Shooting at Mohammed "art" contest

[GoIrish41]

When was the last time the GOP proposed a bill that would ban gay marriage or abortion at the Federal level? And it's telling that your idea of the American "far right" is exemplified by two issues that are important to many religious conservatives, who are completely marginalized in the GOP at the national level. Do you honestly believe your political view represents some kind of broad American consensus?



So what's your policy prescription to stop this from happening in the future? Blasphemy laws? And would you willing to extend those protections to Christianity as well as Islam?

No holding people accountable when their speech affects the safety of others. We cannot prosecute Muslims for believing in Islam and we cannot prosecute people for saying what they believe. That is not what was happening at this art contest. This was an action in which provocative speech directly affected public safety no matter how proficient their militant security force. A man got shot. Two others were killed. It would not have happened if not for their purposeful attempt to make it happen. Kind of like yelling "fire" in a crowded movie house. Criminally irresponsible IMO. And the guys who shot the place? Also criminal behavior that clearly put people in danger.

 

[kmoose]

Let's not pretend being a Muslim predisposes one to extremism or that there are literally hundreds or thousands of examples of this in our history. Extremists come in many stripes. IMO one of those stripes look a lot like organizers of this event. We cannot deport every Muslim in the country to avoid the potential that someone may do something in the future based on religion can we. I mean that goes against absolutely everything we are as a country, right? So if we truly have this fear wouldn't the best course of action be to stop poking these dormant terrorist with a stick? It is just irresponsible and puts people at risk! Does't that indifference to things like public safety make them a little dangerous too?

There's no reason to deport anyone, but what is wrong with expecting people to not shoot people just because they feel that their diety was disrespected?

 

[pkt77242]

When was the last time the GOP proposed a bill that would ban gay marriage or abortion at the Federal level? And it's telling that your idea of the American "far right" is exemplified by two issues that are important to many religious conservatives, who are completely marginalized in the GOP at the national level.

This is too easy. It has not chance at passing, but the GOP has for the past 10-15 years talked about amending the constitution to ban gay marriage.
Ted Cruz Introduces Bills to Stop Gay Marriage - Bloomberg Politics

Tim Huelskamp Readies Constitutional Amendment To Ban Gay Marriage

GOP resolution proposes gay marriage ban | TheHill

A good throw back from 2006
Gay Marriage Amendment Fails in Senate

Do you honestly believe your political view represents some kind of broad American consensus?

Can you be more specific, not quite sure what you are referencing, or for that matter why you are stating that.

 

[greyhammer90]

.Kind of like yelling "fire" in a crowded movie house Criminally irresponsible IMO. And the guys who shot the place? Also criminal behavior that clearly put people in danger.

Except it's not... at all.

This:

is classic protected speech. It examines the tension that we are arguing about in this very thread. Under your proposed "law" (or whatever it was) literally all speech that has the potential to be offensive (and thereby incite violence) could be held to be illegal. This would (1) make people afraid to express themselves for fear of it being illegal because it's offensive, and (2) reward the groups with the most violent assholes.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

No holding people accountable when their speech affects the safety of others. We cannot prosecute Muslims for believing in Islam and we cannot prosecute people for saying what they believe. That is not what was happening at this art contest. This was an action in which provocative speech directly affected public safety no matter how proficient their militant security force. A man got shot. Two others were killed. It would not have happened if not for their purposeful attempt to make it happen. Kind of like yelling "fire" in a crowded movie house. Criminally irresponsible IMO. And the guys who shot the place? Also criminal behavior that clearly put people in danger.

The implications of what you're proposing are radical. There are very few exceptions to the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech and expression. Political and religious speech (both positive and negative) is considered "core" First Amendment speech and has been the most protected in American jurisprudence.

Attempting to move religious criticism into the "fighting words and offensive speech" category would gut the law, just as surely as limiting protection for political satire would have a chilling effect on government criticism.

 

[T Town Tommy]

The implications of what you're proposing are radical. There are very few exceptions to the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech and expression. Political and religious speech (both positive and negative) is considered "core" First Amendment speech and has been the most protected in American jurisprudence.

Attempting to move religious criticism into the "fighting words and offensive speech" category would gut the law, just as surely as limiting protection for political satire would have a chilling effect on government criticism.

Where does the "imminent lawless" clause come in to affect? I could see someone making a circular argument - right or wrong - that this whole thing could somehow fall vaguely within those grounds.

 

[NDgradstudent]

Where does the "imminent lawless" clause come in to affect? I could see someone making a circular argument - right or wrong - that this whole thing could somehow fall vaguely within those grounds.

Imminent incitement is (to offer an example) when there is a mob of people outside a building, and somebody yells, 'let's burn it down.' That person can be arrested and is not protected by the First Amendment in the way that he would be for just protesting.

This case is clearly not imminent incitement, because there were no Muslims in the vicinity of this event that they were immediately trying to provoke to harm persons or destroy property. These guys drove from Arizona to do this.

 

[Redbar]

It seems to me that some are making ideological arguments against GoIrish's position, where he is making more of a pragmatic argument. On the ideological side I think we can all agree, ideally people don't shoot other people over artwork. Ideally, people don't get robbed for wearing their Rolex on an evening jog on the wrong side of town. Ideally women don't get raped for their fashion decisions. Ideally a Hasidic Jew, exercising his 1st amendment right to burn a Nazi Flag and an effigy of Hitler while reciting the Torah on a loudspeaker on his newly acquired land next to some skinhead compound, wont get assaulted either. Practically speaking some of those things are pretty reckless. That kind of recklessness isn't even really admirable, because it ranges from dumb to callous to provocative (fashion example excluded).

Also, I can see how GoIrish can posit that someone who is trying to provoke a clash of cultures is an extremist. That is what islamic extremist want right, a clash of cultures? Now, I am certainly not someone who lives in fear of islamic extremism and I certainly don't think it is in any way useful for any American to change their daily lives because of some repercussion from someone who might be offended by us, but that is different from trying to provoke someone. If this contest leads to one attack, and one person is injured or killed because of it, why did that innocent have to die for these provocateurs to prove their point. What about that person's rights. Did he have to back these guys play? Do we all?

 

[Whiskeyjack]

This is too easy. It has not chance at passing, but the GOP has for the past 10-15 years talked about amending the constitution to ban gay marriage.
Ted Cruz Introduces Bills to Stop Gay Marriage - Bloomberg Politics

Tim Huelskamp Readies Constitutional Amendment To Ban Gay Marriage

GOP resolution proposes gay marriage ban | TheHill

A good throw back from 2006
Gay Marriage Amendment Fails in Senate

None of those bills would have made SSM illegal in the states that voted to allow it. DOMA didn't stop Massachusetts from legalizing it in 2004, and many other states from following. Those bills were intended to stop activist Federal judges from over-ruling popularly enacted state bans on SSM. That's pro-federalism.

Can you be more specific, not quite sure what you are referencing, or for that matter why you are stating that.

I misinterpreted where you were going with your argument. You suggested that the GOP is just as bad about forcing policy upon liberal states as the congressional Democrats are about doing the same to conservative states, which is patently false. The GOP is often pathetically weak on defending federalism, and they've occasionally voted against it when their corporate donors would benefit; but those are mostly sins of omission.

It's the Progressives who believe that they're on the "right side of history"; that their opponents are not merely mistaken, but evil; and that the rubes in middle America who "cling to their guns and religion" need to be forcibly converted to the civic religion of secular liberalism or sued out of the public square. I detest the GOP, but on this issue, your team is clearly the villain.

 

[T Town Tommy]

Imminent incitement is (to offer an example) when there is a mob of people outside a building, and somebody yells, 'let's burn it down.' That person can be arrested and is not protected by the First Amendment in the way that he would be for just protesting.

This case is clearly not imminent incitement, because there were no Muslims in the vicinity of this event that they were immediately trying to provoke to harm persons or destroy property. These guys drove from Arizona to do this.

Thanks. Reps your way.

 

[phgreek]

Let's not pretend being a Muslim predisposes one to extremism or that there are literally hundreds or thousands of examples of this in our history. Extremists come in many stripes. IMO one of those stripes look a lot like organizers of this event. We cannot deport every Muslim in the country to avoid the potential that someone may do something in the future based on religion can we. I mean that goes against absolutely everything we are as a country, right? So if we truly have this fear wouldn't the best course of action be to stop poking these dormant terrorist with a stick? It is just irresponsible and puts people at risk! Does't that indifference to things like public safety make them a little dangerous too?

I think I don't care who the gunmen were in terms of identification with a "group". They stepped forward to kill in the name of their group...they chose to "defend" their group over living within the value system and ultimately laws in this nation. The mode of defense they chose is not protected in Western society....the mode of expression utilized by those who set up the contest IS indeed protected. Thems the values...what can I say.

People say and do things to insult and provoke other people all the time. Why would we expect anyone living in the United Sates more or less likely to respond to such provocations with violence??? Because that is the premise here if the argument is the folks who set up the contest knew or should have known this would get a violent response...that is the only logical way you can ascribe any blame to them. I say NO, no they should not. If they were in Syria...yea ok. They were not. The enemy in this situation is lowered expectations of a people based on their self-identified group...That never works out well...

 

[NDgradstudent]

The fact that people on here are blaming the shooting on the "offensive" conference -run by people who think Islam is violent, so they must be crazy, as we never have evidence of that- is truly contemptible. It does not much to upset most Muslims, and when they are upset, they cause plenty of damage. The government is simply not interested in taking these threats seriously, and, as in this case, often ignores clear signs of Islamic radicalism in immigrants.

For the past four years there has been a musical on Broadway that, among other things, mocks Mormonism. Have there been any murders or attempted murders over this musical? Have Mormons rioted in the streets and threatened the cast and crew? Why is this? Well, one reason might be that Christ never performed acts of violence, nor encouraged such acts. Muhammad spread Islam through violent military campaigns. His followers are not "distorting" Islam. The idea that everybody is like this, every religion is equally vulnerable to it, etc., is simply ludicrous.

 

[connor_in]

No holding people accountable when their speech affects the safety of others. We cannot prosecute Muslims for believing in Islam and we cannot prosecute people for saying what they believe. That is not what was happening at this art contest. This was an action in which provocative speech directly affected public safety no matter how proficient their militant security force. A man got shot. Two others were killed. It would not have happened if not for their purposeful attempt to make it happen. Kind of like yelling "fire" in a crowded movie house. Criminally irresponsible IMO. And the guys who shot the place? Also criminal behavior that clearly put people in danger.

Quick item....

The people that marched for civil rights in the south in the 1960's, I am pretty sure their speech affected the safety of others. And no I am not equivocating civil rights with this art contest on any moral continuum, but both were equally legal. Every time someone burns a flag, or the Westboro Baptist Church shows up, or right to life supporters protest outside abortion clinics, or some artist comes up with a piss christ or similar, those people are being provocative but legal. Whether you support them or think they are douchey, they are well within their rights and don't deserve to be killed or injured. It is generally not illegal to be insensitive and offend someone.

God bless America

 

[NDgradstudent]

No holding people accountable when their speech affects the safety of others. We cannot prosecute Muslims for believing in Islam and we cannot prosecute people for saying what they believe. That is not what was happening at this art contest. This was an action in which provocative speech directly affected public safety no matter how proficient their militant security force. A man got shot. Two others were killed. It would not have happened if not for their purposeful attempt to make it happen. Kind of like yelling "fire" in a crowded movie house. Criminally irresponsible IMO. And the guys who shot the place? Also criminal behavior that clearly put people in danger.

You do not need a law protecting unprovocative speech.

Mocking Islam constitutes "a purposeful attempt to make it [the shooting] happen." And yet, mocking Mormonism does not, apparently, constitute a "purposeful attempt" to make any shootings happen outside the Eugene O'Neil Theatre in NYC. Why not? Because Mormons can take the mockery, criticism, etc., without reacting violently.

It is hard to describe how insane this view is. GoIrish41 wishes to create a heckler's (terrorist's) veto- if you threaten violence against some speaker, then the speech "directly affects public safety" and the speakers are criminally (!) responsible. So the threat of violence is successful at stopping the speech -which was its goal in the first place- with the endorsement of the government! I suppose that only nice people who say nice things that GoIrish41 agrees with shouldn't fear being shot for their speech.

 

[greyhammer90]

 

[ACamp1900]

Also, I can see how GoIrish can posit that someone who is trying to provoke a clash of cultures is an extremist.

Just trying to understand this line of thinking.... Are homosexual couples who search out Christian bakers extremists??

 

[greyhammer90]

Just trying to understand this line of thinking.... Are homosexual couples who search out Christian bakers extremists??

My feelings on buttercream icing have been described as "extreme", "fanatical", and "borderline sexual".

 

[connor_in]

My feelings on buttercream icing have been described as "extreme", "fanatical", and "deeply, disturbingly sexual".

Fify

 

[Irish YJ]

Just trying to understand this line of thinking.... Are homosexual couples who search out Christian bakers extremists??

I see where you are going. So by GoIrish's standards it's understandable if the Christian then shoots the gay couple as they provoked the Christian. Got it

 

[greyhammer90]

Fify

Geez. You work hard, give to charity, tell good jokes for years. Then you fuck one cake and suddenly you're known as "cake fucker."

 

[Irish YJ]

Geez. You work hard, give to charity, tell good jokes for years. Then you fuck one cake and suddenly you're known as "cake fucker."

Pies are better

 

[pkt77242]

Who is the group behind Mohammed cartoon contest?

 

[Bluto]

Just trying to understand this line of thinking.... Are homosexual couples who search out Christian bakers extremists??

Yes they are, however so were Ghandi and Jesus when it came to their positions on the issues they held dear. One can have and openly advocate for "extreme" points of view without being a bigot or a racist. The group that organized this event are both.

 

[Bluto]

I see where you are going. So by GoIrish's standards it's understandable if the Christian then shoots the gay couple as they provoked the Christian. Got it

How is the act of ordering a cake "provocative"? I'm pretty sure they didn't show up in leather assless chaps and bondage gear and ask him to bake a giant dong that resembled a crucifix.

 

[GUknights75]

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/hehAPnMP-7A" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[phgreek]

How is the act of ordering a cake "provocative"? I'm pretty sure they didn't show up in leather assless chaps and bondage gear and ask him to bake a giant dong that resembled a crucifix.

...there should be a timeout for evoking that kind of imagery...THANKS...ALOT. I got to leather assless chaps and fell on the floor laughing...

 

[GATTACA!]

No holding people accountable when their speech affects the safety of others. We cannot prosecute Muslims for believing in Islam and we cannot prosecute people for saying what they believe. That is not what was happening at this art contest. This was an action in which provocative speech directly affected public safety no matter how proficient their militant security force. A man got shot. Two others were killed. It would not have happened if not for their purposeful attempt to make it happen. Kind of like yelling "fire" in a crowded movie house. Criminally irresponsible IMO. And the guys who shot the place? Also criminal behavior that clearly put people in danger.

This has nothing to do with the people organizing the event (it was stupid) and everything to do with the people that believe because of their religion the appropriate reaction is to go on a shooting rampage. The Westboro Baptist church frequently protests the funerals of fallen US soldiers. When is the last time a few christians went and tried to mow down the WBC at their protest? No one has the right to try and stop your freedom of speech, no matter how stupidly you are using it, as long as you are doing it lawfully.

 

[GATTACA!]

Well that was as clear as mud. Having said that, the far right wants things mandated at the Federal level just as much as Democrats do, the difference being what they mandated. How many times have you seen the far right try to pass laws or amendments about gay marriage, abortion, etc. The truth is that both sides generally want to do it, they are more like opposite sides of the same coin.

This is just completely false. GOP would like to give the power to decide issues like abortion and gay marriage directly to the individual states.

Can you imagine the backlash and republican candidate would receive if their platform included federal legislation on either of those topics? Wouldnt happen in a thousand years.

 

[GoIrish41]

You do not need a law protecting unprovocative speech.

Mocking Islam constitutes "a purposeful attempt to make it [the shooting] happen." And yet, mocking Mormonism does not, apparently, constitute a "purposeful attempt" to make any shootings happen outside the Eugene O'Neil Theatre in NYC. Why not? Because Mormons can take the mockery, criticism, etc., without reacting violently.

It is hard to describe how insane this view is. GoIrish41 wishes to create a heckler's (terrorist's) veto- if you threaten violence against some speaker, then the speech "directly affects public safety" and the speakers are criminally (!) responsible. So the threat of violence is successful at stopping the speech -which was its goal in the first place- with the endorsement of the government! I suppose that only nice people who say nice things that GoIrish41 agrees with shouldn't fear being shot for their speech.

Yes except I did not say anything about excluding Mormons. I find it humorous that someone who is advocating civility is met with such hostility and attempts to twist the meaning of what is being said. And people who have gone out of their way to publicly mock members of a religion are being defended so strenuously. It is almost as if we crave perpetual conflict. Maybe we get what we deserve as a society.

 

[GoIrish41]

There's no reason to deport anyone, but what is wrong with expecting people to not shoot people just because they feel that their diety was disrespected?

Nothing at all wrong with that expectation and I did not suggest otherwise.