It’s Time So Much of This ‘Free Speech’ is Shut Down for Inciting Violence

The First Amendment of the United States is one of the keystone principles in our founding, certainly. And it is about time that as a nation we put an end to its abuse. Not only does this key amendment give us free speech but it also assures freedom of the press, so it’s time for government to step in and stop people from abusing it.

Over the last two days we’ve seen such abuses of the First Amendment that should infuriate every true American. We have seen, for instance, a group in Texas holding an event that was meant as a means to incite Muslims to kill people. The Federal government should have stepped in to prevent this event.

After all, what happened when they held an event soliciting graven images of the Prophet Mohammad, peace be upon him? That’s right, good and true Muslims came out to kill the infidel, just as they are instructed to do by the Quran.

The simple fact is that these Muslims would not have taken up arms if not for this event.

The guardian of a free press and the First Amendment, Rukmini Callimachi of The New York Times, had it right when she Tweeted, “Free speech aside, why would anyone do something as provocative as hosting a ‘Muhammad drawing contest’?”

Callimachi is exactly right. Free speech must be put aside if it attacks the Prophet.

CNN’s Marc Lamont Hill was also right when he attacked the event saying, “I understand and respect free speech. But to organize hate speech events, purely because you’re legally allowed to, is disgusting.”

He is spot on. We need to end this “legally allowed to” nonsense for our good as well as for the good of the religion of peace. This event should have been shut down by the iron boot of the federal government before it incited violence.

But these stalwart American patriots above don’t go far enough.

There is a lot of so-called “free” speech that incites violence.

We should stop Christians from talking ill about gay marriage. After all, some activist, militant gay just might kill someone over it all.

Jews should be barred from building and operating Synagogues to prevent Muslims from getting mad.

And if a Muslim, any Muslim is offended by what is in the media, that outlet should be sanctioned, fined, maybe even put out of business.

Also, when a woman dresses like a slut, she is certainly inciting rape. Women should be prevented from dressing provocatively.

All this purported “freedom” incites people. I mean, when a wife beater or a rapist says to their victim “look what you made me do,” don’t they prove to be fully justified in their violent actions? Those skin-showing women, or flirty little children deserve their fate after tempting the rapists and abusers so blatantly.

We all love this First Amendment business, sure, but the Muslims have the right idea with their sharia law concept. We need massive limits put on our freedoms so that we don’t incite so much violence.

We must be near the time when people who imagine they have this “free speech” right should be shut down.

Now, right about now your blood is boiling, I am sure. How can I say all this, you might ask? Well, this is what the media, Obama, and the left is teaching me and what they are spoonfeeding our children. Their practice of the “fetal position” tactic is just what America needs, they say.

If we are to hasten the loss of our culture, we’d best kick the left’s polices into high gear. After all, Muslims might get mad if we don’t.

The Political Return of Mike Huckabee
Muslim Terrorists Try to Disrupt Texas 'Draw Mohammad' Free Speech Event, Get Killed in Attack
  • Commander_Chico

    You left out depicting Jesus and the apostles as homos or Jesus getting it on with Mary Magdalene, which have also excited threats of violence, causing events to be cancelled.

    You are correct that the Texas event “was meant as a means to incite Muslims to kill people.” Lots of money involved in that Texas event, and money well-spent: mission accomplished.

    • jim_m

      You’re so full of crap. Such incidents are few and far between. You point out one event and yet people are demandinng taht papers be censored and speakers be disinvited or even barred from entering our country because it might upset muslims.

      You are trying to change the subject and in doing so aiding and abeting our enemies.

    • FrenchKiss

      It was not meant for incitement numbnuts, but even if it was, so what? You have a problem with free speech? How many people died when PISS CHRIST went on display courtesy of the taxpayers? Answer: none. Not even a serious threat of violence.

      • Commander_Chico

        The cost of free speech is worth it, just like the cost of gun ownership, but honesty compels recognizing the purpose of this Texas event as provocation of violence, just as we must acknowledge the body count from gun ownership.

        They spent $10,000 having what was basically an infantry squad from the police at the event.

        My free speech is questioning the agenda of this event. When money from Israel Lobby groups pours into Geller’s AFDC accounts for this thing, what is the point? What are they trying to accomplish?

        Fortunately the wounds of the security guard were relatively minor.

        • And equally fortunately the muzzie terrorists were laid out like the spring harvest.

          • Commander_Chico

            That’s ok, too.

        • FrenchKiss

          Oh, I see, you’re a Jew-hating POS. There is no money pouring into AFDC from the “Israel Lobby”. Do you have a problem with Charlie Hebdo doing the exact same thing?

          Oh, and as for guns, if you exclude gang killings and suicide by gun, more people die in auto accidents. More children die by drowning in pools than by guns, so let’s not have pools, ok with snowflake?

          • Commander_Chico

            On the Israel Lobby money funding Geller:

            Charlie Hebdo is a different thing, because France has its own cultural conflicts between Islam and their aggressive secularism within France. Just last week, they banned a Muslim girl from wearing a long skirt. Mandatory miniskirts? Hijabs are banned from government schools and for government employees. We don’t have that kind of thing in the USA because of freedom of religion, although people like Warner and Geller would like to change that.

            As always, French kiss my ass.

          • jim_m

            You’re just bent because it takes a new visitor to these pages all of 30 seconds to figure you out as a hate filled anti-Semite.

            Bruce should come by and lecture you on your homoerotic imagery.

          • FrenchKiss

            Suck my dick POS.

          • FrenchKiss

            Mondowiess, a rabid vile anti-Semitic website, that’s your proof. That’s like offering proof that the Black man is inferior from stormfront! Dumbass.

          • Commander_Chico

            The editors of that website, Phil Weiss and Max Blumenthal, are American Jews critical of Israeli policy.

            Your comment is an example of how the “anti-Semitic” charge is now like Chicken Little or the Boy who Cried Wolf.

            Mild criticism of a foreign country is equated to Nazism.

          • FrenchKiss

            Gfy. They are both self-hating Jews. And you are a Jew-hating prick.

          • Commander_Chico

            Are you an American? Chico says America first. No reason to try to import Israeli problems to the USA.

          • FrenchKiss

            So free speech in America is an Israeli problem? It’s you who is not American. Your stupidity is boundless.

          • FrenchKiss

            You know the difference between a lie and criticism, right? You’re a liar. That was criticism.

          • Retired military

            No that was the truth.

          • Retired military

            Oh you mean like the race card and the soon to be sexist card when your gal Hillary is the dem nominee.

        • jim_m

          AHA! Now we get down to the truth. You object to this event because you think that the Jooos are behind it. WFT? What a transparent bigot you are.

          • Commander_Chico

            As usual, a fact-free rant throwing down the “anti-Semite” card.

            Geller and Spencer are a part of the Israel Lobby. They are linked to other groups, as seen in the link I posted above, and fund pro-Israel propaganda themselves.

            That’s their right, as long as they’re not getting direct funding from the Israeli government without being registered as foreign agents.

            But the question is, what is the purpose of these events?

          • Show


          • Commander_Chico
          • jim_m

            Out of context pictures are proof of funding? Who knew?

          • I believe you believe that is proof.


          • jim_m

            Riiiight. And yet you have no problem with Hillary taking millions from our enemies to give them 20% of our uranium.

            Face it, this is about your antisemitism and nothing else.

          • jim_m

            “When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews. You’re talking anti-Semitism.” – Dr Martin Luther King Jr.

        • LiberalNightmare

          Your just mad because all that Israeli money would have been better if it had gone into the Clinton Foundations accounts instead.

          • Commander_Chico

            Clinton will get plenty of Israeli money.

        • Brett Buck

          I knew you would get around to your bizarre notions about “the joos” again.

          • Commander_Chico

            First, not the Jews, the lobby of the foreign Israeli government.

            The pictures I posted above shows Geller is a part of the Israel lobby. If you’re posting ads calling for more US government aid to Israel, that’s as lobbying as it gets.

            Second, this is about the lobby of the Israeli government trying to keep the USA in perpetual war against their enemies. What was the point of that event in Texas, what was the objective? I say they accomplished their objective.

            I note nobody has any facts to refute me, only bald accusations of anti-Semitism.

          • Retired military

            ” only bald accusations of anti-Semitism.”
            Which are too true unfortunately.

          • Wild_Willie

            So Chico, again your proof is someone from Israel spoke at the rally thus the Jews funded it? Okay. If your point was not based on hate, what was it based on?

            As far as guns, the biggest mass murder was accomplished on 9/11 and not one gun was fired. ww

          • You long ago painted yourself into the anti-semitic corner.

          • Brett Buck

            No, we are pointing out that your silly side-issues are not relevant. There’s nothing to refute, we just don’t care about your obsession.

        • Retired military

          But you have no problems with the foreign money flowing into the Clinton Foundation.

    • LiberalNightmare

      I suspect that the whole thing was a CIA front operation, designed to cause radicalized muslims to out themselves.

      Al Sharpton is the mastermind.

      • Brett Buck

        That Rev. Al is quite the Rhodes scholar, all right!

      • Retired military

        No silly that was Elvis that worked for the CIA. If you had said black panthers then that would have been Sharpton.

    • Retired military

      Here is how some leftists deal with freedom of speech Cheeko

      and included in th e professor’s profile is a picture of Jesus flipping the bird.

    • Constitution First

      Yeah remember all the automatic weapons fire that came out for piss-christ?
      Why not a piss-mohamad? At the least, it would flush out more zombies.

  • Walter_Cronanty

    I think you might get additional readers with this piece, Warner; you know, the progs who read “1984” and think it’s a manual on how to effectively govern.
    I’m afraid I agree with the author of this piece: “Why the Bill of Rights Would Never Pass Today”

    “One can only imagine the attack ads that would today be marshaled against the Bill of Rights. Posited in 2015, the First Amendment’s speech protections would likely be characterized as “anti-gay” or “pro-racist” measures that had been cynically contrived to protect the capacity of bigots to say disgraceful things with impunity and to reinforce the various power structures and privileges that are at present claimed to be destroying America. The “freedom of the press,” meanwhile, would be openly disdained as an overture to the corporate purchase of elections; the “right of the people peaceably to assemble” would be regarded as a direct threat to the sanctity of the land around the entrance to abortion clinics; and the wide-ranging conscience protections contained within both the establishment and the free-exercise clauses would be cast as a devilish recipe for theocracy that would allow the irrational to operate without oversight and the backward to undermine the great cause of Science.”

  • JWH

    Some people forget there is a difference between condemning particular speech and condemning speech in general.

    • jim_m

      Almost. There is a difference between objecting to the content of speech and objecting to the right of free speech. The remedy for the first is more speech. There is no remedy for the second, excepting that for those who object to the repression of free speech the remedy is revolution (as we demonstrated 239 years ago).

      • JWH

        Not to mention that there’s a difference between “You shouldn’t say that” as a matter of etiquette and “You shouldn’t say that” as a matter of law …

        • Exactly, JWH. Just like attempting to end the Dixie Chicks on country radio wasn’t “censorship” because customers were just deciding they didn’t want their music anymore. Only government can censor. Customers make choices.

          • Brucehenry

            Only government can, or COULD if it wasn’t prohibited to by the First Amendment, censor with the force of law.

            However, Clear Channel radio, since it monopolized much of the bandwidth, effectively censored the Dixie Chicks in 2003. If Clear Channel wasn’t playing it, it wasn’t being played. If a band doesn’t get radio play, it doesn’t sell records (most of the time.)

          • jim_m

            Or was Clear Chanel just responding to their listenership, which was strongly offended by the band’s political stance? There is nothing wrong with a company responding to their market.

  • Thomas

    The market analogy is useful here. Society can take care of itself in the market of ideas. The people voicing racist, homophobic, anti-religious group rants may literally go bankrupt by losing their jobs. And the law must not interfere.

    However, the law should intervene when there are third party effects just like with businesses. The extreme case is when a speaker repeatedly tries to pull the trigger, by trying to persuade us to kill, exterminate, rape and discriminate groups of people.

    For less extreme cases the lines between harm incitement and free speech start to become blurry. So the courts treat it like with pornography, you know it is there when you see it.

    • Retired military

      “when a speaker repeatedly tries to pull the trigger, by trying to persuade us to kill, exterminate, rape and discriminate groups of people”
      Cheeko tries to get us to do this just by posting.

  • yetanotherjohn

    Ask a liberal what the difference is between a woman wearing provocative clothing while drinking heavily at a party who gets raped and the “Draw Mohammed” event that was attacked.

    The difference of course is that the “Draw Mohammed” event is protected in the constitution.

  • Idahoser

    remember when it was a favorite saying that “I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the DEATH your right to say it.”
    Lotta leftists liked to say that back when. Guess they didn’t mean that either.