METRO Drops all Issue Ads in Response to Pam Geller

[Anonymous]

People's religious beliefs can be criticized freely without it being hate speech. Just like people's political beliefs can be criticized. Saying "I think islamic beliefs are generally backward and dumb" is not hate speech. No one has a moral or constitutional right to have their opinions respected by others. That is the whole point of having a first amendment.

I'm very disappointed in the people who are blaming Geller for risking other people's lives. If there is a risk, it is the fault of people who would kill over speech they disagree with. Stop blaming the victim for inviting crime.

And... rallying is not equivalent to shouting fire in a theater (legally or morally) because it is not false speech that is intended to incite panic. The worst the rally will do is cause mass offense, but, again, that is exactly what the First Amendment protects. This is no different in principle than pro-lifers rallying outside an abortion clinic or the Westboro Church rallying at a solider's funeral. Maybe tacky, but legitimate speech.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People's religious beliefs can be criticized freely without it being hate speech. Just like people's political beliefs can be criticized. Saying "I think islamic beliefs are generally backward and dumb" is not hate speech. No one has a moral or constitutional right to have their opinions respected by others. That is the whole point of having a first amendment.

I'm very disappointed in the people who are blaming Geller for risking other people's lives. If there is a risk, it is the fault of people who would kill over speech they disagree with. Stop blaming the victim for inviting crime.

And... rallying is not equivalent to shouting fire in a theater (legally or morally) because it is not false speech that is intended to incite panic. The worst the rally will do is cause mass offense, but, again, that is exactly what the First Amendment protects. This is no different in principle than pro-lifers rallying outside an abortion clinic or the Westboro Church rallying at a solider's funeral. Maybe tacky, but legitimate speech.

No argument here on most of your point.

The issue to me is highly nuanced and I do not even know if I can articulate it correctly. Sure, it is not Geller's "fault" if a zealot launces a terrorist attack on Metro in response to the ads. Except that we have a reasonable belief to assume that there will be an incident based on recent history on this very issue. Unless she plans to take Metro everyday, I doubt she will be a victim if something happens. And that is part of the issue for me. These ads are meant to provoke a response. If they do and the brunt of that response is borne by others, she is not blameless. I am a daily Metro patron and I would not want to see those ads - not because I disagree with the sentiment, but because of the provacative intent and likely response. She is free to express her beliefs. But I am also free to express that I do not want to see her beleifs as aprt of my daily commute and I do not want to put in a position to cash a check that she wrote.

Also, WMATA has many interests to balance so I would expect them to err this way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:You don't get it , do you? The bikers are planning an ARMED protest. Armed men/women want to show up to terrorize worshippers at a mosque, and that is okay with you? If a group of Muslims stood outside a church with guns at Sunday service, the whole world would go nuts!

No Muslima, we all get it. It is you who clearly does not get it.

It is highly offensive to my personal beliefs when someone burns a bible. Or an American flag. Or uses NEA funds as payment for creating a so called "art piece" named "Piss Christ."

But I support those people's RIGHT to express themselves because that is among our common American values and laws as originally set out in the BOR and constitution. In fact, I'd gladly die fighting to protect those rights as would everyone who has served our great country; I've taken an oath to uphold and protect those rights.

See here is what you don't get Muslima - we value religios tolerance in America and our tolerance is more important than your stupid religion and false prophet.

We've practiced religious tolerance in America since before there was a U.S. So if your mosque decides to hold a bible burning, then it's appropriate for me and every loyal American, to protect your right to do so, even if it means that I or the police need to stand outside with guns; ready to defend you from law breakers.

A much better approach would be to just ban churches, then no one can hold a bible burning outside. Simple solution from the kingdom. A beacon of tolerant sunni culture.

Muslim (official; citizens are 85-90% Sunni and 10-15% Shia), other (includes Eastern Orthodox, Protestant, Roman Catholic, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, and Sikh) (2012 est.) note: despite having a large expatriate community of various faiths (more than 30% of the population), most forms of public religious expression inconsistent with the government-sanctioned interpretation of Sunni Islam are restricted; non-Muslims are not allowed to have Saudi citizenship and non-Muslim places of worship are not permitted (2013)

https://www.cia.gov/Library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2122.html

[Anonymous]

The proscription against imagery has led to some beautiful Islamic.art, like calligraphy. However, it has also led to a massive silencing of non believers up to and including murdering artists, and the Taliban blowing up the giant buddhas or what Isis is doing to archaeological sites in Syria and Iraq that tell our collective human story. Sadly, these cartoons have little artistic merit on that scale but they do formulate a response to those actions, without bulldozers, without violence.

[Anonymous]

to be clear, the proscription didn't lead directly to this silencing.... Its interpretation by various groups of bullies and bandits has. I should be clearer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:You don't get it , do you? The bikers are planning an ARMED protest. Armed men/women want to show up to terrorize worshippers at a mosque, and that is okay with you? If a group of Muslims stood outside a church with guns at Sunday service, the whole world would go nuts!

If they don't pull their weapons, it's fine with me. I can see, given what happened in Paris, and what happened in TX recently, why they would want to be sure they are armed. If they are in their legal rights to carry, they are within their legal rights. If they start shooting without physical provocation, then I will take issue.

Really? So you'll only take issue with this once they start shooting. I'm sure worshipers of any persuasion find that very reassuring. There is really something wrong with you people.

Yes. Reason-being is because the Muslim community has put death threats out there towards people who draw Mohammed. And tried to carry out that threat in TX, and DID carry out that threat in Paris. The bikers are well-within their legal rights to stage the protest, as well as to carry weapons, and feel it prudent to do the latter. If that intimidates some in the Muslim community who have radical tendencies, that's a good thing. I would think that decent Muslim individuals who don't support terror from their communities would want the radicals suppressed as well.

Brandenburg v Ohio, you idiot.

And threatening or intimidating is a felony in Arizona. http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/13/01202.htm

Brandenburg actually won, 8 to 0, didn't he?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:She is an out of control moron. Good that Metro is doing this!

-because Americans have the right to criticize any religion, except Islam.

Try announcing a public burning of a bible. Or a Torah. Or the Bagvad Gita. The left will bring marshmallows. The civil rights division will defend you.

But try expressing free speech through burning a Koran and all hell will break loose.

yup that's what you get when liberals take control.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:She is an out of control moron. Good that Metro is doing this!

-because Americans have the right to criticize any religion, except Islam.

Try announcing a public burning of a bible. Or a Torah. Or the Bagvad Gita. The left will bring marshmallows. The civil rights division will defend you.

But try expressing free speech through burning a Koran and all hell will break loose.

yup that's what you get when liberals take control.

It's so odd that you think liberals would bring marshmallows to a bible burning, given that half of us are Christian. And I believe that the law will back your right to burn a Koran.

Question is, why can't Muslims build a mosque in lower Manhattan?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:She is an out of control moron. Good that Metro is doing this!

-because Americans have the right to criticize any religion, except Islam.

Try announcing a public burning of a bible. Or a Torah. Or the Bagvad Gita. The left will bring marshmallows. The civil rights division will defend you.

But try expressing free speech through burning a Koran and all hell will break loose.

yup that's what you get when liberals take control.

It's so odd that you think liberals would bring marshmallows to a bible burning, given that half of us are Christian. And I believe that the law will back your right to burn a Koran.

Question is, why can't Muslims build a mosque in lower Manhattan?

You're asking the wrong question. The real question is, when the Imam discovered that people were upset about a Mosque going up over a site which still contained DNA of our loved ones murdered by Radical Islam, why didn't he immediately offer to build elsewhere? If it was really about a school/worship site/community center, wouldn't you think he'd want it to be in an area that wasn't quite so close to Ground Zero?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:She is an out of control moron. Good that Metro is doing this!

-because Americans have the right to criticize any religion, except Islam.

Try announcing a public burning of a bible. Or a Torah. Or the Bagvad Gita. The left will bring marshmallows. The civil rights division will defend you.

But try expressing free speech through burning a Koran and all hell will break loose.

yup that's what you get when liberals take control.

It's so odd that you think liberals would bring marshmallows to a bible burning, given that half of us are Christian. And I believe that the law will back your right to burn a Koran.

Question is, why can't Muslims build a mosque in lower Manhattan?

You're asking the wrong question. The real question is, when the Imam discovered that people were upset about a Mosque going up over a site which still contained DNA of our loved ones murdered by Radical Islam, why didn't he immediately offer to build elsewhere? If it was really about a school/worship site/community center, wouldn't you think he'd want it to be in an area that wasn't quite so close to Ground Zero?

No. I'm asking the right question. Because if everything you said was true, wouldn't you still have to defend this even if you find it repugnant?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:She is an out of control moron. Good that Metro is doing this!

-because Americans have the right to criticize any religion, except Islam.

Try announcing a public burning of a bible. Or a Torah. Or the Bagvad Gita. The left will bring marshmallows. The civil rights division will defend you.

But try expressing free speech through burning a Koran and all hell will break loose.

yup that's what you get when liberals take control.

It's so odd that you think liberals would bring marshmallows to a bible burning, given that half of us are Christian. And I believe that the law will back your right to burn a Koran.

Question is, why can't Muslims build a mosque in lower Manhattan?

You're asking the wrong question. The real question is, when the Imam discovered that people were upset about a Mosque going up over a site which still contained DNA of our loved ones murdered by Radical Islam, why didn't he immediately offer to build elsewhere? If it was really about a school/worship site/community center, wouldn't you think he'd want it to be in an area that wasn't quite so close to Ground Zero?

Muslims also faced numerous challenges in Murfreesboro, TN when they wanted to construct a new mosque. Though I didn't lose any loved ones in Manhattan, I wasn't aware of any terrorist attacks in Tennessee. Out of curiosity, should churches, gas stations, and u-haul rental stores be prevented from opening near Ground Zero in Oklahoma City?

[Anonymous]

Out of curiosity, should churches, gas stations, and u-haul rental stores be prevented from opening near Ground Zero in Oklahoma City?

Oklahoma City was not done in the name of a church, a U-Haul or a gas station.
It is a false analogy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Out of curiosity, should churches, gas stations, and u-haul rental stores be prevented from opening near Ground Zero in Oklahoma City?

Oklahoma City was not done in the name of a church, a U-Haul or a gas station.
It is a false analogy.

It was done by an extremist who sounded exactly like a Tea Party patriot. I doubt they were banned from the vicinity.

[Anonymous]

It was done by an extremist who sounded exactly like a Tea Party patriot. I doubt they were banned from the vicinity.

You do not seriously believe that, I hope. If you do, you need to learn a little more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

It was done by an extremist who sounded exactly like a Tea Party patriot. I doubt they were banned from the vicinity.

You do not seriously believe that, I hope. If you do, you need to learn a little more.

Crime is so out of control. Criminals have no fear of punishment. Prisons are overcrowded so they know they will not be imprisoned long. This breeds more crime, in an escalating cyclic pattern.

Taxes are a joke. Regardless of what a political candidate "promises," they will increase. More taxes are always the answer to government mismanagement. They mess up. We suffer. Taxes are reaching cataclysmic levels, with no slowdown in sight.

The "American Dream" of the middle class has all but disappeared, substituted with people struggling just to buy next week's groceries. Heaven forbid the car breaks down!

Politicians are further eroding the "American Dream" by passing laws which are supposed to be a "quick fix," when all they are really designed for is to get the official re-elected. These laws tend to "dilute" a problem for a while, until the problem comes roaring back in a worsened form (much like a strain of bacteria will alter itself to defeat a known medication).

Politicians are out of control. Their yearly salaries are more than an average person will see in a lifetime. They have been entrusted with the power to regulate their own salaries, and have grossly violated that trust to live in their own luxury.

Racism on the rise? You had better believe it! Is this America's frustrations venting themselves? Is it a valid frustration? Who is to blame for the mess? At a point when the world has seen communism falter as an imperfect system to manage people; democracy seems to be headed down the same road. No one is seeing the "big" picture.

Maybe we have to contribute ideologies to achieve the perfect utopian government. Remember, government-sponsored health care was a communist idea. Should only the rich be allowed to live long? Does that say that because a person is poor, he is a lesser human being; and doesn't deserve to live as long, because he doesn't wear a tie to work?

What is it going to take to open the eyes of our elected officials? America is in serious decline!

We have no proverbial tea to dump, should we instead sink a ship full of Japanese imports? Is a Civil War Imminent? Do we have to shed blood to reform the current system? I hope it doesn't come to that. But it might.

Tim McVeigh
6289 Campbell Boulevard

Those who betray or subvert the Constitution are guilty of sedition and/or treason, are domestic enemies and should and will be punished accordingly.

It also stands to reason that anyone who sympathizes with the enemy or gives aid or comfort to said enemy is likewise guilty. I have sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic and I will. And I will because not only did I swear to, but I believe in what it stands for in every bit of my heart, soul and being. I know in my heart that I am right in my struggle, Steve. I have come to peace with myself, my God and my cause. Blood will flow in the streets, Steve. Good vs. Evil. Free Men vs. Socialist Wannabe Slaves. Pray it is not your blood, my friend.

--McVeigh, letter to Steve Hodge