There is a huge gulf of difference between hate speech and what South Park does.

Where was the comedy in the ****ty cartoons at this "art show"? How was it satire? South Park has done a couple of episodes with Muhammed in, inc one in solidarity against censorship. Bonus points if you can guess how many bomb vests he was wearing.

Not only do most people not understand what freedom of speech means but they also don't get what satire is either. Its not just saying hurtful things to other people. You don't get to call someone a **** and be shocked if they hit you for it. That's just how life works.

When south park covered scientology it was to disparage the COS for its actions, not to call all scientologists douchebags because they believe something matt and trey don't.

The point isn't that people "better be careful" with what they say, its that when you go out of your way to do the most offensive thing you can aimed at a group of people, its easy to predict that among the ****tiest people in that group will be someone who reacts violently. It also tells us nothing about that group.

Also it is clearly hurting someone. What you mean is "it's not hurting me".

A large subset of Muslims takes seriously Muhammad's request to not be idolised via a ban on all depictions of him. The rest think it's just against Muslims to not do so.

The whole "draw Muhammed day" and off shoots are intended to offend. That is the entire ****ing point.

The issue is whether we should sympathize with people who are almost certainly anti-muslim bigots just because they were attacked.

So once the the inevitable quotes/interviews/emails/etc. from the organizers are compiled and it becomes clear that inciting violence was the purpose of the event, surely they must be able to face some sort of criminal charges for purposely and knowingly putting law enforcement's life at risk?

Or at least get sued sued into oblivion in civil court?

(I'm not saying they should face charges for hosting the event, its absurd they did it but thats their right. But if they hosted an event with the expressed purpose of putting lives at stake, then thats not OK)

It's important to distinguish between violations of the Islamic prohibition on depictions of the Prophet and crude stereotypes of Muslims generally. The latter are distasteful and immoral and, while they shouldn't be banned by government or responded to with violence, I can certainly understand why people don't want to lionize them. With respect to the first category though, it's important to understand that the requests of delusional seventh-century warlords are entitled to zero deference by any person alive today. If anyone suggests that they are, they are wrong, and if they attempt to impose that view on any person other than themselves, they are acting immorally. Satire is a perfectly appropriate weapon for challenging that immorality.

It's also important to note that you left out an important category of Muslims. Many Muslims do not respect the prohibition on depictions of Mohammed at all. The suggestion that all real Muslims must embrace the prohibition is actually quite racist. It's explicitly racist in that it purports to predict someone's views based on their cultural background, but it's also implicitly/structurally racist in that it implies that Islam, unlike other religions, is somehow uniquely incapable of adapting to modern liberal values that hold that drawings of people, even if distasteful, are something you have to live with. Kenan Malik has written a lot about how this exaggerated show of respect for extremist views tends to undermine real equality and marginalize actual human beings who don't conform to the respected stereotype (see here).

lol, what?

That's a hopelessly ****ty way of looking at this and you should be ashamed of it.

Sorry, but I can't sympathize with ridiculous dogma that doesn't allow me to draw historical figures just because.

I can most definitely sympathize with the black plight going back to the days of slavery.

I thought you were a law student or something?

Good ****ing god people the 1st amendment ffs. Embarrassing.

This attack wasn't carried out by any group representing Texas Muslims though. I'm not suggesting you sympathize with the attackers--I certainly don't. The point is that this sort of reaction from the biggest ****birds of a group being provoked is predictable and would be with any minority demographic, and in some cases non-minority groups.

Giving the assassin's veto civil power as well would almost certainly stifle free speech through increasing the legal liability of anyone who receives a threat or is a victim of violence. While that may sound good to you for people whose viewpoints you disagree with, you probably need to expand your scope to include people who you agree with and who are threatened for their viewpoints.

Any minority demographic? Let me know what you can do to Asians that will cause a few of them to strap on guns.

I have a problem trying to equate drawing Muhammad with going around Baltimore yelling n****** all over the place.

Blacks went through one of the worse human abuses, with millions of them uprooted from their villages in Africa, and sent to become slaves in America (thanks BruceZ, if only the blacks knew how good they had it) where they were universally targets of racism by whites all the way into 2015.

Islamist tells you not to draw Muhammad because? It was written in a book that you can't draw Muhammad. There's nothing in that alleged offense that I can sympathize with.

I don't understand why sympathy is even an issue. Is there more valid reasons to gun down other people for what they say than others?

They are a bunch of bigots whipping up anti-Muslim sentiment. They may not be hurting anyone directly, but they definitely are making things worse. I am fairly sure that a lot of these people want a flat out war with the Muslim world.

They certainly have a right to have their contest and not to be attacked, but I don't have to think their contest is a good idea or refrain from calling it out for what it is.

There's obviously a big difference. Nobody is claiming we are at war with Scientologists.

loooool 13 the bending over backwards is really dumb

In the 1960s USA, one could note large gatherings of white folks where the speakers would suggest that blacks were bringing down the USA. One could imagine how often blacks were poked fun at during these KKK meetings that took place in the USA during the 1960s.

In Germany, Holocaust denial is a punishable offense and twitter has been reported to block Germans from accessing neo nazi sites.




Some folks do feel a desire to draw holocaust cartoons, or Anti Muhammad Cartoons.

I dont think its ok to shoot a neo nazi or an Anti Muslim just for being a neo nazi or for being an anti Muslim. I also dont think its ok to suggest that Muslims are followers of a intolerant religion or that black people are like caged animals/thugs.

yo 13 some people in baltimore wanted a race war... does that mean when the police gun them down you'll go out of your way to point out they wanted a war?

Lol one of the Texas Imams

Chiefsplanet universally praises the contest, is happy that two "terrorists" were snuffed out. Thinks we should do more. http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=292317

I'm not saying it should be illegal to host this convention.

I'm saying you should be held responsible if you host a convention with the expressed intention of inciting violence. So if we have emails between them saying stuff to the effect of "Yeah I think we should make sure this gets posted on all the jihadi message boards because it will increase the chance we get to thwart an attack" Then I don't see why those harmed in the attack would be unable to seek damages from the organizers for gross negligence or something.

What the hell are you talking about?

How about exercising their first amendment rights?

A moral judgement that has little to do with their rights. Morally reprehensible actions are very frequently protected by first amendment rights. In my view, this kind of thing usually occurs when some fringe group speaks out seemingly wanting to provoke a response. My reaction more often than not is nut jobs gonna be nut jobs. Looks like this was exactly was happening in this incident.

If people tried to say "Hey, what's wrong with the race war people having a little race war party?" then yeah I would. Why to you have to knee-jerk defend bigots like Pamela Geller?