Fighting Words: NYC Bans All Speech Which Might Insult The Prophet of Islam

They've rewritten their blasphemy laws to try to fit them into the "Fighting Words" exception to free speech, as Allah admirably explains.

This means that if you would like to exercise your peaceful right to free speech, and someone else wishes to unlawfully exercise his non-peaceful non-right to engage in violence over your statement, your right is limited by his non-right.

Now, I suppose even liberals would understand the problem with this, if this "rule" were being generally applied. But they know it's not-- this "rule" shall only be applied to protect the de facto state religion of the US (the only religion afforded any sort of protection from "slander" and "provocations" in our laws), Islam.

There is a confusing aspect to this article that kept me from mentioning it earlier. I still cannot figure it out.

First the article says that ads like Pam Gellar's will be "prohibited," because violent people might use them as an excuse for illegal violence. So her rights will have to be taken away from her, so that violent thugs' non-rights aren't exercised.

But then it says this:

The authority said it believed the new guidelines adhered to the court’s ruling and would withstand any potential First Amendment challenge. Under the new policy, the authority will continue to allow so-called viewpoint ads, but each will be required to include a disclaimer noting that the ad does not imply the authority’s endorsement of its views.

Allah thinks that means other viewpoint ads will be required to run this disclaimer, whereas Gellar's will simply be prohibited.

I think that's right. I certainly don't think the NYC council voted 8-0 to keep her ad (with disclaimer). I think the statist fascists voted 8-0 to take away her (and your) right to free speech, depending on the political clout, and willingness to engage in violence and terrorism, of the group whose feelings you're hurting.

I say once again: I cannot think of any move which encourages Islamic tendencies towards violence and jihad in the name of "God" than actually sanctifying Islam's protected place in our own goddamned laws.

I also cannot think of a more effective recruiting tool for the more bloody-minded, intolerant strain of Islam.

If you were a Muslim, choosing between a more moderate form of Islam that accepted the ideals of pluralism, freedom, and secular (not religious) rule, and the bloody-minded sort that proclaimed Sharia for all, and those who insult The Prophet shall be beheaded...

...which of the two forms do you see the world's governments bowing down to?

One thing religions tend not to have is tangible, real-world proof that they're the One True Religion.

But when the governments of all the world bow down to one form of Islam (and not the other)... Well. That is at least a demonstration that one form has real power, an undeniable ability to make nonbelievers and opponents kneel and bow with respect.

We might as well just start putting up ads that say, frankly, "The Salafist, violent, close-minded, intolerant form of Islam is the True Form of Islam."

Because that's what our actions are saying.

Irony: Pam Gellar's ad is "demeaning," it is asserted, because it implies that violent, intolerant Salafists are "savage." Her ad states something like, "In a struggle between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man."

Now, the MTA says she can't run that ad because some people will be unable to restrain themselves from committing acts of violence and mayhem.

Which people?

The savages?

posted by Ace at 04:46 PM

| Access Comments