Because I strongly believe that people have the right to say things without being ****ing shot. It's founding principle of our nation and probably the best one. You, otoh, react to people being shot for their opinion with blatant victim blaming. It's ****ing disgusting and pathetic.

You guys keep making the same mistake. I don't think many people disagree that having a bigoted cartoon contest isn't or shouldn't be free speech.

But these people aren't First Amendment evangelists anymore than the Westboro baptist morons are.

I think this is a pretty ridiculous argument. There are other reasonable options than violence to register their gripes with the event.

Sounds like a lot of legislating of taste to me. Gross negligence? You're trying to make it a crime to assemble in ways that might incite violence? There goes half of the decent reasons to assemble in protest.

I didn't state they were evangelists, I called them nut jobs. You are making things up.

Why can't he share his opinion about a bunch of bigots and racists?

The first amendment isn't universal. There are exceptions against using your free speech when it puts others lives at risk.

The moral argument against criminalising their actions or making them liable in civil court isn't "first amendment" it's that there was little or no expectation violence would follow.

It is easy to argue there is more expectation of people to be killed by putting on the hate speech art show than shouting fire in a theatre.

I'm not saying its a crime to assemble in way that might incite violence, I'm talking about assembling with the intent of inciting violence. Also I'm really not even talking about criminal charges (although that was mentioned in my first post), I'm really talking about civil liability to compensate those who suffered physical/economic/emotional damages due to negligence on the part of the organizers.

None of the supporting evidence applies in any way to what we're talking about. The conclusion is ****ing absurdly wrong.... although technically right. It's easy to argue. It's impossible to be right.

Well, you are really, really bad at reading. I'm not victim blaming. And of course I agree that people should be able to say things and not get shot.

But getting shot doesn't make these people heroes or make the things they say right or good. If someone shoots up a Westboro Baptist protest, the Westboro Baptist people are STILL ****ING IDIOTS with terrible ideas and their victimhood doesn't give their ideas special weight or importance. You apparently want to turn off all criticism of these people just because they were shot. That makes no sense.

Oh horse****. We can read your posts. Your first reaction to people getting shot was to call them bigots and condemn them for exercising their speech because you don't like it. You're transparent as ****ing hell.

Way to completely miss the point. Its not about justifying the volent reaction, nor was I talking about minority groups in their entirety "strapping on guns". You are telling me their isn't a single Asian guy in the US who would react violently to someone going out of their way to **** on their culture/national background?

Not banning the Koran. Want the right to criticize the Koran.

As a followup if you google "legal negligence", it seems obvious that some aspect of negligence would apply to a having violence at a convention designed to incite violence.

Negligence
Definition
A failure to behave with the level of care that someone of ordinary prudence would have exercised under the same circumstances. The behavior usually consists of actions, but can also consist of omissions when there is some duty to act (e.g., a duty to help victims of one's previous conduct).
Overview
Primary factors to consider in ascertaining whether the person's conduct lacks reasonable care are the foreseeable likelihood that the person's conduct will result in harm, the foreseeable severity of any harm that may ensue, and the burden of precautions to eliminate or reduce the risk of harm


Edit- And I'm not saying that hosting this convention is by definition negligent, I'm only saying it is negligent if you designed it to cause violence and thus expected violence. We don't know enough information yet to draw this conclusion IMO.

Universal in what sense? If you mean that first amendment rights are limited. Never claimed they weren't.


True but not in this case.

Certainly the aggrieved can take their case to the approximate civil court venue. Never claimed otherwise.

surf you don't get to cite legal stuff when that legal stuff says you're completely ****ing wrong.

I'm not sure that the victim blaming in this thread is blatant, but let's be real. The entire purpose of the thread was to point and laugh at the stupid, bigoted right-wingers who held the event. Victim blaming is implied.

I still do not see anything bad about openly ridiculing an absurd belief system. Especially one which is gaining so much traction elsewhere in the first world, if not in the U.S. yet.

LOL your argument is still ridiculous. What part of other reasonable options to register their complaints don't you understand?

I don't buy that this was about cartoons and Mohamed being drawn, on either side.

lol. My first reaction? What kind of dishonest nonsense is this? You have no idea what my "first reaction" is. Not a ****ing clue.

You think because I answered a question directly ("Why condemn the drawing contest though?") that somehow I don't care about people being shot? I'm sorry I didn't directly inform you first thing that I don't condone killing, even if it's bigots. But it's not my job to imagine what your fevered mind invented for my personality traits. If you want to have fantasies about my "first reaction" to things, by all means, daydream away.

This pathetic shtick is getting real old. If you have an actual argument, make it. Stop inventing things based on your soul reads, or at the very least keep that bull**** to yourself.

Disgusting post.

Does anyone think Pam Geller et al wouldn't be holding some other event to **** on Islam if drawing Mohamed wasn't a taboo?

Thats true, and culpability isnt some finite pie that must be doled out. But if it WERE, it would be something like 99.9% of the pie to violent extremists who planned to bomb an art show, and 0.01% to douchebag redneck Texans who thought they were being ****ing clever.

Now if your position is that Muslim extremists are subhuman animals, with orange and black stripes, and are therefore not moral actors and just respond to stimuli with violence in a natural way, then I could see how you'd give the rednecks a bigger slice of your pie.

I'd say thats a pretty ****ing disgusting racist view though (not your view, I'm aware).

The irony in this thread where seemingly strict gun control advocates condemning the victims of gun violence rather than the perpetrators is stunning.

You all are completely missing the point, the actual convention isn't the issue. The issue is if the organizers had sufficient reason to believe there would be violence/terrorist attack/etc. and did not take the steps necessary to protect the public. If there turns out to be emails/conversations that imply they were trying to incite violence or hoping to foil an attack then it would be hard to argue they didn't have reason to believe there would be violence. (Heard they had a SWAT team, so maybe they did take the necessary steps to mitigate any potential threat).

It would be like if the NFL had a credible threat that the super bowl would be bombed, but did not act sufficiently on that information. The actual event isn't the issue, its what they either did or did not do with knowledge of probable violence.