Muhammad Cartoon Contest in Garland Tx. Hundreds of ISIS In America (2 Viewers)

[matuski]

Tso is trying so hard here.. Falling so short.

 

[The Commish]

Yeah no. I don't even know what the hell you're talking about.

Not really all that surprising.

 

[quickhands]

And when they say their intent is to promote free speech, I don't believe it. I think it's to incite a reaction

Why can't it be both?

It doesn't have to promote free speech. It's free speech.

Most provocative free speech is done to provoke a reaction. You could call it art.

 

[jon_mx]

Piss Jesus was offensive. I wouldn't have paid to see it, and if I owned a museum, I wouldn't have allowed it. I really don't see that as art. I will say that there is a significant difference between that case and this case in two ways: first, because the artist lived in a Christian society and was being critical of the society he lived in- in that sense it's more legitimate than someone attacking a culture he does not live in.

Second, of course, radical Christians did not respond with violence.

Someone who lived in a Islamic society would be beheaded on the spot by the government if they criticized Islamic culture. So by you logic, there is no place in the world where Islam can be criticized if not here. And there are many things that deserve to be criticized and discussed.

 

[TPW]

Progressives Love Anti-Religious Art — as Long as It’s Anti-Christian

Note: None of the critics said such work should be banned. They said it shouldn’t be publicly showcased on their dime. And yet, opposition to a taxpayer subsidy was almost universally seen as unambiguous censorship and violence against the First Amendment.

Another interesting tidbit: Christians didn’t try to murder these artists. Nor did Christian organizations exhort their members to do so.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Not sure if this was already discussed, but it's probably appropriate right now to revisit the hypocrisy regarding the "Piss Christ".

http://nation.foxnews.com/war-religion/2012/09/21/obama-silent-over-calls-denounce-piss-christ-artwork

I never understand why people throw piss christ out there like it is something offensive. Why is that offensive? It's not like some dude found the real Jesus Christ, still alive, and dunked him in a vat of pee. It's a little doll and it probably looks more photographically interesting in pee than it would sitting on a shelf or whatever.

Piss Jesus was offensive. I wouldn't have paid to see it, and if I owned a museum, I wouldn't have allowed it. I really don't see that as art. I will say that there is a significant difference between that case and this case in two ways: first, because the artist lived in a Christian society and was being critical of the society he lived in- in that sense it's more legitimate than someone attacking a culture he does not live in.

Second, of course, radical Christians did not respond with violence.

Holy. Cow. Literally.

This is bigoted right here (and I say that with all due respect to both of you, and I do respect you, so you know please don't take offense).

Andres Serranos' Piss Chrst is exactly the comparison.

Reminder or fyi: Serranos' piece was finally, once it had made its way to France, attacked by angry Catholics or Christians. A security guard was charged at an art gallery I think and it was slashed to pieces.

It's exactly the same thing, and Tim especially keeps repeating the canard that Isis wants him and everyone here to repeat - that they speak for all muslims, that all muslims are so angry about this they would act violently and destroy these cartoons. Again that is a complete falsehood. American muslims reacted the same way many Catholics and Christians reacted to Piss Chrst, offended, disgusted, upset that the state of New York or City of Garland would actually allow such a display, but respectfully let it go on.

What's more after the attack in France that was used by liberals as an example to demonstrate just how awful Christians are and how they are hypocritical for criticizing islamists, even though all that happened was art was ruined (and btw the torn picture was then put on display, and the show went on).

And even so at the time some, even some Christians, saw artistic merit in what Serranos was doing, it was a commentary on x, y, z, maybe positive, maybe negative, maybe both. Some muslims do indeed feel the same way about the islamists and some do indeed agree with the point made by the Garland exhibit even if they disapprove of the images themselves.

 

[rockaction]

Progressives Love Anti-Religious Art — as Long as It’s Anti-Christian

Note: None of the critics said such work should be banned. They said it shouldn’t be publicly showcased on their dime. And yet, opposition to a taxpayer subsidy was almost universally seen as unambiguous censorship and violence against the First Amendment.

Another interesting tidbit: Christians didn’t try to murder these artists. Nor did Christian organizations exhort their members to do so.

This is such an awesome article. We go from the questioning of federal funding of anti-Christian art exhibits as acts of censorship to Pamela Geller's largely privately funded cartooning as a total abomination and hate speech.

I love it.

“While we have freedom of speech,” a New York Daily News columnist insisted, “we also have freedom of religion, which shouldn’t be impinged upon.” CNN’s Chris Cuomo, a law-school grad, tweeted that Geller’s “hate speech” isn’t protected by the Constitution. At first Cuomo suggested proof of this could be found in the Constitution itself. He then hastily clarified that it fails the “fighting words” doctrine of the Supreme Court. I’m dubious about that. But if he’s right, the lesson is clear: Violence pays. I doubt that’s what he intended to say. But what do I know? I think these people are nuts.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/418083/progressives-love-anti-religious-art-long-its-anti-christian-jonah-goldberg

 

[Apple Jack]

what exactly is the debate here? is anybody saying they cant do this? no, right?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

what exactly is the debate here? is anybody saying they cant do this? no, right?

Hey whaddyaknow me and AJ agree.

 

[rockaction]

what exactly is the debate here? is anybody saying they cant do this? no, right?

Yeah, several outlets were calling it unconstitutional hate speech or calling for a reform of the First Amendment to specifically deal with situations like this.

eta* But within the thread, it doesn't seem so

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Progressives Love Anti-Religious Art — as Long as It’s Anti-Christian

Note: None of the critics said such work should be banned. They said it shouldn’t be publicly showcased on their dime. And yet, opposition to a taxpayer subsidy was almost universally seen as unambiguous censorship and violence against the First Amendment.

Another interesting tidbit: Christians didn’t try to murder these artists. Nor did Christian organizations exhort their members to do so.

This is such an awesome article. We go from the questioning of federal funding of anti-Christian art exhibits as acts of censorship to Pamela Geller's largely privately funded cartooning as a total abomination and hate speech.

I love it.

“While we have freedom of speech,” a New York Daily News columnist insisted, “we also have freedom of religion, which shouldn’t be impinged upon.” CNN’s Chris Cuomo, a law-school grad, tweeted that Geller’s “hate speech” isn’t protected by the Constitution. At first Cuomo suggested proof of this could be found in the Constitution itself. He then hastily clarified that it fails the “fighting words” doctrine of the Supreme Court. I’m dubious about that. But if he’s right, the lesson is clear: Violence pays. I doubt that’s what he intended to say. But what do I know? I think these people are nuts.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/418083/progressives-love-anti-religious-art-long-its-anti-christian-jonah-goldberg

This bugs me. The application, not the wording.

The first time in my whole life I heard this argument, that free speech and freedom of religion are in conflict, was when President Obama said it during the prayer breakfast a few months ago.

I am still stunned by this, remarkably horrible thinking. Btw this is Cuomo, who thankfully is not an elected official, but Obama said essentially this a while back in a backdoor kind of way to justify what happened at Hebdo. Really horrible.

Eta - I think Cuomo backwalked this on twitter but I could be wrong.

 

[timschochet]

Saints I don't understand your criticism of my comments about Piss Christ. I wrote that I found it offensive to Christianity, and that I didn't see it as true art. I made a couple of points as to why it wasn't a perfect analogy to this situation. What is your specific complaint with what I wrote?

 

[Henry Ford]

what exactly is the debate here? is anybody saying they cant do this? no, right?

Yeah, several outlets were calling it unconstitutional hate speech or calling for a reform of the First Amendment to specifically deal with situations like this.

eta* But within the thread, it doesn't seem so

Those outlets seem stupid.

 

[rockaction]

Progressives Love Anti-Religious Art — as Long as It’s Anti-Christian

Note: None of the critics said such work should be banned. They said it shouldn’t be publicly showcased on their dime. And yet, opposition to a taxpayer subsidy was almost universally seen as unambiguous censorship and violence against the First Amendment.

Another interesting tidbit: Christians didn’t try to murder these artists. Nor did Christian organizations exhort their members to do so.

This is such an awesome article. We go from the questioning of federal funding of anti-Christian art exhibits as acts of censorship to Pamela Geller's largely privately funded cartooning as a total abomination and hate speech.

I love it.

“While we have freedom of speech,” a New York Daily News columnist insisted, “we also have freedom of religion, which shouldn’t be impinged upon.” CNN’s Chris Cuomo, a law-school grad, tweeted that Geller’s “hate speech” isn’t protected by the Constitution. At first Cuomo suggested proof of this could be found in the Constitution itself. He then hastily clarified that it fails the “fighting words” doctrine of the Supreme Court. I’m dubious about that. But if he’s right, the lesson is clear: Violence pays. I doubt that’s what he intended to say. But what do I know? I think these people are nuts.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/418083/progressives-love-anti-religious-art-long-its-anti-christian-jonah-goldberg

This bugs me. The application, not the wording.

The first time in my whole life I heard this argument, that free speech and freedom of religion are in conflict, was when President Obama said it during the prayer breakfast a few months ago.

I am still stunned by this, remarkably horrible thinking. Btw this is Cuomo, who thankfully is not an elected official, but Obama said essentially this a while back in a backdoor kind of way to justify what happened at Hebdo. Really horrible.

Eta - I think Cuomo backwalked this on twitter but I could be wrong.

I was unaware of Obama's statements during the prayer breakfast. If anything, it lets us know to look for progressive challenges to free speech under Constitutional grounds in the future. Generally, when politicians say something like this, something is in the pipeline.

Cuomo did walk this back, after getting absolutely ripped by people both left and right.

 

[Apple Jack]

what exactly is the debate here? is anybody saying they cant do this? no, right?

Yeah, several outlets were calling it unconstitutional hate speech or calling for a reform of the First Amendment to specifically deal with situations like this.

eta* But within the thread, it doesn't seem so

Those outlets seem stupid.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Saints I don't understand your criticism of my comments about Piss Christ. I wrote that I found it offensive to Christianity, and that I didn't see it as true art. I made a couple of points as to why it wasn't a perfect analogy to this situation. What is your specific complaint with what I wrote?

...I will say that there is a significant difference between that case and this case in two ways: first, because the artist lived in a Christian society and was being critical of the society he lived in- in that sense it's more legitimate than someone attacking a culture he does not live in.

Second, of course, radical Christians did not respond with violence.

I went back and reread what you wrote and was thinking about amending... but right now my main complaint is the oh btw point in the end that the PC example is lessened because Serranos was living in a Christian culture. First of all the exhibit was in NYC. I am guessing you have been there, there are plenty muslims, plenty Jews, plenty secularists and atheists. And also many Catholics and Christians. So consider that context.

But at any rate it doesn't matter - Isis is doing the exact same thing it did in TX, and more and worse re: other issues, in the mideast.

Also consider that Serranos himself was not really a Christian. Actually I know two women, who were hit on by him, in NYC. One of them (a woman) actually went to his place in NYC. The guy was a freak for Anton Lavais (sp?) the church of satan guy. He hated Christianity. A total freak. - I know that's a weird thing to throw out there and I usually don't do it (like others here I know people who have met famous people), but here it's warranted. The guy was no friend to Christianity, you could actually call him a bigot.

(eta - note - I just removed the girl who I just realized was hit on by a music star in NO and I'm conflating, anyhoo...).

So I think at the end of your comment I believe you are trying to create a false distinction just to maintain some kind of point.

 

[Clifford]

Pamela Geller op-ed in Time magazine

http://time.com/3847453/pamela-geller-a-response-to-my-critics-this-is-a-war/

I agree with most of what she wrote.

Bombastic and childish at times but she has lots of good points. Loved the line about how no one and no religion has the right to demand not being offended.

 

[timschochet]

The only point I was trying to make is that the analogy isn't perfect. And NYC, despite its cosmopolitan nature, is part of a Christian society.

 

[rockaction]

what exactly is the debate here? is anybody saying they cant do this? no, right?

Yeah, several outlets were calling it unconstitutional hate speech or calling for a reform of the First Amendment to specifically deal with situations like this.

eta* But within the thread, it doesn't seem so

Those outlets seem stupid.

Plenty of people have tried to enact similar policies on state university campuses, so I'm not sure about this. Indeed, Minnesota just had a brouhaha on campus about Mohammed and Charlie Hedbo where the administration got involved, etc.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

The only point I was trying to make is that the analogy isn't perfect. And NYC, despite its cosmopolitan nature, is part of a Christian society.

It had a warm reception in some quarters of NYC (a city I love btw). And it also doesn't matter, Isis has done the same thing in the mideast which of course is wholly muslim for even the slightest forms of apostasy and heresy that we could never imagine being offensive. PC was every bit as offensive to the singular old Catholic lady going to St. Patrick's as the cartoons are to any random mainstream muslim anywhere in the world.

 

[timschochet]

But rockaction, universities are not required to protect free speech without limitation. It's perfectly legitimate for a school to unilaterally decide something is hateful and forbid it at the school, and that is not a violation of the 1st Amendment.

 

[Henry Ford]

what exactly is the debate here? is anybody saying they cant do this? no, right?

Yeah, several outlets were calling it unconstitutional hate speech or calling for a reform of the First Amendment to specifically deal with situations like this.

eta* But within the thread, it doesn't seem so

Those outlets seem stupid.

Plenty of people have tried to enact similar policies on state university campuses, so I'm not sure about this. Indeed, Minnesota just had a brouhaha on campus about Mohammed and Charlie Hedbo where the administration got involved, etc.

Those universities are stupid, too. And Dean Coleman - the administrator at Minnesota who tried to have fliers depicting Mohammed taken down and who then reversed himself when he realized how stupid that was - was also stupid.

 

[rockaction]

But rockaction, universities are not required to protect free speech without limitation. It's perfectly legitimate for a school to unilaterally decide something is hateful and forbid it at the school, and that is not a violation of the 1st Amendment.

Not only is that entirely debatable -- state actors have to protect the First Amendment to a degree -- it proves the point that those calling for restrictions on speech are not "stupid," just powerless.

 

[timschochet]

But rockaction, universities are not required to protect free speech without limitation. It's perfectly legitimate for a school to unilaterally decide something is hateful and forbid it at the school, and that is not a violation of the 1st Amendment.

Tim you are remarkable for your constant attempts to limit rights. You love it. You did a whole 20 pages on the bill of rights and every argument was how to limit freedoms.

I say that in a friendly manner but that's your POV.

Thats your interpretation. Mine is im trying to increase rights: specifically here the rights of a university administration to decide what is allowable at their school and what is not, within certain limits.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

(Ok I'm too ramped up, tapping out, I've said my peace for a bit...).

 

[rockaction]

what exactly is the debate here? is anybody saying they cant do this? no, right?

Yeah, several outlets were calling it unconstitutional hate speech or calling for a reform of the First Amendment to specifically deal with situations like this.

eta* But within the thread, it doesn't seem so

Those outlets seem stupid.

Plenty of people have tried to enact similar policies on state university campuses, so I'm not sure about this. Indeed, Minnesota just had a brouhaha on campus about Mohammed and Charlie Hedbo where the administration got involved, etc.

Those universities are stupid, too. And Dean Coleman - the administrator at Minnesota who tried to have fliers depicting Mohammed taken down and who then reversed himself when he realized how stupid that was - was also stupid.

Fair enough. I'm not going to tell you who you can think is "stupid," but let's say that, at a minimum, there are certainly plenty of people willing to go that route.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

But rockaction, universities are not required to protect free speech without limitation. It's perfectly legitimate for a school to unilaterally decide something is hateful and forbid it at the school, and that is not a violation of the 1st Amendment.

Tim you are remarkable for your constant attempts to limit rights. You love it. You did a whole 20 pages on the bill of rights and every argument was how to limit freedoms.

I say that in a friendly manner but that's your POV.

Thats your interpretation. Mine is im trying to increase rights: specifically here the rights of a university administration to decide what is allowable at their school and what is not, within certain limits.

You mean the state's rights?

You're a state's rights guy then?

Lord. I will be alternating between coffee, beer and work today, should be a fun one, Happy Friday y'all.

 

[Henry Ford]

But rockaction, universities are not required to protect free speech without limitation. It's perfectly legitimate for a school to unilaterally decide something is hateful and forbid it at the school, and that is not a violation of the 1st Amendment.

State university, tim. Funded and run by the government. Free speech isn't limitless, and hate speech isn't necessarily protected, but a state-funded and state-run institution shouldn't be adding more limits sua sponte.

 

[timschochet]

But rockaction, universities are not required to protect free speech without limitation. It's perfectly legitimate for a school to unilaterally decide something is hateful and forbid it at the school, and that is not a violation of the 1st Amendment.

Tim you are remarkable for your constant attempts to limit rights. You love it. You did a whole 20 pages on the bill of rights and every argument was how to limit freedoms.

I say that in a friendly manner but that's your POV.

Thats your interpretation. Mine is im trying to increase rights: specifically here the rights of a university administration to decide what is allowable at their school and what is not, within certain limits.

You mean the state's rights?

You're a state's rights guy then?

Lord. I will be alternating between coffee, beer and work today, should be a fun one, Happy Friday y'all.

When did I mention states' rights?

 

[The Commish]

But rockaction, universities are not required to protect free speech without limitation. It's perfectly legitimate for a school to unilaterally decide something is hateful and forbid it at the school, and that is not a violation of the 1st Amendment.

Tim you are remarkable for your constant attempts to limit rights. You love it. You did a whole 20 pages on the bill of rights and every argument was how to limit freedoms.

I say that in a friendly manner but that's your POV.

Thats your interpretation. Mine is im trying to increase rights: specifically here the rights of a university administration to decide what is allowable at their school and what is not, within certain limits.

You understand this is a STATE university right??

 

[Henry Ford]

what exactly is the debate here? is anybody saying they cant do this? no, right?

Yeah, several outlets were calling it unconstitutional hate speech or calling for a reform of the First Amendment to specifically deal with situations like this.

eta* But within the thread, it doesn't seem so

Those outlets seem stupid.

Plenty of people have tried to enact similar policies on state university campuses, so I'm not sure about this. Indeed, Minnesota just had a brouhaha on campus about Mohammed and Charlie Hedbo where the administration got involved, etc.

Those universities are stupid, too. And Dean Coleman - the administrator at Minnesota who tried to have fliers depicting Mohammed taken down and who then reversed himself when he realized how stupid that was - was also stupid.

Fair enough. I'm not going to tell you who you can think is "stupid," but let's say that, at a minimum, there are certainly plenty of people willing to go that route.

I agree. Almost 50% of the U.S. is below average.

 

[The Commish]

I'm waiting for the "when I said X I was saying Y" loop to begin

 

[CowboysFromHell]

But rockaction, universities are not required to protect free speech without limitation. It's perfectly legitimate for a school to unilaterally decide something is hateful and forbid it at the school, and that is not a violation of the 1st Amendment.

Tim you are remarkable for your constant attempts to limit rights. You love it. You did a whole 20 pages on the bill of rights and every argument was how to limit freedoms.

I say that in a friendly manner but that's your POV.

Thats your interpretation. Mine is im trying to increase rights: specifically here the rights of a university administration to decide what is allowable at their school and what is not, within certain limits.

So, the right to restrict the rights of others? Seems that's what a lot of these debates boil down to.

 

[timschochet]

But rockaction, universities are not required to protect free speech without limitation. It's perfectly legitimate for a school to unilaterally decide something is hateful and forbid it at the school, and that is not a violation of the 1st Amendment.

State university, tim. Funded and run by the government. Free speech isn't limitless, and hate speech isn't necessarily protected, but a state-funded and state-run institution shouldn't be adding more limits sua sponte.

But how do we decide what is hate speech and what isnt? rockaction would argue that we shouldn't decide and no speech should be prohibited. And that's a perfectly legitimate position. But I'm not at all uncomfortable with Swastikas being forbidden on college campuses.

 

[The Commish]

I'm waiting for the "when I said X I was saying Y" loop to begin

Or just a complete change in direction

 

[timschochet]

The distinction between state and private school here is relevant but only to a certain degree. Public schools limit free speech all the time, and in most cases the limitations are reasonable IMO. Swastikas are verboten, for example.

 

[Bonfire]

 

[timschochet]

Let's get back to the main issue: nobody here is using this situation to advocate restrictions on freedom of speech. There is no legitimate or widespread effort around the country to advocate restrictions on freedom of speech based on this incident. (Universities which already restrict free speech for a variety of reasons don't count.) rockaction and others are creating a straw villain. I can criticize Pam Geller and her foolish cohorts without either attacking free speech or justifying terrorism.

 

[Henry Ford]

But rockaction, universities are not required to protect free speech without limitation. It's perfectly legitimate for a school to unilaterally decide something is hateful and forbid it at the school, and that is not a violation of the 1st Amendment.

State university, tim. Funded and run by the government. Free speech isn't limitless, and hate speech isn't necessarily protected, but a state-funded and state-run institution shouldn't be adding more limits sua sponte.

But how do we decide what is hate speech and what isnt? rockaction would argue that we shouldn't decide and no speech should be prohibited. And that's a perfectly legitimate position. But I'm not at all uncomfortable with Swastikas being forbidden on college campuses.

That's a tough question, and in my opinion it doesn't matter. Hate speech is not protected when it falls under an unprotected area of speech (fighting words, incitement to violence, etc.). If it doesn't, it should be protected.

 

[Henry Ford]

The distinction between state and private school here is relevant but only to a certain degree. Public schools limit free speech all the time, and in most cases the limitations are reasonable IMO. Swastikas are verboten, for example.

And you have no issues at all with the fact that 5,000 year old religions are not allowed to express their religious views on campuses because Adolf Hitler used their symbol for his flag? I understand being ultimately willing to make the concession, but you are not at all uncomfortable with that?

 

[timschochet]

The distinction between state and private school here is relevant but only to a certain degree. Public schools limit free speech all the time, and in most cases the limitations are reasonable IMO. Swastikas are verboten, for example.

And you have no issues at all with the fact that 5,000 year old religions are not allowed to express their religious views on campuses because Adolf Hitler used their symbol for his flag? I understand being ultimately willing to make the concession, but you are not at all uncomfortable with that?

No. If it were a more essential element of a largely practiced current religion then I might be.

 

[timschochet]

But rockaction, universities are not required to protect free speech without limitation. It's perfectly legitimate for a school to unilaterally decide something is hateful and forbid it at the school, and that is not a violation of the 1st Amendment.

State university, tim. Funded and run by the government. Free speech isn't limitless, and hate speech isn't necessarily protected, but a state-funded and state-run institution shouldn't be adding more limits sua sponte.

But how do we decide what is hate speech and what isnt? rockaction would argue that we shouldn't decide and no speech should be prohibited. And that's a perfectly legitimate position. But I'm not at all uncomfortable with Swastikas being forbidden on college campuses.

That's a tough question, and in my opinion it doesn't matter. Hate speech is not protected when it falls under an unprotected area of speech (fighting words, incitement to violence, etc.). If it doesn't, it should be protected.

OK then suppose some administrators decide that Pam Geller's contest is an incitement to violence and forbid it on their campus? Are you OK with that?

 

[Henry Ford]

The distinction between state and private school here is relevant but only to a certain degree. Public schools limit free speech all the time, and in most cases the limitations are reasonable IMO. Swastikas are verboten, for example.

And you have no issues at all with the fact that 5,000 year old religions are not allowed to express their religious views on campuses because Adolf Hitler used their symbol for his flag? I understand being ultimately willing to make the concession, but you are not at all uncomfortable with that?

No. If it were a more essential element of a largely practiced current religion then I might be.

You don't know what you're talking about in this statement. The swastika is an incredibly common and important element of the third largest religion in the world.

 

[Henry Ford]

But rockaction, universities are not required to protect free speech without limitation. It's perfectly legitimate for a school to unilaterally decide something is hateful and forbid it at the school, and that is not a violation of the 1st Amendment.

State university, tim. Funded and run by the government. Free speech isn't limitless, and hate speech isn't necessarily protected, but a state-funded and state-run institution shouldn't be adding more limits sua sponte.

But how do we decide what is hate speech and what isnt? rockaction would argue that we shouldn't decide and no speech should be prohibited. And that's a perfectly legitimate position. But I'm not at all uncomfortable with Swastikas being forbidden on college campuses.

That's a tough question, and in my opinion it doesn't matter. Hate speech is not protected when it falls under an unprotected area of speech (fighting words, incitement to violence, etc.). If it doesn't, it should be protected.

OK then suppose some administrators decide that Pam Geller's contest is an incitement to violence and forbid it on their campus? Are you OK with that?

I'd sue the #### out of them and enjoy the victory because they can't back that up with a link to the legal definition of incitement to violence.

Edit: Sorry, confused Pam Geller with the campus discussion we were actually talking about earlier. But with a slightly less emphatic lawsuit, I'd still probably sue and win. I don't think a school can make a showing that she actually intended imminent violence. If they can, they'd be fine to ban it.

 

[timschochet]

The distinction between state and private school here is relevant but only to a certain degree. Public schools limit free speech all the time, and in most cases the limitations are reasonable IMO. Swastikas are verboten, for example.

And you have no issues at all with the fact that 5,000 year old religions are not allowed to express their religious views on campuses because Adolf Hitler used their symbol for his flag? I understand being ultimately willing to make the concession, but you are not at all uncomfortable with that?

No. If it were a more essential element of a largely practiced current religion then I might be.

You don't know what you're talking about in this statement. The swastika is an incredibly common and important element of the third largest religion in the world.

quite aware but I differ with you about the word "important". It is not important enough for people of that religion to make widespread protests regarding the restriction.

 

[TPW]

Let's get back to the main issue: nobody here is using this situation to advocate restrictions on freedom of speech. There is no legitimate or widespread effort around the country to advocate restrictions on freedom of speech based on this incident. (Universities which already restrict free speech for a variety of reasons don't count.) rockaction and others are creating a straw villain. I can criticize Pam Geller and her foolish cohorts without either attacking free speech or justifying terrorism.

It's not a straw man. It's disgust over the utter hypocrisy the left shows when it claims a so-called ethical high ground for offensive displays to non-violent Christians while simultaneously displaying duplicitous cowardice when faced with violence from Muslims.

 

[timschochet]

But rockaction, universities are not required to protect free speech without limitation. It's perfectly legitimate for a school to unilaterally decide something is hateful and forbid it at the school, and that is not a violation of the 1st Amendment.

State university, tim. Funded and run by the government. Free speech isn't limitless, and hate speech isn't necessarily protected, but a state-funded and state-run institution shouldn't be adding more limits sua sponte.

But how do we decide what is hate speech and what isnt? rockaction would argue that we shouldn't decide and no speech should be prohibited. And that's a perfectly legitimate position. But I'm not at all uncomfortable with Swastikas being forbidden on college campuses.

That's a tough question, and in my opinion it doesn't matter. Hate speech is not protected when it falls under an unprotected area of speech (fighting words, incitement to violence, etc.). If it doesn't, it should be protected.

OK then suppose some administrators decide that Pam Geller's contest is an incitement to violence and forbid it on their campus? Are you OK with that?

I'd sue the #### out of them and enjoy the victory because they can't back that up with a link to the legal definition of incitement to violence.

Im not sure you'd win.

 

[Henry Ford]

The distinction between state and private school here is relevant but only to a certain degree. Public schools limit free speech all the time, and in most cases the limitations are reasonable IMO. Swastikas are verboten, for example.

And you have no issues at all with the fact that 5,000 year old religions are not allowed to express their religious views on campuses because Adolf Hitler used their symbol for his flag? I understand being ultimately willing to make the concession, but you are not at all uncomfortable with that?

No. If it were a more essential element of a largely practiced current religion then I might be.

You don't know what you're talking about in this statement. The swastika is an incredibly common and important element of the third largest religion in the world.

quite aware but I differ with you about the word "important". It is not important enough for people of that religion to make widespread protests regarding the restriction.

I see. So the gauge of how important something is to a religion is if you can get them to protest its ban? So, if for instance thousands and thousands of Hindus protested a ban of the swastika in Germany and/or the EU, that would work for you?

 

[Apple Jack]

Let's get back to the main issue: nobody here is using this situation to advocate restrictions on freedom of speech. There is no legitimate or widespread effort around the country to advocate restrictions on freedom of speech based on this incident. (Universities which already restrict free speech for a variety of reasons don't count.) rockaction and others are creating a straw villain. I can criticize Pam Geller and her foolish cohorts without either attacking free speech or justifying terrorism.

It's not a straw man. It's disgust over the utter hypocrisy the left shows when it claims a so-called ethical high ground for offensive displays to non-violent Christians while simultaneously displaying duplicitous cowardice when faced with violence from Muslims.

"the left" huh? most of "the left" would likely tell you to have at it, but just make sure you are nowhere near us when you do it please and thank you.

 

[Henry Ford]

But rockaction, universities are not required to protect free speech without limitation. It's perfectly legitimate for a school to unilaterally decide something is hateful and forbid it at the school, and that is not a violation of the 1st Amendment.

State university, tim. Funded and run by the government. Free speech isn't limitless, and hate speech isn't necessarily protected, but a state-funded and state-run institution shouldn't be adding more limits sua sponte.

But how do we decide what is hate speech and what isnt? rockaction would argue that we shouldn't decide and no speech should be prohibited. And that's a perfectly legitimate position. But I'm not at all uncomfortable with Swastikas being forbidden on college campuses.

That's a tough question, and in my opinion it doesn't matter. Hate speech is not protected when it falls under an unprotected area of speech (fighting words, incitement to violence, etc.). If it doesn't, it should be protected.

OK then suppose some administrators decide that Pam Geller's contest is an incitement to violence and forbid it on their campus? Are you OK with that?

I'd sue the #### out of them and enjoy the victory because they can't back that up with a link to the legal definition of incitement to violence.

Im not sure you'd win.

Wait - sorry - Pam Geller. I confused the issues here.