Shooting at Muhammad cartoon contest in Texas

This would be a truly crappy world if everyone did anything they were legally allowed to do.

 

Like expressing themselves in a way you don't agree with?

 

I don't understand the gulf here, at least among those who actually recognize that this was an exercise of free speech.

What they did was perfectly legal. I think we all would agree.

It was also purposely antagonistic, and some people think that that's not an advisable use of free speech. I also understand the position that someone needs to be antagonistic at this point. I'm sure plenty of people tsk-tsked Rosa Parks, too, for being too provocative.

 

Yes.

Or, in your case, procreating.

 

You people are kidding. Intentionally provocative? Yes. Gandhi and Martin Luther King are heroes -- deservedly so -- for doing things that were deliberately provocative and could lead to violence against them.

Didn't we all stand with Charlie Hebdo when its staff was murdered for running cartoons of Muhammad? Is this event not a protest to stand with Charlie Hebdo?

What about Salman Rushdie? Was he a bad guy, too?

And were the artist who created "Piss Christ" and Sinead O'Connor tearing up a photo of the Pope on national TV being deliberately provocative? Was that wrong, or free expression? Was that OK just because no one was worried that Christians might try to kill them?


Edit: Dick Whitman said it better than I did.

 

Hey now, no need to get personal because you're a frustrated simpleton.

 

For fear of wading into the Oklahoma frat redux kind of point by me, what people need to grasp is that protesters like this aren't really making fun of Mohammad or Islam. What they are making fun of is extremists who believe these cartoons are a call to violence. They could give a shit about Mohammad, for the most part.

 

I was just going to say that because I'm not a liberal, I am interested in what people think about the subject of free speech and was hoping that noted conservative icon Mr. Whitman would chime in again.

 

Being at war with them and, like, bombing their homelands and stuff, is bending over backwards never to anger them?

 

I'm not sure why you would choose to focus your interest on the motivations of one, but argue that the motivations of the other need not be scrutinized. Actually, I know exactly why you choose to do that. Do you really think the organizers' intentions and motivations are immaterial to this story?

I acknowledge the organizers' right to hold this event, and I'd even defend their rights if the state tried to stop it. I'm a firm believer in free speech.

But I'm also not going to ignore that the motivation of the event was to provoke violence, just because the organizer doesn't have an Arabic name. I think it's unfortunate the asshole gunman decided to fall for the bait and people died and were injured.

 

Yep, Sunshine and YF believe Pamela Gellar and the rest of the crayon clowns are brave American patriots doing the right thing, but they don't really want to come out and say so.

 

Yes. Put down the Christian persecution complex for a second and realize that shitstorms erupted after those things, too.

Also, "provocative" and "antagonistic" are two entirely different things.