6 Reasons Pamela Geller’s Muhammad Cartoon Contest Is No Different From Selma

[dutch508]

by John Nolte 9 May 2015 

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/05/09/6-reasons-why-pamela-gellers-muhammad-cartoon-contest-is-no-different-than-selma/

When you are dealing with the mainstream media, it is always difficult to tell if you are dealing with willful ignorance or just plain old ignorance-ignorance. There are plenty of moronic savants in the national media who have cracked the “hot take” code to please their left-wing masters but have no fundamental grasp of history, or much of anything much of else.

The act of willful ignorance in the media manifests itself through bias, and lies of omission conjured up to serve that bias. These dishonest liars know they are dishonest liars, and willfully choose to not tell the world pertinent facts like, say, Baltimore has been run by Democrats for a half-century, Hillary Clinton is in favor of legally aborting infants born alive, Ted Kennedy abandoned a drowning woman, and George Zimmerman is Hispanic.

Anyone who knows anything about history understands that tactically and morally, Geller’s provocative Muhammad Cartoon Contest was no different than Dr. Martin Luther King’s landmark march from Selma to Montgomery.

The first thing the spittle-flecked will scream upon reading the above is that I am comparing Geller to King. I did not know King. I do not know Geller. I am not comparing anyone to anyone. What I’m comparing is one righteous cause to another.

The second thing the spittle-flecked will scream is that King never would have held a Draw Muhammad Cartoon Contest … which brings me to the first reason there is no moral or tactical difference between Garland and Selma:

1.The Oppressor Chooses the Form of Protest, Not the Protester
Whether it is a bully stealing lunch money, an abusive husband “keeping the little woman in line,” a government passing unjust laws, or religious zealots demanding fealty from all, oppressors come in all shapes and sizes.

Oppressors do, however, share three important things in common: 1) The use of the threats of everything from shaming to instituting unjust laws to violence. 2) The goal of stripping others of their rights. 3) The choosing of the design and structure of whatever defiant protest might take place against them.

The protester has absolutely no say in this matter.

The only way to defy and protest against the bully who takes your lunch money, is to not give him your lunch money. Through his own actions the bully has designed the form of protest. The same is true for the abusive husband. If he is using the threat of violence to keep you “in line,” a defiant protest can only come in one form: doing the exact opposite of what he tells you to do or not to do.

If an unjust government passes a law making it illegal to sit in the front of the bus, the only way to protest the unjust government is to sit in the front of the bus.

Martin Luther King did not choose his form of protest in Selma. Racist Southern Democrats did.

Pamela Geller did not choose her form of protest in Garland. The jihadists did.

The day that changed America is called “Bloody Sunday.” On March 7, 1965, five-hundred-plus civil rights activists provoked violence from their oppressors by defiantly gathering on the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama.

It was the oppressor who chose this form of protest, not the protestors. Racist Democrats who ran Selma and the state of Alabama refused to authorize the march and pledged to stop it. Therefore the only righteous way to defy these racist Democrats who refused to allow Americans to exercise their God-given right to protest for their God-given rights, was to go ahead with the march.

What was true in Selma 50 years ago also was true in Garland 5 days ago.

It was the jihadists who told us they would oppress us with violence if we exercised our God-given rights to draw and satirize Muhammad. Therefore, to righteously defy this oppression, Pam Geller and the 200 others had no other choice but to draw and satirize Muhammad (more details on this below).

2.The Deliberatively Provocative Symbolism of the Site of the Protest
The launch point of the historic 1965 march from Selma to Montgomery was no accident. To poke a finger deep in the eye of their racist Democrat oppressors, civil rights organizers deliberately chose the Edmund Pettus Bridge. The bridge is named after a Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan, a confederate Civil War general, and a Democrat U.S. Senator.

Starting their civil rights crusade in such a place was an intentional taunt, an open insult to a diseased culture, and an obvious act of cultural blasphemy.

For the same righteous reasons, Geller chose the site of The Curtis Culwell Center in Garland, Texas, to hold her defiant cartoon protest. Just two weeks after the Charlie Hebdo massacre in France, a Stand with the Prophet in Honor and Respect event was held at the Curtis Calwell Center. The Islamic event was a horror show of extremism.

An unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombings was invited to the conference — a barbarian who has declared the F.B.I. a terrorist group and preaches, “This so-called democracy of America, will crumble and there will be nothing. The only thing that will remain will be Islam.”

The organizer of the event, Malik Muhammad, has advocated for Sharia Law here in America.

The entire event was premised on “defeating” those who disrespect Muhammad. This was all couched under the politically correct term of “Islamophobia,” but here is the rub:

“Frustrated with Islamophobes defaming the Prophet?” the event materials ask. … “Remember the Danish cartoons defaming the Prophet? Or the anti-Islam film, ‘Innocence of Muslims’?”

Like I said: it is the oppressor who chooses the form of protest.

3.A Righteous Cause for Civil Rights
In the face of a very real danger, Martin Luther King, his fellow organizers and hundreds of free Americans, stood up and defied their savage oppressors in defense of their God-given rights.

They provoked violence, taunted, and broke the law, all in furtherance of a righteous cause.

In the face of a very real danger, Pam Geller, her fellow organizers and hundreds of free Americans, stood up and defied their violent oppressors in defense of their God-given rights.

They provoked violence, taunted, and obeyed the law, all in furtherance of a righteous cause.

4.I Come In Peace
The Selma protesters defying their violent oppressors, did so peacefully. Their only provocation was exercising their rights.

The Garland protestors defying their violent oppressors, did so peacefully. Their only provocation was exercising their rights.

5.Democrat Bigots Victim-Blame
While much of the national media sided with the Selma protestors, local Democrats in the media and the political establishment blamed and demonized King, and his followers,  for rocking the boat, provoking violence, insulting the local culture, and causing the violence to happen.

Last week, Democrats in the media (New York Times, CNN, Washington Post, and even some sorry corners of Fox News) and the political establishment blamed and demonized Geller, and her followers, for rocking the boat, provoking violence, insulting a culture, and causing the violence to happen.

The 1965 Democrats and today’s Democrats are also bigots. The same CNN that protects Islam from offense by blurring the Muhammad cartoons, does not blur the Piss Christ.

The same New York Times that blasts those who offend Islam, profits from Mormon bashing.

Every one of these present-day media Democrats are silent in the defense of satire and mockery directed Christianity, or they enjoy and defend it. The opposite is true of satire and mockery directed at Islam. And that is the very definition of bigotry.

6.For the Righteous Cause of Freedom, People Risk Their Lives
In 1965, defying racist Democrats posed a legitimate threat to your life.

In 2015, defying jihadists poses a legitimate threat to your life.

Martin Luther King knowingly risked his life. Pamela Geller knowingly risks her life.

—

In both good and evil ways, Sunday in Garland, Texas, history repeated itself.

The national media is hiding that fact because they are either too bigoted, cowardly, and biased to tell the truth, or too ignorant to see the truth.

[obumazombie]

^Excellent work finding and posting that dutch.


I just wanted to add the lunacy, intellectual dishonesty, and intellectual laziness of a low grade celebrity lib...

The reliably liberal Politifact (through its Punditfact site) surprisingly took CNN’s New Day co-host Chris Cuomo took task on Thursday for his rather suspect claim on Twitter from Wednesday that “hate speech is excluded from protection” under the First Amendment.

Through its Punditfact site, Politifact’s Lauren Carroll noted his numerous attempts to clarify his remarks and citations of case law, but still came to the conclusion that Cuomo’s original statement was “false” (as opposed to “pants on fire”)

The Supreme Court has ruled that certain categories of speech are excluded from constitutional protection, such as a threat or "fighting words." Sometimes, speech can be both a threat and hate speech, in which case it would not necessarily have First Amendment protection.

But hate speech on its own -- such as on a picket sign or a blog -- is not excluded from protection. It may only be incidentally excluded.

Cuomo tried to clarify his point after the fact, giving an explanation similar to the examples we hashed out here.

But on his specific claim, the jurisprudence works against him.

Prior to her ruling, Carroll dissected Cuomo’s claims by starting with the tweet in question and how Cuomo told another Twitter user that “hate speech is excluded from protection” and urged the man to “read” the Constitution.

Carroll made clear almost immediately that “the concept of ‘hate speech’...is not addressed in the Constitution” and that “hate speech is not” considered “unprotected speech” (which “includes things such as threats, child pornography and ‘fighting words’”).

However, Carroll explained how hate speech “can also be considered ‘fighting words’” under certain circumstances, but is almost always given a wide range of rule and quoted Michael Herz of Cardozo Law School as emphasizing that:
“Indeed, that protection makes this country different from most other countries in the world.”

Carroll also took issue with Cuomo’s clarification and how he was attempting to reference a 1941 case before the U.S. Supreme Court (Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire) where the two phrases in question were deemed “fighting words”:

Even with this clarification, [Arizona State University’s Sandra Day O’Connor Law School’s James] Weinstein said Cuomo’s argument isn’t without holes.
If a statute bans hate speech, it has to be because it counts as a threat or fighting words -- not simply because it is hate speech.

This may seem like a slight nuance, but it’s important.

In 2002, the Supreme Court ruled that it’s constitutional for a state to have a statute that bans cross-burning -- but only if prosecutors can prove criminal intent to threaten.
They cannot, for example, ban a burning cross used only to demonstrate political ideology.
In another cross-burning case, the Supreme Court ruled in 1991 that it’s unconstitutional to up the penalty or charge people with a crime solely because their actions constitute hate speech.

“The fact that something is hate speech or not is irrelevant for First Amendment analysis,” Weinstein said.

As the Media Research Center’s Matthew Balan reported on Wednesday, the comments from Cuomo (who holds a law degree) led to massive backlash from those on the right and left, ranging from Ed Morrisey and Ben Shapiro to Salon.   

The guy is an attorney, he either should or does know better. Maybe his intent was malicious as is often the case with libs.

full article...

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/curtis-houck/2015/05/08/even-politifact-states-chris-cuomo-was-wrong-about-first-amendment#sthash.NfmHpXrU.dpuf



edit: add

[SVPete]

Not faulting Nolte's article in the least, I'd add:

7.) Bullies need to be faced down. Compliance and placation will only lead to the bullying spreading and intensifying.

[andaronjim]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3195900/posts 

“The West are idiots and fools," one fighter taunted, according to Reuters. "They think we are waiting for them to give us visas to go and attack them or that we will attack with our beards or even Islamic outfits.

What Pam did was absolutely brilliant.  She exposed a sleeper cell which is no longer a threat.  We the People, need a National Cartoon the Prophet Mohammad Day, have swat teams around the events and expose every ISIS sleeper cell in the US.  We can take the battle to them, or let them get better prepared and America will rue the day when that happens.  Hazzah to Pam, you go girl.

[obumazombie]

Free speech isn't free unless exercised.