NY Times And SPLC Side With Muslims against Geller

A

AAAintheBeltway

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-05-07-17-25-45

The NY Times is all for freedom of speech when it is using it to protect its business empire. They even got a Supreme Court decision back in the '60's giving the media license to slander ordinary people who annoyed them. When it comes to muslims however, apparently different rules apply. Applying the media's new consensus of "don't do anything to annoy muslims" they criticized hero First Amendment defender Pam Geller for her mohammed cartoon event.

Probably their real gripe is that she exposed how cowardly the mainstream media are. They self censor any criticism of muslims because they are afraid, very afraid. Just like the bozos at the SPLC, it is one thing to torment elderly ex-klansmen, but these muslims are likely to shoot you or stick a knife in you if you annoy them. Better to back off and hiss at people who aren't so easily intimidated.
 
There is no question that images ridiculing religion, however offensive they may be to believers, qualify as protected free speech in the United States and most Western democracies. There is also no question that however offensive the images, they do not justify murder, and that it is incumbent on leaders of all religious faiths to make this clear to their followers.

But it is equally clear that the Muhammad Art Exhibit and Contest in Garland, Tex., was not really about free speech. It was an exercise in bigotry and hatred posing as a blow for freedom.

Some of those who draw cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad may earnestly believe that they are striking a blow for freedom of expression, though it is hard to see how that goal is advanced by inflicting deliberate anguish on millions of devout Muslims who have nothing to do with terrorism. As for the Garland event, to pretend that it was motivated by anything other than hate is simply hogwash.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/07/opinion/free-speech-vs-hate-speech.html
 
AAAintheBeltway said:
The NY Times is all for freedom of speech when it is using it to protect its business empire. They even got a Supreme Court decision back in the '60's giving the media license to slander ordinary people who annoyed them. When it comes to muslims however, apparently different rules apply. Applying the media's new consensus of "don't do anything to annoy muslims" they criticized hero First Amendment defender Pam Geller for her mohammed cartoon event.

Probably their real gripe is that she exposed how cowardly the mainstream media are. They self censor any criticism of muslims because they are afraid, very afraid. Just like the bozos at the SPLC, it is one thing to torment elderly ex-klansmen, but these muslims are likely to shoot you or stick a knife in you if you annoy them. Better to back off and hiss at people who aren't so easily intimidated.
More...

It is the left who will be the surrender-monkeys that hand the country over the the caliphate.
 
futurecurrents said:
There is no question that images ridiculing religion, however offensive they may be to believers, qualify as protected free speech in the United States and most Western democracies. There is also no question that however offensive the images, they do not justify murder, and that it is incumbent on leaders of all religious faiths to make this clear to their followers.

But it is equally clear that the Muhammad Art Exhibit and Contest in Garland, Tex., was not really about free speech. It was an exercise in bigotry and hatred posing as a blow for freedom.

Some of those who draw cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad may earnestly believe that they are striking a blow for freedom of expression, though it is hard to see how that goal is advanced by inflicting deliberate anguish on millions of devout Muslims who have nothing to do with terrorism. As for the Garland event, to pretend that it was motivated by anything other than hate is simply hogwash.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/07/opinion/free-speech-vs-hate-speech.html
More...
Generally true, just as putting a crucifix in a jar of piss really isn't about art now is it? The difference is in the level of support the left shows to those being intentionally proactive. It's also about how crazed those being offended react. While the Christians pitch a fit I don't recall them strapping bombs to themselves and attacking art exhibits with automatic weapons. Nobody is saying all artists must die because a couple of no talent goofs throw out some crap and call it art.
 
CaptainObvious said:
Generally true, just as putting a crucifix in a jar of piss really isn't about art now is it? The difference is in the level of support the left shows to those being intentionally proactive. It's also about how crazed those being offended react. While the Christians pitch a fit I don't recall them strapping bombs to themselves and attacking art exhibits with automatic weapons. Nobody is saying all artists must die because a couple of no talent goofs throw out some crap and call it art.
More...


Further, the Christians were POed (heh) that tax dollars went to pay for it. Just think what the NYT would do if tax dollars went to make Mo Toons - heads would explode.
 
There is a big problem here that no one wants to acknowledge, least of all the media. Violence works. People, influential people, are afraid to get on the wrong side of muslim crazies.

Violence seems to work pretty well for the race hustlers as well. Find some excuse to whip up some riots and money and attention flow your way.

It's a sad day for Constitutional government when violence sets the agenda.
 
I guess i have to disagree. I don't think no justice no peace works for anyone but the left. If the riots and violence are against the right, the left will always stand up for it. If there ever was a rightist movement that rampaged and took over a section of a city, i don't think there's any chance that the police would be told to stand down. All the military equipment that was sent to police would be brought out and the jade helms crews would be brought in and the entire msm would be declaring it a threat to the very nature of our country that must be squelched without mercy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top