In defense of the need to post blasphemous caricatures

[NanceGreggs]

38. There is no "need" to post blasphemous caricatures.

And that IS the point.

Before Ms. Geller's self-serving stunt, was any US citizen unaware of their right to create blasphemous cartoons? Who was she proving that point to? Why did it need to be "proven", or even demonstrated? What purpose did it serve, other than to feed into her own bigotry, and her pitiful attempt to make this issue all about herself and her own skewed thinking?

Pretending this event was about the exercise of free speech is beyond abhorrent.

Under the protections of the First Amendment, I have a RIGHT to call gay men, lesbians, African-Americans, Asian-Americans, Jews, Christians, the poor, the homeless, the poverty-stricken and welfare recipients all kinds of hateful names. But I have no NEED to do so in order to prove that I have that right.

Not a single American challenged Geller's First Amendment rights. So why was she compelled to PROVE that she had that right, in the face of no challenge to it being voiced?

Geller MADE herself the issue. Let's not sink so low as to pretend it was ever about anything more than her own ego, and furthering her own sick agenda.