What's wrong with you. I've repeated often enough my opposition to public/government censorship of anybody's 1st amendment right. So stop asserting such foolishness. I've suggested that reasonable people censor themselves regularly, not wishing to gratuitously offend the sensibilities of others. That's what separates ladies and gentlemen from bigots and haters. The only benefit one gets from drawing ridiculing cartoons of Mohamed is the satisfaction of antagonising a hated group. Again, knock yourselves out and accept the consequences.
No, you're just not getting it. You have failed the test. You don't support and defend free speech. Period.
Free speech is offensive speech. That's why it has to be defended.
You certainly seem offensive enough on these forums, calling people all sorts of nasty names. Why is it that you are not censoring yourself?
No, you're just not getting it. You have failed the test. You don't support and defend free speech. Period.
Free speech is offensive speech. That's why it has to be defended.
You certainly seem offensive enough on these forums, calling people all sorts of nasty names. Why is it that you are not censoring yourself?
Why can you? Why can't anyone?If DP can operate a policy of Don't Be A Jerk successfully, without any infringement of our ability to say what we want, why can't Geller?
Great!! Then you'll now defend her right to say whatever she wants. Happy you came to your senses!Defending the right to spout off offensive speech and defending the speech itself are two different things. One can both criticize speech and defend the right to say it.
If DP can operate a policy of Don't Be A Jerk successfully, without any infringement of our ability to say what we want, why can't Geller?
Great!! Then you'll now defend her right to say whatever she wants. Happy you came to your senses!
No, you just consistently attacked her personally for exercising her rights under the first amendment while your criticism of the Islamists has been 'muted'. I think we're all familiar with the "yes, but" arguments being displayed here and you don't need to explain your position further.I've never NOT defended her right to say what she wants.
No, you just consistently attacked her personally for exercising her rights under the first amendment while your criticism of the Islamists has been 'muted'. I think we're all familiar with the "yes, but" arguments being displayed here and you don't need to explain your position further.
I didnt claim otherwise. But Pamela Geller is one small speck in the scheme of things, she is a side issue in a much larger picture and that's what the leftists either ignore or can't see. You and the rest still don't seem to understand that this is not about P. Geller!See the sig, hoss. There's no "no" about it. At NO POINT have I said she doesn't have the right to say what she wants. Your claims to the contrary are a bald-faced lie.
I didnt claim otherwise. But Pamela Geller is one small speck in the scheme of things, she is a side issue in a much larger picture and that's what the leftists either ignore or can't see. You and the rest still don't seem to understand that this is not about P. Geller!
Speech has restrictions in America. I wouldn't expect you to understand that.
She is a side issue; however, side issues deserve their moment in the sun.
I have been CRYSTAL CLEAR on my issues with radical Islam. I don't have to couch it with every post.
Moderator's Warning: |
Kobie, you often say this, but most often I see you defending terrorists or statists.
Think about what crystal clear means.
Speech has restrictions in America. I wouldn't expect you to understand that.
Hah, so you ARE saying that it should be "restricted". Hilarious.
And I seem to understand free speech much better than you do.
Is speech restricted in Israel?
I can't imagine a Geller-type being allowed to do in Israel what she did in Texas ?
Is free speech restricted in Israel?
I can't imagine a Geller-type being allowed to do in Israel what she did in Texas ?
Why not? Unless it's incitement to violence or incitement to racism it's completely legal to mock any religion or any other set of beliefs.
One should never fear consequences for making fun of other peoples' ideas and beliefs, even when they are referred to as 'religion'.
I'm not willing to sacrifice one American for the right of any Gellers to do what she is doing while we are at war with terrorists.
You know better than I that Geller could have provoked a mass murder by terrorists.
You also know better than I Geller has radicalized home-grown terrorists, something that must be avoided .
I'm not willing to sacrifice one American for the right of any Gellers to do what she is doing while we are at war with terrorists.
You know better than I that Geller could have provoked a mass murder by terrorists.
You also know better than I Geller has radicalized home-grown terrorists, something that must be avoided .
If DP can operate a policy of Don't Be A Jerk successfully, without any infringement of our ability to say what we want, why can't Geller?
When she does say something valid, I'll take a view.We have seen many times how through the alchemy of liberal-speak simple criticism of Obama's policies is called "racism" and any criticism of radical Muslims and the imposition of sharia law is called "hate speech". So it is with Geller. By your lights she can't say anything at all no matter how valid it might be.
In Garland she was standing up for the right to free speech in support of others like the editors of Charlie Hebdo, and yet you call it hateful. That's why we can't let people like you tell us what is and is not valid speech.
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?