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 ...
Who gets to decide what is bigotry and hate speech? The Slimes? Give me a break. I think the Slimes is anti-American. Does that mean I should be able to stop it from printing their garbage? Of course not. I consider most leftist media anti-American hate speech. I still can’t stop it. Those hypocrites don’t understand they don’t get to decide what is hate speech.
I take it the Slimes is equally opposed to gay pride marches which disgust and provoke Christians.
FU NYT!!!!
One might put some credence in their righteous indignation if they’d expressed even a smidgeon of it when Christian symbols were prominently treated in an insulting and provocative manner.
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.
You can tell that the juxtaposition of the Andres Serrano provocation with the Garland situation is causing the MSM a lot of problems, because they haven’t mentioned it. This is because the New York Times intellectual brain trust hasn’t yet figured out how to spin that massive double standard yet.
I am certain they will. It will be laughable when they come up with it, but the whole liberal hive will jump on it as logically obvious, with anyone who disagrees labeled “stupid.”
They may actually go so far as to test various possible spins in focus group sessions.
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
Engaging in political correctness is like voluntarily bending over for your large cellmate in prison.
The Times is gutter journalism. They are indecent and vile and can’t imagine that everyone else isn’t. A great Rabbi was walking with a young Talmidim when they came upon two small boys. The taller of the two gratuitously pushed the smaller boy down and made him cry. He enjoyed it. The great sage remarked, “Mark that boy, nothing will come of his life.” The death rattle of a once great newspaper is an ugly thing.
I won't hold my breath..
How can they, with a straight face, leave P... Christ out of this article. God help me not to hate.
They are thought control commissars, very much in the original soviet flavor. This pretty routinely happens to Christian faiths, does the NYT and the other directorates from the Ministry of Propaganda object like they are now doing? No, of course not. The radical ROP types want sharia law and their world wide caliphate. The media types like them are merely useful idiots.
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
When they figure out how to rationalize, they will let everyone know.
Until then, they pretend it never happened.
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.