Well, this solves all of our problems then. We dont even really need the 1st amendment any more, since no one will ever restrict or violate it. Someone is saying something you dont like? Dont try to infringe on their free speech, thats a chump move. Just threaten to murder them or other innocent people if they keep saying it. Then, it instantly becomes unprotected speech, since it puts lives at risk! Problem solved.

You are the most myopic poster on this entire forum, its really quite stunning.

Sigh, no one isn't condemning the perpetrators. It's possible to think parties are in the wrong in a given situation. Why is this so hard for conservatives the grasp? Do you live in a completely binary world?

Yeah, this forum would be so much better if every poster considered it necessary to state an opinion that literally no one disagrees with.

I'm just mad because you ended your post with "stunning" at the same time I did the same about a different post, but you arent really surprised are you? Victim blaming is disgusting...unless I'm the one doing it. Condescending racism is disgusting....unless its to excuse a group that we like doing something horrible.

I just cannot wait for fly to come in to this thread and start posting "Oh so I see the REAL villains are the evil art show people" and not you know the guys with guns and bombs.

What if this event instead was "let's draw offensive caricatures of black people"? Would all the free-speech advocates itt still feel the same? Free speech. Gotta exercise it.

This is the OP....do you want me to go through the rest of the thread and find more?

Or is this a "We all blame the perpetrators...but" like "We all blame the out of control police...but"? You know, the kind of "....but" statement that is met with such patience and understanding on other topics?

If some black people showed up with bombs and guns and people died? Sure. I'd feel exactly the same.

Again, this is what the racists always say in the other threads, and it is met with instant scorn and derision. Thats because we dont really believe them, or we believe they have a token belief, but really would prefer to twist things to fit their narrative.

You are doing that thing that you mock the racists for doing.

Could we point out that the people drawing the racist pictures were racists? Or would that be "victim blaming"?

No one missed this issue, it's just that you made it up and it's bogus. Random people do not have a duty to protect other random people from third-party criminal activity.

Should protesters be held liable for protesting police violence if they have a reasonable suspicion that the police will use violence on them?

- New Buddhist koan apparently

About the people who held the contest?

We should make two threads – one where everyone agrees the people who showed up with guns are in the wrong. And the other will discuss the actual interesting topic – what are do we think of Pam Geller in this Norwegian guy for their drawing contest?

I don't understand how you read that as in anyway not condemning the people who showed up with guns. And no there are no more, you're reading into these condemnations of the stupid drawing contest, that must mean support for the people showed up with guns. That just isn't the case.

EXACTLY! Islam is the religion of peace just as long as you do and say what Islam commands.

Don't incite violence by drawing cartoons! Just like women shouldn't incite rape by dressing provocatively!

Allah Akbar

Hey we drew some really nasty caricatures of black people and a couple of them got offended and resorted to violence. Therefore the drawing of the caricatures was justified because...?

QUICK POLL: "Is it acceptable to resort to violence because you have been offended by a cartoon?"

[ ] YES
[ ] NO

Does anyone here check the YES box? If not then can we put to bed this whole "why do you sympathize with the shooters" argument?

If we're going to do an art criticism thread, I feel like we at least need some pictures:



Is this picture (apparently the contest winner) supposed to be racist or offensive? I would say not. I'm not sure it's going to fetch eight figures at auction, but I would grade it as fine.

All of the other pictures from the exhibition struck me as poorly drawn, offensive, lacking in any meaningful message, or all of the above. Therefore, I will rate those drawings as not very good.

It looks like the best picture won, so I will rate the judging at this particular exhibition as flawless. That said, most of the pieces exhibited were not very good, so I think the exhibition as a whole has to be rated as pretty bad for an art exhibition.

Could have done better without the Wolverine style of facial hair imo

But a good style of art review.

Absolutely.

The anti-cartoonist group during Charlie Hebdo immediately started criticizing the cartoonists, literally hours after the attack took place.

Yeah, there is an element of "sympathy" for the Islamists.

Mocking somebodies skin colour is a little bit different than mocking somebodies beliefs

why is terrorist in quotes?

you don't know the basic facts of the story, and yet you have the most posts in the thread

Yep.

They aren't "random people", its event organizers and event patrons. I don't know the legal ramifications of that relationship. But people assume liability for third party criminal activity all the time,for example if there is negligent security. Sports stadiums aren't spending all that money on security out of the goodness of their hearts.

(As I said I'm not saying this event was necessary negligent, they did have security, but I'm sure an argument could be made they didn't do enough given the magnitude of prior attacks)

So what is your point? Can someone who was injured sue them, sure. Are they criminally liable, no. The Security guard most likely is limited to workers Comp. So who else can sue them? Guessing they had insurance anyway. But maybe we can make up a hypothetical if this happened and this happened and they knew this then they could be liable to someone.

I don't find this drawing offensive at all. That's not what this event was about though. This event was held to give participants an opportunity to **** on Muslims. That so many Muslims oppose drawings of Mohamed simply provided Geller et al a nice little out to pretend it was about free speech.