Escaped to Texas: Charlie Hebdo

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: buster2010

Mohammed drawings - hate speech.

Pope jokes - hilarious.

Sounds about right.

So what part of "if you do something that is offensive to a religion as a whole" was too hard for you to understand?

The part where I've yet to see anybody on ATS call somebody a hatemonger for making catholic priest jokes

I was thinking women's rights, but "religion to religion" fits better.

originally posted by: FarleyWayne
a reply to: Shamrock6

I know it's 'legal' ...

but it can be protested too.

( i.e. i 'protest'-against 'this exhibit' )
.

By all means. Though I do echo the sentiment of another comment here: I would rather see it utterly ignored and sent home with its proverbial tail between its legs. It wants the attention, and needs it.

I have to agree that this is, although covered as a first amendment right, nothing more than a lame attempt at throwing gasoline on an already enormous bonfire. As a person who is often whining about anti-Semitism, Pamela Geller is pretty quick to throw rocks in a glass house.

I understand why she chose Garland, but let's face it.....Garland is a craphole east of Dallas, with the LBJ freeway slicing through it like a scar, and the only reason people would go see this display of cartoons of some long-dead pedophile is because they want to go and say "neener neener, we saw cartoons of Mohammad to piss off the Muslims".

I lived in that area, so yeah, I can say it. It's depressing, it's ugly, and there's a reason it's made fun of in the opening scene of "Zombieland". Garland is full of zombies, willing to pay good money to see something set up by a silly hypocrite.

But this is America, so.....Go Zombies!

a reply to: seagull

IMO ... 'Charlie Hebdo' WAS a FAILED-Publication

The edition dubbed the "survivors' issue" was published on January 14, a week after the attack.

Before then an average circulation for the controversial weekly, which lampoons everyone from the president to the pope, was 60,000.

Post-attack

-
Also, IMO ... 'Charlie Hebdo' Won't Survive in Texas.
.

a reply to: buster2010

Slander is only for corporations who lose profits from their product being slandered. language is relative you say tomato I say to mato do I deserve to be in jail for saying it differently? No. neither do you. and slandering doesn't exist if it did all our politicians ands pr reps would be fired. I personally I.ow a few union hr employees that would be getting the axe too. Don't forget your not completely innocent. You have slandered people in your life before. You are not in jail. So why should others go in your place? That's free speech to you?

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

The First Amendment guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition. It forbids Congress from both promoting one religion over others and also restricting an individual’s religious practices. It guarantees freedom of expression by prohibiting Congress from restricting the press or the rights of individuals to speak freely. It also guarantees the right of citizens to assemble peaceably and to petition their government.


The first amendment and free speech rights are about protecting citizens from the government. The government can't stop hate speech or make laws against it. That means they have every right to put this on display and people have every right to denounce or support it just don't expect the government to step in and take sides.

a reply to: buster2010

Is Free Speech Intended For Everyone? Or Just Progressive Liberals?

Is Free Speech considered "only what Progressive Liberals approve"?

Fair Question.

Progressives simply do not accept the fundamental principle that people of all opinions ought to be able to express those opinions without being punished for it, or at least hindered to the greatest degree possible in their ability to express them.

If speech refutes the Left's positions on any number of issues, then it has to be silenced.


www.leaderandtimes.com...:liberals-step-up-war-aginst-free-speech&catid=29pinion&Itemid=58

I observed that the Left most definitely qualifies as a "knowledge-control cult."

Allow me to elaborate on this a bit. One of the classic marks of a cult group is that it seeks, as the term suggests, to control the knowledge held and made available to its members.

Members may be forbidden to read anything except for the writings of the group or its leader.

Members are warned to stay away from outside sources of information.

They may even be forbidden to interact with their families or with friends they had before joining the group, unless they are actively trying to recruit them.

Sources of information that contradict the group's teachings are not just critiqued, but are demonized as evil and dangerous influences.

The leader is held up as the only source of knowledge or information, and is lionized accordingly.

Sounds a lot like the modern Left, doesn't it?

originally posted by: FissionSurplus
I have to agree that this is, although covered as a first amendment right, nothing more than a lame attempt at throwing gasoline on an already enormous bonfire. As a person who is often whining about anti-Semitism, Pamela Geller is pretty quick to throw rocks in a glass house.

I understand why she chose Garland, but let's face it.....Garland is a craphole east of Dallas, with the LBJ freeway slicing through it like a scar, and the only reason people would go see this display of cartoons of some long-dead pedophile is because they want to go and say "neener neener, we saw cartoons of Mohammad to piss off the Muslims".

I lived in that area, so yeah, I can say it. It's depressing, it's ugly, and there's a reason it's made fun of in the opening scene of "Zombieland". Garland is full of zombies, willing to pay good money to see something set up by a silly hypocrite.

But this is America, so.....Go Zombies!

I had to quote this because it needs repeating.

personally, if I were in the area I would try to find out who is attending other than press. Maybe just stand as close to the doors as possible with a camera. Share the pictures on twitter or somewhere of the attendees.
At least the Klan is smart enough to wear hoods.

a reply to: infolurker

Is Free Speech Intended For Everyone? Or Just Progressive Liberals? Is Free Speech considered "only what Progressive Liberals approve"? Fair Question.

It's not a fair question it's a stupid question. Free Speech is for everyone. But seeing how you want to drag parties into this why is it that it is almost always a Republican that wants to pass bills that restrict free speech?

Progressives simply do not accept the fundamental principle that people of all opinions ought to be able to express those opinions without being punished for it, or at least hindered to the greatest degree possible in their ability to express them.

Yeah right.

If speech refutes the Left's positions on any number of issues, then it has to be silenced.

In the latest attacks on free speech was introduced by Republican, Rep. Thomas Rooney of Florida. Funny how the right wants to stop free speech but it's the left that gets blamed for it. Try checking out the facts instead of reading someones opinion and taking it to be fact.
Obama Criminalize Free Speech?

a reply to: buster2010

Hey,

You know it, you live it.

OWN IT.

I am a Texan and I could less if a bunch of people want to gather to debate over whose religion is real and poke fun at each other. I would assume it will be a bit one sided.

In reality, my guess is that it is a chance for people to get together and make as--es out of them selves, more then a free speech supporting event.

originally posted by: the owlbear

originally posted by: FissionSurplus
I have to agree that this is, although covered as a first amendment right, nothing more than a lame attempt at throwing gasoline on an already enormous bonfire. As a person who is often whining about anti-Semitism, Pamela Geller is pretty quick to throw rocks in a glass house.

I understand why she chose Garland, but let's face it.....Garland is a craphole east of Dallas, with the LBJ freeway slicing through it like a scar, and the only reason people would go see this display of cartoons of some long-dead pedophile is because they want to go and say "neener neener, we saw cartoons of Mohammad to piss off the Muslims".

I lived in that area, so yeah, I can say it. It's depressing, it's ugly, and there's a reason it's made fun of in the opening scene of "Zombieland". Garland is full of zombies, willing to pay good money to see something set up by a silly hypocrite.

But this is America, so.....Go Zombies!

I had to quote this because it needs repeating.

personally, if I were in the area I would try to find out who is attending other than press. Maybe just stand as close to the doors as possible with a camera. Share the pictures on twitter or somewhere of the attendees.
At least the Klan is smart enough to wear hoods.

For what purpose? Really.

Would you do this at an artist show with a cross in dog crap or a cross in a jar of urine? How about Jesus the savior dog.. whatever.

Please.

What the hell is wrong with you people that you feel that you have to destroy the lives of anyone who doesn't agree with you or your causes?

a reply to: buster2010

you sir are incompetent. Know your definitions before you ake an argument. Slander is against ones reputation. Nothing to do with opinion. And it is only slandering if and only if you can prove the reputation of the plaintiff has been damaged. And it is civil not criminal. So unless someone has a problem with it and can justify their reputation being tarnished it gets thrown out by a civil judge. Not a criminal. New to America? Make me laugh my ass off. Your the problem with this country attacking fellow Americans with your angry hate speech. And just because a law has been passed doesn't make it right. Which you are argueing is right. So the ndaa was ok?, the anti hoarding act was ok, the patriot act was ok? Listen to yourself. There are no consequences of an opinion ever unless someone acts on them. Are you new to America? Sound like you aren't even from here? if you were you'd know bout all the neo Nazi websites that are openly allowed to express their opinions slandering anyone they want? Why? Because the government knows we have a protected right to say what we feel. If you wanna fight me for it. Bring it I fear no man. But I digress. Your argument is basing that speech isn't free? But let's look at those words. Free. I don't pay anything for my opinion it's mine and you can't take it from me. If you try you are just as bad as the shady dishonest, dishonorable government. And btw you havent actually backed up any of tmyour claims against me.

originally posted by: roadgravel

In reality, my guess is that it is a chance for people to get together and make as--es out of them selves, more then a free speech supporting event.

Kinda the same way I feel about fundamental churches.

Except they don't support free speech.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: buster2010

Mohammed drawings - hate speech.

Pope jokes - hilarious.

Sounds about right.

Gotta love double standards.

a reply to: PorteurDeMort



Ever heard of French stand-up comedian Dieudonné or cartoonist Zéon ?

So when did setting up a hate filled exhibit & gathering and also setting up a gallery for "art" which had to be drawn become about "free speech" instead of physical actions?


I don't care what they draw...


But don't talk nonsense, this isn't about speech, it's all action and nothing but.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
So when did setting up a hate filled exhibit & gathering and also setting up a gallery for "art" which had to be drawn become about "free speech" instead of physical actions?

I don't care what they draw...

But don't talk nonsense, this isn't about speech, it's all action and nothing but.

Yes, this is about speech. "Actions" are protected by free speech. Whether we like it or not, there can be no government censoring of any medium protected by the 1st Amendment. Pornography, obscene, and indecent material are regulated, but only by very narrow regulations.

The First Amendment is based upon the belief that in a free and democratic society, individual adults must be free to decide for themselves what to read, write, paint, draw, see and hear. If we are disturbed by images of violence or sex, we can change the channel, turn off the TV, and decline to go to certain movies or museum exhibits.

We can also exercise our own free speech rights by voicing our objections to forms of expression that we don't like. Justice Louis Brandeis' advice that the remedy for messages we disagree with or dislike in art, entertainment or politics is "more speech, not enforced silence," is as true today as it was when given in 1927.

Source

I have no reason or desire to visit such an exhibit, but I have to agree their right to have the exhibit is protected speech.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Mohammed drawings - hate speech.

Pope jokes - hilarious.

Sounds about right.

I would agree with your reasoning if there was a range involved in this show, and there were shots taken at the Pope and many others

This is a show specifically featuring artwork of Muhammad. It's free speech - and quite obviously hate speech

a reply to: FarleyWayne

I know it's 'legal' ...

but it can be protested too.

But it won't be - and just as well:
The Council on American-Islamic Relations does not plan to protest this weekend’s event.

“We are not paying any attention to this at all,” said Ibrahim Hooper, CAIR spokesman. “The thing [Geller] hates most is being ignored.”

We're entitled to our opinions though - aren't we? :-)

Ms. Geller and her lousy, small minded crew can kiss our non-violent, anti-hate mongering asses. All the many millions and millions of them...



Jews, reject Pamela Geller’s anti-Muslim venom: Leviticus teaches us what it's like to be treated like lepers

We brought flowers and sweets for the after-Ramadan fast. We wanted our Muslim brothers to know that the majority of Israeli and diaspora Jews were praying for the men’s speedy recovery and were determined to see that their attackers are brought to justice. We will do our part, we told them, to uproot such hatred through education, partnerships and other strategies for creating a society that respects the other.

I yield to no one in my love for Israel and my belief in her right to self-defense. I have no affection for Hamas or for any organization that condones violence against innocent civilians in the name of national liberation or religion.

I'm tired of all the hate disguised as freedom. Like we can't tell the difference

All the tiny, hard, cold, dark hearts. So many tiny, feeble minds...