilities the only ones permitted by the First Amendment?

And will the lecturers maintain their silence if other events that represent potential provocations to some Muslims say, gay-pride parades begin to inspire attacks as well?

Let there be no confusion: The First Amendment exists precisely to protect speech offensive enough to motivate a coercive response. To say otherwise is to defeat its purpose. If no one expressed themselves in ways that made others uncomfortable, there would be no need for the Constitution's near-absolute prohibition on laws about what people can and cannot say. This is why the Garland group's provocation is an insignificant matter compared to the lack of restraint shown by the two deceased malefactors. The worst possible response to this attack is to say that those who staged the Garland event are cranks who hold offensive opinions, and therefore somehow their rights are less equal than those of other Americans.

Neither compassion nor toleration permits the drawing of any moral equivalency between provocative speech and violence.

Most Americans learn at a young age that they have no business using violence or threats to force others to conform to or even respect their own religious beliefs. The future must not belong to those unwilling to absorb that very basic lesson of good citizenship.

Attack in Garland is an assault on free speech br ... (show quote)

I am just waiting to see how many of the "how dare anyone stomp on MY flag?" crowd say this sort of free speech is just fine.

KHH1

jelun wrote:

I am just waiting to see how many of the "how dare anyone stomp on MY flag?" crowd say this sort of free speech is just fine.

Oh yeah...then you'll really get to see the hypocritical/selective nature of these dolts.....

jelun

KHH1 wrote:

Oh yeah...then you'll really get to see the hypocritical/selective nature of these dolts.....

Yes, I know.
I have yet to figure out whether they are just twisting words for fun or out of ignorance.
I just saw a bit of AG Lynch's meeting with Baltimore's Finest.
What a classy lady she is. She knew just the right words to say.

KHH1

jelun wrote:

Yes, I know.
I have yet to figure out whether they are just twisting words for fun or out of ignorance.
I just saw a bit of AG Lynch's meeting with Baltimore's Finest.
What a classy lady she is. She knew just the right words to say.

Oh yeah....she is sharp...Pres Obama understands what to look for in people...smart people do not select dummies....and the concept of black unqualified people getting hired is stupid...when higly qualified blacks face recruitment issues......I think they twist words in an attempt to irritate and void facing issues head on......I referenced Dr. Phil stating to a lady that she must have eaten a lot of snot when her husband explained how much she complains and bitches at the waiters when they go out to eat......some gotdamn idiot in here twisted that to say i was advocating spitting in white people's food.....they are ridiculous....

jelun

KHH1 wrote:

Oh yeah....she is sharp...Pres Obama understands w... (show quote)

They read what they would do.

mwdegutis Loc: Illinois

jelun wrote:

I am just waiting to see how many of the "how dare anyone stomp on MY flag?" crowd say this sort of free speech is just fine.

I see...this sort of speech should be forbidden but it's OK to mock and ridicule our Heavenly Father and Jesus and call anyone who believes in them an idiot who believes in fairy tales. That kind of speech is "just fine."

jelun

mwdegutis wrote:

I see...this sort of speech should be forbidden but it's OK to mock and ridicule our Heavenly Father and Jesus and call anyone who believes in them an idiot who believes in fairy tales. That kind of speech is "just fine."

That is what free speech means. The protection is in place for people who say unpopular words not for people who go along with the crowd.

no propaganda please Loc: moon orbiting the third rock from the sun

mwdegutis wrote:

I see...this sort of speech should be forbidden but it's OK to mock and ridicule our Heavenly Father and Jesus and call anyone who believes in them an idiot who believes in fairy tales. That kind of speech is "just fine."

Of course it is just fine, but don't dare say anything against Muslims of homosexuals, those are hate crimes, but us Christians should be hated because we say there is such a thing as right and wrong and an absolute morality, not do what ever you want to do, if it makes you happy.

jelun

no propaganda please wrote:

Of course it is just fine, but don't dare say anything against Muslims of homosexuals, those are hate crimes, but us Christians should be hated because we say there is such a thing as right and wrong and an absolute morality, not do what ever you want to do, if it makes you happy.

Awwww, poor babies.
Too freaking ignorant to learn what a hate crime consists of.

mwdegutis Loc: Illinois

jelun wrote:

That is what free speech means. The protection is in place for people who say unpopular words not for people who go along with the crowd.

Do you realize that you just said that free speech protection is NOT in place for people who go along with the crowd? In other words if people "who go along with the crowd" say, "We believe in the 1st amendment," that speech is not protected?

mwdegutis Loc: Illinois

jelun wrote:

Awwww, poor babies.
Too freaking ignorant to learn what a hate crime consists of.

So you're saying that speaking of Mohamed is a hate crime but mocking and ridiculing Christians is not?

jelun

mwdegutis wrote:

Do you realize that you just said that free speech protection is NOT in place for people who go along with the crowd? In other words if people "who go along with the crowd" say, "We believe in the 1st amendment," that speech is not protected?

Do you realize just how stupid you sound when you try to twist what people say?

You, who are in the crowd, don't need protections as you spout the ugliness that is acceptable to the American Christian majority.
So yes, the reason that the 1st Amendment was put in place was to support people who are outside the mainstream.

Try to do some reading.

Give it a try.
http://commlawreview.org/Archives/v6i1/CLR_Being_James_Madison.pdf

mwdegutis Loc: Illinois

jelun wrote:

Do you realize just how stupid you sound when you try to twist what people say?

You, who are in the crowd, don't need protections as you spout the ugliness that is acceptable to the American Christian majority.
So yes, the reason that the 1st Amendment was put in place was to support people who are outside the mainstream.

Try to do some reading.

These were you're EXACT words you lying liar (my emphasis):

"That is what free speech means. The protection is in place for people who say unpopular words not for people who go along with the crowd."

KHH1

jelun wrote:

They read what they would do.

True that...they do reflect/deflect...when you accuse them of something truthful...they say it back to you.......they post n-gger over and over then tell me i'm the racist...they do not recognize what each other say, just the response...and that is addressed from the premise it was an initial statment and was unprovoked....