What, if any, consequence should be born by Pamela Gellar if she holds another such event?
I'm guessing her or a supporter are planning such a thing so what should be the "consequence"?
A) no consequence. Let them hold their event but let the criticisms flow
B) arrested and charged with a misdemeanor
C) arrested and charged with a felony
D) denied access to public venues
E) citations issued to any private venues making themselves available to her
F) denied security / protection
My point being with the previous response that no one who was not inside the building knew what was actually happening. Surely the shooters didn't.
I just kicked it, still lmao...
The people who do, and the woman who hosts said event have to live with their own conscience. That goes for both the folks that show up to gun people down as it does to the people that dare them to do it.
I do feel badly for those who have to work security for such an event, but they also made a choice to provide security for an event that is clearly volatile.
"Ms Gellar, we spoke with an actuary about your upcoming Mohammedpalooza event, and our actuary tells us that this will present a risk to the general public. You still have your right to free speech, of course, but we're going to need 75 off-duty cops to patrol the venue, so we will need an $80,000 deposit before proceeding..."
...slippery slope and all that. But any future events by Gellar would be honest-to-god security risks, and someone needs to pay for the extra security.
I find to be anything short of fascistic. Think about it. What you are suggesting is in essence collecting protection monies. This is one of the tactics that eventually caused the Stonewall Uprising. Corrupt police, in league with criminals, stage attacks then extort payment to protect from further attacks.
Nothing suppressed there. She can bring in whomever she wants. She can pay them whatever she wants.
Or, she can make a free market decision (something she likely supports) to not do something that will cost too much for the benefit derived.
Making a free marketeer actually have to engage in free market decisions is not suppression.
I would imagine, without having to stretch credulity too far, that she would be able to find volunteers to provide armed security.
However, it is my understanding she did have armed security and that is why the terrorists were interdicted as quickly as they were.
Should this principle you advocate be universally applied, i.e. should OWS be charged for the additional costs for policing that accompanied their protests or should they have been required to provide security?
She is. If the cost of doing something exceeds the benefit, the obvious decision it to not do it. Especially in her two dimensional brain.
OWS were not promoting the wonders of free markets or the miracle of xenophobia.
This is her medicine. Let her swallow it.
Would you be an advocate for government that protects its citizens from unlawful of violence?
"We're going to raise your insurance rates because so many Muslims are dangerous." I can't picture that going over very wel lwith the Council on American-Islamic Relations.
I have to support her.
Someone's delusional thinking should not have a right to impose on others.
The color blue is magic in my religion, you can't wear blue!
Anything could happen. Appropriate insurance rates should apply.
Rick Warren was all over the press equating LGBT relationships to pedophilia and incest and various crimes. In spite of great objections raised to his open, recorded and public hate speech he was praised, defended, employed and honored by our own Party.
The parameters of the acceptable were set by straight religious people at a very low place. But it has already been set.
money and attention, just as she desires.
other monsters who are lauded at the highest levels are not very honest. So it is hard not to compare and contrast to the current rhetoric the sanguine reactions to past events of a similar nature.
Give in to religious demands backed by threats of violence, and watch the demands grow.
But it's interesting to note options B and C: arrest for free speech advocated in a democracy.
D and E are not bad either: indirect censorship via regulatory/financiary means.
F is kind of cool too. Hey, jihadists, want to shoot blasphemers? Look, no security.
I have to disagree with one small part: Pam Gellar isn't holding "religious satire events."
If someone wanted to throw a "Mock Muhammad in Cartoon Form" event, I'd be all for it (because iconoclasm is awesome).
But Ms. Geller iss just another garden-variety bigot who's going to get someone killed so she can further her false-narrative of Evil Muslims, not to mention her book royalties and speaking fees.
But I likes Christopher Hitchens suggestion after the Jylland Posten incident:
that all mainstream newspapers should print the cartoons on their front page.
I am convinced it would empower the moderates to tell the radicals to shove their diktats on others to avoid the whole religion from suffering backlash.
Lover Boy refers to that as "The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves" school of behavioral modification, which-- as we all know -- is closely related to the "I'll Give You Something to Cry About" philosophy of personal development.
Substitute Gellar's name for someone else's and see how you like that list.
Why would any freedom loving liberal support anything else?
(except maybe a few amusing "G" responses)
Countering her hate like lgbt people do with Westboro Baptist protesters would be a neat idea.
Tornado, hail, lightning storm, high winds, locusts, frogs, pestilence, the works!
It's noteworthy to me that there are no draw Buddha events. I can't think of any other religion that has as big a reputation for being non-violent. Until religious people stop threatening violence and engaging in violence this kind of thing is going to happen.
for inciting violence.
I seem to recall that there was a white supremest that had this happen to him. I think it was in Washington or Oregon, a few years back.
possibly a class action by those who attended the event that she put in danger?
virtue of the fact security was armed.
What if, instead, those you mentioned decided to sue the mosque the attackers attended?
Maybe not for the previous event but at future ones, now that the level needed is known.
to keep terrorists bent on murder from making good on their designs.
Though one could make the counter-argument that attendees also know what they are getting into.
She should be forced to pay for additional cop resources to protect her events, to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars.
... but for the next 'Black Lives Matter' march.
Gosh, we'd love to have you but it'd be a shame if something were to happen. What with all that violence you know.
protection money to protect from attacks by criminals who were in league with the police. It's very common.
most of history. It was wrong then....
and GOP talking points? I'd really like to know.
She wants attention, and some here are happy to oblige.
You'd think no armed person ever tried to attack an assembly of some kind.
Why not answer the question then ask your own? Because your question is not a question, it is an evasion.
A person of color who counter demonstrates in front of a KKK rally. Principles and all that.
It's her right to chum the waters in the name of free speech and it's the right of her followers to put themselves in danger. You'd have to be totally nuts to turn up at one of these events, but I guess you must be nuts to be following Geller.
That seems like the rational response.
Do the same with her future events - and she will keep doing them, it's all she's got.
and the best responses were of course and as always humor based, involving mockery and wit and ideas. See, people like Fred and Pam are seeking to mock YOU so the proper response is to mock them better.
Events and actions like Geller's are not in any way new or unusual in this country.
Yes, a venue/promoter can be held liable for injuries due to foreseeable risks.
The suits were settled in 1983, awarding each of the families of the deceased approximately $150,000, and approximately $750,000 to be divided among the 23 injured. The city of Cincinnati also imposed a ban on festival seating, with minor exceptions, for the next 25 years.
already, at other previous stops on the same tour resulted in injury. They knew that their own methods were causing great risk and they did not alter their own methods. Foreseeable.
In a country where Westboro Baptist has done thousands of hateful stalkings of Jews and LGBT people none of which resulted in violence, how do you establish that it is 'predictable' that hateful events will get a violent response? Do you expect to employ an argument that some groups are less stable than others and thus one must hire extra security, or that some groups deserve protections LGBT and Jews do not?
Every day in the US, there are anti gay billboards, pickets, books, sermons, rallies, statements to the press, church marquees with anti gay messages. The Klan has had many rallies without being shot at. Nation of Islam holds big events in which gay people and Jews are openly attacked in very brutal terms, they are not targeted with violence.....so how do you establish that hateful invective creates foreseeable violent crimes if so much hateful invective is so commonly practiced without any violent reactions?
And takes proper security into consideration. I would say nothing. If something were to happen, and the event coordinator is negligent, there would then be the possibility of criminal charges followed by a civil suit. Ain't life grand.
The one worst thing that could happen to her is that no one pays attention to her and she doesn't have a platform to spew her hate on the cable news channels and talk radio.
The reality and the problem is, however, that she'll have her insane bigoted followers who will give her all the attention and support in the world. And she'll have Fox News and talk radio willingly paint her as some sort of free speech martyr even though she actually hates the First Amendment.
And sadly there still may be some who take her bait and fall for her provocations and act out violently, just so she can give herself a platform.
But I'd love for her to get completely ignored by everyone.
After a while, I really had to wonder why the media continued to give any coverage to the lunatics at Westboro Baptist Church. It would have been so much better if everyone pretended those fools were invisible. Same with Geller.
and some response was required. The better elements of the 'faith community' sure did not do a thing about it, nor did the straight community. You folks let us deal with literally hundreds of such events, over many years and in all 50 States without ever raising so much as an arched eyebrow about it. They did not hold private gallery events, Tommy, they came to LGBT homes, sanctuaries, graves and other locations, stalking us with horrible denigrating language. They also did this to Jewish people live and in print.
The fact that folks like you,Tommy, wanted to ignore Phelps while you make OP after OP about Geller provides a contrast which indicates agenda.
They were, and are, careful to remain within the law and profit from suing any offering interference
What happens if people like her are shut down and the radicals move on to threatening gay weddings?
Her motives are different than those getting married. But I'd say the consequences of deciding to go ahead with an "offensive" gathering that could "provoke" radicals into violence should be the same. So I pick A - let them hold the event. The radicals need to understand that if they want to be in this country they have to deal peacefully with those who offend them.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]
to be guaranteed for disbursement after such event is over.
are so inherently untrustworthy and violence-prone that we need enormous insurance waivers at any event where any elements of Islam are the subject?
Because if that's your stand, it strikes me that your ire is misdirected.
Does anyone think that these two jihadists would have lived quiet lives as peaceable and loyal Americans if we hadn't held the contest? They would have waged jihad elsewhere, on a less-protected target, and killed more people. The jihadists were the end of the line. By drawing them out, we exposed their network. And because we secured the perimeter, we were able to expose the network without getting anyone killed.
Perhaps throwing them in jail would be more useful.
I'n really not in any position to determine what consequences should happen should she continue baiting the lowest common denominators out there, merely observant enough to realize that consequences most likely will happen, regardless of my wishes or the wishes of anyone else.
I'm not inclined to lift a finger to provide security for her. She can cover that herself.
I'll just join the world in ridiculing her.