Meanwhile, in the Middle East or where ever muslims gather.....
...
Posted on 05/06/2015 2:45:27 PM PDT by reaganaut1
There is no question that images ridiculing religion, however offensive they may be to believers, qualify as protected free speech in the United States and most Western democracies. There is also no question that however offensive the images, they do not justify murder, and that it is incumbent on leaders of all religious faiths to make this clear to their followers.
But it is equally clear that the Muhammad Art Exhibit and Contest in Garland, Tex., was not really about free speech. It was an exercise in bigotry and hatred posing as a blow for freedom.
That distinction is critical because the conflicts that have erupted over depictions of the Prophet Muhammad, most notably the massacre of staff members at the French satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo in January by two Muslim brothers, have generated a furious and often confused debate about free speech versus hate speech. The current dispute at the American chapter of the PEN literary organization over its selection of Charlie Hebdo for a freedom of expression courage award is a case in point — hundreds of PEN’s members have opposed the selection for “valorizing selectively offensive material.”
Charlie Hebdo is a publication whose stock in trade has always been graphic satires of politicians and religions, whether Catholic, Jewish or Muslim. By contrast, Pamela Geller, the anti-Islam campaigner behind the Texas event, has a long history of declarations and actions motivated purely by hatred for Muslims.
Whether fighting against a planned mosque near ground zero, posting to her venomous blog Atlas Shrugs or organizing the event in Garland, Ms. Geller revels in assailing Islam in terms reminiscent of virulent racism or anti-Semitism. She achieved her provocative goal in Garland — the event was attacked by two Muslims who were shot to death by a traffic officer
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Just as it was clear that "Piss Christ" was not really about art. As the New York Times claimed, back when it was defending that form of religious provocation.
But is not any criticism of Islam considered hate speech?
I always love it when people who work in free speech/free press lecture us about the limits and evils of such things.
Why do Islamic societies hate and murder Christians and Jews?
The LIB idea of “hate” speech is merely a convenience to keep others from exposing their ultimate idiocy and illogic. What fools! LIBERALISM is “hate” speech. All LIBs should self-exile.
Yup, the NYT, CNN, TIME, and all the no-mind clones are surprisingly saying the same thing.
Interesting.
My response is to call that gathering in Garland an artfest.
There, problem solved.
After all, the MSM loves piles of sh...er...Obamastuff pasted on canvas.
Meanwhile, in the Middle East or where ever muslims gather........
*cough* bullS**t! *cough*
She achieved her provocative goal in Garland — the event was attacked by two Muslims who were shot to death by a traffic officer.
_________________________________________
The dumasses at the Slimes write this as if this was a Bad Thing.
lololol
When the muzzies come with guns to assassinate the editors at the Slimes for their failure to kiss muzzie butt 24/7, I for one will cheer.
It is time we are allowed to HATE what we deem proper to hate. I hate EVIL and no person should have the right to tell me I cannot hate. Political correctness MUST BE destroyed.
The idiots writing this bilge are so caught up in their compromises they cannot see anything clearly and are determinedly disinterested in the truth of anything. Not only was the contest won by a Muslim but many of the entries harkened to a time not many centuries ago when depictions of Mohammed were all the rage in Muslim countries.
An enraged shooter assaulting a piss Christ exhibit would not receive the same consideration from these daisies.
Yes, the contest was absolutely a quintessential expression of free speech. Liberals have lost the ground they stand on. A tsunami of stupidity will wash them away.
Exactly
No, actually is isn't. This was, we recall, the paper that defended the ACLU for defending the Nazis in Skokie, whose motivations really were hatred. Those high-minded days are over and this new editorial board is interested only in the very same sort of political control that those Nazis were so long ago.
In point of fact there is no valid distinction between free speech and "hate" speech, the latter a neologism representing anything the speaker finds objectionable at the moment. Had the Times editorial board objected as vehemently to, say, Piss Christ, they might have a ghost of a case. They did not; in fact, their case is one of hypocrisy and a lust for speech and thought control.
Jerk editorial writers like those of the New York Slimes remind us of why all REAL Americans now put our 2nd Amendment FIRST!!
So, Bill Maher is a purveyor of hate speech or is he just another entitled lefty?
(Rhetorical question, I know.)
I wonder if the editorial board ever said that about something like Piss Christ or whatever anti-Israel leftist rants they might have hosted on their pages.
“Hate speech” is any speech Liberals hate to hear. It need have no other characteristic.
As I posted before, if I were a prosecutor I would argue in court that all this pro-terrorism, anti-constitutional slop is enemy propaganda(look up US vs. Chandler or similar cases to see how that ends for the perps)
It sounds like the NYT editorial board wants to determine what is protected free speech. They did such a great job in this case.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.