Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: If one needed proof that the anti-Muhammed exhibition was intentional provocation.... [View all]sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)53. Anytime she's involved HATE and BIGOTRY is involved.
If she wants to take on Jihadis, let her and her Hate Group go to the ME and take on THEIR HATE groups.
Once that woman is involved, there will be nothing but a continuation of HATRED and BIGOTRY.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
103 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
If one needed proof that the anti-Muhammed exhibition was intentional provocation.... [View all]
RandySF
May 2015
OP
She is a reverse Stochastic terrorist the person who is responsible for the incitement.
Katashi_itto
May 2015
#61
It does not matter. You either believe in the constitution and the first amendment or you don't
CBGLuthier
May 2015
#2
There's a hell of a lot about the world that is 'not as it should be'.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
May 2015
#77
"she can't even pretend she was unaware of the danger in which she was placing those cartoonists"
EX500rider
May 2015
#96
You got it right. Who and why the event came to be is not relevant. Free speech is.
on point
May 2015
#30
You can believe in the Constitution and yet decide something is still to offensive to do
treestar
May 2015
#39
If you can't say/draw something without fear of being physically attacked, you aren't free to say it
NutmegYankee
May 2015
#48
No, it's not nearly as black and white as that. All of the Bill of Rights amendments have limits and
stevenleser
May 2015
#58
And of course you mischaracterize my argument. Of course, because you cant attack the real one.
stevenleser
May 2015
#60
This thread is illuminating from several of the responses, I think so too, considering the reality:
Jefferson23
May 2015
#31
So, RandySF, riddle me this. If preachers, Popes, Imams and their followers provoke LGBT people with
Bluenorthwest
May 2015
#42
No, it's not. It's a question you are afraid of. So skip the last one and address the rest.
Bluenorthwest
May 2015
#70
it seems to me anyone who believes in free speech is being taunted by the jihadees.
samsingh
May 2015
#64
This whole argument is right up there with: "her skirt was too short:intentional provocation"
EX500rider
May 2015
#102