Terror Comes to North Texas

[indianasmith]

I try to update my author blog once a week or so with my thoughts on . . . well, pretty much everything.  This week I am focused on recent events here in North Texas - the attempted terrorist attack at a "free speech" event.  But was it "free speech" or "hate speech"?  And should it matter?  This one struck close to home, and you can read my thoughts here:

http://lewisliterarylair.blogspot.com

[dean]

We recently had a politician here talking about free speech and discrimination here.

Senator Brandis said the problem with the current law was that it dealt with racial vilification in ''the wrong way'' by ''political censorship''.

''People do have a right to be bigots, you know,'' Senator Brandis said.

"People have the right to say things that other people would find insulting, offensive or bigoted."

Kind of eye rolling really.

Hate speech and free speech are separate things but one really must have a think for a second: Just because you can have free speech doesn't mean people won't think you're an ass/listen to your speech so maybe not being bigoted should be a part of the thinking here.

But really there are two aspects to this specific incident:

1. Extremist Fundamentalist Muslims believe that depicting the prophet is an incredibly high crime so it's no surprise that these incidents incite some to action.

2. Geert Wilders is a pretty outspoken guy who has basically made his career out of being a racist instigator. He has so many targets on his back and this particular event was clearly designed to provoke an antagonistic response so is anyone really surprised this would happen at some point? It really seemed like an event made to bait an attack like this.


Again, nobody should be shot or killed over something so realistically harmless, but knowing the above really it's both parties being idiots and really I support none of the people in this.

[indianasmith]

That's a valid point. 
But idiots should have a right to be idiots without being shot for it.
Thanks for taking the time to read, though!

[Trevor]

That's a valid point. 
But idiots should have a right to be idiots without being shot for it.
Thanks for taking the time to read, though!

I wonder what these stupid buggers who tried to kill the guests there would do to me if they knew I had a DVD copy of Mohammed: Messenger of God / The Message at home. 

[ER]

Gotta give respect to the attempted murderers in Texas. They were doing exactly what their holy book tells them to do.

Strange how "p**s Christ" didn't result in Christians killing artists. Or how no FOX execs died from Hindu violence when The Simpsons had Homer dress up as Ganesh. Or that a militant Chasid didn't assassinate Jay Leno when he played Moses in a skit. Or how enraged Buddhists didn't burn down movie studios when Keanu Reeves played Buddha.

Yes, very strange.

[ulthar]

Hate speech and free speech are separate things

Wholeheartedly disagree with that statement. 

This is why liberty is messy. So many want their own personal liberty but want also to define the "allowed" liberties others have.

[dean]

Hate speech and free speech are separate things

Wholeheartedly disagree with that statement.  

This is why liberty is messy. So many want their own personal liberty but want also to define the "allowed" liberties others have.

Well I guess it's in the definitions. I suppose I was referring to our Australian laws in which 'hate speech' the crime has been discussed recently so the phrase has been on my mind...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Australia


Personally I put a difference on hate speech and free speech based on a simple thing: you can say whatever you want but don't be an absolute raving jerk about it. Our laws probably swing too far at the moment, but I think on the face of it the concept of 'don't be an offensive ass' is solid. Really these days I think a few more people need a metaphorical clip over the ears so they know the difference between a self interested 'do what you want attitude' and maybe consider what other people's feelings are a bit more. Society seems to be a bit too vain and selfish sometimes.

That's a valid point.  
But idiots should have a right to be idiots without being shot for it.
Thanks for taking the time to read, though!

Oh definitely, idiots shouldn't be shot at, especially by other idiots who have been brainwashed into believing a perverted, corrupted version of a religion [and I don't think I was implying otherwise?] but lets be real: the organisers kind of knew they would provoke that reaction eventually. Why else does Wilders travel around with a small army protecting him?

I have to say though, knowing Geert Wilders' ideology, I wouldn't be too upset if someone also gave him a solid kick up the backside... He really gets on my nerves... I know I know violence bad, but I'd smile a little all the same.

[lester1/2jr]

It's curious to me why non Muslims take the depiction of Muhammed as a serious thing they should be sensitive too. Should we not eat beef because Hindus don't? Jewish people don't write God they write G_d should I do that too? It makes no sense to me

if you tell someone they can't do something for no good reason the OBVIOUS impulse is going to be to do it. I really don't know why a Muslim or person of any religion who can't understand that would choose to move to a western country. go back to Dagestan or one of those places that caters to your thinking.

[ulthar]

I suppose I was referring to our Australian laws in which 'hate speech' the crime has been discussed recently so the phrase has been on my mind...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Australia

This only outlines a specific example of the difference in viewpoint regarding the proper role of government in the debate "subjects vs sovereign individuals."

As I recall, Orwell had a few things to say about the concept of 'regulating' the words that come out of people's mouths.

[major jay]

I think in the USA we're used to making strong statements without having to deal with strong reactions. I mean, to me, this is really where the rubber meets the road. You really got to have enough balls to tell/show the other side to go f**k themselves.

[Ed, Ego and Superego]

Thanks for a thoughtful approach to a messy subject.  I enjoyed reading it.

My views are basically irrelevant as I feel all parties were at fault: one a fault of respect and manners and the other a much larger criminal fault.   No one should be shot, but I feel the organizers of the event were baiting and just happened to catch a bigger thing then they expected. And Tragedy resulted.   
The power of this country is basically (I hope) to just let people exist.  But even that is draining away.
Whem you have people stirring up trouble to make a point about another group being "less civilized" then they are not really morally superior.
Jerks, the lot of them
-Ed 

[ER]

The power of this country is basically (I hope) to just let people exist. 

I couldn't agree more: live and let live. But when in all of history has appeasement of evil ever worked? How can you peacefully co-exist with a force whose most central tenet is to convert all others to one way of life, and failing that, to destroy them? The people who met to exercise free expression (in a closed, non-public environment, by the way) did nothing illegal and arguably not even anything rude. To blame them for the reaction of attempted mass murderers is like blaming rape on how a woman dresses. (Oh, wait, Islam does that too.)


I have to go with lester on this, if a way of life is so hateful to a person, that person should consider moving to where others share the same beliefs. Or failing that, discover the fine art of tolerance.

[lester1/2jr]

I really dislike ritualistic/ superstitious aspects of religion and dislike them even moreso when I am expected to go along with them.

What is the point of the prohibition against drawing Muhammed? What is anyone harming by arranged lines of a pen in such a way that it forms that image? what does it take from humanity?

[Derf]

Free speech is a very messy topic. I will always err on the side of allowing as near to total freedom of expression as is practicable. As the saying goes, "I may not like what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." One of the biggest problems I see is that people confuse the freedom to express themselves with the freedom from consequences of that expression. If I may use indy in my example since he started all this hoopla, I am free to insult him, his family,  his religion, his ancestry, etc. He would likely turn the other cheek for awhile. Eventually, however, either I would find the one thing he will not allow to be abused (in his case, I would imagine it would be something to do with his family), or else just through sheer repetition I would wear him down to the point he would retaliate, perhaps verbally or perhaps with a well-deserved punch in the nose (which I could prosecute him for, however justified he might have been). Has he curtailed my right of free speech by stopping my abuse? No, but he has just as much right to express himself as I do. I may have been a total jackass, but unless I was making palpable threats, I was acting within my rights. He would also be acting within his rights to return my insults or possibly to sue me for slander.The only thing he would not have the right to do, and I wouldn't either, would be to escalate our feud to violence. It's messy, but it is also necessary in a free society for its citizens to be able to express whatever whackjob thing comes into their tiny little minds, as long as that thing is not a threat or in some way puts people in immediate danger. Anything less than this is not a truly free society.

[indianasmith]

And something I have noted - no critic of Christianity is asked to exercise the same level of self-restraint that Islam's critics are all but commanded to observe.  Artists can trash my faith in the most vile and scatological way, collecting government grants to do it, and I am expected to turn the other cheek. Gay activists can enter a Cathedral and defile the Eucharist with used condoms, and they are heralded as champions of sexual freedom.   But let someone hold a contest to draw Muhammad at a secular facility miles from the nearest mosque, and suddenly MSN has headlines: "Should there be limits on free speech?"

I would tip my hat to the tens of thousands of Muslims in the DFW area who gave this event the absolute lack of notice that it merited. It's a shame that the two jihadists from out West were not so wise.