Pam Geller's Response [W:725]

[Kobie]

why will a kid be killed? should we suppress free speech because assholes who will use any excuse to commit terrorism might engage in terrorism

I think you are playing a straw child argument. trying to pretend we are responsible for what a terrorist does

sorry, I don't buy it and its a BS argument

Who is trying to suppress free speech?

 

[Grant]

She was not lampooning... she was holding a contest to purposely express hatred.

Where was this "hatred" you speak of? Show the evidence that there was any "hatred" taking place.

 

[Mithrae]

Why is it the same people critical of Pam Geller, viewed the cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo as heroic? Because she is conservative and they were liberals. Everything is political with the left. Everything.

Why is it the same people who'll applaud one religious leader being depicted as a terrorist or paedophile or homosexual, will rage and rant over another being depicted in a bucket of urine or as a homosexual or even (God forbid!) married? Why bitch and moan about flag burnings? No 'side' has a monopoly on hypocrisy. Heck, isn't it just a tad incongruous for you to imply that only 'the left' have criticised Geller, and bemoan what a political bent that shows? :lol:

Personally I'm ambivalent about both Pam Geller and Charlie Hebdo, and hardly well-informed if it comes to that. But even I have managed to notice (have you?) that the most common and vehement criticisms againt Geller are allegations of bigotry. Being deliberately 'offensive' is usually a distant second complaint; some critics have not mentioned that at all. So there's a pretty obvious distinction right there: From what I've gathered Charlie Hebdo ridicules all kinds of religious and political views, not just one particular target.

 

[Andalublue]

Well then we'll just have to avoid any criticisms against Islam, real or imagined, and be very circumspect in any behavior which may possibly be misconstrued. Do you think that this may stop them from their beheadings of Christians, murdering Gays, wiping out Israel, destroying the lives of little girls and honor killings?

I hope you're right.

If Geller was making nuanced, thoughtful criticism of the absurdities and iniquities of fundamentalist Islamism, you might have a point. She wasn't, she was engaging in insults so brainless that a football crowd would find them crass and banal. Still, it's her right to do so without being murdered, as every single person here has reiterated ad nauseam. What your Moslem-baiting brain can't seem to comprehend is that her behaviour can be in any seen as reprehensible. Your hatred of Moslems is so strong that you see any kind of playground baiting of them as some radical act of justified religious warfare.

I know you are wrong.

 

[Mithrae]

She wasn't, she was engaging in insults so brainless that a football crowd would find them crass and banal.

Was she? What did she say?

The winning picture of the competition was rather poignant, I thought, and hardly distasteful.

 

[Andalublue]

Was she? What did she say?

The winning picture of the competition was rather poignant, I thought, and hardly distasteful.

Check out her stock in trade:

http://www.pamelageller.com

 

[Mithrae]

Check out her stock in trade:

http://www.pamelageller.com

Where do you think I saw the winning picture? It does not immediately strike me as "insults so brainless that a football crowd would find them crass and banal." I've seen considerably more over-the-top rhetoric and sweeping generalizations on this forum, from both ends of the political spectrum, than I've yet seen from Geller [against Muslims].

No doubt there's plenty of material ripe for criticism there, but surely the criticism should at least be accurate?

 

[Kobie]

Sorry, you like several others at DP make that claim but it seems to disintegrate under pressure. "But Boys", ......that be you!

You seem to be under the (sadly mistaken) impression that criticizing speech means one is against allowing it to be said.

 

[vesper]

You seem to be under the (sadly mistaken) impression that criticizing speech means one is against allowing it to be said.

There's a huge difference in criticizing speech vesus using tactics designed to silence the speech you don't like.

 

[Mithrae]

There's a huge difference in criticizing speech vesus using tactics designed to silence the speech you don't like.

Under which of those categories should we place false accusations that others are opposed to free speech, I wonder?

 

[Kobie]

There's a huge difference in criticizing speech vesus using tactics designed to silence the speech you don't like.

Tactics such as?

 

[Kobie]

Under which of those categories should we place false accusations that others are opposed to free speech, I wonder?

No ****. Hell, I've been accused of that numerous times regarding this issue, and I've forgotten more about free speech issues than my accusers have ever known.

 

[Mithrae]

It's just rather ironic that Geller's critics seem to be mostly subject to two main criticisms:

> You shouldn't be criticising this person, you should be putting all your efforts to condemning terrorists (optional prelude or follow-up; "you support the terrorists!!!")

> By criticising this person you are opposing their freedom of speech.

It's just breathtaking to see such clear hypocrisy on two counts, repeated again and again, by so many posters. Really I think that's the most fascinating thing about this thread. There's got to be some kind of sociological explanation for it, but be damned if I can think of it on a work night.

 

[vesper]

Tactics such as?

Let's start with the unholy union between the left and media. Separation of press and state is as essential to constitutional order as separation of church and state. In many ways, religious freedom depends on press freedom. A press that is answerable to, or in the pocket of, a political party will be unwilling to report, or incapable of reporting accurately, when government exceeds its constitutional boundaries. The sheer de-legitimization of dissent has become the stock in trade of the left. And just like with Geller, instead of focusing the story on those who are willing to kill someone for their expression of speech instead demonize the one who exercised her free speech rights.

After the rise of Talk radio, Fox News and the Internet which allowed a more free expression of speech especially for conservative speech, the MSM, operated, owned by the left was losing control over what gets reported and how it is reported. So what did the left do but re-introduce the Fairness Doctrine. And most recently the left through the FCC wants to control political speech on the web. And what party was it that has introduced legislation that would make it criminal for "hate speech"? Why that would be the left also. Well there is no fine line between free speech and hate speech. How you express yourself I may hate and vice versa.

 

[Gardener]

The totalitarian ideology of Islam cannot be assailed within all those countries where it prevails.Do we rally wish to follow suit by making it verbotten here as well?

People should be free to choose an ideology. As such, another person should be perfectly free to assail it. When unclear thinkers conflate the assailing of a totalitarian ideology with some sort of racism, they only confirm the inescapable nature thereof. What does that say about the authoritarian nature of the person holding such views when they support a system where people are born into an ideology from which they can never escape?

 

[Gardener]

Nice deflection... :roll:



She was not lampooning... she was holding a contest to purposely express hatred.

Could you provide a list of other murderers who had sex with children who cannot be mocked without accusations of hatred?

Are there any other ideologies that cannot be assailed without similar accusations?

Sure, Geller is over the top and makes wild accusations of her own, but the Q'ran, itself, is one long manifesto of hatred. What is to be respected about a manifesto that mixes a little religious mumbo jumbo with a whole lot of politics in a way that states over and over and over again " join us or else?"

 

[Grant]

Why is it the same people who'll applaud one religious leader being depicted as a terrorist or paedophile or homosexual, will rage and rant over another being depicted in a bucket of urine or as a homosexual or even (God forbid!) married? Why bitch and moan about flag burnings? No 'side' has a monopoly on hypocrisy. Heck, isn't it just a tad incongruous for you to imply that only 'the left' have criticised Geller, and bemoan what a political bent that shows? :lol:

Personally I'm ambivalent about both Pam Geller and Charlie Hebdo, and hardly well-informed if it comes to that. But even I have managed to notice (have you?) that the most common and vehement criticisms againt Geller are allegations of bigotry. Being deliberately 'offensive' is usually a distant second complaint; some critics have not mentioned that at all. So there's a pretty obvious distinction right there: From what I've gathered Charlie Hebdo ridicules all kinds of religious and political views, not just one particular target.

So you would be more tolerant of Geller's opinions if she criticized other groups as well? Perhaps her focus is on Islam because of their treatment of women, Gays, children, etc. Perhaps she might be more critical of Christians if Muslims weren't chopping off their heads or kidnapping and raping young girls,

 

[Grant]

Check out her stock in trade:

http://www.pamelageller.com

Did you read what she posted there?

 

[Grant]

You seem to be under the (sadly mistaken) impression that criticizing speech means one is against allowing it to be said.

These two Muslims were criticizing speech with AK 47's. Their like and what to do about the problem should be the focus, not their intended victims.

 

[Kobie]

Let's start with the unholy union between the left and media. Separation of press and state is as essential to constitutional order as separation of church and state. In many ways, religious freedom depends on press freedom. A press that is answerable to, or in the pocket of, a political party will be unwilling to report, or incapable of reporting accurately, when government exceeds its constitutional boundaries. The sheer de-legitimization of dissent has become the stock in trade of the left. And just like with Geller, instead of focusing the story on those who are willing to kill someone for their expression of speech instead demonize the one who exercised her free speech rights.

After the rise of Talk radio, Fox News and the Internet which allowed a more free expression of speech especially for conservative speech, the MSM, operated, owned by the left was losing control over what gets reported and how it is reported. So what did the left do but re-introduce the Fairness Doctrine. And most recently the left through the FCC wants to control political speech on the web. And what party was it that has introduced legislation that would make it criminal for "hate speech"? Why that would be the left also. Well there is no fine line between free speech and hate speech. How you express yourself I may hate and vice versa.

Um, the Fairness Doctrine is not law.

Links to this alleged "hate speech" legislation?

 

[Kobie]

These two Muslims were criticizing speech with AK 47's. Their like and what to do about the problem should be the focus, not their intended victims.

"You will talk about what I demand you talk about!"

 

[US Conservative]

No ****. Hell, I've been accused of that numerous times regarding this issue, and I've forgotten more about free speech issues than my accusers have ever known.

Thats rich Kobie. Apparently you have forgotten where the real problem is-radical islam.

 

[Kobie]

Thats rich Kobie. Apparently you have forgotten where the real problem is-radical islam.

In other words, nothing else is allowed to be discussed. Why do you hate MY free speech?

 

[bg85]

so those who drew cartoons of Bush as an ape or Bush being sodomized by Bin Laden were terrible people?

If someone finds Muslim extremists to be scum, why is it wrong for them to lampoon the individual who serves as the inspiration for Muslim extremists?

I know I said my previous post would be my last post in this thread but...

yeah if someone drew a picture of bush as an ape or being sodomized by bin laden, for the sole purpose of pissing a bunch of people off, that would make them a terrible person (or an asshole, or whatever else you want to call that person). they definitely wouldn't be a hero.

 

[TurtleDude]

I know I said my previous post would be my last post in this thread but...

yeah if someone drew a picture of bush as an ape or being sodomized by bin laden, for the sole purpose of pissing a bunch of people off, that would make them a terrible person (or an asshole, or whatever else you want to call that person). they definitely wouldn't be a hero.

as an American I find our president-even the current clown in office-to be far less disgusting than Islamist terrorists