General Discussion

deathrind

(1,786 posts)

52. I disagree.

Wed May 6, 2015, 10:45 AM

May 2015

Had this event been anything other than what it was, say a Stamp Collector / Scrap Booking / Star Trek event etc. then I would agree. But history provides more than enough evidence (both recently and long term) of the violence associated with this type of exact action (cartoons of a certain believed deity). The organizers cannot sit back and say gosh we had no idea this might happen. They incited the violence which makes them culpable for the outcome.

It is no different than how we hold the bar partly responsible for serving more alcohol to a person who is already drunk and then causes a fatal accident.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

61 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Pamela Geller and the First Amendment [View all] NaturalHigh May 2015 OP

You are absolutely correct. The first amendment even protects calls for violent jihad. Vattel May 2015 #1

Don't think so. That would be incitement. Yorktown May 2015 #14

That is incorrect. Vattel May 2015 #16

I'll trust you, but I have a question Yorktown May 2015 #20

Sorry, that was pretty sloppy on my part. Let me be more precise: Vattel May 2015 #25

Well then, please clarify the SCOTUS ruling for me, please Yorktown May 2015 #29

Except that if I merely recommend violent jihad, that needn't create an imminent threat. Vattel May 2015 #42

Gotcha. Then the amendment might need to be amended Yorktown May 2015 #45

I like the amendment the way it is, erring on the side of freedom from govt. interference. Vattel May 2015 #46

Yup. Grey areas are interesting subjects. Yorktown May 2015 #47

Not at all yeoman6987 May 2015 #31

Not sure Jesus groupies are incapable of murder threats Yorktown May 2015 #36

Was it in the United States? yeoman6987 May 2015 #38

Yes. In the US Luminous Animal May 2015 #44

Oh, the government can't arrest her over this stunt Warpy May 2015 #2

I was wondering… do you think the venue could be help liable in civil court KittyWampus May 2015 #24

How was this not secured adequately? GGJohn May 2015 #33

They did secure it adequately Warpy May 2015 #58

Why do you call this "hateful grandstanding"? Yorktown May 2015 #30

I would refer you to equivalent displays in this country Warpy May 2015 #59

Some free speech is not worth dying over??? Yorktown May 2015 #60

The question shouldn't be whether her little contest was 1st Amendment protected, because it was. Tommy_Carcetti May 2015 #3

No, I don't think the First Amendment was her motivation. NaturalHigh May 2015 #4

So, do you think that one should only be protected by it if they were motivated by it? PeaceNikki May 2015 #5

No. Tommy_Carcetti May 2015 #7

Oh, hooray! PeaceNikki May 2015 #9

Then call them out. NCTraveler May 2015 #10

Doesn't matter what her motivations are Bonx May 2015 #6

Precisely. Lizzie Poppet May 2015 #12

"the threat of violence from murderous fanatics will never, ever trump free speech." NaturalHigh May 2015 #13

True, but her hypocrisy is hilarious. JaneyVee May 2015 #18

It does, morally. KittyWampus May 2015 #26

I have yet to see people on du claiming her motivations to be the 1 A. NCTraveler May 2015 #8

Did you stuff that straw man all by yourself, or was it pre-stuffed? X_Digger May 2015 #15

Are you freaking kidding me? Tommy_Carcetti May 2015 #50

"After the incident" .. did you forget that you were saying that the 1st was the motivation? X_Digger May 2015 #54

Yeah. *snort* Tommy_Carcetti May 2015 #56

I do agree, but it doesn't matter one damned bit. X_Digger May 2015 #61

I don't care what her motive was, as long as it was legal. WinkyDink May 2015 #21

Yep. Everyone should have learned this from any sufrommich May 2015 #11

BUT GELLER DOESN'T STAND FOR THE 1st Amendment. JaneyVee May 2015 #17

The First Amendment stands for us, not the other way around. She can say whatever the hell she wants WinkyDink May 2015 #19

That's actually a limit to free speech gollygee May 2015 #22

Sue me for telling the truth? JaneyVee May 2015 #23

I'm sorry, but why? Blue_Adept May 2015 #27

Because of my religious beliefs. NaturalHigh May 2015 #37

But why take offense? Blue_Adept May 2015 #39

My religious beliefs ARE personal. NaturalHigh May 2015 #41

It's the hypocricy vi5 May 2015 #28

The "hypocrisy" is your argument that 1A speech must be equal-opportunity. Psephos May 2015 #49

Never said it "must" be equal opportunity. vi5 May 2015 #53

The 1st Protects Speech deathrind May 2015 #32

This is not shouting fire in a theater. NuclearDem May 2015 #40

I disagree. deathrind May 2015 #52

These were all the same issues raised by people when the KKK marched in Skokie chelsea0011 May 2015 #34

She did nothing illegal. Distasteful and provocative, attention seeking, 'terrorist baiting", HELL underahedgerow May 2015 #35

Do you find images of Bush modified to make him look like a chimp to be distasteful and provocative? oberliner May 2015 #43

I did, yes. I found it childish and silly and failed to see the humor in making bush look like underahedgerow May 2015 #48

And water is wet. Erich Bloodaxe BSN May 2015 #51

My OP was directed to the few people... NaturalHigh May 2015 #57

"Think what you want about Pamela Geller" - and I will. n/t UTUSN May 2015 #55