So last month HBO ran a documentary about a religion. They portrayed the central figure of that

[el_bryanto]

47. Is there a difference between "people shouldn't be allowed to" and "people should choose not to"

and "It might be wisest for people not to?"

Of course there is a difference between those statements. If anybody is making the argument that Pam Geller shouldn't have been allowed to do what she did or she should be arrested for having done it, well they are wrong. And the same applies to the HBO documentary.

As for the second one - everybody here should know that Geller is an anti-Islamic bigot, and it'd be better if she chose not to be. Some might argue that she should show tolerance for all faiths and others might argue that she'd be fine if she attacked all religions equally - but I don't know that anybody thinks that Geller was acting in good faith in this instant. Her goal was to at best offend Muslims, and at worst provoke just what happened as additional pretext for never-ending war in the middle east against Islam.

As for the third one - that's a judgement call. The people making the HBO documentary made it clear that they were concerned that Sceintology might come after them; and frankly it probably has. But that's not an argument that they should be prosecuted or that they deserved what they get. I think that any American should be able to walk down any street in America with confidence; but if I had kids I'd probably tell them to stay out of certain areas.

Bryant