Muhammad Cartoon Contest in Garland Tx. Hundreds of ISIS In America (1 Viewer)

[Henry Ford]

We were talking about the Hebdo discussion with respect to universities - Pam Geller's contest is the Texas drawing. If the school could prove that she was intending to cause imminent violence, I can see that being restricted under inciting violence rules. Otherwise, yes, I'd win.

 

[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.

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?

if it happened HERE it would make me uncomfortable, though it wouldn't change my mind. I don't care what Germany or the EU does. But I don't believe that American Hindus feel restricted in their religious freedoms.

 

[Henry Ford]

Let me put it another way - why didn't the police shut down Pam Geller? Why didn't they force her to not hold this event? Why hasn't she been arrested since?

 

[timschochet]

Let me put it another way - why didn't the police shut down Pam Geller? Why didn't they force her to not hold this event? Why hasn't she been arrested since?

because she has the right to do what she did under our laws. But not necessarily on a college campus, which was the point I was trying to make in response to rockaction's concern.

 

[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?

if it happened HERE it would make me uncomfortable, though it wouldn't change my mind. I don't care what Germany or the EU does.But I don't believe that American Hindus feel restricted in their religious freedoms.

The letter below was sent by the Hindu American Foundation to President Steven Knapp of the George Washington University on April 20th, 2015.

Dear President Knapp,

On behalf of the Hindu American Foundation (HAF), a non-profit advocacy organization for the Hindu American community, we write to you to express our concern with your March 16, 2015 statement regarding the posting of a swastika at the International House on the George Washington (GW) campus. Specifically, we note that your dismissal of the swastika, an ancient symbol of auspiciousness and good fortune, as “utterly unacceptable” singles out and alienates GW’s Hindu, Buddhist, Jain, and Native American students. We also strongly oppose GW’s attempt to expel the student who posted the swastika in question without consideration of his motives for doing so.

On March 16, 2015, a student at the Zeta Beta Tau fraternity posted a bronze replica of the Hindu swastika, which he obtained in India, on the fraternity bulletin board. The student explains that his motivation behind the posting was benign, and he intended to start a dialogue about the long history of the swastika as a symbol of peace in Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism. The University’s response, however, ignores the student’s motives and focuses on the swastika as a symbol of “intrinsically anti-Semitic meaning.” In your statement on March 16, you indicated that ANY use of the swastika on campus is “utterly unacceptable.” We do not dispute that, for many GW students, the swastika serves primarily as a symbol of the hate and violence of the Nazi party of Germany. As with any other symbol, when the swastika is actively used to intimidate and disrupt the GW campus, swift and decisive action is necessary. However, by completely ignoring the context of the posting in this case, your actions themselves risk intimidating and creating a hostile environment for Hindu, Buddhist, and other GW students, who might otherwise seek to display the swastika as a symbol of their faith.

Contrary to the hateful and violent meaning the swastika has come to take on for many since its misappropriation by the Nazis, the original swastika is an ancient and holy symbol. It is still commonly used at the entrance of Hindu homes, in temples, and on invitations to special occasions such as weddings and other rites of passage. The four limbs of the Hindu swastika have diverse symbolic meanings: the four Vedas (Hindu holy texts); the four stages of life; the four goals of life; the four Yugas (eras); the four seasons; and the four directions. As such, the symbol cannot be dismissed as one of “intrinsically anti-Semitic meaning.”

Furthermore, we are highly concerned with your attempt to expel the student who posted the symbol without any attempt to understand the context of his actions. The consequences of the University’s expulsion could very well be a de facto ban on the use of the swastika in any context on campus. As such, Hindu, Buddhist, Jain, or Native American students who sought to use the symbol in a religious manner would be unable to do so without facing the risk of punishment. Such consequences violate both federal and D.C. law and call into question your commitment to religious diversity on campus.

We ask that you apologize for the tenor and content of the March 16 statement and reiterate your commitment to religious diversity at the George Washington University. We also urge you to reassure all students that, while attempts to intimidate or disrupt using the swastika will be dealt with swiftly, the University’s actions will protect those students who seek to use the symbol as a representation of thousands year old history. We look forward to an affirmative response to this request. Please direct your reply to Harsh Voruganti, Esq. at harsh@hafsite.org or 202-223-8222.



Regards,

/s/

Harsh Voruganti, Esq.

Associate Director of Public Policy

Hindu American Foundation

/s/

Samir Kalra, Esq.

Senior Director and Human Rights Fellow

Hindu American Foundation

/s/

Suhag Shukla, Esq.

Executive Director

Hindu American Foundation

 

[Henry Ford]

Let me put it another way - why didn't the police shut down Pam Geller? Why didn't they force her to not hold this event? Why hasn't she been arrested since?

because she has the right to do what she did under our laws. But not necessarily on a college campus, which was the point I was trying to make in response to rockaction's concern.

And my point is that the First Amendment doesn't stop working when you walk onto a college campus.

 

[rockaction]

Let me put it another way - why didn't the police shut down Pam Geller? Why didn't they force her to not hold this event? Why hasn't she been arrested since?

because she has the right to do what she did under our laws. But not necessarily on a college campus, which was the point I was trying to make in response to rockaction's concern.

I think I need to correct you, because you keep using my username to advance a point. I stated no such concern. I used the state university example to prove that people that want to restrict speech aren't necessarily "stupid." That was it. It was a reply to Henry Ford and Apple Jack. I never set up a "straw villain" and never claimed to want to get into the nuances of state university and speech codes. It was a simple statement -- you're reading something else into it.

I'm really more interested in the Patriots ball scandal today.

 

[timschochet]

I have some very close Jain friends and we've discussed the Swastika. They don't care. That's anecdotal, but if it were a widespread concern I would be concerned.

 

[timschochet]

Let me put it another way - why didn't the police shut down Pam Geller? Why didn't they force her to not hold this event? Why hasn't she been arrested since?

because she has the right to do what she did under our laws. But not necessarily on a college campus, which was the point I was trying to make in response to rockaction's concern.

I think I need to correct you, because you keep using my username to advance a point. I stated no such concern. I used the state university example to prove that people that want to restrict speech aren't necessarily "stupid." That was it. It was a reply to Henry Ford and Apple Jack. I never set up a "straw villain" and never claimed to want to get into the nuances of state university and speech codes. It was a simple statement -- you're reading something else into it.

I'm really more interested in the Patriots ball scandal today.

Fair enough, I apologize.

 

[timschochet]

Let me put it another way - why didn't the police shut down Pam Geller? Why didn't they force her to not hold this event? Why hasn't she been arrested since?

because she has the right to do what she did under our laws. But not necessarily on a college campus, which was the point I was trying to make in response to rockaction's concern.

And my point is that the First Amendment doesn't stop working when you walk onto a college campus.

Of course not.

 

[rockaction]

Let me put it another way - why didn't the police shut down Pam Geller? Why didn't they force her to not hold this event? Why hasn't she been arrested since?

because she has the right to do what she did under our laws. But not necessarily on a college campus, which was the point I was trying to make in response to rockaction's concern.

I think I need to correct you, because you keep using my username to advance a point. I stated no such concern. I used the state university example to prove that people that want to restrict speech aren't necessarily "stupid." That was it. It was a reply to Henry Ford and Apple Jack. I never set up a "straw villain" and never claimed to want to get into the nuances of state university and speech codes. It was a simple statement -- you're reading something else into it.

I'm really more interested in the Patriots ball scandal today.

Fair enough, I apologize.

No sweat, really. Just thought I'd check in. That's why I'm not really debating it.

 

[Henry Ford]

Let me put it another way - why didn't the police shut down Pam Geller? Why didn't they force her to not hold this event? Why hasn't she been arrested since?

because she has the right to do what she did under our laws. But not necessarily on a college campus, which was the point I was trying to make in response to rockaction's concern.

And my point is that the First Amendment doesn't stop working when you walk onto a college campus.

Of course not.

So... why, in your estimation, should a government actor add restrictions on speech that aren't allowed to be restricted elsewhere just because it's a college campus?

 

[jon_mx]

Tim's ability to gage how entire groups feel based on his experience never ceases to amaze me. He is the reincarnation of Carnac the Magnificent.

 

[Henry Ford]

Tim's ability to gage how entire groups feel based on his experience never ceases to amaze me. He is the reincarnation of Carnac the Magnificent.

Tim's Jain friends are very in tune with the Hindu and Buddhist communities.

 

[Two Deep]

It wouldn't surprise me if the CIA were behind this event to bait these wacko's out. Genius. Should hold more and keep killing them off.

 

[jon_mx]

It wouldn't surprise me if the CIA were behind this event to bait these wacko's out. Genius. Should hold more and keep killing them off.

It is a good way to flush them out. Also a good way to get some insight into the recruiting.

 

[timschochet]

Let me put it another way - why didn't the police shut down Pam Geller? Why didn't they force her to not hold this event? Why hasn't she been arrested since?

because she has the right to do what she did under our laws. But not necessarily on a college campus, which was the point I was trying to make in response to rockaction's concern.

And my point is that the First Amendment doesn't stop working when you walk onto a college campus.

Of course not.

So... why, in your estimation, should a government actor add restrictions on speech that aren't allowed to be restricted elsewhere just because it's a college campus?

Thats a long discussion which has little to do with this thread. Let's save it for another day.

 

[timschochet]

Tim's ability to gage how entire groups feel based on his experience never ceases to amaze me. He is the reincarnation of Carnac the Magnificent.

Tim's Jain friends are very in tune with the Hindu and Buddhist communities.

Theyre very interesting guys. They see the world very differently from anyone else I've ever met.

 

[jon_mx]

Let me put it another way - why didn't the police shut down Pam Geller? Why didn't they force her to not hold this event? Why hasn't she been arrested since?

because she has the right to do what she did under our laws. But not necessarily on a college campus, which was the point I was trying to make in response to rockaction's concern.

And my point is that the First Amendment doesn't stop working when you walk onto a college campus.

Of course not.

So... why, in your estimation, should a government actor add restrictions on speech that aren't allowed to be restricted elsewhere just because it's a college campus?

Thats a long discussion which has little to do with this thread. Let's save it for another day.

Any Tim-discussion is a long discussion. Never stopped you before.

 

[The Commish]

Let me put it another way - why didn't the police shut down Pam Geller? Why didn't they force her to not hold this event? Why hasn't she been arrested since?

because she has the right to do what she did under our laws. But not necessarily on a college campus, which was the point I was trying to make in response to rockaction's concern.

And my point is that the First Amendment doesn't stop working when you walk onto a college campus.

Of course not.

So... why, in your estimation, should a government actor add restrictions on speech that aren't allowed to be restricted elsewhere just because it's a college campus?

Thats a long discussion which has little to do with this thread. Let's save it for another day.

oh God

ETC: Shouldn't be spit the hook out....should be get off the merry-go-round GB HF!!!!!!

 

[General Tso]

Tim - what are your thoughts on Dershowitz's comments last night about Martin Luther King using a similar approach during the Civil Rights Movement? Like Geller he was calling out intolerance, and doing so in a manner designed to likely elicit a violent response. He could have chosen other, softer ways of addressing the issue, but instead chose to take the battle to them in a very much in-your-face manner. Why is one tactic considered brave and the other considered reckless? Thoughts?

"Martin Luther King picked some of the cities he went to precisely in order to provoke and bring out the racists and show what kind of violent people they are, so the world could see what was wrong with Jim Crow. Its part of the American tradition to provoke so that the world can see".

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/alan-dershowitz-pamela-geller-like-martin-luther-king/2015/05/07/id/643355/Here's another well written article about America's history of doing provocative things in the name of freedom, ranging from the Boston Tea Party, the signing of the DOI, and the Civil Rights Movement. Even if you disagree with Geller this is a good read.

http://spectator.org/articles/62642/defense-pamela-geller

 

[timschochet]

Tim - what are your thoughts on Dershowitz's comments last night about Martin Luther King using a similar approach during the Civil Rights Movement? Like Geller he was calling out intolerance, and doing so in a manner designed to likely elicit a violent response. He could have chosen other, softer ways of addressing the issue, but instead chose to take the battle to them in a very much in-your-face manner. Why is one tactic considered brave and the other considered reckless? Thoughts?

"Martin Luther King picked some of the cities he went to precisely in order to provoke and bring out the racists and show what kind of violent people they are, so the world could see what was wrong with Jim Crow. Its part of the American tradition to provoke so that the world can see".

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/alan-dershowitz-pamela-geller-like-martin-luther-king/2015/05/07/id/643355/Here's another well written article about America's history of doing provocative things in the name of freedom, ranging from the Boston Tea Party, the signing of the DOI, and the Civil Rights Movement. Even if you disagree with Geller this is a good read.

http://spectator.org/articles/62642/defense-pamela-geller

Well once again in recent days I am forced to take issue with the esteemed Mr. Dershowitz. Pam Geller didn't go to Selma. In this case "Selma" is somewhere in the Middle East. It's not in Texas. But in a larger sense the analogy is false anyhow. If Muslims tend to find depictions of Muhammad to be offensive to their beliefs, that in itself is not oppressive to us. None of our rights are being removed by that fact. The problem is not with the religion of Islam but with a small group of radical idiots who choose to answer insults to that religion with violence.

If Pam Geller wanted to lead a protest against one of the widespread practices of Islam that is repellent- for inatance their general treatment, within the Muslim world, of woman and homosexuals- that would be fine. I've actually supported such s protest before (it was at an Indigo Girls concert). If a group of women traveled to a Muslim city to push for women's rights that would be much more analogous to Selma, and this has actually happened- in Istanbul. But Geller has done none of these things. She has continually attempted to denigrate the entire religion of Islam and that's what she's doing here once again. Very disappointed that Alan D doesn't see this.

 

[General Tso]

I think I am starting to see your rationale here. Correct me if I'm misreading you, but you just don't see radical Islam's intolerance to free speech as being morally repugnant, at least in the sense that their denial of free speech (in this case the right to satirize the religion using cartoons) isn't really hurting us in our day to day lives.

By the way, I think if Geller or anyone else tried to go to a Mulsim country under Sharia Law and protest their intolerance to gays, women, or free speech, it would be a one way ticket.

 

[jon_mx]

I think I am starting to see your rationale here. Correct me if I'm misreading you, but you just don't see radical Islam's intolerance to free speech as being morally repugnant, at least in the sense that their denial of free speech (in this case the right to satirize the religion using cartoons) isn't really hurting us in our day to day lives.

By the way, I think if Geller or anyone else tried to go to a Mulsim country under Sharia Law and protest their intolerance to gays, women, or free speech, it would be a one way ticket.

That is a pretty ignorant suggestion by Tim. Tim wants to force the way people use their freedom of expression. Tim is not a big fan of conservative free speech. It seems to drive him nuts.

 

[rockaction]

Suggesting that a trip to somewhere like Saudi Arabia to protest is similar to going to Selma is a hell of a logical leap by millions of degrees. That's pretty batty.

And it misses the fact that Geller is making a parochial statement. She's concerned about our rights on our own soil. She doesn't need to be a world citizen and magnanimously fighting for women's rights in Egypt to be righteous on this issue.

 

[timschochet]

I think I am starting to see your rationale here. Correct me if I'm misreading you, but you just don't see radical Islam's intolerance to free speech as being morally repugnant, at least in the sense that their denial of free speech (in this case the right to satirize the religion using cartoons) isn't really hurting us in our day to day lives.

By the way, I think if Geller or anyone else tried to go to a Mulsim country under Sharia Law and protest their intolerance to gays, women, or free speech, it would be a one way ticket.

That is a pretty ignorant suggestion by Tim. Tim wants to force the way people use their freedom of expression. Tim is not a big fan of conservative free speech. It seems to drive him nuts.

Oh be quiet.

 

[timschochet]

I think I am starting to see your rationale here. Correct me if I'm misreading you, but you just don't see radical Islam's intolerance to free speech as being morally repugnant, at least in the sense that their denial of free speech (in this case the right to satirize the religion using cartoons) isn't really hurting us in our day to day lives.

By the way, I think if Geller or anyone else tried to go to a Mulsim country under Sharia Law and protest their intolerance to gays, women, or free speech, it would be a one way ticket.

On the contrary. I do see Islamic intolerance to free speech as morally repugnant. I don't see Muslims taking offense to depictions of Muhammad as morally repugnant. Now as to your second point, you're correct. If Geller traveled to the Middle East to hold her insipid little contest, she'd be dead. However, as I mentioned above, women HAVE travelled to Muslim countries to protest for women's rights- it's happens quite frequently. And there are free speech protests throughout the Muslim world. The Arab Spring in Egypt began as a free speech protest. But despite what she claims, freedom of speech has nothing to do with Geller's contest.

 

[jon_mx]

I think I am starting to see your rationale here. Correct me if I'm misreading you, but you just don't see radical Islam's intolerance to free speech as being morally repugnant, at least in the sense that their denial of free speech (in this case the right to satirize the religion using cartoons) isn't really hurting us in our day to day lives.

By the way, I think if Geller or anyone else tried to go to a Mulsim country under Sharia Law and protest their intolerance to gays, women, or free speech, it would be a one way ticket.

On the contrary. I do see Islamic intolerance to free speech as morally repugnant. I don't see Muslims taking offense to depictions of Muhammad as morally repugnant.Now as to your second point, you're correct. If Geller traveled to the Middle East to hold her insipid little contest, she'd be dead. However, as I mentioned above, women HAVE travelled to Muslim countries to protest for women's rights- it's happens quite frequently. And there are free speech protests throughout the Muslim world. The Arab Spring in Egypt began as a free speech protest. But despite what she claims, freedom of speech has nothing to do with Geller's contest.

You and your ####### mind-reading projecting motives into people. Of course you just do this to conservatives. Liberals always have pure hearts and it is hate speech to suggest otherwise.

 

[timschochet]

I think I am starting to see your rationale here. Correct me if I'm misreading you, but you just don't see radical Islam's intolerance to free speech as being morally repugnant, at least in the sense that their denial of free speech (in this case the right to satirize the religion using cartoons) isn't really hurting us in our day to day lives.

By the way, I think if Geller or anyone else tried to go to a Mulsim country under Sharia Law and protest their intolerance to gays, women, or free speech, it would be a one way ticket.

On the contrary. I do see Islamic intolerance to free speech as morally repugnant. I don't see Muslims taking offense to depictions of Muhammad as morally repugnant.Now as to your second point, you're correct. If Geller traveled to the Middle East to hold her insipid little contest, she'd be dead. However, as I mentioned above, women HAVE travelled to Muslim countries to protest for women's rights- it's happens quite frequently. And there are free speech protests throughout the Muslim world. The Arab Spring in Egypt began as a free speech protest. But despite what she claims, freedom of speech has nothing to do with Geller's contest.

You and your ####### mind-reading projecting motives into people. Of course you just do this to conservatives. Liberals always have pure hearts and it is hate speech to suggest otherwise.

Geller is not a conservatives. The American conservative movement is not made up of bigots.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Tim - what are your thoughts on Dershowitz's comments last night about Martin Luther King using a similar approach during the Civil Rights Movement? Like Geller he was calling out intolerance, and doing so in a manner designed to likely elicit a violent response. He could have chosen other, softer ways of addressing the issue, but instead chose to take the battle to them in a very much in-your-face manner. Why is one tactic considered brave and the other considered reckless? Thoughts?

"Martin Luther King picked some of the cities he went to precisely in order to provoke and bring out the racists and show what kind of violent people they are, so the world could see what was wrong with Jim Crow. Its part of the American tradition to provoke so that the world can see".

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/alan-dershowitz-pamela-geller-like-martin-luther-king/2015/05/07/id/643355/Here's another well written article about America's history of doing provocative things in the name of freedom, ranging from the Boston Tea Party, the signing of the DOI, and the Civil Rights Movement. Even if you disagree with Geller this is a good read.

http://spectator.org/articles/62642/defense-pamela-geller

Well once again in recent days I am forced to take issue with the esteemed Mr. Dershowitz. Pam Geller didn't go to Selma. In this case "Selma" is somewhere in the Middle East. It's not in Texas.But in a larger sense the analogy is false anyhow. If Muslims tend to find depictions of Muhammad to be offensive to their beliefs, that in itself is not oppressive to us. None of our rights are being removed by that fact. The problem is not with the religion of Islam but with a small group of radical idiots who choose to answer insults to that religion with violence.

If Pam Geller wanted to lead a protest against one of the widespread practices of Islam that is repellent- for inatance their general treatment, within the Muslim world, of woman and homosexuals- that would be fine. I've actually supported such s protest before (it was at an Indigo Girls concert). If a group of women traveled to a Muslim city to push for women's rights that would be much more analogous to Selma, and this has actually happened- in Istanbul. But Geller has done none of these things. She has continually attempted to denigrate the entire religion of Islam and that's what she's doing here once again. Very disappointed that Alan D doesn't see this.

I think Dershowitz makes a good point, and I do think that Selma is in Texas, among other places.

The fact that mistreatment of women is a good thing to protest doesn't mean that violence against cartoonists isn't also a good thing to protest. (And I think the Texas contest could be viewed as a protest against Hebdo-like situations in general.)

I'm kind of torn on this because, on the one hand, I think Geller's group is probably driven more by Islamaphobia than by a genuine concern for free speech in general. That kind of takes away from the comparison to MLK. On the other hand, I'm at least partially on board with purposely offending people who get offended by cartoons. It's sort of like a gay pride parade, with men kissing each other right in front of bigots for the sole purpose of offending them. People who get offended by kissing or cartoons probably deserve to be offended as often as possible. On the third hand, offending people on purpose isn't very nice, really, even when it's fun, so ... I'm torn.

 

[jon_mx]

I think I am starting to see your rationale here. Correct me if I'm misreading you, but you just don't see radical Islam's intolerance to free speech as being morally repugnant, at least in the sense that their denial of free speech (in this case the right to satirize the religion using cartoons) isn't really hurting us in our day to day lives.

By the way, I think if Geller or anyone else tried to go to a Mulsim country under Sharia Law and protest their intolerance to gays, women, or free speech, it would be a one way ticket.

On the contrary. I do see Islamic intolerance to free speech as morally repugnant. I don't see Muslims taking offense to depictions of Muhammad as morally repugnant.Now as to your second point, you're correct. If Geller traveled to the Middle East to hold her insipid little contest, she'd be dead. However, as I mentioned above, women HAVE travelled to Muslim countries to protest for women's rights- it's happens quite frequently. And there are free speech protests throughout the Muslim world. The Arab Spring in Egypt began as a free speech protest. But despite what she claims, freedom of speech has nothing to do with Geller's contest.

You and your ####### mind-reading projecting motives into people. Of course you just do this to conservatives. Liberals always have pure hearts and it is hate speech to suggest otherwise.

Geller is not a conservatives. The American conservative movement is not made up of bigots.

You have projected at least some level of bigotry in conservatives in many conservative positions. You don't call people bigots, but you assume and project bigotry as motivation for many of their position. And you do it with large sweeping generalizations.

 

[Henry Ford]

Let me put it another way - why didn't the police shut down Pam Geller? Why didn't they force her to not hold this event? Why hasn't she been arrested since?

because she has the right to do what she did under our laws. But not necessarily on a college campus, which was the point I was trying to make in response to rockaction's concern.

And my point is that the First Amendment doesn't stop working when you walk onto a college campus.

Of course not.

So... why, in your estimation, should a government actor add restrictions on speech that aren't allowed to be restricted elsewhere just because it's a college campus?

Thats a long discussion which has little to do with this thread. Let's save it for another day.

Let's instead not propose hypotheticals that we aren't prepared to explain our position on until another day.

 

[timschochet]

Let me put it another way - why didn't the police shut down Pam Geller? Why didn't they force her to not hold this event? Why hasn't she been arrested since?

because she has the right to do what she did under our laws. But not necessarily on a college campus, which was the point I was trying to make in response to rockaction's concern.

And my point is that the First Amendment doesn't stop working when you walk onto a college campus.

Of course not.

So... why, in your estimation, should a government actor add restrictions on speech that aren't allowed to be restricted elsewhere just because it's a college campus?

Thats a long discussion which has little to do with this thread. Let's save it for another day.

Let's instead not propose hypotheticals that we aren't prepared to explain our position on until another day.

But I didnt. Universities limit free speech already all the time. Whether they should is a different topic.

 

[jon_mx]

IMHO, universities should have the least amount of restrictions of anyplace. They should be a beacon of free speech, where ideas can be discussed no matter how offensive they are. It is an odd argument to make that because it was held at a university or because it was not held in an Islamic country, it should have been restricted.

 

[General Tso]

Tim - what are your thoughts on Dershowitz's comments last night about Martin Luther King using a similar approach during the Civil Rights Movement? Like Geller he was calling out intolerance, and doing so in a manner designed to likely elicit a violent response. He could have chosen other, softer ways of addressing the issue, but instead chose to take the battle to them in a very much in-your-face manner. Why is one tactic considered brave and the other considered reckless? Thoughts?

"Martin Luther King picked some of the cities he went to precisely in order to provoke and bring out the racists and show what kind of violent people they are, so the world could see what was wrong with Jim Crow. Its part of the American tradition to provoke so that the world can see".

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/alan-dershowitz-pamela-geller-like-martin-luther-king/2015/05/07/id/643355/Here's another well written article about America's history of doing provocative things in the name of freedom, ranging from the Boston Tea Party, the signing of the DOI, and the Civil Rights Movement. Even if you disagree with Geller this is a good read.http://spectator.org/articles/62642/defense-pamela-geller

Well once again in recent days I am forced to take issue with the esteemed Mr. Dershowitz. Pam Geller didn't go to Selma. In this case "Selma" is somewhere in the Middle East. It's not in Texas.But in a larger sense the analogy is false anyhow. If Muslims tend to find depictions of Muhammad to be offensive to their beliefs, that in itself is not oppressive to us. None of our rights are being removed by that fact. The problem is not with the religion of Islam but with a small group of radical idiots who choose to answer insults to that religion with violence.

If Pam Geller wanted to lead a protest against one of the widespread practices of Islam that is repellent- for inatance their general treatment, within the Muslim world, of woman and homosexuals- that would be fine. I've actually supported such s protest before (it was at an Indigo Girls concert). If a group of women traveled to a Muslim city to push for women's rights that would be much more analogous to Selma, and this has actually happened- in Istanbul. But Geller has done none of these things. She has continually attempted to denigrate the entire religion of Islam and that's what she's doing here once again. Very disappointed that Alan D doesn't see this.

I think Dershowitz makes a good point, and I do think that Selma is in Texas, among other places.

The fact that mistreatment of women is a good thing to protest doesn't mean that violence against cartoonists isn't also a good thing to protest. (And I think the Texas contest could be viewed as a protest against Hebdo-like situations in general.)

I'm kind of torn on this because, on the one hand, I think Gellar's group is probably driven more by Islamaphobia than by a genuine concern for free speech in general. That kind of takes away from the comparison to MLK. On the other hand, I'm kind of on board with purposely offending people who get offended by cartoons. It's sort of like a gay pride parade, with men kissing each other right in front of bigots for the sole purpose of offending them. People who get offended by kissing or cartoons probably deserve to be offended as much as possible. On the third hand, offending people on purpose isn't very nice, really, even when it's fun, so ... I'm torn.

I am torn to, in the sense that being intentionally offensive to bigots (in theis case radical Muslims) has the unfortunate side effect of upsetting a lot of other people who don't deserve it. I think that's the key difference between MLK and Geller. But you could also argue (probably not successfully, but you could try) that many middle of the road whites in Selma were unintentionally harmed by MLK and folks coming to town (ie - it hurt their businesses, exposed them to violence and curfews, etc).

 

[Henry Ford]

Let me put it another way - why didn't the police shut down Pam Geller? Why didn't they force her to not hold this event? Why hasn't she been arrested since?

because she has the right to do what she did under our laws. But not necessarily on a college campus, which was the point I was trying to make in response to rockaction's concern.

And my point is that the First Amendment doesn't stop working when you walk onto a college campus.

Of course not.

So... why, in your estimation, should a government actor add restrictions on speech that aren't allowed to be restricted elsewhere just because it's a college campus?

Thats a long discussion which has little to do with this thread. Let's save it for another day.

Let's instead not propose hypotheticals that we aren't prepared to explain our position on until another day.

But I didnt. Universities limit free speech already all the time. Whether they should is a different topic.

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?

 

[General Tso]

IMHO, universities should have the least amount of restrictions of anyplace. They should be a beacon of free speech, where ideas can be discussed no matter how offensive they are. It is an odd argument to make that because it was held at a university or because it was not held in an Islamic country, it should have been restricted.

BINGO. There's a lot of good about American colleges, but their disjointed views on free speech are so incongruous to the learning experience.

 

[timschochet]

Let me put it another way - why didn't the police shut down Pam Geller? Why didn't they force her to not hold this event? Why hasn't she been arrested since?

because she has the right to do what she did under our laws. But not necessarily on a college campus, which was the point I was trying to make in response to rockaction's concern.

And my point is that the First Amendment doesn't stop working when you walk onto a college campus.

Of course not.

So... why, in your estimation, should a government actor add restrictions on speech that aren't allowed to be restricted elsewhere just because it's a college campus?

Thats a long discussion which has little to do with this thread. Let's save it for another day.

Let's instead not propose hypotheticals that we aren't prepared to explain our position on until another day.

But I didnt. Universities limit free speech already all the time. Whether they should is a different topic.

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?

The point was that rockaction was actually warning that this could happen. And then your question to me was a broader one about colleges restricting free speech, which they already do.

But whatever. I disagree with jon and General Tso; I think colleges should on occasion limit free speech. But its really a topic for a different thread.

 

[FlapJacks]

Another thing to consider in the Hebdo situation is the French law against the Hijab in public schools. the Hebdo thing is just piling on to what is already a hostile environment for Muslims....

 

[CowboysFromHell]

Tim - what are your thoughts on Dershowitz's comments last night about Martin Luther King using a similar approach during the Civil Rights Movement? Like Geller he was calling out intolerance, and doing so in a manner designed to likely elicit a violent response. He could have chosen other, softer ways of addressing the issue, but instead chose to take the battle to them in a very much in-your-face manner. Why is one tactic considered brave and the other considered reckless? Thoughts?

"Martin Luther King picked some of the cities he went to precisely in order to provoke and bring out the racists and show what kind of violent people they are, so the world could see what was wrong with Jim Crow. Its part of the American tradition to provoke so that the world can see".

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/alan-dershowitz-pamela-geller-like-martin-luther-king/2015/05/07/id/643355/Here's another well written article about America's history of doing provocative things in the name of freedom, ranging from the Boston Tea Party, the signing of the DOI, and the Civil Rights Movement. Even if you disagree with Geller this is a good read.http://spectator.org/articles/62642/defense-pamela-geller

Well once again in recent days I am forced to take issue with the esteemed Mr. Dershowitz. Pam Geller didn't go to Selma. In this case "Selma" is somewhere in the Middle East. It's not in Texas.But in a larger sense the analogy is false anyhow. If Muslims tend to find depictions of Muhammad to be offensive to their beliefs, that in itself is not oppressive to us. None of our rights are being removed by that fact. The problem is not with the religion of Islam but with a small group of radical idiots who choose to answer insults to that religion with violence.

If Pam Geller wanted to lead a protest against one of the widespread practices of Islam that is repellent- for inatance their general treatment, within the Muslim world, of woman and homosexuals- that would be fine. I've actually supported such s protest before (it was at an Indigo Girls concert). If a group of women traveled to a Muslim city to push for women's rights that would be much more analogous to Selma, and this has actually happened- in Istanbul. But Geller has done none of these things. She has continually attempted to denigrate the entire religion of Islam and that's what she's doing here once again. Very disappointed that Alan D doesn't see this.

I think Dershowitz makes a good point, and I do think that Selma is in Texas, among other places.

The fact that mistreatment of women is a good thing to protest doesn't mean that violence against cartoonists isn't also a good thing to protest. (And I think the Texas contest could be viewed as a protest against Hebdo-like situations in general.)

I'm kind of torn on this because, on the one hand, I think Gellar's group is probably driven more by Islamaphobia than by a genuine concern for free speech in general. That kind of takes away from the comparison to MLK. On the other hand, I'm kind of on board with purposely offending people who get offended by cartoons. It's sort of like a gay pride parade, with men kissing each other right in front of bigots for the sole purpose of offending them. People who get offended by kissing or cartoons probably deserve to be offended as much as possible. On the third hand, offending people on purpose isn't very nice, really, even when it's fun, so ... I'm torn.

Regardless of whether or not it's fun, mocking ridiculous ideas helps force the discussion and sheds light on how ridiculous these ideas are. It helps move our society forward.

 

[rockaction]

Interesting and tangentially related ISIS story from ABC News in the wake of the Garland terror attack.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/texas-attack-spurs-increase-fbi-surveillance-marginal-terror/story?id=30910372

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

Another thing to consider in the Hebdo situation is the French law against the Hijab in public schools. the Hebdo thing is just piling on to what is already a hostile environment for Muslims....

I really hope this is fishing.

 

[FlapJacks]

Another thing to consider in the Hebdo situation is the French law against the Hijab in public schools. the Hebdo thing is just piling on to what is already a hostile environment for Muslims....

I really hope this is fishing.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/07/24/its-still-not-easy-being-muslim-in-europe-particularly-in-france/

The 2009 Open Society Institute study paints a deteriorating picture of religious and racial discrimination: 55.8% of Muslim respondents and 43% of non-Muslim respondents, representing a plurality, claim that there is more racial prejudice today than there was 5 y ago; 68.7% of Muslim respondents and 55.9% of non-Muslim respondents make that claim with regard to religious prejudice, and more than 90% of both Muslim and non-Muslim respondents agree that Muslims are the ones experiencing this religious prejudice.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

Another thing to consider in the Hebdo situation is the French law against the Hijab in public schools. the Hebdo thing is just piling on to what is already a hostile environment for Muslims....

I really hope this is fishing.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/07/24/its-still-not-easy-being-muslim-in-europe-particularly-in-france/

The 2009 Open Society Institute study paints a deteriorating picture of religious and racial discrimination: 55.8% of Muslim respondents and 43% of non-Muslim respondents, representing a plurality, claim that there is more racial prejudice today than there was 5 y ago; 68.7% of Muslim respondents and 55.9% of non-Muslim respondents make that claim with regard to religious prejudice, and more than 90% of both Muslim and non-Muslim respondents agree that Muslims are the ones experiencing this religious prejudice.

I meant the bolded.

 

[joetrow]

Another thing to consider in the Hebdo situation is the French law against the Hijab in public schools. the Hebdo thing is just piling on to what is already a hostile environment for Muslims....

I really hope this is fishing.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/07/24/its-still-not-easy-being-muslim-in-europe-particularly-in-france/

The 2009 Open Society Institute study paints a deteriorating picture of religious and racial discrimination: 55.8% of Muslim respondents and 43% of non-Muslim respondents, representing a plurality, claim that there is more racial prejudice today than there was 5 y ago; 68.7% of Muslim respondents and 55.9% of non-Muslim respondents make that claim with regard to religious prejudice, and more than 90% of both Muslim and non-Muslim respondents agree that Muslims are the ones experiencing this religious prejudice.

There were what, 3, 4 individuals involved in the Hebdo? There were 'retribution' attacks all over France against Muslims and their property following the incident.

 

[timschochet]

Another thing to consider in the Hebdo situation is the French law against the Hijab in public schools. the Hebdo thing is just piling on to what is already a hostile environment for Muslims....

I really hope this is fishing.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/07/24/its-still-not-easy-being-muslim-in-europe-particularly-in-france/

The 2009 Open Society Institute study paints a deteriorating picture of religious and racial discrimination: 55.8% of Muslim respondents and 43% of non-Muslim respondents, representing a plurality, claim that there is more racial prejudice today than there was 5 y ago; 68.7% of Muslim respondents and 55.9% of non-Muslim respondents make that claim with regard to religious prejudice, and more than 90% of both Muslim and non-Muslim respondents agree that Muslims are the ones experiencing this religious prejudice.

There were what, 3, 4 individuals involved in the Hebdo? There were 'retribution' attacks all over France against Muslims and their property following the incident.

Yeah but stuff like this doesn't get discussed usually.

 

[General Tso]

Another thing to consider in the Hebdo situation is the French law against the Hijab in public schools. the Hebdo thing is just piling on to what is already a hostile environment for Muslims....

I really hope this is fishing.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/07/24/its-still-not-easy-being-muslim-in-europe-particularly-in-france/

The 2009 Open Society Institute study paints a deteriorating picture of religious and racial discrimination: 55.8% of Muslim respondents and 43% of non-Muslim respondents, representing a plurality, claim that there is more racial prejudice today than there was 5 y ago; 68.7% of Muslim respondents and 55.9% of non-Muslim respondents make that claim with regard to religious prejudice, and more than 90% of both Muslim and non-Muslim respondents agree that Muslims are the ones experiencing this religious prejudice.

There were what, 3, 4 individuals involved in the Hebdo? There were 'retribution' attacks all over France against Muslims and their property following the incident.

Yeah but stuff like this doesn't get discussed usually.

Those incidents got reported on and discussed. They just pale in comparison to the atrocities being committed by radical Muslims against Christians and Jews, and that's the much bigger story (and rightfully so).

 

[FlapJacks]

Another thing to consider in the Hebdo situation is the French law against the Hijab in public schools. the Hebdo thing is just piling on to what is already a hostile environment for Muslims....

I really hope this is fishing.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/07/24/its-still-not-easy-being-muslim-in-europe-particularly-in-france/

The 2009 Open Society Institute study paints a deteriorating picture of religious and racial discrimination: 55.8% of Muslim respondents and 43% of non-Muslim respondents, representing a plurality, claim that there is more racial prejudice today than there was 5 y ago; 68.7% of Muslim respondents and 55.9% of non-Muslim respondents make that claim with regard to religious prejudice, and more than 90% of both Muslim and non-Muslim respondents agree that Muslims are the ones experiencing this religious prejudice.

There were what, 3, 4 individuals involved in the Hebdo? There were 'retribution' attacks all over France against Muslims and their property following the incident.

Yeah but stuff like this doesn't get discussed usually.

I don't recall any moderate French leaders denouncing the retribution attacks....

 

[FlapJacks]

Another thing to consider in the Hebdo situation is the French law against the Hijab in public schools. the Hebdo thing is just piling on to what is already a hostile environment for Muslims....

I really hope this is fishing.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/07/24/its-still-not-easy-being-muslim-in-europe-particularly-in-france/

The 2009 Open Society Institute study paints a deteriorating picture of religious and racial discrimination: 55.8% of Muslim respondents and 43% of non-Muslim respondents, representing a plurality, claim that there is more racial prejudice today than there was 5 y ago; 68.7% of Muslim respondents and 55.9% of non-Muslim respondents make that claim with regard to religious prejudice, and more than 90% of both Muslim and non-Muslim respondents agree that Muslims are the ones experiencing this religious prejudice.

I meant the bolded.

In a country where this is already a lot of tension and bigotry regarding Islam, you don't see how the Hebdo cartoons could be seen as having a strain of Islamophobia to them?

 

[General Tso]

Another thing to consider in the Hebdo situation is the French law against the Hijab in public schools. the Hebdo thing is just piling on to what is already a hostile environment for Muslims....

I really hope this is fishing.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/07/24/its-still-not-easy-being-muslim-in-europe-particularly-in-france/

The 2009 Open Society Institute study paints a deteriorating picture of religious and racial discrimination: 55.8% of Muslim respondents and 43% of non-Muslim respondents, representing a plurality, claim that there is more racial prejudice today than there was 5 y ago; 68.7% of Muslim respondents and 55.9% of non-Muslim respondents make that claim with regard to religious prejudice, and more than 90% of both Muslim and non-Muslim respondents agree that Muslims are the ones experiencing this religious prejudice.

There were what, 3, 4 individuals involved in the Hebdo? There were 'retribution' attacks all over France against Muslims and their property following the incident.

Yeah but stuff like this doesn't get discussed usually.

I don't recall any moderate French leaders denouncing the retribution attacks....

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/25/after-charlie-hebdo-attacks-french-muslims-face-increased-threats.html

In a wide-ranging and impassioned speech before Frances National Assembly the week after the attacks, Prime Minister Manuel Valls called protecting the nations Muslims urgent. They, too, are worried. Unacceptable, intolerable anti-Muslim acts have taken place again these past few days. There again, attacking a mosque, a church, a place of prayer, desecrating a cemetery is an affront to our values, he said, pledging to ensure the protection of places of worship across the country. Islam is Frances second religion. It has its rightful place in France.