Posted on 05/06/2015 1:43:34 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Repeated demonization can inspire violence.
There’s an important history behind America’s free speech laws to which the anti-Islam hate group behind the “Draw Muhammad Contest,” is wholly ignorant. While the Islamophobe leading this hate group believes she’s a free speech champion, remarkably comparing herself to Rosa Parks, in reality America’s current free speech model developed as an attempt to protect — not demonize — religious and racial minorities. “U.S. law only began to protect hateful speech during the 1960s,” writes Garrett Epps. “Southern state governments were trying to criminalize the civil-rights movement for its advocacy of change. White Southerners claimed that the teachings of figures like Martin Luther King or Malcolm X were ‘hate speech’ and would produce ‘race war.’”
Courts sided with American icons like Dr. King, Malcolm X, and Rosa Parks, not because they advocated unpopular ideas of hatred or destruction — but because they faced ongoing hatred and destruction at the hands of racist white southerners. As the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Anti-Defamation League, and leading Jewish American Rabbis note, Geller represents the antithesis of the moral courage that was Rosa Parks....
(Excerpt) Read more at time.com ...
My 2nd Amendment disagrees QASIM!
Pam is the most loving of women.
It is so sad.
Pamela Geller is a liberal. She is pro-abortion and pro-gay and still they turn on her for not going along on free speech and terrorism.
rosa parks was a socialist agitator. No courage there.
Au contraire. Apparently "Time Magazine" wishes to redefine Free Speech to fit their liberal definition and agenda. Since we have a muzzie in the white hut, it is not politically correct to oppose islam or call radical muslims terrorists , so anything opposing them doesn't qualify as "Free Speech" in their book.
Leftists have been so thoroughly indoctrinated that they think any disagreement is irrational. This douche argues the reason MLK and other’s speech was protected because the courts agreed with the content. He cannot conceive the fact that their speech was protected because this country believed in free speech.
One wonders if this man is a useful idiot, too stupid to see the fallacy in the arguments he regurgitates, or if he is one of the elite who know his followers are too stupid or indoctrinated to question him.
If they had gone out of usual character and just made a measured statement that they deplored it... Geller would have no reason to keep it up. But they can’t show the grace. And so they and Geller are now at loggerheads.
Geller could, to be fair, stop too, and make a public announcement that she proved a point: That there’s no grace in the opposition.
As far as I know, hate is still legal. After all the media hates Christians.
I will also admit to Islamophobia because I am afraid of Islam and its’ followers. I’d like to keep my head when I refuse to worship their moon god.
The pervos seem to like that kind of stuff so it should be protected.
Amusing to see yet another article where the SPLC gets mentioned in a prominant and positive way.
Ironic in this case because the SPLC itself is responsible for inciting someone to attempt mass murder.
He states in his article that “repeated demonization can insprire violence”. He doesn’t say anything about repeated terrorists attacks by radical islamists inspiring violence or repeated beheadings of Christian believers inspiring violence or....add whatever you like about “peaceful” Islam.
Is Qasim Rashid making fun of Mohammad by looking like him?
Cause i hear mo mo don’t like that.
Kinda like what Christians are facing from Muslims in Nigeria, Pakistan, Egypt, Somalia, and at sea on illegal immigrant "refugee" boats.
WTH is a “modern free speech model”?
How 'bout we revisit the actual text of the First Amendment?
"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."
Now ... how does this have any bearing on a private group having an art contest on privately contracted private property ... and a couple of guys who didn't like the content of the art contest trying to kill the participants?
“I’d like to see one of these pinheads file a case and get it thrown out.”
****
I expect the Department of inJustice to pursue hate thought crime charges against Geller...and an Obama federal judge to apply Shariah law to determine guilt and punishment.
Or perhaps the IRS could audit Geller for failure to pay jizya.
It is that “Living Constitution” thingy...
It’s actually rather interesting and bemusing. As Scalia would put it, almost refreshing.
I am surely not the first one who has wondered from first principles why the two groups have been in political bed with one another.
Pam’s position actually is more self consistent than the common liberal’s. She’s an honest libertine and she correctly identifies a would-be party pooper for that which is more extremist than almost any Christian would be.
I can by far more respect the honest libertine than the modern liberal, even though the libertine is headed for a sad life if she keeps it up. Her life may be wicked but it isn’t “nonsense.” We agree on why we disagree.
But it’s only okay to hate a MAJORITY.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.