Free speech, Garland Tx.

[Shootin 4 Fun]

The event was an expression of free speech, no different than burning or dancing on the American flag. While such actions are distasteful, they are important to our culture. If we wish to maintain our freedoms, we must support the rights of others to insult us.

People that cannot support another person's first amendment rights, are better no than a member of ISIS.

 

[tRidiot]

Was it distasteful? Perhaps.
Was it insensitive? Yes.
Was it deserving of the death penalty, as claimed by many followers of Islam? No.

This is the sticking point...

If you believe in free speech, in truly free speech, then allow yourself to be offended. This goes for all the rest of us, too. We need to allow the morons from Westboro their stupidity. Allow other morons to burn the flag. Picket them, counter-protest, whatever. But those dips**ts have the same right to express their opinions as we do. That goes for Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and the KKK as well.

Don't like it? Well... plenty of places in the world where speech is being suppressed. In fact, our allies in Europe are actively hunting down people who post racist comments on social media and throwing them in jail. It's coming here. Just wait.

 

[RKM]

It's no different from Bill Maher joking and making fun of Christians, Catholics, Mormons ...etc. Muslims are not a protected class.

Like the old saying...F#*k 'em if they can't take a joke.

 

[Ace_on_the_Turn]

Does Pam Geller have balls this big?
The Westboro Baptist Church is at it again. The famously hateful religious organization, known for their grand publicity stunts, has decided that they are going to fly to Iraq and protest ISIS.

Some how I don't think they will ever make the trip. Seeing one of these asshats being beheaded would be like seeing your mother-in-law drive off a cliff in your new Benz.

 

[120 Acres]

It's no different from Bill Maher joking and making fun of Christians, Catholics, Mormons ...etc. Muslims are not a protected class.

Like the old saying...F#*k 'em if they can't take a joke.

Zactly. Because you believe in a fictional character does not make you exempt from ridicule. It actually makes you more susceptible to be the butt of jokes.

Freedom!

 

[R. Johnson]

Being a Christian I find a lot of the ways other folks insult and ridicule Jesus hurtful and offensive, however I would die defending their right to do so. Until the Charlie Hebdo attack I would never have dreamt of participating in something like the Draw Muhammed event because I know how hurtful the insulting things some folks do to Christianity are (not to mention it hurts our ability to minister to Muslims when we insult them). I say all that to say this; I feel it is my duty as an American to mock those who threaten me. I feel we have a duty to make these sorts of insulting statements in defense of the future, to prevent what's not controversial now from becoming controversial and further restricting our speech.

 

[mugsy]

I spent 24 years on active duty defending (or at least intending to defend) the rights we cherish, especially freedom of speech, religion, peaceful assembly, to be free of unreasonable search and seizure, etc. I will go on record saying I do not personally support insulting or denigrating anyone's religion simply as a matter of treating each other with resonable decency and a reasonable regard for others. However, if someone else feels differently that is that person's right and we have to uphold that person's right to speak freely and free from fear and intimidation.

 

[elance]

The difference is not wether the death penalty is warranted when insulting God or Jesus or Muhammad.
But the fact my live God will do his own killing his own time. Theirs?, well he needs a little help.
so you really haven't insulted me,you haven't blasphemed me , and your not going to answer to me. Them?, well theirs needs some help.

As for your rights, don't we preach "exercise " and is one less deserving than the others . The right to be jackhole without being killed, which one is that?

elance

 

[Glocktogo]

It certainly falls under the protection of the 1st Amendment, but was it really necessary? Of course it will incite anger, everybody there knew that it was offensive to Muslims . The whole event is no different than Westboro using the 1st Amendment to get under people's skin at funerals. It is allowed and protected, but what purpose does it serve other than to anger a group of people? If you respect Islam, why draw Muhammad, if you don't respect Islam, why waste your time?

Transmitted via Tactical Telecommunications Device

If I were to take your statement at face value, it would mean:

The funeral mourners that WBC taunts, support killing people based on their differing beliefs.

The funeral mourners that WBC taunts, do not believe that 1st Amendment freedoms are equally, if not more important than adhering to and respecting the religious beliefs of others.

No, this isn't an apples to apples comparison. It's apples to oranges. Yet still, I support the WBC's right to act horribly. I also respect Geller's right to be a bigot and speak her mind. I can also draw a distinction between her issue and WBC's issue. WBC isn't using their 1st Amendment right to protest the use of violence and misogyny in suppressing the rights of others, Geller is. So even if I don’t like Geller and her beliefs, I still support her fight against extremism. WBC doesn’t do that, “Piss Christ” doesn’t do that and many Islamic groups like CAIR, don’t do that.

As for my personal view, it’s pretty simple. If you’re an American Muslim, you’ll denounce Geller’s bigotry and use your 1st Amendment right to disagree with her. If you’re a Muslim American you’ll use your 1st Amendment right to call for her death.

For the record, I have no beef with American Muslims. However, if you believe your religion finds it acceptable to call for the deaths of others simply because they don’t believe as you do, you’re an enemy of humanity. Your religion offers nothing that will overcome that simple fact.

If you fall into that category, consider me your enemy too.

 

[1krr]

The freedom of speech is specifically crafted not to protect popular speech but to protect controversial speech. It's specifically designed to allow non-populist messages to be spoken and information to be given to the listener who then has the responsibility to digest and decide whether they agree or not. I think the position I hear often through the media is blaming the victim. They rail the event holders for holding an event "offensive to islam" and for inciting violence but they can't turn it inward. I'm often offended by what I hear in the media but does that give me the right to kill them for it or does it give them the responsibility to stop saying those things that offend me? It's ridiculous. If Muslims are offended, they have plenty of avenues granted them as citizens. They could protest. They could have a contest depicting Jesus in some less than honorable light. They have all kinds of options that do not involve terrorism or murder. Bottom line is no one has the right to suppress any speech. The start and end to the story in Garland is two islamic terrorists were thwarted by the heroic skill of a police officer while attempting to murder innocent citizens practicing their 1st amendment rights.