05 May 2015

My comment on the attack on the Dallas cartoon contest

Freedom of expression, including the freedom to mock and attack religion, must be defended without reservation and without compromise.  No "but", no "nevertheless", no "on the other hand".  Freedom of expression, including the freedom to mock and attack religion, must be defended without reservation and without compromise.  Period.

9 Comments:

Blogger Woody said...

Yes!

05 May, 2015 04:54  
Blogger Shaw Kenawe said...

Agreed.

05 May, 2015 08:06  
Blogger Ahab said...

I'm relieved that the incident in Texas was neutralized quickly, and that no one except the attackers was killed.

05 May, 2015 08:46  
Anonymous AWJ said...

Is anyone seriously arguing that Pamela Geller et al should be denied their legal freedom of expression? It seems to me that their defenders are setting up an enormous straw man. And it's more than a bit ironic for this particular lot to become (near) martyrs for free expression, given that they have called for the Quran to be outlawed as seditious literature.

My view on the shooting is the same as Josh Marshall's: violence in response to speech is absolutely unacceptable, but being the victim of such violence does not turn a scumbag into a hero. Getting assassinated didn't make George Lincoln Rockwell any less of a neo-Nazi, didn't make Meir Kahane any less of an evil religious supremacist, and this crime doesn't make Pam Geller any less of a conspiracy-mongering crackpot and bigot.

For Crom's sake, we're talking about a woman who believes that Barack Obama is the secret love child of Malcolm X. And now she's as happy as a pig in shit, squealing at the top of her lungs that this attack proves every detail of her lunatic worldview to be correct.

05 May, 2015 10:00  
Blogger Infidel753 said...

Woody & Shaw: I'm glad you get it.

Ahab: Yes, in this case the Texas police handled it well.

05 May, 2015 11:41  
Blogger Infidel753 said...

AWJ: Is anyone seriously arguing that Pamela Geller et al should be denied their legal freedom of expression?

Well, the gunmen were certainly "arguing" that, in their own way. More to the point, there are already posts out there saying that, yes, trying to shoot people in unacceptable but, nevertheless, on the other hand, the attackers and the cartoonists were both being "hateful" or some other word that can be used for both to try to insinuate some moral equivalence between what the attackers did and what the targets were saying. It's the same kind of slime that oozed from Pope Francis after the Charlie Hebdo attack and from most church leadership in Europe after the Danish cartoon incident.

I'm not defending Geller or calling her a hero; no one except you has even mentioned Geller. I know she's a nut. The point is, in this situation that doesn't matter. As soon as freedom of expression comes under attack -- whether the targets are atheists, Christians, Muslims, "Islamophobes", or what have you -- there is only one issue.

And now she's as happy as a pig in shit, squealing at the top of her lungs that this attack proves every detail of her lunatic worldview to be correct.

If so, that's entirely the gunmen's fault. They should have thought of that before they set out to vindicate her.

05 May, 2015 11:55  
Blogger Grung_e_Gene said...

It's a ridiculous joke that any right-winger claims to be a Free Speech Absolutist.

Just this century the conservative reaction to criticism of their Cherished Beliefs was "Americans better watch what they say, watch what they do".

Conservatives lashed out and threatened death at anyone who say was critical of the War on Terror or W(orst POTUS Ever) just ask the Dixie Chicks and Cindy Sheehan.

Of course, Conservatives champion the ability to insult religion as long as that religion is islam.

06 May, 2015 09:55  
Blogger Green Eagle said...

I think you are wrong to portray Pam Geller as a victim. Against this act, which resulted in nothing but the deaths of two of the most incompetent "terrorists" in history, we may place the 77 people murdered by Anders Breivik, who cited Geller as a major inspiration for his actions. Geller is a far worse person, in the end, than these two dead idiots, and to suggest that her actions over the years leave her without responsibility for this incident is, in my opinion, not acceptable.

06 May, 2015 12:07  
Blogger Infidel753 said...

Grung: The only person here claiming to be a free-speech absolutist is me, and I'm not a right-winger, so I don't see your point.

Green: I didn't "portray Pam Geller as a victim". I didn't mention her at all, except in responding to AWJ. But, no, the fact that some crackpot claims a person as inspiration doesn't mean much. Violent crackpots claim inspiration from all sorts of things.

Geller is a nutcase and a bigot, but until she actually tries to shoot someone, no, she is not worse than an actual terrorist.

Igd: Your comment was stupid and insulting and I won't tolerate that here. If mocking and criticizing one of the most violent and hate-filled religions in history is "incitement", then free expression is gone.

06 May, 2015 12:21  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home