Which would you rather yell?
The one where I go on and on about the Clash of Cultures within America.
A remarkable passel of dim-witted
intelligensia Ignoratti are throwing themselves into the “debate” on whether or not the maker of That Movie ought to be prosecuted, punished or killed outright. For “causing” the riots among the iSlamopithicus. They’re havoing to debate one another as to the degree and nature and justification of the persecution prosecution because anyone with any sense is ignoring them
Except me. Cuz they are among us and Vigilance must be Eternal.
[I'm not gonna link them cuz who really wants to read that kind of totalitarian hogswollop?]
They try to liken yelling “Mo was a thug” to yelling “Fire” in a crowded theater. Let’s look at that.
The prohibition on yelling “Fire” in a crowded theater [when there is no fire] presumes that people in fear for their lives will often do ill-considered things like clump up at the exits and run over top of others to get to safety. It’s predicated on the instinct for survival and recognizes that all too often – especially these days — the moral and social stricture of “women and children first” and “an orderly exit gets more people out alive” falls before a panicked crowd intent only on their own disinclination to be burned alive.
So there it is: survival instinct blows through socialized behaviors. No reason to risk that just for nutthin’.
So what is the rationale for those who want to prohibit as “dangerous” the utterance, “Mo is a Pervo”?
We all know that the “Moslem Street” is prone to set stuff on fire and kill random folks when they hear that bit of unwelcome opinion. That’s their cuuuulture.
But we act like its some random Force of Nature with which we must reckon. We imagine that it is our task to acknowledge it and adjust ourselves accordingly. It is not. Burning and Killing is a Choice made by individuals.
Not burning and killing is a Choice each of US makes every day. Or should I say eeevery freakin’ day©?
Bill *spit* Maher’s nasty little movie didn’t produce a squeak out of ‘em. [and, even though I did not see it and intend never to see it, I am confident in calling it a nasty little movie because everything that ...nasty little creature touches, much less produces, is nassssty] Why? I doubt that they care that Maher is of the US Protected Klass™ of Progs. No. They didn’t riot over it cuz no one told them about it. It’s there. Has been for four years.
Which supports the theory that the street rioters do not spend a lot of time on the InnarWebz searching EwwToob for “Mo Movies to Riot Over.”
Which leads to the question, “why this one?” Why the artistic endeavors of a drug dealer and federal informant — this obscure, half-arsed little clip of a trailer for a “movie” that never got produced? Why the time lag from when it was put up [July] to the time it “caused” riots?
Interesting questions a free media might choose to pursue.
But, apparently, that’s just a side issue.
Central is the issue of why op/ed writers in large, recognized newspapers [not to mention little blogs and columns all over the Prog-o-sphere -- so I won't] feel justified in calling for the silencing of this film and the punishment of this filmmaker. Which would produce, as a natural and logical consequence, the prohibition of any negative statement about iSlam and/or Mo. Which, itself, is a major part of Sharia Law: no badmouthing Mo or the power structure.
But this is America. It’s what we do. It’s what we have done since we started this whole Grand Experiment to see if humans could rule ourselves as individuals or must be ruled over by other,
wiser stronger and more vicious humans. We started by dissing George and continued with dissing George, Tom, John, Ben and all the rest. It’s an integral part of how individuals can rule themselves: calling BS on that which is BS. Even if it’s really really popular BS. Even if it’s Government BS. Even if it’s not BS, it gets the discussion started. You may get your nose tenderized by another citizen, but The Government cannot tell ya to stop saying that it’s BS.
The LAT Guurl Op/Ed writer cites the “current standard for restricting speech — or punishing it” if it has “caused” violence to be “only speech that has the intent and the likelihood of inciting imminent violence or lawbreaking can be limited. [Brandenburg vs. Ohio 1969].”
So this insures that the restriction will only apply to speech about Mo or iSlam. Remember all those guys in white shirts and ties throwing their backpacks and bicycles through Starbux windows along Broadway protesting Parker & Stone’s The Book of Mormon? Yeah. Me neither. Or all those priests setting fires and killing random women in the Piss Christ riots of ’87? Ok. Point made.
So it’s the willingness [cuuuultural norm] of *only* iSlam to riot and kill in reaction to speech or visuals that makes the speech dangerous?
And these Sofa King Todds want to restrict free individuals’ speech because a specific class of individuals is almost dang sure to cause violence. [Individuals who, might I mention, have absolutely no compunction about calling US "Satan," "Infidel," "dogs and pigs." Which in anyone's lexicon would be termed "fightin' words."]
erm… Why not just legally restrict the violence? Whaaa? It’s already illegal? Not just here but in those other countries as well? Well how’s about that?
The PreeningProgs amuse themselves and one another by playing Argument over distractions like whether “the ensuing violence” was or was not “sufficiently imminent” while puffing their own self-importance and validating their membership cards in the “elite and smart” set. And ignoring the point and purpose of Free Speech in a Civilized Society. While taking advantage of that self-same Free Speech to poop on it, themselves, through their ignorance.
I would prefer to stick to the obvious and simple point that rioting and killing over speech you find uncomfortable or disturbing is Uncivilized, Barbaric, Childish and Unacceptable.
Then the only task that falls to us is to protect ourselves from such behavior abroad and penalize it here.
But, as Rahm and Hillary are fond of saying, “Never let a crisis go to waste.”