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 ...
On Fox, O’Reilly was being his usual thick-headed, pompous, semi-informed jerk. Megan Kelly had it right. Who are the victims here; those trying to kill someone for their free speech or those exercising free speech? All cowering does is encourage Islamic radicals.
From Wikipedia: National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie
Purpose of the Case
In 1977 Frank Collin, the leader of National Socialist Party of America, announced the party's intention to march through Skokie, Illinois. In the predominantly Jewish community, one in six residents was a Holocaust survivor[citation needed]. Originally, the NSPA had planned a political rally in Marquette Park in Chicago; however the Chicago authorities blocked these plans by requiring the NSPA to post a public safety insurance bond and by banning political demonstrations in Marquette Park.
On behalf of the NSPA, the ACLU challenged the injunction issued by the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois that prohibited marchers at the proposed Skokie rally from wearing Nazi uniforms or displaying swastikas. The ACLU was represented by civil rights attorney Burton Joseph.[1][2] The challengers argued that the injunction violated the First Amendment rights of the marchers to express themselves.
Prior history
Both the Illinois Appellate Court and the Illinois Supreme Court refused to stay the injunction. The case was sent to the Supreme Court of the United States.[3]
On June 14, 1977, the Supreme Court ordered Illinois to hold a hearing on their ruling against the National Socialist Party of America, emphasizing that "if a State seeks to impose a restraint on First Amendment rights, it must provide strict procedural safeguards, including immediate appellate review... Absent such review, the State must instead allow a stay. The order of the Illinois Supreme Court constituted a denial of that right."[3] On remand, the Illinois Appellate Court eliminated the injunction against everything but the swastika. The Illinois Supreme Court heard the case again, focusing on the First Amendment implications of display of the swastika. Skokie attorneys argued that for Holocaust survivors, seeing the swastika was like being physically attacked.
The Illinois Supreme Court ruled that the use of the swastika is a symbolic form of free speech entitled to First Amendment protections and determined that the swastika itself did not constitute "fighting words." Its ruling allowed the National Socialist Party of America to march.[3]
Effect of the decision
In the summer of 1978, in response to the Supreme Court's decision, some Holocaust survivors set up a museum on the Main Street of Skokie to commemorate those who had died in the concentration camps. Ultimately the NSPA failed to carry through its march in Skokie. (Gaining permission in Chicago, they marched there instead).
-PJ
So voicing opposition is no longer a form of protest, it is is a form of “hate “speech” which must mean that going out and murdering people who disagree with you is now an act of love?
This event was a peaceful protest against the irrational hatefulness and violence of islam. Those who follow Mohamed need to go to sensitivity training in order to learn how to live with the rest of the folks on the planet. Their reaction to this event was not sane.
Islam is a prison.
Drawing a cartoon of Mohammed is ‘hate’ speech. Believing that all non-Muslims should die is a part of on of the World’s Great Religions. Sheeeesh.
ping
George W. Bush...
In a rather tortured oration, she espoused O'Reilly's leftist castigation of Pam Geller and Geller's associates, supporters and event in Garland.
At times she appeared apologetic and even embarrassed. The usual "I know conservatives will not agree with me, but...."
WHY was she so uneasy? Because we genuine conservatives uphold the right of free speech and the Constitution. And her boss is not upholding same in regards to this event, and she was his Mini-Me in her sorry, liberal rant.
She knows we're not dumb...we recognized her parroting of BOR's position for what it was....in short, she knows who butters her bread.
I will never look on Laura in the same way again....she danced to the tune of the lefty/populist leprechaun piper who chooses/okays the commentators on his shows....and he NEEDED a conservative name to agree with his anti-free speech position last night....and she willingly gobbled up the bait.
You were neutral-ized and O'Reilly-ized last night, Laura. Shame on you!
In my house, you're ostrac-ized for the nonce.
Hopefully, you'll show some reasoned independence in the future when you do your regular Factor gigs.
Leni
I was offended by PC (ironic acronym). BUT my main objection was that TAX dollars were used to create such works of “art”. I would never suggest that such works should be banned. Freedom also means freedom to offend. As a side note, I also believe that you should have the freedom to burn a flag. You buy the flag, you do it on your property, you follow all local fire ordinances, burn away. I will consider you to be a piece of scum, but freedom is freedom. But don’t come after me if I use a picture of Che Guevara for target practice either.
If you DO NOT understand the One Worlders’ plan to turn America into just another third world hellhole, watch — and share — this 4 minute video! If you’re too disconnected, disinterested or have drunk too much of the insane multiculturalism/tolerance/diversity Kool-Aid to help to halt this process and have children, please leave a letter behind for them apologizing and consider cremation lest they be tempted to dig you up in order to spit in your face for failing to preserve the birthright WE understood to be ours and for which scores of millions died to defend.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PzT8vEvYPg&feature=em-subs_digest
O'Reilly regularly alternates between bloviating and cowering. He was in cowering mode last night.
See my post #69 above.
Leni
From the New York Times in October 1999 in an editorial on the "Piss Christ" exhibit and the surrounding controversy:
We are confident the court will see the city's arguments for what they are -- a pretext to justify the Mayor's anger at a museum that dared to defend artistic freedom.
Maybe they would like to rephrase and give defense to the cartoon-drawing event now?
BOR is nothing but a self serving FOG Horn FULL of himself. Hannity has become similarly by not letting guest talking cutting them off with a BOR attitude as well!!!
What would the NY Times reaction been if two Christians had been killed attacking an Atheist group?
Hypocrites and Frauds AKA “Journalists”. Once again they exposes that it is about their political ideology, not “Objectivity”
F#CK the New York Times and F#CK New York City.
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.
We support the First Amendment, but we don't support the First Amendment.
If you’d like to be on or off, please FR mail me.
..................
For the NYT free speech appears to be what you mostly agree with. Charlie bashes Christians and Jews, and so can be excused a bit of Muslim bashing.
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.
Pam, on the other hand, criticizes and alerts us to a threat, radical Islam.
NYT doesn't think that's a threat, thus hate speech.
Don't know what went on at the cartoon display, haven't seen any pictures, so don't know if it was "hate", know for sure it's free
I've seen her bus posters which drive the left nuts.
Hate? Yes, it hate. Despicable hate. Though also protected as free speech.
So we're clear, not Pam's hate.
She simply quotes the hate spewed out daily by leaders in the radical Islamic world.
Quote a hateful Iman, or leader of a terror group, "Kill the Jews", and Pam is the purveyor of hate?
The Reich wasn't a purveyor of hate, it's the journalists and survivors who expose them. They're the haters to the NYT. Same for Stalin, Pol Pot, Castro, Guevara.
In today's America "hate speech" is a function of politics. More specifically a political belief system. Like this
Protecting the monsters. Didn’t the New York Times go out of their way to say that the JESUS IN PISS exhibit was just a free speech issue.
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.