Actual First Amendment Contest or Racist Invitation for Violence

[Frikki]

We're conceding that at the present moment some are. A tiny minority out of a billion are.

The question is, how do you move these people from their radical positions?

By having known bigots that don't care about religious rights, like the right to have a Mosque wherever you want one, provoke them?

Or by engaging them as if they are human beings?

Yup, the standard leftist approach to anything. Appeasement, appeasement, appeasement.

Unlike your standard response which is to send other people to die in a faraway land while you guard the Strategic Mountain Dew supplies. There is a word for people like that.

 

[untermensche]

We're conceding that at the present moment some are. A tiny minority out of a billion are.

The question is, how do you move these people from their radical positions?

By having known bigots that don't care about religious rights, like the right to have a Mosque wherever you want one, provoke them?

Or by engaging them as if they are human beings?

Yup, the standard leftist approach to anything. Appeasement, appeasement, appeasement.

As opposed to what? The right wing solution?

Killing a bunch of innocent people because you are an infant that cries about appeasement?

 

[laughing dog]

We're conceding that at the present moment some are. A tiny minority out of a billion are.

The question is, how do you move these people from their radical positions?

By having known bigots that don't care about religious rights, like the right to have a Mosque wherever you want one, provoke them?

Or by engaging them as if they are human beings?

Yup, the standard leftist approach to anything. Appeasement, appeasement, appeasement.

I really don't think you have a clue what "appeasement" means if you think engaging people with grievances as if they are human beings. In the real world, that is called behaving like an adult and does not necessitate giving everything (or anything) that they may want.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yup, the standard leftist approach to anything. Appeasement, appeasement, appeasement.

What and who are appeasing? Please let us know.

Radical Muslims.

- - - Updated - - -

His position fundamentally comes down to Muslims not being responsible for their own behavior. That makes them animals. Strangely enough he's never replied when I pointed out where his argument lead.

Actually his position has been that there is a small handful of animals/psychopaths within the Muslim population that will respond with violence when provoked by things like cartoons. He has explicitly stated this multiple times.

But where has he identified them as either animals or psychopaths?

- - - Updated - - -

Yup, the standard leftist approach to anything. Appeasement, appeasement, appeasement.

As opposed to what? The right wing solution?

Killing a bunch of innocent people because you are an infant that cries about appeasement?

Appeasement almost always ends up being worse in the long run than fighting.

 

[Arctish]

Yup, the standard leftist approach to anything. Appeasement, appeasement, appeasement.

I really don't think you have a clue what "appeasement" means if you think engaging people with grievances as if they are human beings. In the real world, that is called behaving like an adult and does not necessitate giving everything (or anything) that they may want.

I think "appeasement" is the new right-wing talking point, meant to prevent the general public from treating non-whites, non-Christians, and non cis-gendered males with respect for their rights and aspirations. Even suggesting Muslims or blacks or women have legitimate grievances is the same thing as surrendering to ISIL, handing the country over to America-hating Black Panthers, and allowing Feminazis to castrate men at will. And don't even think about treating gays as the equals of straights.

 

[Bacillus anthracis]

I really don't think you have a clue what "appeasement" means if you think engaging people with grievances as if they are human beings. In the real world, that is called behaving like an adult and does not necessitate giving everything (or anything) that they may want.

I think "appeasement" is the new right-wing talking point, meant to prevent the general public from treating non-whites, non-Christians, and non cis-gendered males with respect for their rights and aspirations. Even suggesting Muslims or blacks or women have legitimate grievances is the same thing as surrendering to ISIL, handing the country over to America-hating Black Panthers, and allowing Feminazis to castrate men at will. And don't even think about treating gays as the equals of straights.

That word has been around since at least the Carter administration after Iran took U.S. hostages. At least that's the first time I remember hearing it with regard to not going out and crushing those whose interests run counter to the U.S.'s. And I was only kid then, so it must have been used a lot for me to remember it.

It's unfortunate that some words get hijacked for unworthy purposes.

However, whether it's overused, abused, or whatever, the idea that people in the U.S., Europe, and other parts of the world where freedom of speech and expression make up the foundation of our societies, cannot draw pictures of a a religious figure lest we suffer violent consequences is far more abhorrent than this rally in question. The people holding the rally are most likely racist assholes, but the idea in and of itself is valid and necessary. To have an exceptional standard for a group who suffers no actual harm by the legal exercising of rights by others doesn't jibe with free speech and expression.

Just as we don't want the bombings of abortion clinics or the murdering of the doctors who work in those clinics, we should not have to suffer the similarly held beliefs that lead to the violent acts of other religious zealots who wish to intimidate others through the use of violence.

 

[James Madison]

This is close to shouting fire in a crowded theater.

The US has pissed off so many Muslims with it's non-stop killing of Muslims for over a decade.

And of course it has nothing to do with any rights or freedoms.

It is about ignorance and hatred and trying to piss people off.

Using speech to "piss people off" is perfectly legal and protected by the 1st Amendment.

And the correct and proper phrase uses the word "falsely" yell fire in a crowded theater.

 

[Derec]

That word has been around since at least the Carter administration

Carter? Try Neville Chamberlain.

Ok, the word has been around for much longer than even him, but it gained the negative connotation after Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Wow, the baseless assertions are neck deep.

Anyway:

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/0...ue-invited-them-in-for-evening-prayers-video/

But Shami didn’t meet that hate with hate. Instead, he made a quiet and courageous act of conciliation. He invited the protesters into the mosque to join his 800 members for evening prayers, and something truly extraordinary happened to those who accepted the offer.

One of the protesters, Jason Leger, a Phoenix resident wearing one of the profanity-laced shirts, accepted the invitation. He says what he experienced that night has left him a changed man.

“It was something I’ve never seen before. I took my shoes off. I kneeled. I saw a bunch of peaceful people. We all got along,” Leger said. “They made me feel welcome, you know. I just think everybody’s points are getting misconstrued, saying things out of emotion, saying things they don’t believe.”

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Appeasement.... Does that mean actually talking to the person you have a disagreement or quarrel with and trying to find a solution short of killing each other and everybody else in between?

And this is a bad thing?

 

[Axulus]

Appeasement.... Does that mean actually talking to the person you have a disagreement or quarrel with and trying to find a solution short of killing each other and everybody else in between?

And this is a bad thing?

Talking to the person you have a disagreement with and trying to find a solution is diplomacy. Appeasement is one form of diplomacy that tends to be a form of bribery in response to aggression/criminal actions: if you cease your aggressive actions, we'll give you something you value and also won't retaliate for your previous aggressive/criminal actions. It tends to reveal a position of weakness: you want to avoid conflict more than the other party, and the other party can use this fact to their advantage to obtain more in the future or violate the agreement anyway on the hopes that the will to retaliate remains weak.

Whether it is a good thing or bad thing depends on the circumstances in question. Will the other party you are appeasing hold up their end of the bargain? Can they be expected to? If there are good reasons to believe they'll honor the agreement, it may be a reasonable action to take. However, the problem of course is that agreements aren't always upheld and there are sometimes good reasons to expect the agreement to be broken. Those are the situations where appeasement is a very poor strategy.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Appeasement.... Does that mean actually talking to the person you have a disagreement or quarrel with and trying to find a solution short of killing each other and everybody else in between?

And this is a bad thing?

Appeasement tends to mean agreeing not to retaliate against someone for engaging in criminal or aggressive actions and also making concessions to them so long as they agree to cease further criminal pr aggressive actions.

And then if they do engage in further criminal actions, you need to back down some more to let them know that you're serious.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I really don't think you have a clue what "appeasement" means if you think engaging people with grievances as if they are human beings. In the real world, that is called behaving like an adult and does not necessitate giving everything (or anything) that they may want.

I think "appeasement" is the new right-wing talking point, meant to prevent the general public from treating non-whites, non-Christians, and non cis-gendered males with respect for their rights and aspirations. Even suggesting Muslims or blacks or women have legitimate grievances is the same thing as surrendering to ISIL, handing the country over to America-hating Black Panthers, and allowing Feminazis to castrate men at will. And don't even think about treating gays as the equals of straights.

The problem is your side thinks you can talk it out with the Islamists. What you don't understand is that they aren't interested in compromise, any deal you make will be a sham. That's why we use the term "appeasement"--that's all you're actually going to accomplish. You embolden them, weaken us and simply postpone the confrontation, not avoid it.

- - - Updated - - -

Appeasement.... Does that mean actually talking to the person you have a disagreement or quarrel with and trying to find a solution short of killing each other and everybody else in between?

And this is a bad thing?

Talking it out with someone interested in reaching a middle ground is a good thing.

Talking it out with someone who has no interest in a compromise is at best a waste of effort and in practice a bad thing because concessions are made for no actual gain.

 

[Ford]

The problem is your side thinks you can talk it out with the Islamists.

Problem is your side thinks every Muslim is an Islamist that represents a threat and cannot be treated as a fellow human being.

That was the position taken by the collection of assholes who decided to protest outside this mosque. The people who showed up for Friday prayers were not terrorists or radicals or a threat to anyone. They were just showing up for a religious service. But the assholes (some of them armed, some with "fuck Islam" shirts) showed up with the intention to intimidate these completely innocent people.

The assholes - who claimed they were marching in favor of "free speech" - were very loudly and rudely expressing the idea that the innocent Muslims shouldn't be granted the same right to freedom of religion other Americans and attempting to scare them away from their constitutionally protected place of worship.


And how did the scary Muslims respond? They extended an invitation for the assholes to come inside and see the service. To say "look, we're not your enemy." A couple protestors took them up on it, and came out with a different opinion.


But hey, can't talk to the evil 'ole Muslims, eh?

 

[untermensche]

This is close to shouting fire in a crowded theater.

The US has pissed off so many Muslims with it's non-stop killing of Muslims for over a decade.

And of course it has nothing to do with any rights or freedoms.

It is about ignorance and hatred and trying to piss people off.

Using speech to "piss people off" is perfectly legal and protected by the 1st Amendment.

And the correct and proper phrase uses the word "falsely" yell fire in a crowded theater.

Is yelling FIRE falsely in a crowded theater legal?

And I used "pissed off" as kind of a joke.

The US has attacked, blown apart, tortured, falsely imprisoned, imprisoned without charges or trial and killed Muslims for over a decade.

It has destroyed 2 nations and ignited sectarian violence that didn't exist.

And for what?

Because it was frightened? For control of oil?

All this US violence has strengthened the most radical elements in the Muslim world and weakened the most moderate. In medical terms it has made the ME hyper-reactive.

In this climate created by US aggression, it is not very different than yelling FIRE falsely, to advertise a contest of drawing cartoons of Mohammed. It creates a risk to others.

The US can't inflame radicals through violence then complain about violence from radicals.

At least it has no moral right to do so.

 

[James Madison]

Using speech to "piss people off" is perfectly legal and protected by the 1st Amendment.

And the correct and proper phrase uses the word "falsely" yell fire in a crowded theater.

Is yelling FIRE falsely in a crowded theater legal?

And I used "pissed off" as kind of a joke.

The US has attacked, blown apart, tortured, falsely imprisoned, imprisoned without charges or trial and killed Muslims for over a decade.

It has destroyed 2 nations and ignited sectarian violence that didn't exist.

And for what?

Because it was frightened? For control of oil?

All this US violence has strengthened the most radical elements in the Muslim world and weakened the most moderate. In medical terms it has made the ME hyper-reactive.

In this climate created by US aggression, it is not very different than yelling FIRE falsely, to advertise a contest of drawing cartoons of Mohammed. It creates a risk to others.

The US can't inflame radicals through violence then complain about violence from radicals.

At least it has no moral right to do so.

The two acts, yelling fire falsely and contest of drawing cartoons of Mohammad, are sufficiently different such that the illegality of the former does not render the latter illegal. First, the former involves a false statement of fact in which people can reasonably be expected to act upon this false statement of fact to their physical detriment. The latter doesn't involve any false statement of fact but is rather pure speech and expression of an opinion.

Furthermore, the former example above has an immediate and identifiable group of people that can reasonably be expected to respond to the speech, those sitting in a theater, whereas the latter example is nothing more than a generalized notion someone somewhere may be offended and then so offended as to respond violently. The latter example is one of risk to tenuous to the speech, unlike the former example.

The two situations aren't similar and indeed are sufficiently different.

 

[untermensche]

Is yelling FIRE falsely in a crowded theater legal?

And I used "pissed off" as kind of a joke.

The US has attacked, blown apart, tortured, falsely imprisoned, imprisoned without charges or trial and killed Muslims for over a decade.

It has destroyed 2 nations and ignited sectarian violence that didn't exist.

And for what?

Because it was frightened? For control of oil?

All this US violence has strengthened the most radical elements in the Muslim world and weakened the most moderate. In medical terms it has made the ME hyper-reactive.

In this climate created by US aggression, it is not very different than yelling FIRE falsely, to advertise a contest of drawing cartoons of Mohammed. It creates a risk to others.

The US can't inflame radicals through violence then complain about violence from radicals.

At least it has no moral right to do so.

The two acts, yelling fire falsely and contest of drawing cartoons of Mohammad, are sufficiently different such that the illegality of the former does not render the latter illegal. First, the former involves a false statement of fact in which people can reasonably be expected to act upon this false statement of fact to their physical detriment. The latter doesn't involve any false statement of fact but is rather pure speech and expression of an opinion.

Calling these drawings of Mohammed is also a false statement. They are drawings from the imagination but not drawings of Mohammed. They are drawings people are falsely calling drawings of Mohammed.

And it is reasonable, if one is living in the world, to think that some may behave violently to false claims of drawings of Mohammed, for the reasons I mentioned.

I don't think these situations are as different as you claim.

Furthermore, the former example above has an immediate and identifiable group of people that can reasonably be expected to respond to the speech, those sitting in a theater, whereas the latter example is nothing more than a generalized notion someone somewhere may be offended and then so offended as to respond violently. The latter example is one of risk to tenuous to the speech, unlike the former example.

There is no clearly identifiable group that can be expected to hurt others because they hear the word FIRE. It is possible that nobody will be hurt.

It is the potential for harm that is the problem.

And false claims of drawing Mohammed also has, in the present world created by US aggression overseas, a potential for harm.

The only question is how much potential harm is sufficient to prohibit speech.

 

[James Madison]

The two acts, yelling fire falsely and contest of drawing cartoons of Mohammad, are sufficiently different such that the illegality of the former does not render the latter illegal. First, the former involves a false statement of fact in which people can reasonably be expected to act upon this false statement of fact to their physical detriment. The latter doesn't involve any false statement of fact but is rather pure speech and expression of an opinion.

And it is reasonable, if one is living in the world, to think that some may behave violently to false claims of drawings of Mohammed, for the reasons I mentioned.

I don't think these situations are as different as you claim.

Furthermore, the former example above has an immediate and identifiable group of people that can reasonably be expected to respond to the speech, those sitting in a theater, whereas the latter example is nothing more than a generalized notion someone somewhere may be offended and then so offended as to respond violently. The latter example is one of risk to tenuous to the speech, unlike the former example.

There is no clearly identifiable group that can be expected to hurt others because they hear the word FIRE. It is possible that nobody will be hurt.

It is the potential for harm that is the problem.

And false claims of drawing Mohammed also has, in the present world created by US aggression overseas, a potential for harm.

The only question is how much potential harm is sufficient to prohibit speech.

Calling these drawings of Mohammed is also a false statement.

No, the drawings aren't false statements of fact but entirely opinion neither expressing or asserting a false fact.

They are drawings from the imagination but not drawings of Mohammed. They are drawings people are falsely calling drawings of Mohammed.

Which renders the drawings mere opinion and not false statements of fact.

And it is reasonable, if one is living in the world, to think that some may behave violently to false claims of drawings of Mohammed, for the reasons I mentioned.

Yep, it is possible some unidentified person may or may not exist who may or may not react violently to the drawings but this is vastly differently from the immediately identifiable group of people in a crowded theater who can reasonably be expected to respond to a false statement of fact, falsely yelling fire, in the theater.

Quite simply the two situations are sufficiently attenuated from each other such that the illegality of one does not determine the other to also be impermissible.

 

[untermensche]

And it is reasonable, if one is living in the world, to think that some may behave violently to false claims of drawings of Mohammed, for the reasons I mentioned.

I don't think these situations are as different as you claim.

Furthermore, the former example above has an immediate and identifiable group of people that can reasonably be expected to respond to the speech, those sitting in a theater, whereas the latter example is nothing more than a generalized notion someone somewhere may be offended and then so offended as to respond violently. The latter example is one of risk to tenuous to the speech, unlike the former example.

There is no clearly identifiable group that can be expected to hurt others because they hear the word FIRE. It is possible that nobody will be hurt.

It is the potential for harm that is the problem.

And false claims of drawing Mohammed also has, in the present world created by US aggression overseas, a potential for harm.

The only question is how much potential harm is sufficient to prohibit speech.

Calling these drawings of Mohammed is also a false statement.

No, the drawings aren't false statements of fact but entirely opinion neither expressing or asserting a false fact.

You might not know if it true or not, but I fully know it is impossible for anybody to draw Mohammed, and claims that one has drawn Mohammed are lies.

Advertisements that Mohammed will be drawn are lies.

They are drawings from the imagination but not drawings of Mohammed. They are drawings people are falsely calling drawings of Mohammed.

Which renders the drawings mere opinion and not false statements of fact.

An opinion that has no possibility of being true is always a false statement.

It is impossible to draw Mohammed and anybody who claims they have done so is lying.

And it is reasonable, if one is living in the world, to think that some may behave violently to false claims of drawings of Mohammed, for the reasons I mentioned.

Yep, it is possible some unidentified person may or may not exist who may or may not react violently to the drawings but this is vastly differently from the immediately identifiable group of people in a crowded theater who can reasonably be expected to respond to a false statement of fact, falsely yelling fire, in the theater.

Quite simply the two situations are sufficiently attenuated from each other such that the illegality of one does not determine the other to also be impermissible.

It is possible that some unidentified person may or may not exist that will harm others because they hear the word fire uttered falsely.

There is no identifiable group of people in any theater that will cause harm just because they hear the word "fire".

You have not established any difference of significance between the two scenarios.

 

[James Madison]

Furthermore, the former example above has an immediate and identifiable group of people that can reasonably be expected to respond to the speech, those sitting in a theater, whereas the latter example is nothing more than a generalized notion someone somewhere may be offended and then so offended as to respond violently. The latter example is one of risk to tenuous to the speech, unlike the former example.

And false claims of drawing Mohammed also has, in the present world created by US aggression overseas, a potential for harm.

The only question is how much potential harm is sufficient to prohibit speech.

Calling these drawings of Mohammed is also a false statement.

No, the drawings aren't false statements of fact but entirely opinion neither expressing or asserting a false fact.

You might not know if it true or not, but I fully know it is impossible for anybody to draw Mohammed, and claims that one has drawn Mohammed are lies.

Advertisements that Mohammed will be drawn are lies.

They are drawings from the imagination but not drawings of Mohammed. They are drawings people are falsely calling drawings of Mohammed.

Which renders the drawings mere opinion and not false statements of fact.

An opinion that has no possibility of being true is always a false statement.

It is impossible to draw Mohammed and anybody who claims they have done so is lying.

And it is reasonable, if one is living in the world, to think that some may behave violently to false claims of drawings of Mohammed, for the reasons I mentioned.

Yep, it is possible some unidentified person may or may not exist who may or may not react violently to the drawings but this is vastly differently from the immediately identifiable group of people in a crowded theater who can reasonably be expected to respond to a false statement of fact, falsely yelling fire, in the theater.

Quite simply the two situations are sufficiently attenuated from each other such that the illegality of one does not determine the other to also be impermissible.

It is possible that some unidentified person may or may not exist that will harm others because they hear the word fire uttered falsely.

There is no identifiable group of people in any theater that will cause harm just because they hear the word "fire".

You have not established any difference of significance between the two scenarios.

And it is reasonable, if one is living in the world, to think that some may behave violently to false claims of drawings of Mohammed, for the reasons I mentioned.

I don't think these situations are as different as you claim.

They are sufficiently different. First, you assume the existence of some person or group of people which is different from the immediately identifiable group of people in a crowded theater. The former's existence is not known unlike the latter.

Next, some assumed to exist person, or group of people, is then also assumed to A.) become irritated by the depictions of Mohammad and B.) act on this irritation by resorting to violence. This is a very generalized principle which is true of all contentious speech. The Nazis, choosing to parade and march through a Jewish community, may irritate some person and this person may then act upon this irritation with violence but this is not sufficient to censor speech. The atheists, choosing to march and demonstrate, may irritate some religious zealot, and the religious zealot may resort to violence. Pro-choice demonstrators may irritate the religious community and pro-life groups, prompting someone to resort to violence. Contentious free speech would be non-existent on the basis someone, somewhere, may be offended and possibly resort to violence.

This is different from the people in a crowded theater in which we know this group of people to exist and reasonably know how they are likely to respond to someone yelling fire.

There is no clearly identifiable group that can be expected to hurt others because they hear the word FIRE. It is possible that nobody will be hurt.

First, the "identifiable group" are the people crowding the theater. Second, there is the possibility of harm to them by someone falsely yelling fire in that it can be reasonably expected the people crowding the theater will hastily run towards the exits. The possibility nobody gets hurt is not detrimental as the impermissibility of falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater is to preclude a harm which can reasonably be foreseen and can reasonably transpire.

It is the potential for harm that is the problem.

No, because there is always "potential harm" associated with any contentious and divisive speech. The harm has to be more than some generalized and remote quantity such as someone, somewhere may respond violently.

And false claims of drawing Mohammed also has, in the present world created by US aggression overseas, a potential for harm.

Yep, and the same is true for contentious and divisive speech, such as speech regarding abortion, messages of white supremacy, political speech on various subjects, speech denouncing the U.S., speech deriding U.S. soldiers, religious speech/messages, etcetera. The standard is not mere "potential for harm," well this shouldn't be the standard if speech on contentious and divisive issues is to survive.

You might not know if it true or not, but I fully know it is impossible for anybody to draw Mohammed, and claims that one has drawn Mohammed are lies.

No, it is their opinion this is what Mohammad looks like or it is their opinion this is Mohammad.

Advertisements that Mohammed will be drawn are lies.

Fantastic! Then the Muslims do not have any basis for being pissed off since, after all, nobody has drawn Mohammad. However, the more important point to be made is the drawings of Mohammad are not professed or implied to be actual drawings of Mohammad but rather depictions to make a point, to express a message or point of view, as opposed to expressing any notion they have actually drawn Mohammad.

An opinion that has no possibility of being true is always a false statement.

There is a difference between an opinion and a false statement of fact.