That is a separate issue.... and one that not everyone can agree on. The government shouldn't play a part in encouraging or discouraging the exercise of free speech. You as a private citizen can find some forms of free speech immoral but it does not mean someone else does. For example abortion or church services, etc. You have the right to protest, post signs and express your opinions.... but that is really a different issue.
Looks like we aren't talking about the same thing, then. Perhaps you thought I was arguing that one has a right to free speech so long as it is morally acceptable. That's in the case at all. No one has disputed the right to free speech in this case. I'm not even talking about the role of government here. We can support or object to an action morally, independently of our support of one's right to do that act. In this case, I think it goes without saying on this forum that the art exhibit should be protected as free speech. The more important question, for us, is whether it was the right thing to do even if there is a protected "right" to do it.
it is irrelevant whether it is a "right" or "wrong" thing to do. It doesn't even enter the equation at all. If you are asking if I personally would support what Geller did with her exhibit? No, I would not give her money or go see her exhibits. However that doesn't really matter. I don't support the Black Panthers or the KKK or even the Republican party, but as long as they are not breaking the law, my opinion doesn't really matter.
Into which equation? It doesn't enter into the equation of law. It does enter into the equation of what impact it has on the world at large. Are you saying the latter is an irrelevant consideration?
In the end, the event had positive results, it drew out 2 would be terrorists and they got put down without any innocents dying. We could argue about the event being tacky....I'd agree with that take even, but it did have positive results.
In the short run, sure. How do you know this won't cause some crazies to do something even more daring in the future
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Interesting detail in this story: Pamela Geller's anti-Islam group is a nonprofit, and it pays her $200,000 a year. <a href="http://t.co/CsfsrSlfud">http://t.co/CsfsrSlfud</a></p>— Matt Pearce (@mattdpearce) <a href="https://twitter.com/mattdpearce/status/595364961590714368">May 4, 2015</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
I'd much prefer the hidden terrorists to come out from the shadows and get eliminated. If events like this make that happen, let's have one every week.
I guess if you are a radical Islamic terrorist you could see her as the culprit in this case. Otherwise, not so much.
LOL so you think drawing a picture or hosting an event for people drawing pictures is the same as screaming "Fire!" in a crowded theater? Yikes.
Someone who is on their hit list may have to be at those events for that to actually work... Then you would probably only be drawing out the ones who flip out over those cartoons, and now that they know SWAT teams and other armed personnel will likely be at those events they would probably be less likely to show. Would be wasting more time if anything. But I'm sure the anti-islam nuts would go for that dumb azz idea.
http://toprightnews.com/female-vet-...mping-on-the-flag-takes-4-cops-to-arrest-her/ I saw this on the local news. This, I can understand...not agree with, but understand her reaction. The Air Force lady gets offended that black college students are stomping on the flag in a protest. The students have their own reasons and have their protest approved. She tries to stop them and she gets arrested. This country protects free speech above offending others if it's done in the properly approved forum, like an approved protest or an art exhibit. The approved American response to offense is express outrage through your own protest, or modern annoying outlets like Twitter or crowdfunding. At worst, the offended extremist would get arrested and some understanding if they stormed in trying to destroy the drawings. But they decided to go shoot-em up, and that's not defensible here...That's terrorism or criminal murder.
http://thedailybanter.com/2015/05/for-the-one-millionth-time-criticizing-islam-isnt-bigotry/ For the One Millionth Time, Criticizing Islam Isn’t Bigotry On Sunday in Garland, Texas, two gunmen opened fire and wounded a security guard at an event where an award had been given for the best drawing of Islam’s prophet, Muhammad. Fortunately, the guard escaped with non-life threatening injuries, and the two shooters were killed by police before they could do any more damage. It appears one of the suspects was sympathetic to ISIS, which had been calling for attacks on the event, which was organized by the American Freedom Defense Initiative, headed by Pamela Geller, who promoted those notorious anti-Islam ads on New York public transportation. Whatever you think of Geller or cartoons of Muhammad, this is obviously a time to condemn the attack, defend the right to free speech, and affirm that nothing that Geller and the AFDI have done can in any way excuse such a violent act. Or, if you’re someone who simply doesn’t get it, this is a time to condemn Geller and other critics of Islam. By now the pattern has become all too familiar: Violence is perpetrated by Islamic extremists against those who dared to draw Muhammad. Then, people who can’t distinguish between criticizing or lampooning Islam and the wholesale bashing of Muslims on a personal level, wonder if the cartoonists should’ve drawn Muhammad in the first place. As we’re about to see (again), some people have really lost their moorings on this issue. Take for example, Dean Obeidallah, who actually claimed that awarding a prize to someone who draws “despicable cartoons of Muhammad… is akin to offering a prize for people to draw the most anti-Semitic or racist images imaginable.” No, it’s not. Drawing Muhammad is absolutely not akin to anything like that. Here again we see the crippling inability of a liberal to tell the difference between disrespecting a single historical figure and engaging in bigotry against an entire group of people. Skewering Muhammad is not tantamount to engaging in prejudice against all who hold him dear. They may not like it, but it’s not an attack on them as people. Or take CNN’s Alisyn Camerota, who on Monday morning pressed Geller about her anti-Islam views, and also the keynote speaker at her event — controversial Dutch right-wing politician Geert Wilders. Camerota began the interview by saying, “Why hold this event and possibly invite a threat given what we saw in Paris in January?” And if that’s not disturbing enough, here’s what she said to Geller: As an exasperated Geller pointed out, “First of all, he’s entitled to his opinion. End of story. So what?” And of course, the usual defend-Islam-at-all-costs crowd on twitter weighed in, taking aim not at the gunmen, but Geller: We’ve been down this road before. When 12 people were murdered at the offices of Charlie Hebdo in January, far too many people thought there was a debate to be had about whether it was appropriate for the magazine to publish cartoons of Muhammad. But a big reason why we keep seeing violent reactions to depictions of Muhammad is the plain fact that the mainstream media has capitulated to theocracy by not showing such cartoons. And so, Islamists fully expect us, in the West, to comply with their prohibition on drawings of the “prophet.” But that dog won’t hunt. To quote Sam Harris after the Charlie Hebdo killings, “People have been murdered over cartoons. End of moral analysis.” Thankfully, the extremists didn’t kill anyone this time. Unfortunately, there’s always next time.
