hmmm, allthecookies got nothing to say. Shocking.

Are you surprised, microbet?

Why? Its still true. Ok, he's a liar and a troll. So what? Are you suggesting that there arent gay Muslims? Every poster here is a fake internet persona. Some of us are close to our real lives, some of us arent. What possible difference could it make to you if he is real or fake? His arguments dont become any more or less valid.

Unless its super important to you that no one like him could even possibly exist, but that is wrong. Someone like his fake internet persona almost assuredly DOES exist. They just dont post here. Pretend that they do.

He claimed his arguments were more valid because of a persona, which is ridiculous on its face, and he had long since stopped making the discussion about his arguments but instead about his persona.

Wow, still ****ing that chicken. "I know he's lying, but those are still disgusting pathetic posts to...call out a liar for lying"

Pamela Geller and her "American Freedom Defense Initiative" have now put the winning/losing cartoon on billboards around St. Louis.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...ammad-cartoon/

Quite obviously only the ****tiest billboard company in the area would agree to putting them up. I mean, even if we can't agree whether or not images of the prophet should be shown, we can at least agree that there should be some kind of city ordinance banning such shabby roadside billboards. Those things stink. I'm pretty sure shambling wrecks like that aren't even allowed around here, you only see the big shiny ones.

Freedom of speech only applies to the kind of speech you agree with and the rest should be banned? Interesting.

Standing up for the freedom for american bigots to mock and insult a beleaguered minority. A true david V goliath story (except in this case goliath is holding david down, kicking the crap out him and calling it nobility.)

It's pretty rich to claim your free speech is threatened when you've got an entire news network dedicated to regurgitating your bigoted bull**** back to you. Not to mention essentially the entirety of talk radio.

Would you support billboards saying the n word? Just the n word with the AFDI logo. That's acceptable right?

Wouldn't it be unconstitutional to ban such displays (or to ban Geller's terribly stupid billboard)? I don't think Louis is necessarily supporting the content of the speech.

Point is they wouldn't do that because they know it's wrong and a sizable majority would find it offensive. But it's only the Moslims they're screwing with so **** em.

Right, I totally agree. That doesn't mean either billboard can be banned by the government though.

(maybe the second one can somehow, hate speech laws? but I'd be surprised if the Muslim one could be)

Yeah, it's kind of part of the free speech package that abhorrent people are free to say abhorrent stuff, and also free to face the social consequences of what they say. Should we find n-word billboards acceptable? No. Should make ordinances that ban them? No as well.

Basically the idea is that it is possible for a culture to view any idea as subjectively abhorrent, regardless of whether or not it actually is, and the free speech provisions allow for that idea to be expressed in spite of that. For example, if 80+ percent of the population finds gay people or Muslims to be despicable, and wants to ban all gay or Muslim related content from billboards, the billboards still go up, and controversial ideas are allowed to become mainstream. Isn't occasionally allowing some offensive billboards to go up from time to time a small price to pay for that?

I think Hashish was making a joke about banning billboards cus they're ****ty, not banning them because of free speech you don't approve of.

No, I would not. The n-word attacks people directly, the cartoon in question attacks a certain dogma. I see a difference.

Where do I say my free speech is threatened? Which network regurgitates my bigoted bull****? Where do you think I fall on the political spectrum?

Yes, I was talking about a government imposed ban. I would not support any AFDI billboard even if is only shows puppies and rainbows. I have no problem with the cartoon per se though.

It is only offensive to those muslims who think that drawing Mohammed is offensive and that's just a ridiculous notion. There are many beliefs that some Muslims hold that deserve criticizing and even mocking. The same is true for Christians, Jews, Hindus, enviromentalists, libertarians, anarchists, capitalists, anti-vaxxers etc.
Religious beliefs are not exempt from critic and ridicule no matter how deeply they are held.

I thought he was serious about banning those billboards because of its content. If it was only a joke, then my bad.

I wasn't talking about you but about gellers organisation, sorry if that wasn't clear.

Well, if you're hosting an event and gunmen show up to kill you, it seems like you have some right to complain.

That's not a free speech issue that's a crazy murderer issue. If they wanna put up "don't be a murderer" billboards I'll have no issues with it.

Who is taking away dead people's right to complain about being murdered?

Huh? I'm just saying that if you're the target of an actual murder plot over some drawings, it's not unreasonable to start talking about your speech rights. Certainly the overheated talk about David and Goliath and beleaguered minorities doesn't make a lot of sense when Goliath was the target of an actual murder plot and David had his feelings (I think you would typically say "feefees" here?) hurt by disrespectful drawings of his favorite historical figure.

She's allowed to complain about someone trying to shoot her. That doesn't mean she's above reproach. Salman Rushdie and Kurt Westergaard are not criticised like Geller is. Can't you see the difference?

http://www.clickhole.com/blogpost/le...ing-nba-fi-309

So is the argument that Pam Gellar is being censored by the everexisting threat of being murdered?

Wow. The government should, to protect her, criminalize murder as soon as possible.

No....the cartoons are obv designed to be offensive to all Muslims like piss Christ or angel handing Mary a coat hanger is meant to offend all Christians even though art featuring Jesus is in general not taboo.

It's ludicrous to pretend that Muslims are singularly weird for wanting to restrict clearly antagonistic portrayals of religious figures.

1. Most people who aren't you or Pam Geller don't find the threat of being murdered everpresent.

2. I don't think it makes any sense to call private violence censorship, but unless you're going to say that only governments can infringe on rights, it seems pretty clear that credible threats of violent retaliation for speech would impinge on one's freedom of speech.