The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: dutch508 on May 06, 2015, 06:01:51 AM
-
1StrongBlackMan (19,328 posts) http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026625056
I heard an interesting take on the Geller/1st Amendment thing this morning ...
Essentially, the Free Speech claims (would) fail; but, for the American penchant for seeing everything through our own eyes (and then, selectively so).
The SCOTUS has, long, recognized the/a "Fighting Words" exception to protected free speech. As it applies to this situation, no one here would argue that standing on a street corner yelling the "N-word" to African-Americans passing by, would be constitutionally protected speech. Well, some might; but, they would be at odds with what the SCOTUS has announced.
However, those trying to make geller's action constitutionally protected can only do so; but, ignoring that her words/actions, are, in fact, "fighting words" for Islamists, especially if viewed frame outside of the American context ... and even as, some Islamists do/will not respond by fighting.
ETA: I guess I should include the following ... Nothing I have written justifies the taking of a life (under these circumstances), especially over speech, period.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLlDzWt7TPc[/youtube]
BURN THIS BITCH DOWN!!!! - protected Free Speech.
Those are fighting words that provolked a riot with millions of dollars in damages and at least one death.
Islamists attempted to murder American citizens. Hate speech by the victims.
notadmblnd (19,956 posts)
1. I also heard that the town was aware that there could be trouble the sheriff said that they had advised Geller and co. that they needed to provide extra security. They knew there could be trouble and chose to intentionally provoke Muslims with their actions.
The left is preaching that we give in to our enemies in the hopes they won't attack us.
msongs (35,995 posts)
3. cower in fear of the religious bullies who believe any criticisms are "fighting words" or don't need any phony justifications at all
Religious bullies are only Jews and Christians.
notadmblnd (19,956 posts)
6. How is what Geller and co did, not the same as bullying?
they deliberately set out to provoke a reaction and they got the reaction they were looking for.
So who is more ****ed in the head, the religious nuts or the nuts that provoke them?
Let's say, for example, the Westburo Baptist Church ****heads hold a rally against teh gheys. Let's say for example two militant gheys attack them for their statements at a rally and are killed by police protecting that rally.
Who are the leftists going to side with?
Now- let's say it's the New Black Panther Party holding a rally against white people calling for their murder. Two neo-NAZI ****sticks attack them and are killed by the police. Who is the left going to stick up for?
You don't get to go both ways, folks.
RadiationTherapy (5,286 posts)
10. It wasn't bullying because no muslim needed to be there or experience the offense. There could have protests like those who protest Phelps. There could have been viral videos to out these muhammed drawing assholes. there could have been boycotts and billboards. Unfortunately, if you believe the prophet of the creator of the entire universe of everything has been "insulted," ya might shoot somebody.
^ this.
notadmblnd (19,956 posts)
12. you're right. they didn't need to show up
But Ms Geller needs not to hide behind the 1st Amendment. The sheriff has acknowledged that they were aware there could be trouble and advised her to add extra security. She's nothing but a cowardly shit stir-er and she needs to stand up and take responsibility for all those she put in danger. She manipulated and exploited both side's ignorance and hatred.
Has she even been confronted by the media yet? Has anyone bothered to contact and interview her or is she hiding?
Hiding behind the first amendment? No. Supported BY the first amendment.
Warren DeMontague (60,779 posts)
27. When is the last time "fighting words" was SUCCESSFULLY used in a case?
Amd im not talking about people burning a cross on someone else's lawn, I'm talking about "speech that makes someone else real mad" or 'blasphemy', which is the specific speech you want outlawed, here.
Lucky for the United States, you are strenuously misinformed about the 1st Amendment.
1StrongBlackMan (19,328 posts)
40. 2003, the case of VIRGINIA v. BLACK et al. ...
And yes ... it was a cross burning case ... which was "speech" that makes someone else real mad", IN THE CONTEXT OF beliefs outside the limits of American hegemony.
Lucky for the United States, you are strenuously misinformed about the 1st Amendment.
Misinformed ... strenuously so? Okay ... but case law is on my strenuously misinformed side ... unless you toss out the cases you don't like.
MellowDem (4,403 posts)
45. That case didn't use the Fighting Words doctrine...
It struck down a Virginia statute that's didn't allow cross burning. It said a statute could ban intimidation, and if a cross burning was done in a way to intimidate, then it would not violate the first amendment to have a law against that.
That's not the fighting words doctrine. That's incitement. The fighting words doctrine has two prongs, speech that by its very utterance inflict injury and speech that tend to incite a breach of the peace.
The difference between fighting words and incitement is that incitement applies to speech meant to encourage someone else do something bad on the speaker's behalf. Fighting words is speech that will make the hearer react against the speaker.
The history of the fighting words doctrine lies in laws meant to discourage deuling among the privileged overclass in antebellum America. It's a great example that offensive speech is a completely subjective notion.
So we're still left with a doctrine that hasn't been used once by the SC since it was created, and which likely would be overturned IMHO if it were able to go before the current SC.
Nuclear Unicorn (15,136 posts)
24. It's not illegal to yell "Fire!" in a theater if there's actually a fire and you sorely misstate
the fighting words doctrine. No, really!1
UTUSN (39,394 posts)
28. Let's try this: I don't care about you. I don't want to hear from you. I am happy without you. n/t
Bluenorthwest (35,588 posts)
14. I would suggest that you think about this: much of mainstream religion sounds like fighting words to those of us hounded and constantly attacked by mainstream religious figures. The Obama 2008 campaign alone employed 'Ministers' who had called LGBT people child killers, prostitutes, perverts, called for war against us and equated all of our relationships to criminal behavior and pedophilia. According to Obama, all of that was acceptable, mainstream and worthy of being part of a Democratic campaign for the WH.
So it is odd to me that folks who insisted 'they are trying to kill our children' was 'just church talk' are now claiming to oppose all hate speech.
There are hundreds of attacks against LGBT people in the US each year. Hundreds, met with silence by DU, a place that cheers for the Pope, who says our rights are Satan's idea.
Fighting words. Matter of perspective, perhaps? I would think so.
1StrongBlackMan (19,328 posts)
20. While I largely agree ...
particularly, that much of mainstream religion sounds like fighting words and should not be protected speech just because they come out the mouths of "the clergy."
I probably should point out there is a difference between constitutionally protected speech and unlawful/criminal speech.
However, I question(?)/disagree with your characterization of the 2008 (President) Obama campaign, in that I do not recall the vilification being put of the campaign.
One becomes associated with the words one speaks ... so while the vilification was not all that these clergy spoke, I can understand the taste left.
Warren DeMontague (60,779 posts)
59. You tell me the last time anyone was successfully prosecuted in the US for "blasphemy".
Which is what this is about.
Um... before the creation of the US- there is that little matter of there is no STATE religion.
Warren DeMontague (60,779 posts)
57. Yeah, I take the 1st Amendment pretty ****ing seriously. I've certainly never claimed otherwise.
I had family members die in concentration camps, and yet I understand why the ACLU defended the right of Nazis to march in Skokie in the 1970s. Hell, I support that position- not because I lurrrrv Nazis, but because I know that the freedom of the most noxious-ass or unpopular views to be spoken is absolutely diametrically opposed to the kind of totalitarianism Nazis represent. To censor the Nazis would have been to give Naziism a victory. Letting them speak, and be spoken to, they lose.
So I don't **** around when it comes to the 1st Amendment. And it never fails to depress the crap out of me when so-called "progressives" on DU seemingly can't wait to ditch the damn thing with all sorts of half-baked rationales to censor speech, entertainment, or media that bugs them, usually with nothing more than the justification that "butbutbut you don't understand- it REALLY bugs me!".
If I can handle living on a planet where Nazis march in Skokie, people can handle sharing the planet with pictures of naked boobs on the internet or cartoons about Mohmammed. (One of the most popular, long-running shows on Broadway right now is a play making fun of the LDS church. By your logic, shouldn't Parker and Stone be in jail right now?)
Hell, they don't have to handle them, even. They can scream and yell and get mad. They can ignore them. They can change the channel. What they can't do is get violent--- or use the government to try to surpress that speech.
Warren DeMontague (60,779 posts)
29. Yay, another pro censorship thread on DU.
yes, lets outlaw Blasphemy. GREAT ****ing idea.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9e1V3IibOk[/youtube]
Your president supports it.
Yorktown (413 posts)
34. The argument reported in the OP is a fallacy
Yes, it would be "Fighting Words" to "stand on a street corner yelling the "N-word" to African-Americans passing by". Because you would be insulting people, and not only insult them, but insult them right under their noses, thereby quite probably triggering a physical shuffle, if not worse.
Pamela Geller's case is quite different: she holds a rally to warn against the dangers of the ideology of Islam by means of little cartoons. If it becomes impossible to criticize ideologies (through cartoons or speech), it's quite literally good bye to free speech.
What obscures the issue is that Geller is a firebrand with a confrontational style. But style cannot be given precedence over substance. The substance of the case is free speech. And radicals who want to silence free speech with guns.
TEH NADIN SPEAKS!!!!
nadinbrzezinski (136,397 posts)
49. Since you are making a legal argument
I will try to explain how this MIGHT fly.
Yes, hers are fighting words, though calling you the N word alone would not be subject to a criminal trial either. Tough you might, and this is where it might be actionably, sue me for psychological distress under tort law. So in the case of Geller the way this works and has been tried and no judge has yet to agree, is by accusing her of using hate speech.
There is precedent with her, and it has to do with all the adds MTS has tried to prevent from running. She has prevailed every time.
Now, purely as a thought experiment. I am muslim, I obviously object to the drawings of the prophet, they are fighting words. If I, and a bunch of my friends, lets say CAIR, get together and file a class action we MIGHT have a chance of getting standing. This is the first challenge. (There are many reasons, some have nothing to do with the amendment that give me pause with the legal system, and I doubt this case would get standing.)
Now me, the jewish immigrant hispanic woman from Mexico City, would have zero chance of getting standing since I am no part of the aggrieved class.
And this is truly the test for those who are going there. Whether a court of law will go there. So far they have not. There have been a few cases.
Now outside the court system... I find her speech to be hateful, you are correct in calling it fighting words, and perhaps something that an enterprising lawyer should explore and explore with the concept of stochastic terrorism.
One thing I have learned from watching both civil and criminal courts over the last two years is that precedent is king (I knew this but now it is beyond clear in ways that the theory does not start to illuminate) and that a decision might truly depend on word usage, and who is your expert. A lot of it has nothing to do with what started the whole thing. At times it looks like a socratic exercise as well.
On the bright side, she will be facing quite a bit of possible lawsuits, from all the folks who were there and know she has money. This is the deep pocket syndrome. It is Texas though, were tort awards are severely limited. Those, I almost expect.
Edited to clarify what areas of law the use of the N word, or this for that matter, would fall.
people are going to sue her for what?
But with that, **** it! I am out!
-
It is always the left that tries to use the force of government to suppress ideas it doesn`t like.
-
Warren DeMontague (60,779 posts)
29. Yay, another pro censorship thread on DU.
yes, lets outlaw Blasphemy. GREAT ****ing idea.
Pamela Geller, you have been found guilty by the DUmpmonkeys of uttering the name of the Prophet, and so as a blasphemer!
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIaORknS1Dk[/youtube]
-
ISIS has weighed in . . .
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/05/isis-posts-warning-we-have-71-trained-soldiers-in-15-states-names-5-targets/
-
ISIS has weighed in . . .
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/05/isis-posts-warning-we-have-71-trained-soldiers-in-15-states-names-5-targets/
71 suiciders? Won't they deplete the 72-virgins supply? Might some of them have to make do with 36? Or 72 slightly pre-owned?
-
notadmblnd (19,956 posts)
6. How is what Geller and co did, not the same as bullying?
(http://www.peta2.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/head-against-wall.gif)
Warren DeMontague (60,779 posts)
29. Yay, another pro censorship thread on DU.
yes, lets outlaw Blasphemy. GREAT ****ing idea.
This surprises you?
Edited to clarify what areas of law the use of the N word, or this for that matter, would fall.
I was going to comment on that until I scrolled up to see who wrote it. It almost made sense reading it backwards.
One thing I have learned from watching both civil and criminal courts over the last two years is that precedent is king (I knew this but now it is beyond clear in ways that the theory does not start to illuminate) and that a decision might truly depend on word usage, and who is your expert. A lot of it has nothing to do with what started the whole thing. At times it looks like a socratic exercise as well.
:wtf2:
(http://tvseriesfinale.com/assets/peoplescourt09a.jpg)
Time to update the resume?
-
This shit here offends the hell out of Christians. Perhaps these should be banned as well:
https://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images;_ylt=A0LEVxxCEUpVOvwAUqdXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTE1Nzk1aWNiBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDVklQNTY0XzEEc2VjA3BpdnM-?p=Gay+price+san+francisco&fr=yfp-t-252&fr2=piv-web#id=resitem-44
What say you DUmp****s?
-
ISIS has weighed in . . .
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/05/isis-posts-warning-we-have-71-trained-soldiers-in-15-states-names-5-targets/
69 now. :evillaugh:
-
69 now. :evillaugh:
Does their religion allow that?
69, I mean.
I imagine it would be tough to get the goat to do its part.
-
IF only the woman had not dressed so slutty she wouldn't have been raped defense I see.
-
ISIS has weighed in . . .
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/05/isis-posts-warning-we-have-71-trained-soldiers-in-15-states-names-5-targets/
I think that ISIS rep was lying when he implied that the Texas shooters were ISIS agents, just trying to claim some terrorist cred for his organization.
I'm not sure how much credit we should give to this guy's threats. Of course, we shouldn't flat- out ignore them, as ISIS is a psychotic and dangerous group that would love to spill as much American blood as possible, and we don't know just what kinds of resources they have, but at the same time, releasing a phony threat to cause fear and discord among Americans would fit perfectly into the playbook of most Muslim terror groups, including ISIS. I remember ten years or so ago, al Qaeda released a video threatening a large- scale attack on America around Christmas. The guy in the video ended it by ominously saying "The gift for the holiday is on its way." Nothing ever came of it.
btw, why am I not surprised that one of the states ISIS has apparently infiltrated with agents is California? Any known ISIS agents would be welcomed in San Francisco with open arms (Though they might want to stay away from Castro Street; They might not like what they see there), given free scholarships to Cal- Berkeley, and be treated like celebrities there.
-
notadmblnd (19,956 posts)
12. you're right. they didn't need to show up
But Ms Geller needs not to hide behind the 1st Amendment. The sheriff has acknowledged that they were aware there could be trouble and advised her to add extra security. She's nothing but a cowardly shit stir-er and she needs to stand up and take responsibility for all those she put in danger. She manipulated and exploited both side's ignorance and hatred.
What the hell?! Sharpton, Jackson, Obama, Michael Brown's parents, black panthers, Holder have all done that ^ What say you? no? :bird:
-
notadmblnd (19,956 posts)
1. I also heard that the town was aware that there could be trouble the sheriff said that they had advised Geller and co. that they needed to provide extra security. They knew there could be trouble and chose to intentionally provoke Muslims with their actions.
They did pay for security.
Cindie
-
I tried to read cousin nadin's offering.
I really did.
I just couldn't make it through.
I might need the help of a spiritual fiction guide animal to translate.
Anyone care to summarize ?
-
I tried to read cousin nadin's offering.
I really did.
I just couldn't make it through.
I might need the help of a spiritual fiction guide animal to translate.
Anyone care to summarize ?
Aw, HELL NO!
-
The SPLC is behind a lot of the agitation surrounding Pam Geller...
Sandhya SomethingOrAnother is a “social change†reporter for the Washington Post.
(Yes, the WaPo has such a beat.)
Ms. Somashekhar (her surname copied and pasted) implied that WND columnist Pamela Geller ought to repent for staging a Muhammad Art Exhibit and Cartoon Contest in Garland, Texas, an event that was briefly attended by two, uninvited ISIS-Americans.
Sandhya must have been angry because she called Geller, in error, “a housewife from Long Island.â€
Progressives don’t much like housewives.
Like most Geller haters, Somashekhar (her name copied and pasted) cited the Southern Poverty Law Center as her “scholarly†source for Geller’s hatefulness.
The SPLC is a “leftist vigilante group,†explained Paul Gottfried, a real scholar. It is “unmistakably totalitarian in the drive to suppress and destroy deviationists from the party line on race, gender, and ‘discrimination.’â€
The “$PLC†is as dodgy in its financial dealings as it is in its strong-arming tactics.
“Stupid,†ruled a less obscure enforcer of political correctness, Bill O’Reilly, on Geller’s event.
Also at Fox News, host Martha MacCallum suggested Geller ought to have explored kinder, gentler ways of protesting Islam-imposed restrictions on expression.
Pantomime, perhaps?
The left-liberal Jon Stewart took the safe route.
The idiotic urge to kill over any annoyance was the object of the satirist’s spoof.
Stewart’s Thou Shall Not Kill skit was hardly cutting-edge comedy.
So he livened up the tired shtick with a curtsy in the direction of the prophet’s avengers. Geller’s group, The American Freedom Defense Initiative, was about hate speech, warned Stewart.
The biggest clown in the media circus, however, was TV anchor Chris Cuomo.
While Geller staged her vital challenge in private, Cuomo, a lawyer, flaunted his “smarts†in public. He tweeted that “hate speech†was unprotected by the Constitution.
Not everyone was speechless. Another of CNN’s cretins, Alisyn Camerota, stood squarely in the corner of the victims: those poor ISIS-Americans whose descent into hell was hastened by a guard at Geller’s Garland cartoon contest.
It was difficult to tell what it was about Pamela Geller’s position on impolite and impolitic speech
– echoed in the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights
– that so puzzled Camerota.
Brow furrowed, she battled to score points against Geller, in an exchange that was more amusing than the Mayweather-Pacquiao match (as ranked by National Review).
Camerota came short.
Join Pamela Geller in her fight to retain free-speech rights and the uniquely American culture — read “Stop The Islamization Of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistanceâ€
ISIS and its local, low-IQ Abduls have since vowed to kill Pamela and anyone who shields her.
Duly, Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren worried about the welfare of … law enforcement.
Greta accused Geller of jeopardizing her security detail’s safety. How’s that for ridiculous?
First, it is not Geller who is endangering the police; it’s those who would kill her for the words she mouths.
Second, protection of an innocent citizen’s life, liberty and property is the one legitimate function of government.
Besides which, Geller’s organization paid thousands out-of-pocket for protection.
full article...
http://www.wnd.com/2015/05/pamela-geller-offends-shariah-media/#I3AEAtypOyG2ZbwI.99
(http://www.wnd.com/2015/05/pamela-geller-offends-shariah-media/#I3AEAtypOyG2ZbwI.99)
-
One thing I have learned from watching both civil and criminal courts over the last two years is that precedent is king (I knew this)
Once again she wishes she didn't know all this shit, but inevitably she does.
At times it looks like a socratic exercise as well.
Is this the new nadinism for this week?
It sounds a lot like parenteral and meta to me.
-
Once again she wishes she didn't know all this shit, but inevitably she does.
Is this the new nadinism for this week?
It sounds a lot like parenteral and meta to me.
Plonk.
Yup yup yup.
That be retardant.
-
At times it looks like a socratic exercise as well.
Sounds like something you'd do for a backache (getting one, not relieving one).
I wish I didn't know this shit...
-
IF only the woman had not dressed so slutty she wouldn't have been raped defense I see.
Interestingly enough, this defense also works in a Sharia court, except it is used to prosecute the woman for showing her ankle...