General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: In defense of the need to post blasphemous caricatures [View all]guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)So by mocking a religion, that mockery will lead to greater dialogue and understanding? Please!
This issue, most especially as it relates to the Pamela Geller inspired/incited crime in Texas, has nothing to do with free speech, and everything to do with incitement. And incitement is NOT protected speech. Case law is quite clear on that. Google Brandenberg v. Ohio, 395 US 444 (1969) for a short lesson in non-protected speech.
So the premise of your post is faulty. If you were talking about protected speech, which does enjoy First Amendment protection, I would agree that protected speech is lawful speech.
As to Islam and blasphemy, no reputable Muslim cleric is calling for religious law to replace the Constitution. Unless you are a Fox watcher living in Oklahoma you should be aware of that. I feel your post is thinly disguised Islam hate.