Are "Draw Muhammad" events free speech?

It is free but not honest. What they really mean is we don’t like Muslims.

Yes, sometimes I wish there was more honesty about things like this. I hate homophobia as much as the next guy, but I saw someone calling homosexuality a perversion and disgusting describe himself as a “proud homophobe”. Say what you want about it, it was at least honest.

So while it may be covered under free speech, to act as if these people were doing this to be noble 1st amendment warriors is a bit inaccurate; they were really doing it (most of them at least) to spite Muslims.

Technically free speech, yes, but I agree with both of you in that they’re cowards hiding behind free speech, when what they’re really saying is that Muslims are evil scum.

I do agree with the people who think it has everything to do with provocation to hopefully incite something, because then it leads to their “proof” that all Muslims are evil. But I don’t necessarily think that saying the organizers were deliberately provoking violence is akin to saying that Muslims are inherently violent.

Every religion on the planet has fanatics, and some people from each of them would be willing to do similar things. If the majority in this country were Muslim and they then held a “Draw Jesus” event (or whatever else), the same things would happen.

The difference between these kinds of events and rape is that most women (I’m fairly confident in making the following claim), don’t ever put an outfit on to intentionally get the attention of crazy rapists – but the people who put those kind of events on? Well… I’m not so confident to make the same kind of claim about them not wanting attention from crazy shooters, because they absolutely have an agenda.

yes.

@DominicY: “Is blaming the people who draw Muhammad for violent reactions like blaming women for being raped?”

yes

Radical muslim maniacs have a lot to be offended by, must be a hard life…bless.

I should add that I’m not saying that, ultimately, the people who put the event on can be blamed for the shooting, because I don’t feel that way at all. Everyone is responsible for their own actions. No one but the shooters made the decision to pull the trigger.

However, I just don’t buy that the people who put these events on aren’t intentionally trying to stir things up. And it’s for that reason that I don’t think it’s the same as, or even very fair, to compare it to blaming women for being raped.

This thread is going to continue to include an analysis of the intentions of the people drawing the cartoons, and that is the problem. Period. The fact is, there is no intention that is relevant when we are discussing people killing or attempting to kill people for painting a picture.

@hominid I both agree and disagree with you. It is relevant in the sense that, to fanatics especially, the intentions of the people drawing that kind of a picture do matter. To anyone with a true sense of morality, however, no, it doesn’t make one iota of a difference.

Anyway, I’m not going to ramble. But my main point still stays, and it’s that I don’t personally feel that it’s the same as blaming women for being raped for what they wear

As opposed to what?

Yes, of course it is free speech. Just like the Westboro Baptist Church people.

Not speech that I agree with, but we live in a country where people can pretty much say what they want.

Consider this, to those people who consider this as hate speech and want to control and censor it. Where do you stop? Who decides whose speech can be heard?

Not all speech is free. Crying fire in an auditorium and Inflammatory actions like flying a Nazi or Confederate flag and race baiting and religion baiting is or should be prohibited by law. However, when illegal acts occur the use of courts is appropriate, not shooting people.

Legally it is free speech. Ethically it is reprehensible. The only reason for the meeting is to provoke anger. One appropriate response is for people of all faiths to peacefully picket the event, thereby exercising their right to free speech.

If I know there’s a probability of an angry and even violent reaction from a group of people if I say something they’re very emotionally sensitive to—then the only reason for my doing so is to “prove” how violent and angry they are.

“Well that sort of implies that violence is the natural Muslim reaction to these types of events.” The shooters were more than welcome to protest the event.

I have no problem with the event because they’re just drawings and I feel that people shouldn’t cave in to asinine religious demands.

Free speech does not cover incitements to violence. Knowing that their actions will cause violence, the organisers are actually breaking the law if they did it in many other states or countries.

It has nothing to do with women and rape. No woman is inviting the violent crime of rape whatever she is wearing.

Doing something that is expressly abhorrent to practitioners of a faith and has been known to incite violence is deliberately provocative of a strong reaction. Just as the Charlie Hebdo cartoons were meant to provoke. However, violence and killing are still not justifiable.

The exception for this part of ‘Freedom of Speech’ is put in to protect those that are easily encited as well as those who may be the victims of that violence. We know how silly, superstitious and easily lead people can be. It is just how they are.

I’m in the minority here, and I’m surprised. Consider me someone who wants his mind changed. To see where I may be initially coming from – so you can target my concerns – here’s what seems clear to me:

- The freedom of speech – including the ability to hold and express unpopular and offensive opinions – is one of the most important rights we have/should have. Everything else we care about is only possible to the extent we have free speech.
– We don’t support free speech if we only support speech that we like. This is why the ACLU correctly supports the KKK’s right to expression.
– There is plenty of room in a civilized society for people to say asinine and hateful things – and be ridiculed or ignored for such things. There is no room in this world, however, for people who will murder people for holding and/or expressing views that they find offensive.
– When cartoonists are murdered, it doesn’t matter what we think of the content of the cartoons. The content is irrelevant. Once we start asking about the content of words/drawings to see whether we find them tasteful or not, we’ve forgotten what we stand for. We’re blaming the victim – and making it unsafe for all of us. While I will admit the rape metaphor has proven a distraction because it doesn’t exactly match here, there is no question that to ask what Charlie Hebdo wrote/drew is objectively to ask what they were wearing.
– If Westboro Baptist decided to move from picketing to killing, I’m not sure we’d see the same response here. Would we ask how flamboyant murdered homosexuals were being, or question their need to express themselves when they know that they will be provoking offense and violence?
– I think there is a real need for activism here. If the problem is that there are people who feel it is morally justified to murder cartoonists – and they actually carry out their actions – then there is a need to protect all of us by not being silent and just saying that we won’t provoke them.

Honestly, please convince me that I’m wrong. What am I missing? Why does it seem that most of the reasonable, liberal people here are taking what appears to be a decidedly illiberal position on free speech and murder?

@hominid – GA. You’ll find the responses quite different when discussing Christian sacrilege like the Piss Christ image. I was surprised to see people willing to limit Free Speech just because Muslims were offended.

I agree with you as well @hominid. Now I agree with others to say that the action was provocative and that the people who participated in this event were probably doing it because they hated Muslims more than because they love free speech so much. But at the same time, I am defending it as free speech. It is a form of blaming the victim. The victim doesn’t have to be noble or great, but a victim they still are.

@hominid – 100% in agreement with your statements

I didn’t say it wasn’t an exercise of free speech – just as the nazis marching through Skokie was free speech. I’m not justifying violence against them. I’m just saying it seems to be deliberately provocative.

It is free speech. It is also hate speech.

Well, did you know that in some courts, after someone has burned a cross in the front yard of another person’s home, after initially being found guilty of a hate crime, they were exonerated in a higher court on the basis of free speech. It all sounds crazy to me. If you think it was some southern backward state, think again. It was Minnesota.

Blaming the participants for the actions of murdering scum is rather like pointing the finger at the jews for having the audacity to be born & raised in nazi Germany.

@ucme What would your reaction be to people who violently protested the Nazi gatherings?

Authoritarians of all types react more emotionally. There’s neuroscientific evidence that they have more active and larger amygdalas. This likely goes for various types of nationalists, right-wing conservatives, doctrinaire Marxists, fundamentalist religionists. You know the type.

“Well that sort of implies that violence is the natural Muslim reaction to these types of events. Is that so? Is blaming the people who draw Muhammad for violent reactions like blaming women for being raped?”

I really don’t like this line of thinking. Firstly, it’s generalising Muslims. Lots of Muslims may be offended, hurt and angry by these sorts of events. The vast majority of them don’t go out to kill anyone over it. So, no. Violence is not a “natural Muslim reaction”. It’s the reaction of a few Muslims.

Nor do I think it’s like blaming women for being raped. It superficially follows the form of “they made me do it”, but the underlying psychological factors are different. Focusing on the most murderous reaction misses those who are merely insulted and angry. The types of reactions probably fall along a spectrum ranging from indifference to the most visceral rage.

I’m all for free speech—likely more radically than anyone here. I’m even for shouting “FIRE!” in a crowded theatre as free speech. Anything less than free is called “conditional speech” and “regulated speech”—that’s what most people really advocate when they say “free speech”.

But, what free speech entails is—and I’ll borrow that often misused and overly parroted right-wing chestnut—personal responsibility. Speech and forms of expression are powerful. Human communication forms the basis of our culture and our knowledge. It can pacify people, and it can start wars.

As an anti-authoritarian, I want to promote a more thinking world, one where people don’t react with irrational emotions. This is why I have to be for free speech. A regulated world is an authoritarian one.

The organisers of this event aren’t for free speech. They’re there to perpetuate the emotive reactions—a symbiotic relationship of mutually justifying indignation. They feed off the most violent reactions as justification for their own dogmatic beliefs.

If they really wanted Muslims to change—to become less offended and less sensitive to insult—then they would use their freedom of speech and expression to pacify them, to build bridges, to understand them, to find common ground. They won’t, because they don’t give a fuck about that. They like that they’re angry, and the most fundamentalist Islamists like that right-wing Westerners stoke the hornet’s nest of Muslim ire for pretty much the same reasons.

I would say that the ‘Draw Mohammad’ stunts mostly resemble this case study, and if lawyers wanted to have a go, I’d say this might be their route:
With the increase of activity in cyberspace, individuals can distribute questionable speech throughout the U.S. and the world. In Planned Parenthood of the Columbia/Willamette Inc. v. American Coalition of Life Activists, 290 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2002), a federal appeals court ruled that an anti-abortion web site was not protected by the First Amendment. The web site posted photos, names, addresses, and other information pertaining to Abortion providers, their family members, and others who were perceived as supporting abortion rights. Although neither the site nor the posters made explicit threats against the abortion providers, violence at clinics that provided abortions had followed poster distribution in the past. Planned Parenthood sued the group under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act of 1994 (FACE), 18 U.S.C. § 248, and other laws. The trial judge instructed the jury that if the defendants’ statements were “true threats,” the First Amendment would not protect them. The jury awarded the plaintiff a multimillion-dollar verdict. The Ninth Circuit stated that a jury could conclude that the postings constituted a true threat under FACE, which removed any First Amendment protection for the defendants.

Hate baiting at best.

@hominid You’re not wrong and all of your points were valid.

I’m having some trouble understanding myself. What else should we have the freedom to do, but not do, due to fear of death? Shopping on Sunday? Wearing polyester/cotton blends? It’s not about the cartoons for me, it’s about not caving to the demands of something clearly ridiculous.

@Kropotkin “to build bridges, to understand them, to find common ground.”

Let’s be honest here, if you’re to the point to murder over depicting your god, no one’s going to be able to pacify you or build a bridge with you via diplomacy.

@Kropotkin – You bring up some good points – especially about strategy. You would object to strategy on grounds that it isn’t as effective as others. But we have a long history of social action and it’s never quite clear that one strategy is always the best choice. Is it possible that we need to approach the problem of fundamentalist violence using different approaches? Some people (my grandparents’ generation) would likely have come to fluther if it had existed to complain that sit-ins and direct action were just promoting violence and looking to stoke the hornet’s nest. They might have advocated for building bridges and finding common ground. Would they have been wrong?

@Blackberry: “It’s not about the cartoons for me, it’s about not caving to the demands of something clearly ridiculous.”

Note: If the opposition to cartoons came in the form of protest and more speech, then I don’t think we’d have a problem. I’d even be willing to discuss the content of the cartoons or that “draw mohammad” contest. But once we have a force that is attempting to demolish free speech (which means the end to everything else we value), then the problem can only be those who wish to kill and end free speech.

I get that everyone is trying to express how much they oppose the content of Charlie Hebdo or people depicting Mohammad in paintings (or atheist bloggers). I understand. You find it to be “offensive” and “hate speech”. Do you find it odd, however, that the we’re tripping over each other to explain how much you didn’t like the opinions/art/politics/or strategy of people who have been murdered (or attempted to in this case)? Are you ok with this because you disagree with the politics/opinions/etc? And are you ok with being ok with this for this reason? You don’t have any pause when you go to write about how awful the people at Charlie Hebdo who were murdered were? None?

Re: my post above – does anyone have any time to clear up my confusion about those points? Would they be willing to explain why I’m wrong about this?

@Blackberry I don’t see any reason to focus on the most extreme cases, since they’re a statistical outlier. Most Muslims don’t react violently, and I’d have to assume that many would be merely angry and insulted to some degree, and some even completely indifferent—but that doesn’t make a good news story, nor does it fuel popular prejudices and stereotypes.

@hominid You’re right. It is nuanced, and I don’t know for sure, but I suppose it depends on the intent and intellectual honesty of a given strategy.

The latest relevant SCOTUS rulings I’m aware of stated that “hate speech” is specifically and explicitly exempt from the free speech provision of the First Amendment if it provokes or incites imminent violence.

As for implying violence is the natural reaction from Muslims, natural or not, there is enough precedent for there to at least be a heightened risk, so it’s Reckless Endangerment at best. Of course Christians are also known for violence (just ask Dr. Tiller) but it’s far less common.

Therefore it is reasonable to assume that a “Draw Muhammed” event will lead to violence, and there is no doubt that this event was designed to offend, therefore no, I cannot see how it could possibly be protected by the US Constitution.

@Jaxk One difference between “Piss Christ” and this is that the artist of “Piss Christ” was making a statement about the commercialization and thus cheapening of Christ icons in modern culture (at least according to the artist) whereas “Draw Muhammed” is far less ambiguous in it’s blasphemy. And when one of their keynote speakers is known for anti-Islamist views, that doesn’t help any claims that this event wasn’t designed to be anything other than anti-Islamist.

So if the speech is offensive or if we don’t like the person saying it, it’s not free speech, it’s hate speech. Or if there are some that would react poorly then we should be censored. Seems like some pretty broad exceptions. I don’t see those in the text, probably a typographical error.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

@Jaxk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law_in_the_United_States

Also; Under the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, ‘hate speech’ is constitutionally protected unless the circumstances of the case indicate that the speaker intended to threaten violence or provoke an immediate act of violence.

Read; http://amsterdamlawforum.org/article/view/103/184

As in telling people to kill black people, or telling people to go kill a cop. In some states, burning a cross in a public place is OK or on a person’s lawn is ok, but in some states it is not. Or as I stated above with the listing of the staff’s names and addresses from abortion clinics on pro-life websites.

@zenvelo As far as i’m aware, people drawing cartoons are not overly keen on genocide & such like, although that’s yet to be confirmed.

@ucme The organizer of the event is rabidly anti-Islam.

.

Yes, they are free speech.
I heard today that the winner depicted an artist sitting in front of Mohammad sketching him.
Mohammad says, “You can’t draw me.”
Artist, “That’s why I’m doing it.”

Hardly worth 2 deaths.

^ here

Thanks, @hominid. I was going by the verbal depiction on NPR.

@Jaxk Actually, no. One of the SCOTUS cases was Snyder v Phelps where they ruled 8–1 that the actions of the WBC, while unpopular and to some distressing, were protected. Merely holding picket signs that lack violent message like “Kill ____!” or “All ___ must die!” is free speech. Doing so in a peaceful manner that doesn’t violate statutes like trespassing is protected.

However, inciting a riot is not constitutionally protected, nor are assault, vandalism, accessory to murder. Read the italics; I emphasized that portion for a reason.

“[H]ate speech” is specifically and explicitly exempt from the free speech provision of the First Amendment if it provokes or incites imminent violence”.

That is the distinction.

”…PROVOKES OR INCITES IMMINENT VIOLENCE”

What part of the Constitution gives the right to be violent? The Second Amendment gives you the right to bear arms in case you need to protect yourself, but nowhere in there does it say you have the right to shoot people for no reason other than you feel like it.

@jerv – You may be misreading my point here. In the decision you cite Justice Roberts said:

“What Westboro said, in the whole context of how and where it chose to say it, is entitled to ‘special protection’ under the First Amendment and that protection cannot be overcome by a jury finding that the picketing was outrageous.”

You may think the cartoons were outrageous but they did not call for violence. Nor does the history of the organizer diminish his rights under ‘Free Speech’. Political and religious cartoons are provocative. That is the whole point. The winning cartoon actually portrays the intention of the exercise quite well and gives meaning to why it was called a Free Speech event.

Just because you don’t like it doesn’t make it ‘Hate Speech’.

The great divide is that among their mindset they’re now martyrs and among the rest of the world (certainly the West), it was just a needless waste of two lives.

The ultimate question is, ‘How do you bridge, or reconcile, those two beliefs?’

Maybe we should be dropping leaflets on the enemy?
Equal opportunity?
Cute.
Do you think they would believe they were from the West? Or, if they believed, would the cartoons just reinforce out infidelism?

still relevant

@Jaxk If the world operated in such an ideal manner that we didn’t even need laws because everyone behaved, I would agree with you. However, it is precisely because the world is not the utopian paradise that you seem to think it is that we are at odds here. That is also why we disagree so often on other issues.

I assume that you are familiar with history enough to know that Muslim extremists are a little touchier about blasphemy than most others, and also have enough pattern recognition to know that if the last umpteen time that some did X that Y happened to be able to figure out how causation works. I respect you too much to insult you by assuming otherwise. And it’s that divergence between ideal and real, that are why I feel it was incitement.

Surely you didn’t think Charlie Hebdo was an isolated incident that happened in a total vacuum with no precedent and no possibility of a repeat, did you?

@zenvelo & the misguided folks who agreed with you…entirely irrelevant.

I best stop with the Hitler gags for fear of neo nazi skinhead cuntmuffins beating up on me.
Err, no, fuck off & when you get there, fuck off some more until you’ve properly fucked off.

@jerv – Just a note, I don’t want to waste a lot of time on this. Hebdo published 12 Muhammed cartoons in 2006. The Terrorists attacked them in 2015, 9 years later. Hardly imminent. You do what you’re told if that’s what you think is best, lest you be guilty of ‘Hate Speech’. Unfortunately I’ve never been good at doing what I’m told.

Let us look at what happened. The organiser was ‘rabidly anti-muslim’. The end result were dead Muslims. Can we imagine that perhaps he is very pleased at the outcome?

I thought the organiser was a woman, saw her being interviewed on the news.

@cazzie: “Let us look at what happened. The organiser was ‘rabidly anti-muslim’.”

Ok. I’m not sure if that’s entirely accurate or has any place in a discussion of any kind. Can you elaborate on this? It’s quite possible that Pamela Gellar loathes people who are Muslim. But this smear, along with the whole “Islamophobia” nonsense has been nothing but a conversation-stopper and reactionary attempt to stifle people who criticize beliefs (Islam). So, even if she is confused and a bigot, what exactly does this have to do with anything here?

@cazzie: “The end result were dead Muslims. Can we imagine that perhaps he is very pleased at the outcome?”

Pamela Gellar is a woman. Whether or not she is pleased, I’m not sure what you’re getting at here?

I was riffing on the comment by someone else that the organiser was a major islamaphobe. I don’t care who organised it, really. I didn’t know the person’s name. I used ‘he’ as a general idea… like saying ‘they’. Don’t care who it was.

@hominid how do you feel about websites that list the names and addresses of people who work at family planning clinics?

@cazzie: ”@hominid how do you feel about websites that list the names and addresses of people who work at family planning clinics?”

I am opposed to this. (and very curious where you’re going with the question)

If you read my comparison earlier, you’d know. So, why, exactly are you against people knowing who and where they work? It is perfectly legal, what they do. I know loads of people who advertise proudly where they work as a doctor or a nurse. Why shouldn’t they?

@cazzie: “If you read my comparison earlier, you’d know.”

Still not following. I can’t find any connection between publicly revealing peoples’ personal information vs. drawing pictures.

‘Personal information’ is a very relative term. So is ‘drawing pictures’.

@cazzie: ”‘Personal information’ is a very relative term. So is ‘drawing pictures’.”

I think the best thing I could do right now is to bow out of this discussion. I’m not sure we’re talking about the same thing.

I thought we were talking about inciting violence through acts disguised as ‘free speech’.

Tracing through this thread I draw one conclusion, viewpoints can get animated which can easel-y lead to sketchy remarks, this puts the original question in the shade & paints a muddled picture, one which can’t be brushed off lightly.

As a point of law it seems quite clear at the moment. The reasons behind it don’t matter. Whether you be a crazy ‘Right to Life’er’ hell bent on blowing up clinics and killing doctors who perform abortions, or if you are a nutjob extremist willing to kill someone for drawing something you don’t like. It will get tested in a court of law soon in the US. I’ll be watching. From a safe distance.

Pamela Geller will become another Westboro Baptist Church IMO. A canker that ultimately does their opponent more good than harm. I give Westboro a significant amount of credit in turning the tide on the gay marriage debate.
This was an important step for Pam – national exposure as a nutjob that provoked two Muslim deaths and responded by saying, “We should do this once a month.”

This was the biggest pity after the 2 deaths and the injury:
(CNN) It’s possible you’d never heard of Pamela Geller before Sunday night’s tragic attack in…
Now we have heard of her.

Pray she’s a Westboro and not a Limbaugh, longevity wise.

@Jaxk The 2006 cartoons were attacked almost immediately, but in the courtroom. No real problem there, aside from the fact that the court cases were a hell of a lot less than 9 years later; they were a timely counter with an incontrovertible chain of causation.

However, there is also the 2011 incident where they were firebombed and their computers hacked practically instantly upon publishing a special Charia Hebdo. It’s possible that it was due partly to a feeling that justice was not served in 2006, but I can’t say for certain. What I can say is that ( 2015 – 2011 ) < 9, that 3 > 1, and that 1 November is pretty damn close to 31 October. In other words, 2006 isn’t the most recent incident, that there have been multiple incidents, and that the second attack happened closely enough to the incitement that, again, the “cause and effect” relationship is obvious enough that Stevie Wonder can see it.

Two bad things happening almost immediately after doing a certain thing would give me pause before doing the same thing a third time, especially if the second time was worse. When I see multiple data points, I tend to draw lines or curves as appropriate; unlike goldfish with Alzheimer’s, I am capable of that sort of extrapolation.

I’ve never been good at doing what I’m told either. How I wound up at Captain’s Mast only twice is a mystery to me. What I am good at is pattern recognition, and I’m not bad at trend analysis either. If you wish to be persistent in your belief that the Constitution is the ultimate shield against all harm and thus precludes the need for any common sense whatsoever then I won’t stop you, but I sure as hell will disagree with you.

With all your wisdom and trend analysis, think about this, two guys went to a conference that was surrounded by armed guards. They went there with the intention to kill people. Do you suppose that there is a causal effect from their actions and their being shot dead. Instead of blaming the cartoonist, it may be more appropriate to blame the guys that we hell bent on killing people. Frankly I don’t grieve for their loss.

@Jaxk which speaks volumes about which way you are bent and it has nothing to do with the Constitution or being a caring citizen following the spirit of the law. You want blood. Simple as that. The fact that the event was ‘surrounded by armed guards’ speaks VOLUMES! They expected to incite violence. That was their only motivation. And I don’t don’t care WHY. I don’t give a shit why or who or what the names of the event organisers are. They were there to incite violence. People were bound to end up dead and the organisers were going to use the deaths .. DEATHS of human beings, just to prove a point and THAT is not OK.

You realize that if the possibility of violence was a limiting factor on speech, the civil rights demonstrations of the 60s and 70s would have not happened.

Those groups were about civil rights. They actually had an agenda that was well laid out and defined and backed by your constitution which you claim to love and defend. It was about the ability of EVERYONE to cast a vote and legally attend an school they had a right to attend. There is NO WAY you can compare what those groups were trying to achieve to what this group is, so narrowly and pathetically, trying to achieve.

Then you tell me, what is this group trying to achieve? Because right now, it looks like it is trying to entice sad, angry young men who have been overcome with despair to commit suicide by cop.

I’m sorry, I may have misunderstood. You don’t want to abridge the freedom of speech for the good people, only those you don’t like. Who gets to judge?

The judges in the USA get to judge and have done for a long time. And it has NOTHING to do with who you or I like. You’re wrong. I don’t like those stupid sods who fall for that muslim and ISIS crap. I also don’t like those assholes who shave their heads and march with swastikas, but they get to march. I also don’t like people who take public information from telephone books and put it on the internet so militant groups can target specific employees in a specific field and the court has judged that THEY don’t get to do that anymore according to judges.

I don’t like people who burn crosses on lawns, but THEY get to do that according to judges.

It doesn’t matter who ‘we like’. THAT is the entire point. And, just for the record. I like very few people and I’m liking fewer and fewer every day.

Westboro Baptist Church is the closest analogy I can come up with, and when their behavior was taken to the Supreme Court, the majority opinion stated:
“What Westboro said, in the whole context of how and where it chose to say it, is entitled to ‘special protection’ under the First Amendment and that protection cannot be overcome by a jury finding that the picketing was outrageous.”

If Albert Snyder had recruited a couple of his son’s military buddies to assault Westboro, the result would likely have been the same as it was in Texas.

@cazzie, do you still like me?

@Jaxk So you blame Martin Luther King Jr for his own death? Or are you saying that no matter what your beliefs, it is stupid to be willing to die for them and thus we should still be a British colony?

Who gets to judge? From your words, not just here but also over the years, it seems to me that the only ones allowed to judge are you and those who agree with you. I really do have a sneaking suspicion that if the cartoonists were mocking something you like and the gunmen were Conservative Christians, your opinion would be opposite.

Then again, I don’t share your literal interpretation of the US Constitution as-written without regard for anything that would put it in the context of the realities of modern society; I view it as a living document that occasionally needs interpretation for those cases that our founding fathers did/could not foresee. The fact that we even have a Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution or a legislature with the power to amend it proves that even they recognized that there is a need for non-literal interpretation and even occasional amendment of the Constitution.

Yes, the two gunmen were in the wrong; I won’t deny that. However, they were also an easily foreseeable and preventable consequence of the actions of the cartoonists, which is enough to legally qualify as Reckless Endangerment. I actually agree with the theory behind some of what you say, but wind up disagreeing anyways simply because I know the world isn’t an ideal place that always follows the rules. And we’ll keep on disagreeing until I feel you recognize that there is a difference between reality and the realm of theory and ideals.

I argue that the action of creating the cartoons has no value what so ever and it is nothing but a stunt to create a confrontational situation that will end in violence. That’s it. No redeeming features to this and I find it offensive that it would be compared to Civil Rights marches.

@jerv – Here goes another futile exercise. I have no idea how you come up with the interpretations you do but let me try to make it simple. IF you take a gun and try to kill people, it’s not the gun’s fault nor is it the fault of the people you try to shoot, it’s the shooter’s fault. If you believe in your ideology so strongly that you feel you need to kill people, you must be willing to suffer the consequences of your actions. You can not force me to comply with your ideology or your religion, at gun point. Freedom of Speech is an essential part of our liberty and is the first amendment for a reason. The supreme court has found that satire is a valid form of free speech and upheld even the most offensive forms of speech.

The Islamic Terrorists obviously felt strong enough to try to kill for their beliefs. Likewise the cartoonists believed strong enough in their free speech rights to put their lives in jeopardy. The difference is that the cartoonists were following the law while the terrorists were murdering thugs. Nothing about this incident will get to the Supreme Court because it has all been previously decided. It’s Free Speech.

Well, gosh. Those people who burn and stomp on the US flag had better be left alone, too.

They are. In fact the woman that tried to stop the flag from being walked on, was arrested just recently. Right or wrong, it’s all free speech.

The Supreme Court ruled in Schenck v. United States (1919) that freedom of speech did not include speech that would incite actions that would harm others. This includes shouting fire in a theater, etc. I do not envy the courts in dealing with this type of case now that many people can be incited to violence by the words of others. I suppose the courts will need to take in to account the reasons behind the action claimed to be free speech (there is a difference between this cartoon contest in the US and the Danish newspaper cartoonist).

People need to learn that they do not have a right to not be offended by what others do or say.

Here is a rather interesting legal perspective on hate speech that pertains to this discussion. Note that when they talk about speech that would incite violence, they frame it as speech that would incite violence in a “REASONABLE’ person. When looking at this religious violence, I don’t think we’re talking about reasonable people.

Are people who kill abortion doctors reasonable?

@cazzie – No. It’s not legal either.

@Jaxk When looking at this religious violence, I don’t think we’re talking about reasonable people.

I would agree with you on this, and I think this would include those who are mongering a reaction as well as those who are reacting.

@Yetanotheruser – Maybe not but speech is different than actions. The Cross burning that the Supreme court ruled on, is a good example. They ruled that the message was not illegal, it was free speech. That doesn’t mean that burning the Cross was legal (action). The boy that did it could have been charged and convicted on a number of charges, Trespassing, destruction of property, reckless endangerment, and so on. It was only the speech that was legal and he doesn’t have to be reasonable to say it (hate speech seldom is). Think of the old adage ‘Actions speak louder than words’. The actions can be regulated, the words can not.

Like I said, a difficult job for the courts. They must prevent actions like those that will kill abortion doctors, but avoid decisions that would kill off freedom of speech altogether.

Using the standard of “reasonable” is getting more and more difficult. There always seems to be some extremist who will resort to violence if someone criticises their world view.

The moral of the story is if you must sketch the Prophet Muhammad you’d better be quick on the draw.

@Jaxk And if you go up to someone with a gun and dare them to shoot you, the equation changes. If you wish to prove that provocation doesn’t exist, then I am interested to hear your take on the laws of cause and effect.

” When looking at this religious violence, I don’t think we’re talking about reasonable people.”

I do agree with that, though I would add that reasonable people should be used to certain brands of unreasonable behavior. In your soapbox speech about the inviolability of constitutional rights, you may not have noticed that there are certain actions that dramatically increase the likelihood of being targeted by violent Muslim extremists. While their actions may be excessive, they are not random.

In fact, I agree that the cartoonists should be able to exercise their right to free speech by committing a blasphemous act. Where you and I disagree is whether or not one has the duty to suffer the repercussions of their actions. A reasonable person could foresee the reactions of unreasonable people the same way that any trained gunmen can foresee recoil when they pull the trigger. Or are you saying that since not all drunk drivers get in accidents that DUI is okay? That’s where I am confused by how you get your interpretations.

It is a refreshing experience to agree with someone who you usually disagree with. Thanks, @Jaxk.

@jerv

” if you go up to someone with a gun and dare them to shoot you, the equation changes.”

No it doesn’t. If they shoot you they are to blame not you. A reasonable person would not shoot. I think you’re operating on the same premise as some of the idiot talking heads on TV. They think that if the event in Texas had not occurred, those Jihadists would not have tried to kill anyone. That simply isn’t true. Those maniacs were killers and the Mohammed was merely a convenient excuse for killing. If they don’t have that they simply kill for no reason. The Muslim that beheaded the woman in OK, The Boston Marathon bombing, The list goes on and on with no depictions of Mohammed. They don’t need it to kill. There have been 75 terrorist attacks in the US which have killed 3,103 Americans that were not inspired by depictions of Mohammed.

Believe what ever you wish, you have that right. You can even say whatever you like thanks to the 1st amendment. I can also say what I like but trying to shift the blame from those killers to the cartoonists, won’t fly. God help us if that ever changes.

@Jaxk I’m not shifting the blame, just distributing it to all who have culpability. But you’re going to believe otherwise anyways, so I’ll leave you to your Islamophobic idealism in a fantasy world where everything is black or white.

@jerv: ”...Islamophobic…”

And here it is. At least it took 90 comments before its appearance.

@hominid – You can’t blame @jerv , I provoked him. It’s entirely justifiable to lose control when someone provokes you. Or so I hear.

Is there any reason not to call Pam Geller herself Islamophobic? Just sticking my two cents in and then I’ll bow out.

@janbb: “Is there any reason not to call Pam Geller herself Islamophobic?”

In this context it has no relevance. We’re likely not going to talk about how tall she is or whether she plays golf. The only thing that’s relevant is whether she, and everyone else (my kids and I included), will continue to have the right to express ourselves without being murdered (or considerable threat of being murdered).

We don’t need to speak parenthetically in any other context when people are under threat for speech, and either killed or attempts have been made. We don’t find it appropriate or relevant to try to figure out what Freddie Gray’s views on evolution are, or start talking about whether or not murdered abortion providers abused their wives, or whether Trayvon Martin might hold views you find “offensive”. Why start here?

Geller is probably a piece of shit. But what she did is exercise a right that we all have. One that’s important for all of us who care about progress and liberal values. It’s objectively a conservative position to say that we have figured it all out and we no longer need free speech, and start evaluating the content of speech to see if we’re able to “distribute” blame for people killing people over drawing or being “offensive”. We don’t distribute blame to Trayvon for wearing a hoodie, or to women for their clothing or walking alone, or to non-whites all over the country for running from the cops. It’s mind-blowing that many people are suddenly pivoting and shifting their whole outlook on this. If we are to distribute some of the blame to the cartoonists or film-makers or atheist bloggers, then we are either holding the wrong postion in this case, or we are way off re: everything else.

@janbb I would say she is, yes. No reason to not say it except that calling someone “Islamophobic” and other terms like that is often an excuse to silence the other person’s argument and ignore everything they have to say (and yes I feel that way about “homophobic” sometimes, even as “a gay”), which seems to be the context it was used in by jerv. I didn’t see anything Islamophobic in what @Jaxk said; it’s just true. People like the shooters were looking for an excuse. If the cartoon contest hadn’t come along, something else would have.

@hominid Completely agreed. What this thread has revealed is that my views on free speech are pretty extreme. Unless you are making death threats, I’m probably going to defend your right to say what you’re saying.

Well, I believe I have one last thing to say. Some people squander their First Amendment right by having nothing to say, or worse…. by having nothing but shit in their mouth.

@hominid – I wish I had said that!! Except for the part about being liberal

I agree with @hominid . What Geller did is wrong, but not in a legal sense. Satire can be useful when it exaggerates or pokes fun of something you disapprove of, but there is no logic to celebrating free speech by doing something whose only purpose is to get people upset. Nevertheless, people have a Constitutional right to act like a#holes.

I just wish that 1) The press didn’t act like common blowflies.
and 2) There wasn’t so much verbal and media-stunt fecal-matter that used said blowflies to their means and ends.