France: Don't publish photo of naked breasts, but hooray to trying to incite violence with naked mohammed

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Firewind. Show Firewind's posts

    Re: France: Don't publish photo of naked breasts, but hooray to trying to incite violence with naked mohammed

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    I suppose the upside to all this idiocy is maybe - just maybe - if people keep deliberately pissing off fundamentalists, they'll eventually get tired and take a nap.



    This disregards why they became fundamentalists.

    http://www.boston.com/community/forums/news/politics/general/what-is-are-the-benefits-of-obamacare-what-are-the-real-costs/80/6295252

    http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/15-reasons-why-the-obamacare-decision-is-a-mind-blowing-disaster-for-america

     

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from BetheKoolaid. Show BetheKoolaid's posts

    Re: France: Don't publish photo of naked breasts, but hooray to trying to incite violence with naked mohammed

    "That's called putting pragmatism over ideology."

    France, of course, as a socialist country, has no First Amendment, and free speech is severely limited.

    Is your solution of surrendering free speech rights for fear of violence by fanatic religious zealots, one you also suggest for the US?

    Pragmatism= surrender of free speech rights.

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from FaolanofEssex. Show FaolanofEssex's posts

    Re: France: Don't publish photo of naked breasts, but hooray to trying to incite violence with naked mohammed

    Anything for a buck. People will never learn.

     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: France: Don't publish photo of naked breasts, but hooray to trying to incite violence with naked mohammed

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Blurry pictures of a princesses breasts are a nono:

    http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/2012/09/18/french-court-rules-for-royals-topless-photos/jyE5M3vfOlPjLIyV53PzhO/story.html

     

    But....let's go ahead and try to whip up some more riots with a cartoon of naked mohammed:

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2012/09/19/charlie_hebdo_mohammad_cartoons_french_magazine_publishes_naked_pictures_prompting_fears_of_muslim_backlash_.html

    "The magazine apparently published the cartoons against the urging of the French government, which plans to temporarily shutter schools and embassies in about 20 countries on Friday as a precautionary measure. (Why Friday? Protests tend to be more common after Muslim prayers on that day.)"

     [quote]

    The media has always promoted and published the negatives more than the positives. The more sensational the better; regardless of who it offends.

    I dont always agree with it but, to send the message of "if, you riot and cause harm we will call for censorship of things that offend you" is idiotic and very dangerous!

     

     

     

     

     

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: France: Don't publish photo of naked breasts, but hooray to trying to incite violence with naked mohammed

    The media has always promoted and published the negatives more than the positives. The more sensational the better; regardless of who it offends.

    I dont always agree with it but, to send the message of "if, you riot and cause harm we will call for censorship of things that offend you" is idiotic and very dangerous!

     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from DirtyWaterLover. Show DirtyWaterLover's posts

    Re: France: Don't publish photo of naked breasts, but hooray to trying to incite violence with naked mohammed

    In response to Newtster's comment:

    I am for breasts and for whatever video, cartoon, painting, movie that anyone wants to produce about Mohamed, Islam, Mormons, Jews, Bitter clingers, etc. 

    It is no fault of anyone creating a work of art (questionable as it might be) for a reaction to their art. If someone commits violence, its their fault, not the artist's.

    What is wrong with you moonbats that you cannot understand that? Why is it that  you focus on the artist instead of the thugs that kill people and break things in reaction to the artist's cartoon or  movie? Why aren't you and your fearless leader admonishing the people that react with violence? It's no wonder they keep doing it. It works for them.

    There have been PLENTY of videos and movies that are anti-Islamic released over the last year and no one said a forking word. So why is it now that you attack the artist of this one particular video? 

     



    Photos of Kate were an invasion of privacy - not art.

    The Video was not art but an attempt to spark violent protests among Muslims.

     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: France: Don't publish photo of naked breasts, but hooray to trying to incite violence with naked mohammed

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to tvoter's comment:

    The media has always promoted and published the negatives more than the positives. The more sensational the better; regardless of who it offends.

    I dont always agree with it but, to send the message of "if, you riot and cause harm we will call for censorship of things that offend you" is idiotic and very dangerous

    Well if we're just copy/pasting from one thread to the other....

     

    I see that because you're such a brave honest conservative who has real principles they can actually defend, you continue to run from the simpliest question on earth.


    Three's a charm? Try again, big boy: 

    If someone shouts "fire" in a crowded theatre but there is no fire, a stampede results, and people are hurt...

     

    ...do we blame the person who shouted "fire"?  

     

    Yes or No will do (actually that's not quite accurate. Yes or No, followed by some sort of logical reason would help)


    Yelling "Fire" when there is not one in a crowded theater shows the intent was to create panic and potential harm!

    Making a short film that a few months later radicals decide is worth killing over is NOT even close to the same thing!

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from BetheKoolaid. Show BetheKoolaid's posts

    Re: France: Don't publish photo of naked breasts, but hooray to trying to incite violence with naked mohammed

    The progressive arguing for government control over inconvenient speech, to kowtow to radical murderers overseas...

    Oliver Wendell Holmes Holmes used the "fire in a crowded theatre"  analogy in  Schenck v. United States , he ruled that it was a violation of the Espionage Act of 1917, (amended with the Sedition Act of 1918), to distribute flyers opposing the draft during World War I. Holmes argued this abridgment of free speech was permissible because it presented a "clear and present danger" to the government's recruitment efforts for the war.

    Shenck was overruled by Brandenburg v Ohio in 1969 . Interestingly, in that case Justice Douglas held that burning a religious symbol is protected speech:

    Douglas also pointed out the legitimate role of symbolic speech in First Amendment doctrine, using examples of a person ripping up a Bible to celebrate the abandonment of his faith or tearing a copy of the Constitution in order to protest a Supreme Court decision, and assailed the previous term's United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968), which had allowed for the prosecution of a man for burning his draft card. In all these situations, Douglas argued, an action was a vital way of conveying a certain message, and thus the action itself deserved First Amendment protection.

    Like burning the US flag,  whihc liberals correctly in my view argued was protected speech. But libs run and hide when America's enemies protest a YouTube video....

    Justice William Douglas would be disappointed in today's liberals, who are but poodles to the Government.

     

     

     
  21. This post has been removed.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: France: Don't publish photo of naked breasts, but hooray to trying to incite violence with naked mohammed

    In response to GreginMeffa's comment:

     

    Chrstians of all factions, liberal and conservative, were upset about Robert Mapplethorp's Pi55 Christ (and the fact the government paid him to make it), but didn't blow anything or anyone up.

     



    Maybe we should have. If the Islamists are any example, the government would be giving us billions of dollars and interrogating anyone who dared criticize Christian values.

     
  23. This post has been removed.

     
  24. This post has been removed.

     
  25. This post has been removed.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share