And since what Eltahawy did was neither of those things, it wasn’t censorship by your own definition.
No, that’s exactly what they were. And we know that you, hypocrite that you are, are against the protestors being allowed to use their own freedom of expression to make those protests.
Well, you apparently are so deranged by your hatred that you’ve lost all connection with reality, so that probably has a lot to do with the how you don’t know.
Don’t shoot!
You’re the one who thinks “destroying speech that upsets the hypersensitive Muslim feelings ecosystem” is what “freedom of expression” means. It would be foolish for anyone to assume that you are using words to mean what they actually mean.
This is sheer willful idiocy on your part. Events that are not intrinsically deadly can and do still get described as “fatal” if they happen to end in a fatality.
For example, taking a holiday trip is not intrinsically deadly: Fatal Holiday Trips
A Christmas party is not intrinsically deadly: Christmas Party Turns Fatal
Flying a hang glider is not intrinsically deadly: Fatal hang glide flight
“Fatal” is not used only to modify nouns like “shooting”, “stabbing”, “crash”, etc., which are direct causes of fatality. It can also be applied to any event that happens to end in a fatality, irrespective of who or what was directly to blame for the fatality.
The “Draw Muhammad” event was a stunt that happened to end in a fatality. Hence, “fatal stunt”.
If this kind of tortuous interpretation is the best you can do in attempting to pretend that the media are somehow “blaming” the victims of the terror attack… well, nobody is even a little bit surprised.
Abortion clinic bombed –> “Planned Parenthood defends their fatal anti-life stunt”
Rape/murder –> “Slut defends her fatal short-skirt stunt”
Eric Garner – > “Blacks defend fatal anti-cigarette-tax stunt”
These headlines seem like an accurate and neutral reporting of events to you? This is what “Pam Geller defends her fatal anti-Muslim stunt” is – exactly the same vile attempt to spin the victim as being responsible for deaths caused by perpetrators.
True. But it’s kind of ironic when somebody who claims to be devoted to free speech apparently values it only for the lies he can tell with it.
[Moderating]
Alright, that’s enough. We tolerate a lot of bullshit in the Pit, but repeatedly insinuating that someone is a murderer based solely on their religion has crossed the line from being a garden variety dick-head to outright hate speech. Knock that shit off, or your time on this board will come to a quick and unlamented end.
[/Moderating]
Operating a Planned Parenthood clinic is not a “stunt”.
[QUOTE=Haberdash]
Rape/murder –> “Slut defends her fatal short-skirt stunt”
[/quote]
Wearing ordinary clothing is not a “stunt”.
[QUOTE=Haberdash]
Eric Garner – > “Blacks defend fatal anti-cigarette-tax stunt”
[/quote]
Selling black-market cigarettes for a living is not a “stunt”.
An example that would be actually analogous would be if, say, Hillary Clinton did a campaign photo-op on a Navy vessel, and through no fault of hers the vessel collided with a smaller boat and a crew member drowned.
Then a tweet about the fatality might well say “Clinton defends her fatal aircraft-carrier stunt”. And that would not imply that Clinton was necessarily to blame for the death.
You see, Haberdash, calling something a “fatal stunt” requires two things: (a) that it end in a fatality, and (b) that it be a stunt.
A PR event such as a campaign photo-op, or a “Troll the Muslims with Cartoons” exhibit, is a stunt. The other situations that you were deludedly trying to shoehorn into the same sort of language are not.
More examples to come, whilst the Deflectionists quibble over semantics and how best to avoid the irrefutable truth of my OP.
Unfortunately, political correctness does not negate reality.* South Park* and Family Guy, who have built empires on mocking prophets, still cannot so much as depict Muhammad. Who are we beholden to in the false name of cultural sensitivity?
If a civil rights group organised a protest march, and someone opened fire on the marchers and killed someone, and it was reported in the news as a ‘Fatal protest’, do you honestly not think it would betray a certain amount of bias against the protest?
The sad fact of the matter is that, when it comes to Islam, we lost our freedom of speech rights a long time ago.
As you can tell from the way Stringbean and Haberdash and truthSeeker2 have been prevented from saying their bullshit in this thread. Or the way Geert Wilders and Pamela Geller were able to go on TV and post on their blogs right after this attack. Or the way Robert Spencer, Frank Gaffney, Debbie Schlussel, Walid Shoebat, Brigitte Gabriel, Terry Jones, Joel Richardson, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Pat Robertson, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, the EDL, and PEGIDA have all been silenced for years.
Do you mean to say that the U.S. Government has violated someone’s right to free speech concerning Islam? I’d love to know the particulars.
“You can depict Muhammad if you wish but you may or may not face violent reprisal” is far from the Western ideal of freedom of expression.
A gentle reminder.
Guess who’s behind the censored sign and why He was censored.
In Iran, you can buy postcards depicting Muhammad. They’re quite popular there.
Yes, of course it would.
If all you’re asking is “Did the Salon tweet about Geller’s “fatal stunt” betray a certain amount of bias against the event?”, I think the answer is clearly “yes”.
The tweet’s tone was definitely somewhat disparaging and disrespectful towards Geller and her activities. And if someone wants to argue that it showed insufficient sympathy for Geller’s recent experience of having been (close to being) under deadly attack, I won’t quarrel with that.
But that’s not at all the same as claiming that it actually BLAMED Geller or the other attack targets for the fatalities, or actually suggested that the attack targets DESERVED to be attacked by terrorists.
And those statements are what Haberdash was dishonestly and ineffectually trying to claim.
Indeed it is. But as samclem pointed out to Doctor_Why_Bother, having a small subset of the Western world’s population committing violent crimes in an effort to suppress free expression is not at all the same thing as actually losing one’s rights to freedom of expression.
The people in the Western world who are actually having free-expression rights curtailed are not the people trash-talking Islam, but people like the abovementioned antisemitic comedian Dieudonne who gets repeatedly banned and fined for trash-talking Jews and expressing “sympathy” for terrorists.
Wikipedia has a whole bunch of depictions of Muhammad, ranging from modern Western caricatures to classical Islamic art.
How?
Yes and troll
It is sad in any case this event. Those two idiots deserved what they got.
I find it as sad that such trolling groups exist, as I do not see any great difference between the childish bigotry in drawing nasty pictures of the prophet and drawing anti-semetic pictures aimed at the jews. the fact the similar visual tropes come in both says very much.
both are protected by the free speech, both also show rudeness and lack of civlization.
In America, free speech rights are guaranteed by de jure by the Constitution. They’re de facto guaranteed by the will of the people. The fact of the matter is that there are certain things you simply cannot say about Islam. Take the musical ‘Book of Mormon’ for example. The right to put on that musical is guaranteed by law, but equally important is the fact that Mormons aren’t in the habit of dispatching assassins to silence critics, as Ayatollah Khomeini did when the Satanic Verses came out. It is impossible to imagine anyone putting on a comedy musical about Muhammad. That is, unless you’re also willing to imagine them spending the rest of their lives fending off credible threats of murder. Y’know, like Geert Wilders, or Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and several of the other people you mentioned.