Police: Shooting at Muhammad cartoon contest in Texas

[T.Lex]

As offensive as it may be, it did seem to be an effective way to draw them out. Of course it's a dangerous tactic.

Yeah. It also looks like this guy forecast his intentions on social media!?!? That's f'd up - but in kinda a good way. I wonder if that's why LEOs were there in such tacticaltude beforehand.

 

[One Shot One Kill]

As important a discussion there is to be had here, I'd rather not see anyone get banned. Let's focus on the free-speech angle and attack that occurred.

Fine I'll bite How would a picture or image, solely a picture (no associated text), be covered under freedom of speech? Seems more like freedom of expression to me.
And if images are considered protected the same as speech, why are there problems with police/officials confiscating photographs/cameras/videos for no particular reason?

Seems sometimes it is covered, and others not.
"In 2010, a federal court in Indiana found that there is no First Amendment right to videotape a school choir performance. In 2007, William Larsen was prohibited from videotaping the performance, in which his daughter was singing, because of the school’s no-videography rule for that particular event. He later filed a lawsuit alleging, among other things, that the ban violated his First Amendment rights."
This has to do with photography more than drawn images, but the point seems to be similar.
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/photography-the-first-amendment
^good read.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Fine I'll bite How would a picture or image, solely a picture (no associated text), be covered under freedom of speech? Seems more like freedom of expression to me.
And if images are considered protected the same as speech, why are there problems with police/officials confiscating photographs/cameras/videos for no particular reason?

Seems sometimes it is covered, and others not.
"In 2010, a federal court in Indiana found that there is no First Amendment right to videotape a school choir performance. In 2007, William Larsen was prohibited from videotaping the performance, in which his daughter was singing, because of the school’s no-videography rule for that particular event. He later filed a lawsuit alleging, among other things, that the ban violated his First Amendment rights."
This has to do with photography more than drawn images, but the point seems to be similar.
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/photography-the-first-amendment
^good read.

IANAL, but I could see where recording a performance (the property of another party) is considered differently than a drawing (the property of the artist).

 

[T.Lex]

How would a picture or image, solely a picture (no associated text), be covered under freedom of speech? Seems more like freedom of expression to me.
And if images are considered protected the same as speech, why are there problems with police/officials confiscating photographs/cameras/videos for no particular reason?

Part of this is devil's advocate, because I believe videorecording of police actions in public is totally fair game. (By the way, "freedom of speech" and "freedom of expression" are functionally the same thing.)

But, to your point about videorecording private performances, or even performances in a semi-public venue like a school, there are 3 main reasons that is different:
1) Recording is not expression. I'm having a hard time imagining a time when recording could be an act of expression, unless it is some sort of hipster performance art. Recording is basically passive observation and recording of someone else's expression.
2) In a school performance venue, the school has to balance the rights of other parents to control the likeness of their own kids. Some parents are not comfortable with allowing other people to record their kids for who-knows-what purpose later. So, a blanket rule that there will be no recording is the most fair way to deal with it.
3) Because capitalism. The school may have an "official" recording of the performance that they want you to buy, so they can raise money to continue to support arts classes, due to funding cuts.

Anyway, getting back to the point, pictures are totally protected under the 1st Amendment from government interference, just like speech - verbal or written. There's dozens of cases to support that.

 

[One Shot One Kill]

IANAL, but I could see where recording a performance (the property of another party) is considered differently than a drawing (the property of the artist).

Yeah, assuming the school is private not public. If it's a public school, I'd argue the taxpayers own that "play" as much as the school.
I guess I'm guilty of going off on a tangent, didn't put in the effort to find issues with drawn images. Wonder if anyone else has any info to shed on drawn images and 1st amendment rights?
@T lex - care to share some examples? I'm not saying you're wrong, I really have never looked into the subject (and some others are probably like me) and had no idea images were established as protected under the 1st ammendment. As for recordings I'd agree with you. That was just may lazy half-arsed example to get some discussion going .

 

[M67]

Kyle Broflovski: You see, I learned something today. Throughout this whole ordeal, we've all wanted to show things that we weren't allowed to show, but it wasn't because of some magic goo. It was because of the magical power of threatening people with violence. That's obviously the only true power. If there's anything we've all learned, it's that terrorizing people works.

Jesus Christ: That's right. Don't you see, gingers? If you don't want to be made fun of anymore, all you need are guns and bombs to get people to stop.

Santa Claus: That's right, friends. All you need to do is instill fear and be willing to hurt people and you can get whatever you want. The only true power is violence.
Stan Marsh: Yeah.

"South Park" 201 (TV Episode 2010) - Quotes - IMDb

 

[T.Lex]

I guess I'm guilty of going off on a tangent, didn't put in the effort to find issues with drawn images. Wonder if anyone else has any info to shed on drawn images and 1st amendment rights?
@T lex - care to share some examples? I'm not saying you're wrong, I really have never looked into the subject (and some others are probably like me) and had no idea images were established as protected under the 1st ammendment.

haha

One google search is all you need, but be careful - probably NSFW.

"Pornography"



But seriously, for 1A protection, an act must basically meet 2 criteria: be communication, to an audience.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/94-749.ZO.html

Your own link to the firstamendmentcenter.org has good info on it.

ETA a link:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8781692342063932080

Photography, painting, and other two-dimensional forms of artistic reproduction described in Mass. Gen. Laws § 272:29A (1986) are plainly expressive activities that ordinarily qualify for First Amendment protection. See, e. g., Miller v. California, 413 U. S. 15 (1973) (works which, taken as a whole, possess serious artistic value are protected).

(This is a plurality opinion, which means there was no majority definition of the "correct" way to analyze the case, but there was a consensus as to what should happen to it.)

 

[One Shot One Kill]

haha

One google search is all you need, but be careful - probably NSFW.

"Pornography"



But seriously, for 1A protection, an act must basically meet 2 criteria: be communication, to an audience.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/94-749.ZO.html

Your own link to the firstamendmentcenter.org has good info on it.

I read this right after getting to the part in my linked article stressing that same point.
Well... um my pseudo-devils-advocate-argument fizzled out quick... Guess that's why the religious focus seems to be an appealing controversy here.
In all seriousness though, thanks for the info. Can never hurt to learn more about the rights we are allowed in this country. I'm learning stuff everyday

 

[T.Lex]

haha

Absolutely no problem.

Now, to turn things around a bit, the 1A would not apply to:
- acts meant to harm others - the "fire" in a crowded theater ploy;
- obscene materials - typically defined as pictures or speech with no redeeming qualities.

Honestly, both of those would arguably be a stretch in this case, as these exceptions have been very narrowly construed. Plus, regarding the second one, "satire" is recognized as an appropriate exercise of 1A.

This is a long way around to say that it would be a very difficult legal case to make that this event was not protected under the 1A.

 

[T.Lex]

Small update (at least, I didn't see this tidbit earlier).
Dallas cartoon attack: Suspected gunmen's 'home raided' - BBC News

An FBI official told CNN that agents were collecting evidence at an apartment in Phoenix.
One suspect was identified as Elton Simpson, an Arizona man who had been previously investigated on suspicion of terrorism offences...

And a pic with the caption, "Police blew up a car near the scene of the attack as a precaution"

Uh... if they really "blew it up," I think there'd be a bigger scorch mark?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

eah. It also looks like this guy forecast his intentions on social media!?!?

Amazing. I'll alert INGO.

 

[bwframe]

...Thumbs down for anyone who participated in this event.

The terrorists had a different way of expressing this same sentiment.

 

[miguel]

As important a discussion there is to be had here, I'd rather not see anyone get banned. Let's focus on the free-speech angle and attack that occurred.

I don't want to see anyone banned, just certain people.

 

[miguel]

Yeah. It also looks like this guy forecast his intentions on social media!?!? That's f'd up - but in kinda a good way. I wonder if that's why LEOs were there in such tacticaltude beforehand.

His English is terrible, even for Twitter.

 

[JTScribe]

It's 100% an anti- Islam and event, and something I expect from the guys of Stormfront to put on. It's offensive, distasteful speech (and 100% protected). Pictures of the prophet at offensive to followers of that particular faith, so when non-followers creates such images, they are purposefully being offensive. They may think this is a thumbing their nose at radicals with this act, but in the process, they are offending ALL believers of that faith.

Thumbs down for anyone who participated in this event.

Translation: Muslims are not advanced enough socially to handle even the slightest amount of insult to their faith and can't be expected to not react violently to such, whereas Christians are bombarded constantly with mockery and hateful images of their faith in the media and shake it off.

That about the jist of it, Kutnupe?

 

[T.Lex]

Dude's prior conviction.

Chilling recorded conversations of American Muslim who opened fire on anti-Islam event in Texas | Daily Mail Online

Simpson said he would say that he was attending school in Africa as 'a front' but would leave 'if I am given the opportunity to bounce', according to court papers.
He was finally hauled in for questioning by federal agents in January 2010. In interviews, he denied plans to go to Somalia or telling anyone about these intentions.
He was indicted days later, on January 13, 2010 and a bench trial was held in October 2010.
In her ruling, U.S. District Judge Mary H. Murguia, found him guilty of lying to agents but said the government had failed to show enough proof that he had intentions of engaging in terrorism.
He was placed on probation due to the lack of terror evidence.

Clinton appointee to district court, Obama appointee to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals soon after this bench trial:
Mary H. Murguia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

She has been mentioned as a potential SCOTUS justice. Well, was.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

The toxic implication that Pamela Geller had last night's terror attack in Texas coming « Hot Air

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Also, the initial report by the media that they were "automatic rifles" was inaccurate, and kneejerk.

Just semi-auto AR-15s.

Also, from CWW Cooke:

If your first question in these situations is, “but what had the people being shot at said?” — well, you’re a bloody fool.

And from Dana

I don’t care what rifles were used. The guy was on a terror watch list for 10 years and would never had a 4473 approved.

 

[david890]

All followers? Wrong. That alone makes your evaluation moot

Yes, all followers. Some are simply more militant about showing their offense. Ya know, kinda like when some Fundamentalist Christian blows up an abortion clinic. I would presume all Fundamentalist Christians to be opposed to abortion, but only a few take it to the extreme.

 

[LockStocksAndBarrel]

The Texas group is not anti Islam. They are anti jihad and for free speech. A distinction with a difference.

I do believe the Texas crowd anticipated jihadists intervening. The place was laoded with cops.

"It's a trap"!