My favorite coyote lure simulates the sound of an injured rabbit, and man does it bring them in. If I was worried about jihadists in my area I'd probably use cartoons and an elevated position. Better to draw them out then to wait and wonder.
No the cause is the combination of the cartoons and the radical freaks who held the event. The cartoons would not be there if it had not been for the event and the even was only there because of this bitch and her followers wanting to provoke the radicals.
I understand that Geller has plans to hold another free speech event. In the words of Sarah Palin, it's time to reload
no she doesn't. If Bush supporters had come a gunning for someone who drew a picture of Bush looking like a chimp or the ass who posted a bill board that had OBL sodomizing Bush, would you claim that the BDS artist deserved having hit men gunning for him?
Look, this is a free society. Those who get their panties in a wad over opinions they don't like need to deal with it. and if they react violently, they need to end up like those two scum bags in Texas did
on a slab
My favorite coyote lure simulates the sound of an injured rabbit, and man does it bring them in. If I was worried about jihadists in my area I'd probably use cartoons and an elevated position. Better to draw them out then to wait and wonder.
Speech is often intended to provoke and, as we can see with the case of Islamic religious freaks, does carry some risk.She most certainly deserves blame. Sorry but when the entire point of your "speech" is to provoke another group into committing a crime you deserve some culpability when people from that group are provoked.
No, they are not justified in anyway. No one should be shot at for expressing at opinion..This does not mean that extremists who attacked the other extremists are in any way justified. They're not.
There always seems to be a "But" by those who are prepared to give away the right to free speech.But its' like a white supremacist walking through Compton in full KKK regalia shouting racial slurs, or an abortion clinic posting signs saying that "Jesus loves abortion". When you use your free speech for the sole purpose of pissing people off, then you assume some culpability for the actions you provoke.
Anyone who sets out to murder innocent people is 100% wrong, and that's where it ends.Just because someone is 100% in the wrong, doesn't mean that someone else can't be in the wrong as well.
Why is it a terrific idea?
Well, if that's the case we'll finally see what her fellow Americans are made of and where they stand. http://pamelageller.com/2015/05/isl...-all-our-lions-to-achieve-her-slaughter.html/I understand that Geller has plans to hold another free speech event. In the words of Sarah Palin, it's time to reload
wearing short skirts has been argued to be a justification of rape...the analogy fits this scenario pretty well.
drawing Mohammed may incite anger in the same way a short skirt incites sexual thoughts.... neither justify an unlawful response, though... in both cases, the victim is 100% innocent of wrongdoing.
We're all Americans & all for free speech, but this is striking me more as antagonism, baiting, and hate - rather than a legitimate free-speech issue.
What the hay is the point in getting in the mud with Muslim extremists?
Even when you win, you've still lost.
Geller is an antagonist, provocateur and trouble maker. She isn't pressing any free speech issue. Hope she got what she was looking for this time.
Speech is often intended to provoke and, as we can see with the case of Islamic religious freaks, does carry some risk.
There are those who feel it's safer not to 'provoke' Muslims, which is really not expecting much of them, while others like myself feel that free speech trumps any possible hurt feelings they may have.
No, they are not justified in anyway. No one should be shot at for expressing at opinion.. There always seems to be a "But" by those who are prepared to give away the right to free speech.
Anyone who sets out to murder innocent people is 100% wrong, and that's where it ends.
Shes a defender of free speech, the left used to claim to be until it was bound by PC and terrified by islamists.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...ela-geller-claims-militants-article-1.2211913
And she's not only not going to be intimidated-shes going to continue-which I expected her to do.
Sorry, it doesn't end there. Your actions don't magically become morally justified because someone else’s aren't.
Ask yourself this. Would there have been a gathering to draw the prophet if it wasn't highly offensive to Muslims? Obviously not. This isn't someone expressing an opinion. This is someone deliberately antagonizing someone else. Yes, those that retaliate are 100% wrong, but so are worthless people who attended and organized it.
Shes a defender of free speech, the left used to claim to be until it was bound by PC and terrified by islamists.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...ela-geller-claims-militants-article-1.2211913
And she's not only not going to be intimidated-shes going to continue-which I expected her to do.
I don't see this as a constitutional free speech issue.wait.. are you really trying to argue antongonism, baiting, and hate are not forms of legitmate free speech?... seriously?
I don't expect her to discontinue her senseless inflammatory antics in the name of free speech that fools none of us, not even you. But I see in your bigoted hate, you'll use the free speech crutch as she is.
Complete and utter BULL. You don't get to claim to be a defender of free speech until you've defend the rights of someone else to speech you disagree with.
The defenders of free speech are the Islamic clerics who defended her right to be a bigot. Geller is a deliberate antagonist that's justifying her hate under the guise of free speech.
Yes, she has a constitutional right to say what she says. And the rest of us have a constitutional right to say that she's human garbage who's partially responsible for what happened.
When you support speech you agree with you're not supporting free speech. You're simply supporting an idea you agree with. Though I’m confused as to why you would willingly give your full support to a hate filled bigot.You should be the first in line to defend speech you disagree with, but its crickets.
Its telling, really. I support her fully in her struggle against radical islam and those who would silence free speech.
I don't see this as a constitutional free speech issue.
First of all, there's no government involved.
Secondly, this appears to be a private issue between a religious hate group and another seemingly religious group (who seems pretty intent on hating right back at them).
But no, I don't see any 1st amendment bill-of-rights violations taking place here.
When you support speech you agree with you're not supporting free speech. You're simply supporting an idea you agree with. Though I’m confused as to why you would willingly give your full support to a hate filled bigot.
Understand, No one is saying that the government should step in and prevent her from holding these events. No one. That's what it means to have free speech. It means that the government will not forcibly prevent you from speaking.
But this does not mean that anyone else has to respect her, it does not mean that anyone else has to condone her hatred, and it does not mean that the rest of us are barred from saying that she's culpable.
Insulting someone else for the sole purpose of provoking a retaliation that you can demonize isn't defending free speech. It's being human garbage while hiding behind the flag.I defend the speech of those I disagree with all the time. Ive even contributed money.
She's the one speaking, she's the one put in harms way-id say its her thats defending free speech.
It sounds like you aren't a fan of what Geller says-and since you want to defend free speech (that you disagree with) you are no doubt leading the charge to defend her, no?
Insulting someone else for the sole purpose of provoking a retaliation that you can demonize isn't defending free speech. It's being human garbage while hiding behind the flag.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?