O’Reilly: ‘Bogus’ To Invoke Free Speech in Mohammed Art Contest Debate

[mystery-ak]

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/05/07/oreilly-bogus-to-invoke-free-speech-in-mohammed-art-contest-debate/

by Ian Hanchett7 May 2015847

Fox News Channel host Bill O’Reilly argued it is “bogus” to invoke freedom of speech in the debate over the Mohammed Art Exhibit and Contest on Thursday.

O’Reilly said that, “the dead men deserved what they got. But the incident was ignited by a contest featuring cartoons of the prophet Mohammed. Any depiction of that Islamic icon is a sin in the Muslim world. Many Americans believe the provocation was legitimate under freedom of speech, but that is not the issue. No one I know favors curtailing speech in this case. The real issue is whether the exposition was the right thing to do.”

He continued that the “Christian point of view” is that “you don’t demean other people unnecessarily. Jesus would not have sponsored that event.” And “the goal of every decent person in the world should be to defeat the jihad. And in order to do that, you have to rally the world to the side of good, our side. Emotional displays like insulting the prophet Mohammed make it more difficult to rally law-abiding Muslims, for example. Including nations like Jordan and Egypt, who are actually the fanatical Islamists. In any war, you have to win hearts and minds, and the situation in Garland, TX goes against that. Again, the freedom of speech issue is bogus. No one is saying the exposition was illegal. The point is winning, defeating the jihad.”

O’Reilly concluded by urging people to vote in a poll on his site about whether they supported Geller’s group, but asked people to “consider walking away from emotion.”

[Luis Gonzalez]

O'Reilly id dead on on this.

[GourmetDan]

Emotional displays like insulting the prophet Mohammed make it more difficult to rally law-abiding Muslims, for example. Including nations like Jordan and Egypt, who are actually the fanatical Islamists. In any war, you have to win hearts and minds, and the situation in Garland, TX goes against that. Again, the freedom of speech issue is bogus. No one is saying the exposition was illegal. The point is winning, defeating the jihad.”

The law-abiding Muslims are the ones who are engaging in jihad.  It's their law, which they consider as supreme over the laws of the unbelievers.

O'Reilley is such a clown...

[DCPatriot]

O'Reilly id dead on on this.

I'm disappointed to see you type that, Luis.   

Megan Kelly can explain it much better than I can articulate it.....


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoaS0Zg1SYk

[Luis Gonzalez]

I'm disappointed to see you type that, Luis.   

Megan Kelly can explain it much better than I can articulate it.....


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoaS0Zg1SYk

There are several issues at play here. O'Reilly covers them all.

The would be assassins got what they deserved. O'Reilly is right.

Geller has a Constitutionally-protected right to do what she did. O'Reilly agrees and neither he or I are arguing that there should be any government action taken to curtail her right.

However, the Constitution cannot possibly protect you from the possible consequences of you exercising your constitutionally-protected rights.

I have a constitutionally-protected right to put on a Klan outfit and go stand on a street corner in Baltimore's inner city, but I am going to get my ass kicked into next week for doing so. If those who kicked my ass are caught, they will be prosecuted under the law.

This is not about free speech because the issue of free speech is whether or not the government can curtail the free exercise of it. All it can do is punish those who engage in illegal activities in response to someone's exercise of the right to speak freely.

Putting a crucifix in a jar of urine is wrong. It is also constitutionally-protected. Had I attempted to kill the artist, I would be wrong as well.

The crap that the Westboro Baptists do is constitutionally-protected, and if we showed up at a funeral and kicked their asses, we would be prosecuted because we were wrong.

This is not about freedom of speech because she exercised her freedom of speech, free from government interference.

"Congress shall make no law..."

Congress made no laws stopping Geller.

Geller engaged in an action explicitly designed to elicit the exact response that she got. She freely discharged her rights, and the authorities protected her.

That's how things work, however, it didn't make what she did right.

The Reverend Franklin Graham explains it best.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDjABe_IgWM

[aligncare]

Megyn, Lowery and Dershowitz nail it!

Especially on point was Dershowitz who made a comparison between Geller's choice to deliberately offend and Martin Luther King's tactic of holding peaceful protests in the South, where they would bring maximum focus and criticism onto Jim Crow.

This is must see YouTube.

[Bigun]

O'Reilly id dead on on this.

No! He is NOT! He is exactly 180 degrees WRONG on this!

[Fishrrman]

Luis, maybe it would be more appropriate for you to move to Canada and become a citizen there, where there isn't a First Amendment to protect speech.

I hope Ms. Geller, along with Geert Wilders, Robert Spencer, Ayaan Hirsi Ali and others continue to speak out as they do. There are precious few willing to do so publicly.

The war of The West against islam won't be won with civility or niceties.

The muslims know this.

We do not.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Luis, maybe it would be more appropriate for you to move to Canada and become a citizen there, where there isn't a First Amendment to protect speech.

I hope Ms. Geller, along with Geert Wilders, Robert Spencer, Ayaan Hirsi Ali and others continue to speak out as they do. There are precious few willing to do so publicly.

The war of The West against islam won't be won with civility or niceties.

The muslims know this.

We do not.

Are you that abysmally stupid?

Maybe you should have your citizenship suspended until you become fluent in English and actually understand the Constitution.

The Comstitution's First Amendment reads "Congress shall make no law...", it CANNOT protect you from all possible consequences that may arise as a result of you excercising your rights. Ms. Geller's First Amendment rights were never at danger of being violated, since Congress took no action to either stop the exhibition or punish her for putting it on.

[DCPatriot]

Are you that abysmally stupid?

Maybe you should have your citizenship suspended until you become fluent in English and actually understand the Constitution.

The Comstitution's First Amendment reads "Congress shall make no law...", it CANNOT protect you from all possible consequences that may arise as a result of you excercising your rights. Ms. Geller's First Amendment rights were never at danger of being violated, since Congress took no action to either stop the exhibition or punish her for putting it on.

That's NOT the argument here, Luis. 

It's the criticism of people like O'Reilly, et al, who think that just because you have the right to exercise your free speech rights,
doesn't make it morally right, or, if they get their way, socially acceptable.

Franklin Graham says drawing cartoons of Mohammed knowing it would incite them, was wrong. 

And we're all saying, "Yeah?  So what??  BFD!!

Piss Christ offended the hell out of me.  Yet, nobody injured or attacked her.

BTW....what should concern everybody here is that the FBI claimed they were aware of a gunman's intentions WELL prior to the attack.  The Obama FBI never notified or contacted the Galveston police department.

They wanted a massacre of these protestors.  But one man with a pistol spoiled their plans.

[Luis Gonzalez]

That's NOT the argument here, Luis.

Did you just become English challenged too?

That was his EXACT argument

Let me quote him:

"Luis, maybe it would be more appropriate for you to move to Canada and become a citizen there, where there isn't a First Amendment to protect speech."

[DCPatriot]

Did you just become English challenged too?

That was his EXACT argument

I edited with bold, the part which I was addressing.

Nobody is whining that the government CAN'T protect me from the consequences of exercising free speech.

We're just wondering what ever happened to, "I hate people who burn the flag, but I will die for their right to do so".?

Too much of a slippery slope to let this pass without saying something.  If you don't flip them the bird on this, the next step is that insulting Islam will be considered hate speech.

Then what?  No thanks.  I draw the line here.

God Bless Pamela Geller and her fellow participants.

[Luis Gonzalez]

I edited with bold, the part which I was addressing.

Nobody is whining that the government CAN'T protect me from the consequences of exercising free speech.

We're just wondering what ever happened to, "I hate people who burn the flag, but I will die for their right to do so".?

Too much of a slippery slope to let this pass without saying something.  If you don't flip them the bird on this, the next step is that insulting Islam will be considered hate speech.

Then what?  No thanks.  I draw the line here.

God Bless Pamela Geller and her fellow participants.

This is not about the First Amendment. It isn't about free speech, which I have repeatedly agreed that she had a right to engage in, and that she has a right to offend.

This is about terrorism.

If you insist on making this about free speech, then the government will act accordingly, and since laws saying that you can be charged with a capital crime if you kill someone for exercising their First Amendment rights are redundant, the government will do what government does best, and enact laws to "protect us from ourselves" by curtailing our rights to free speech.

This will not raise awareness in the U.S. Those who do not already know the dangers That radical Islam poses don't want to know.

What Geller will probably achieve (this is the law of unintended consequences) is give weight to proponents of "hate speech" laws that will stop her from putting any more exhibitions and who knows what else.

[Luis Gonzalez]

If this is about Free Speech and not terrorism, what can the government do to protect us?

It can't protect us from the crazed jihadist willing to strap bombs to his or her chest and walk into a venue where a Free Speech rally is being held to protest the actions of crazed Jihadists, nor can it protect every possible target that crazed Jihadists my select in order to retaliate against a Free Speech rally being held somewhere.
 
There are already laws in the books making killing someone illegal, so making it more illegal to do it while engaged in Jihad is sort of pointless.

So then, what CAN the government do to protect us?

It can curtail OUR freedoms, in the name of our own safety.

It can make these Free Speech rallies illegal and it can pass laws qualifying events like these as "hate speech".

We need to maintain the focus on the act of terror, not the non-existent violation of anyone's free speech. No one's free speech rights were violated.

We need to stop emoting and start thinking.

[aligncare]

"Don't let Pamela Geller or her cabal confuse you: drawing contest not about free-speech"

-- CAIR National

(Council on American-Islamic Relations is an un-indicted co-conspirator and designated terrorist group with ties to Hamas. The United Arab Emirates' ministerial cabinet had listed CAIR as one of 83 proscribed terrorist organizations, right up there with the Taliban, al-Qaeda, and ISIS.)

You're right, Luis. This is not about free-speech, it's about Western political correctness and cowardice before murderers who use violence in a perverse medieval religious doctrine to intimidate and cower the West into silence.

Liberals were the first ones to attack Geller's free speech, next came the terrorists to murder her for it.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Don't let Pamela Geller or her cabal confuse you: drawing contest not about free-speech"

-- CAIR National

(Council on American-Islamic Relations is an un-indicted co-conspirator and designated terrorist group with ties to Hamas. The United Arab Emirates' ministerial cabinet had listed CAIR as one of 83 proscribed terrorist organizations, right up there with the Taliban, al-Qaeda, and ISIS.)

You're right, Luis. This is not about free-speech, it's about Western political correctness and cowardice before murderers who use violence in a perverse medieval religious doctrine to intimidate and cower the West into silence.

Liberals were the first ones to attack Geller, next came the terrorist to murder her.

Terrorists don't need reasons to attack. Certainly Martin Richard was engaging in no "hate speech" when he was torn to shreds at the Boston Marathon.

Terrorists are attacking every facet of our lifestyle and our culture, and they don't belong here.

I'd rather wage a war over whether or not we're violating the religious rights of Muslim radicals in this country as we identify and deport them, over fighting to stop the government from enacting "hate speech" laws which curtail OUR liberties.

The government is far more likely to try the later over the former and we can't give them reasons to do it, however invalid.

These two jerks weren't tryinv to take anyone's free speech rights away. They can't. Congress can.

They were trying to take people's lives from them.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Don't let Pamela Geller or her cabal confuse you: drawing contest not about free-speech"

-- CAIR National

(Council on American-Islamic Relations is an un-indicted co-conspirator and designated terrorist group with ties to Hamas. The United Arab Emirates' ministerial cabinet had listed CAIR as one of 83 proscribed terrorist organizations, right up there with the Taliban, al-Qaeda, and ISIS.)

You're right, Luis. This is not about free-speech, it's about Western political correctness and cowardice before murderers who use violence in a perverse medieval religious doctrine to intimidate and cower the West into silence.

Liberals were the first ones to attack Geller's free speech, next came the terrorists to murder her for it.

Bastiat once said that the law, in the hands of unscrupulous men, was perverted to act in a manner exactly opposite to its purpose  "It has converted plunder into a right, in order to protect plunder. And it has converted lawful defense into a crime, in order to punish lawful defense."

Following that very true line of thinking, we need to understand that the very same unscrupulous men in charge today, will convert our free speech into hate speech in order to protect hate speech from them. 

[Lando Lincoln]

Bastiat once said that the law, in the hands of unscrupulous men, was perverted to act in a manner exactly opposite to its purpose  "It has converted plunder into a right, in order to protect plunder. And it has converted lawful defense into a crime, in order to punish lawful defense."

Following that very true line of thinking, we need to understand that the very same unscrupulous men in charge today, will convert our free speech into hate speech in order to protect hate speech from them.

Exactly correct Luis.  The irony is the raging debate itself, when in fact, there shouldn't be one. It has elevated the topic to where there are innumerable people "wanting something done".  Equally, there will be no shortage of politicos who will proffer "solutions".  Each proffered solution will impact what?  Freedom of speech.  See the irony?

What is being argued here is a vernier click, but yet different, side of the same issue.  Geller had her First Amendment right intact going in, she exercised them without fault, and she left with them intact.  I argue her judgment put bystanders and Joe Punch Clock LEOs in harm's way (not an aspersion, btw).  But the irony is, we are debating her Constitutional rights - when there isn't a debate, and shouldn't be one.  That debate will now accelerate, bank on it.  And it won't end until the "other guys" have hammered on the circle sufficiently to shrink it.  We lose.

[Bigun]

Bastiat once said that the law, in the hands of unscrupulous men, was perverted to act in a manner exactly opposite to its purpose  "It has converted plunder into a right, in order to protect plunder. And it has converted lawful defense into a crime, in order to punish lawful defense."

Following that very true line of thinking, we need to understand that the very same unscrupulous men in charge today, will convert our free speech into hate speech in order to protect hate speech from them.

On the other hand there is this Luis!

“Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless.
Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.”

Deitrich Bonhoeffer

[aligncare]

Geller's event (which had security) helped crack open a terrorist cell. As we speak, investigators are busily connecting dots and cataloging associates of the would-be murderers. Hopefully, arrests will follow.

I look at it this way. If liberals and CAIR are against what Geller did in this free speech conference, I'm for it.

Last thought here. If this were a free speech conference sponsored by some atheist group featuring a 'draw Jesus doing disgusting things with nuns' contest, no one in the larger culture would raise an eyebrow.

But – insult the prophet and all the mainstream media leftists and terrorist sympathizers and appeasers come crawling out of the woodwork.

I know whose side I'm on.

[Lando Lincoln]

Geller's event (which had security) helped crack open a terrorist cell. As we speak, investigators are busily connecting dots and cataloging associates of the would-be murderers. Hopefully, arrests will follow.

I look at it this way. If liberals and CAIR are against what Geller did in this free speech conference, I'm for it.

Last thought here. If this were a free speech conference sponsored by some atheist group featuring a 'draw Jesus doing disgusting things with nuns' contest, no one in the larger culture would raise an eyebrow.

But – insult the prophet and all the mainstream media leftists and terrorist sympathizers and appeasers come crawling out of the woodwork.

I know whose side I'm on.

You are right about that ac.  And it will be used as a hammer to "shrink the circle".  What a mess sometimes.

[Lando Lincoln]

Geller's event (which had security) helped crack open a terrorist cell. As we speak, investigators are busily connecting dots and cataloging associates of the would-be murderers. Hopefully, arrests will follow.

Thus far, there is no evidence of a "terrorist cell" is there?  Other than the two dead guys, that is. I haven't seen any.

[Bigun]

[DCPatriot]

It all boils down to "When in Rome, do what the Romans do!"

We shouldn't have to turn our social norms on our heads just to accommodate worshipers who follow something totally foreign.

And the fact that their belief system wants to kill us for being unbelievers is all you need to know.

Me?  I'd go native on them.  You want to come to our country?  Fine.   You take a public oath that you will NOT practice hatred or violence against American Christians. 

If you ever break that pledge, you die.  Along with your entire family being deported.  No appeals.

[GourmetDan]