This reminds me of the attitude of the campus left from the sixties onward that there should be “no freedom of speech for fascists”—and “fascists” included all whose views were to the right of George McGovern.
This sure isn’t a surprise coming from the Slimes editorial board.
Hate Speech IS Free Speech as is any other kind of Speech somebody disagrees with. They just don’t get it do they?
The article should have ended there.
If Islamics cannot handle a simple picture of their prophet being drawn, they are not a religion.
They are a psychosis.
Hugs and kisses,
Laz
I won't hold my breath..
Back in 1999, the 2 faced NY Slimes thought Chris Ofili’s offensive image of the Virgin Mary, made of elephant shit, was fine and dandy and worthy of exhibition at The Brooklyn Museum of Art and NEA funding.
http://www.nytimes.com/1999/10/02/opinion/the-battle-of-brooklyn.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm
Where have they been with all the hateful speech about Jesus Christ, with the “art” that defiled the Christian religions, the demands to remove any object that relates to Christians.
OTOH, putting a crucifix in a jar of urine or any other attack on Christianity is free speech.
Well, since everything we do in their eyes is an act of bigotry and hatred, I can't find much of an insult there.
Expanding on my BullS**t! comment, lets look at the quote:
“It was an exercise in bigotry and hatred posing as a blow for freedom”
How can someone (supposedly) so smart, being a writer for the New York Times, write something that stupid?.
The Garland Exhibit was a an exercise in freedom against religious hate and censorship. Not only hate against Jews and Christians but also against other muslims that have in the past exalted Muhammed in art (unless of course the Muslim faction that finds it offensive has already killed all the members of the other Muslim faction that does not).
Are we to stand as they murder our Supreme Court judges because there is a fresco in the Supreme court building depicting Muhammed as one of the early Lawgivers?
Are we about to let them deface depictions by various artists around the world? are we to allow them to burn all books containing his facade? what about the internet? are we supposed to censor and ban all digital imagery of Muhammed?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depictions_of_Muhammad
And we are the ones offending them? What bunch of hogwash. And shame on the New York Times, what a fall from grace.
and just because I can..
http://www.westernfreepress.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/muhammad-drawing_.png
The NY Times and the jihadis have the same goal, to silence Pamela Geller. One uses a gun and the other uses political correctness but make no mistake they are on the same side.
Of course Geller is evil. She's a Jew and good Jews should be passionately in love with those who want to exterminate them.
If you put limits on speech, for any reason, you no longer have “Free” Speech.
If she hates Muslims she would be the one with the gun. She may hate Islam, I don’t know, but that is an entirely different thing. Anyway the First Amendment is not protection from getting your feelings hurt.
was not really about free speech. It was an exercise in bigotry and hatred posing as a blow for freedom.
Oh stop. The point being made and found to be true is that FREEDOM and LIBERTY - you know America and ISLAM, you know oppression fear and death are not compatible. Ms Geller proved that point...
So what was the urine crucifix and "Book of Mormon"? How is drawing cartoons hate and putting a sacred object of Christians in urine not?
