Shots fired in Dallas of mohammed cartoons.

[Napoléon]

Yeah, they can hold a mohammed drawing competition if they want to.

Not really good reason for them to be shot at by nut jobs.

[Anomalocaris]

Practically, sustainable freedom of speech is incompatible with complete freedom of speech.  Freedom of speech is not a suicide pact.   Those who argue principles forgets it is the concession to the practical that allows any principle to be worth anything at all.

Advocating a person's right to provoke through speech is not tantamount to a "suicide pact." I fail to see the relevancy of your point.

Advocating a person's right to provoke in such a way as to predictably put others at risk who did not consent to embrace the risk is a very gray area.

But the suicide pact statement is specifically directed not at the organizer of the draw Mohammed stunt, but at the neo-Nazi Association of holocaust deniers. Practical history suggest there is very good and practical cause to believe allowing some groups freedom of expression would be a suicide pact for civil and reasonably society.

So forceful suppression of certain speech may be completely essential for the preservation of freedom of other speech.

[Mudhammam]

Advocating a person's right to provoke through speech is not tantamount to a "suicide pact." I fail to see the relevancy of your point.

Advocating a person's right to provoke in such a way as to predictably put others at risk who did not consent to embrace the risk is a very gray area.

But the suicide pact statement is specifically directed not at the organizer of the draw Mohammed stunt, but at the neo-Nazi Association of holocaust deniers. Practical history suggest there is very good and practical cause to believe allowing some groups freedom of expression would be a suicide pact for civil and reasonably society.

So forceful suppression of certain speech may be completely essential for the preservation of freedom of other speech.

Who is put in imminent danger by allowing a fringe lunatic to deny an historical event? I'm not talking about "neo-Nazis," or hate speech intended to incite violence against a class or group of people.

[Minimalist]

Then it isn't worth preserving and you let the ignorant fucks win.  Sorry, Chuck.  No where near good enough.

Fuck them and their pedophile prophet.

[Hatshepsut]

Allan is so powerful he needs people with guns to silence his critics apparently.

Maybe he just needs to tell his followers that if Muhammad was tough enough to handle the Battle of the Trench, he can probably handle a cartoon no sweat.

I'm curious if anyone has or will hold "free speech events" in Europe to advocate people's rights to deny the Holocaust (where 14 nations outlaw such rhetoric and have even imprisoned "offenders") ... on the principle that no one should be treated as criminals for expressing a point of view...

So forceful suppression of certain speech may be completely essential for the preservation of freedom of other speech.

In the USA it's more important to keep neo-Nazis away from guns than away from their soapboxes, although in past we've been slow to act, waiting until there's a confrontation at an armed compound to ring the bell. I don't know about Europe. There's still quite a bit of Nazi sentiment circulating around Germany and the Nordic countries and these governments have simply decided that they will not allow a Nazi party to form. Whereupon banning their public talk becomes how they intend to ensure this.

We do a somewhat similar thing here in the USA by banning gang members from gathering together or making gang signs or speeches in public places. Ogden, Utah has a court injunction against the Ogden Trece gang with such provisions plus a curfew. And it allows police to decide who's gang and who isn't. This of course doesn't ban an idea per se; it's the group that's targeted. Yet groups and ideas go hand in hand. The gang injunction is probably just as intrusive on civil liberties, especially as once someone's on that police gang list, it can be a long row's howing to get off it.

[Anomalocaris]

Then it isn't worth preserving and you let the ignorant fucks win.  Sorry, Chuck.  No where near good enough.

Fuck them and their pedophile prophet.

Yes, I am sure you find your ability to freely speak on most topics not worth preserving because holocaust deniers can't deny to their heart's delight.

I am not for suppressing anti-Muhammad speech, BTW, In fact I see merit in forceful suppression of such Islamist speech as would threaten the freedom anti-Islamic speech.

[Minimalist]

And it allows police to decide who's gang and who isn't.

That's a problem right there.

[Hatshepsut]

@Min- Indeed. I don't like censorship. Whatever Europe does about Holocaust denial isn't something we should do over here. I'm willing to allow that Europeans should decide for themselves; if they're going to have free-speech demonstrations it's up to them. I would support parts of the Ogden gang law, say tagging and bunching up at the entrances of stores, but not all of it: the court, not the police, should be the one keeping the list, so that a person can contest their classification.

Whether to let a radical imam preach and recruit freely is a tough question: One of the gunmen has been doubtfully linked to a Somali group, but radicalization is more likely at home, as with the Fort Hood shooter. I don't see banning even these ideas as comporting to our constitution. We can still go after direct incitement or planning of violent acts without transgressing free speech protections.

[Minimalist]

Whether to let a radical imam preach and recruit freely is a tough question

Not legally. 

In 1969, the court established stronger protections for speech in the landmark case Brandenburg v. Ohio which held that "the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action".[31][32] Brandenburg is now the standard applied by the Court to free speech issues related to advocacy of violence.[33]

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

[IATIA]

It would have been a perfect opportunity for Allah to fling some 'loud voiced thunder-bolts':

That was Zeus, more plagiarism by the religions. They cannot come up with anything original?

---

So forceful suppression of certain speech may be completely essential for the preservation of freedom of other speech.

Then where is the line drawn and who draws the line? I served my country to defend (among other things) the right to free speech. Even if they are dicks. All one has to do is walk away, change the channel, turn the computer off, etc..

---

In 1969, the court established stronger protections for speech in the landmark case Brandenburg v. Ohio which held that "the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action".[31][32] Brandenburg is now the standard applied by the Court to free speech issues related to advocacy of violence.[33]

(my bold)

That is also a problem in how and who defines that line.