Attack on magazine Charlie Hebdo in Paris.

[Spurgy 777]

I still hold the same opinion as I did back then.


Free speech is all well and fine but it has consequences and those consequences can affect innocent parties.
It is like if I insulted your mother you would likely punch me. If you then got the idea that my friends also insulted your mother you punch them as well yet they are innocent.

I don't know who "you" is referring to, but I for one am not a violent person so would just ignore anyone insulting my mother. If they want to be childish then they're not worth my time.

 

[KSaiyu]

Just because the law says that you can do it, that doesn't mean it's right. I'm sure that when that Amendment was conceived, it was never intended to be used for bigots to deliberately provoke others into attacking them. If you could prove that the meeting was arranged to lure the gunmen into the area so that they could be shot, then the law has another name for it: pre-meditated murder.

Because that would mean we'd have to ban the WBC.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I think that there is a point where it goes to far. I get that there is an argument that "art isn't art unless it's provocative", but my understanding is that the exhibit was put on by an organisation that is borderline nationalist and opposed to the "Islamisation" of America.

The thing is that it's very hard to define what's "too far". The more I read about the organisation who organised this for-prophet sketching session (couldn't resist) the more I see it as an act of deliberate provocation but that doesn't mean that this exercise of free speech should be treated differently from any other...

If you could prove that the meeting was arranged to lure the gunmen into the area so that they could be shot, then the law has another name for it: pre-meditated murder.

...unless you can show this. I guess upholding the right to free speech is never easy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Such a case would also mean that this doesn't apply, the 1st doesn't give absolute right to free speech in any context. The specific exceptions include incitement.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Ah, a flippant comment in lieu of an actual response.

 

[Lizard]

I don't know who "you" is referring to, but I for one am not a violent person so would just ignore anyone insulting my mother. If they want to be childish then they're not worth my time.

So that now applies to everyone?

Sometimes you have to look at the reality of things and not what is right.

 

[KSaiyu]

Such a case would also mean that this doesn't apply, the 1st doesn't give absolute right to free speech in any context. The specific exceptions include incitement.

Why is it incitement. They are drawing pictures of a Prophet.

Ah, a flippant comment in lieu of an actual response.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snyder_v._Phelps

Sometimes you have to look at the reality of things and not what is right.

Looking at the "reality of things", what do you propose?

 

[Spurgy 777]

So that now applies to everyone?

Sometimes you have to look at the reality of things and not what is right.

I never said it applied to everyone, I was saying non violent people wouldn't punch you in the face for insulting their mother. Just because there are some violent idiots in the world, doesn't mean we should get rid of free speech.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Why is it incitement. They are drawing pictures of a Prophet.

Because if they are drawing pictures for the sole purpose of angering a section of the community into violence, it's an incitement.

As for Snyder v. Phelps, it's an invalid comparison because Phelps wasn't trying to incite violence.

 

[Scaff]

The reaction by the gunmen (who did most likely did target the event despite the police initially being unsure) was not proportionate by any measure what so ever.

If the nature of the event itself is protected under free speech laws (and it would go beyond just the pictures - and it does need to be kept in mind that the Koran itself doesn't prohibit this - but all that was said and presented during the event) is still up for review.

Two exclusions that I can think of could (and it is a could) put it outside the right of free speech, which would be 'Fighting words' and 'inciting imminent lawless actions'; however as I say, even if this was the case a violent reaction to that is far from proportionate and is one I wholly condemn.

 

[KSaiyu]

Because if they are drawing pictures for the sole purpose of angering a section of the community into violence, it's an incitement.

How do you prove this intention? What is the basis for your speculation.

The reaction by the gunmen (who did most likely did target the event despite the police initially being unsure) was not proportionate by any measure what so ever.

If the nature of the event itself is protected under free speech laws (and it would go beyond just the pictures - and it does need to be kept in mind that the Koran itself doesn't prohibit this - but all that was said and presented during the event) is still up for review.

Two exclusions that I can think of could (and it is a could) put it outside the right of free speech, which would be 'Fighting words' and 'inciting imminent lawless actions'; however as I say, even if this was the case a violent reaction to that is far from proportionate and is one I wholly condemn.

I've been to a lot worse talks. Should they be banned under the CTS bill?

 

[Scaff]

I've been to a lot worse talks. Should they be banned under the CTS bill?

You were present at the event?

That said you seem to have missed the parts of my post such as 'could' and 'still up or review', etc.

 

[KSaiyu]

You were present at the event?

That said you seem to have missed the parts of my post such as 'could' and 'still up or review', etc.

If you bring up the possibility of exclusions to Freedom of Speech, then you have to be prepared to ban extremist speakers in public, or Islamist talks in University Campuses.

 

[Scaff]

If you bring up the possibility of exclusions to Freedom of Speech, then you have to be prepared to ban extremist speakers in public, or Islamist talks in University Campuses.

Well actually I don't, but the US legal system does and as long as its applied equally and within the framework of the law (or the law is changed to allow total free speech and then applied equally again) I don't see the issue?

I'm not sure which part of my post could have been seen in anyway with me having an issue with the law being applied equally?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

What is the basis for your speculation.

A group that has publicly and repeatedly opposed any degree of Islamic influence in the United States hosting an event that actively encouraged members of the public to engage in an activity that is known to aggravate the Islamic community.

 

[KSaiyu]

A group that has publicly and repeatedly opposed any degree of Islamic influence in the United States hosting an event that actively encouraged members of the public to engage in an activity that is known to aggravate the Islamic community.

And? Hurting the feelings of a few people who worship a centuries dead paedophilic warlord =/= incitement to commit violence.

Well actually I don't

Why not.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Hurting the feelings of a few people who worship a centuries dead paedophilic warlord =/= incitement to commit violence.

To you, no. But then given your Islamophobia and your obvious hatred of Muslims, you are the choir that they are preaching to. After all, you just called their core religious figure a "centuries dead paedophilic warlord".

 

[Scaff]

Why not.

Because I'm not part of any of the law enforcement arms of the US; as such I don't need to be prepared to do anything, they do (that I have no objection to them doing so has no bearing on that - but its not something I need to be prepared to do).

Which I did effectively say in my post above, once you get past the opening bit (which is the only part you quoted).

 

[squadops]

Have the perpetrators been identified yet? It will be interesting to see if they are 'lone wolf' or something else.

I cannot for the life of me understand people's opinion that it's ok to be censored by these psychopaths.

 

[Famine]

I thought it was obvious - the right to free speech is inviolate, even if your free speech is deliberately intended to incite others to commit acts of violence.

Which isn't what the First Amendment says - and indeed because it doesn't say that, it's not actually relevant here.

The Bill of Rights - the first 20 Amendments to the US Constitution - is a list of laws that the US Federal government may not enact. A list of powers it doesn't have, if you like. These laws and powers are instead shuffled across to the States - who may themselves have a Constitution that limits the laws they can make and powers they have, shuffling these across to municipal authorities...

The First Amendment says that Congress shall make no law regarding religion, free exercise of religion, freedom of speech and the press, the right to peaceful assembly or to petition the Government. The first five words of it are the important five... "Congress shall make no law".

That doesn't mean that laws may not be passed to prevent free expression, just they may not be passed by the US Federal Government. The State of, say, Montana might still pass a law (though it also can't under its own Constitution).

Free speech is all well and fine but it has consequences and those consequences can affect innocent parties.

Freedom of speech is neither a guarantee of a platform from which to speak, nor a shield from the consequences of what you say.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Which isn't what the First Amendment says - and indeed because it doesn't say that, it's not actually relevant here.

I was being sarcastic, appropriating KSaiyu's attitude to highlight the way he tries to justify the unjustified. According to KSaiyu, the organisation hosting the event were well within their rights to do so, even if they organised the event for the express purpose of inciting violence.

 

[Famine]

According to KSaiyu, the organisation hosting the event were well within their rights to do so, even if they organised the event for the express purpose of inciting violence.

Which may well be entirely the case. The Texan Constitution prohibits the creation of laws to curtail freedom of speech, just as the First Amendment prevents the Federal Government from creating one.

However, the text of the Bill of Rights in Texas - in common with many other States and my response to @haitch40 above - does not absolve you from the consequences of exercising the right...

Article 8 - Every person shall be at liberty to speak, write or publish his opinions on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that privilege; and no law shall ever be passed curtailing the liberty of speech or of the press.

Pending the subset of laws of Dallas, the fact is that the event was both lawful and within their rights (with no distinction necessary between little-R and big-R rights here). Speech or expression intended to provoke, incite or offend is still free - and it's vital that we have that freedom.

But you're not protected from the consequences of provoking, inciting or offending - even the Texas constitution goes on to talk about provisions for libel and slander. However violating others' rights - by punching them as per @haitch40's example or shooting them as in this case - for perceiving offence or provocation is not appropriate.

 

[squadops]

Here is what the mayor of Garland had to say about it. The heightened security was police provided by the city.

There was concern, which is why we had heightened security in the area, but we all swear to uphold the Constitution: free speech, free assembly and in this case perhaps, free religion

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/05/04/us-usa-shooting-texas-idUSKBN0NP01G20150504

 

[prisonermonkeys]

However violating others' rights - by punching them as per haitch40's example or shooting them as in this case - for perceiving offence or provocation is not appropriate.

So how would you perceive the idea that the event was staged by the organisers to incite violence against themselves? They deliberately stage an event to incite hatred among the Islamic community, essentially provoking them to commit an act of violence - but then arranging for the police to be present, ostensibly for protection. When the gunmen show up, they are in turn shot, and the episode framed as the organisers defending the right to free speech when in reality they are trying to engineer a conflict.

 

[McLaren]

As in everyone involved. The shooters obviously. And after the charlie hebdo indecent the police should have given better security to the event. And for the unnecessary childish provocative 'art'.

Garland SWAT was already on hand & requested due to the suspicions of retaliation. These men are why it ended so quickly.

I still hold the same opinion as I did back then.


Free speech is all well and fine but it has consequences and those consequences can affect innocent parties.
It is like if I insulted your mother you would likely punch me. If you then got the idea that my friends also insulted your mother you punch them as well yet they are innocent.

So do they. Note the 3rd tweet.

Put your egos away and save your own people, your freedom of speech can go to hell, its means nothing to us!

This is accordingly, the man who left England to fight with ISIS & was being followed by the 1 of the men who tweeted the attack just minutes before carrying it out.

A group that has publicly and repeatedly opposed any degree of Islamic influence in the United States hosting an event that actively encouraged members of the public to engage in an activity that is known to aggravate the Islamic community.

The difference being that the Anti-Islam group protested with signs & some harsh words, though.

Just saying as it does paint the Muslim group they protested against in January in an even worse light now.

 

[Famine]

So how would you perceive the idea that the event was staged by the organisers to incite violence against themselves?

How would I perceive it? I don't really care.

They deliberately stage an event to incite hatred among the Islamic community, essentially provoking them to commit an act of violence - but then arranging for the police to be present, ostensibly for protection. When the gunmen show up, they are in turn shot, and the episode framed as the organisers defending the right to free speech when in reality they are trying to engineer a conflict.

That seems rather elaborate and relies on a group of people to behave in a less than appropriate way - thinking that bringing weapons along to remonstrate with someone saying something they don't like.

Furthermore I'm not entirely sure that even the police in the USA can be bought that easily. It seems that the city, aware of the elevated likelihood of a conflict, increased the police presence, much as they would for a football game.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

The difference being that the Anti-Islam group protested with signs & some harsh words, though. :shrug:

Did they?

Sure, it looks like a benign protest movement championing the value of free speech on the surface ... but I find it to be an enormous coincidence that an anti-Islamic and borderline-nationalist group organises an event that they know will attract trouble and then use it to promote their agenda. They may not have engineered it down to the finest detail - I admit, it's quite a cynical thought - but I imagine that they would be quite happy with the way events unfolded.

I'm not entirely sure that even the police in the USA can be bought that easily. It seems that the city, aware of the elevated likelihood of a conflict, increased the police presence, much as they would for a football game.

Which is what the organisers would be counting on. They don't need to pay off the police - they just need to inform them of their intentions to hold the event, let the police do their jobs and count on them to fulfil their duty to protect the people from the threat.

 

[BobK]

Because if they are drawing pictures for the sole purpose of angering a section of the community into violence, it's an incitement.

Good thing they were doing it for the ten thousand dollar prize then, isn't it?

 

[Scaff]

So how would you perceive the idea that the event was staged by the organisers to incite violence against themselves? They deliberately stage an event to incite hatred among the Islamic community, essentially provoking them to commit an act of violence - but then arranging for the police to be present, ostensibly for protection. When the gunmen show up, they are in turn shot, and the episode framed as the organisers defending the right to free speech when in reality they are trying to engineer a conflict.

That's rather unlikely and certainly from my view would give Pamela Geller far too much credit and still would not make the actions of the gunmen proportunate.

This is accordingly, the man who left England to fight with ISIS & was being followed by the 1 of the men who tweeted the attack just minutes before carrying it out.

Have they released details on the gunmen?

Just saying as it does paint the Muslim group they protested against in January in an even worse light now.

Which Muslim group?

 

[KSaiyu]

Because I'm not part of any of the law enforcement arms of the US; as such I don't need to be prepared to do anything, they do (that I have no objection to them doing so has no bearing on that - but its not something I need to be prepared to do).

Which I did effectively say in my post above, once you get past the opening bit (which is the only part you quoted).

Because the exclusions you cited are more obviously violated by the two examples I quoted, which happen regularly in Britain. We don't have a first amendment, but it's my view that if you believe that such content in this exhibition could fall foul of Free Speech laws, you would have to agree with the implementation of the CTS bill (our nearest equivalent). Of course if you believe there is a differentiation then that's different.... Or if you don't believe that said exclusions are necessary (i.e. you disagree with the law you're citing) then that's different as well....

To you, no. But then given your Islamophobia and your obvious hatred of Muslims, you are the choir that they are preaching to. After all, you just called their core religious figure a "centuries dead paedophilic warlord".

You'd do well to stop assuming and posting things that are untrue.

But yes, no need for quotes. He is a centuries dead paedophilic warlord, that's a fact. There'd be a need for quotes if I said I thought he was a loser in his life who saw it as his mission to stand up for other losers during his lifetime. Just like you'd need quotes for my opinion that Jesus was the Tony Robbins of Biblical times.

 

[Famine]

Which is what the organisers would be counting on.

That would suggest that there is a known and endemic problem with that particular group that thinks it is appropriate to react to perceived offence with weaponry.

Which, of course, it isn't.