Amazon.com Widgets

Garland, Texas shooting: Should cartoons of the Muslim Prophet Mohammed be banned in the U.S., to avoid violent confrontation?

  • Freedom of speech is only just as long as the resulting violence is justified.

    The antagonistic cartoons that were printed seemed to me more mean-spirited than funny. Freedom of speech shouldn't allow people with higher platforms to use their freedom of speech to belittle or diminish the views of others in hopes of stirring up controversy and deliberately causing violence. The cartoons are stereotypical and offensive, and freedom of speech shouldn't cover widespread racism because that is not true freedom for everyone.

  • Yes they should

    Bullying isn't allowed at school because its harmful and offensive to other children. Online bullying is a crime because its extremely offensive and in a result of that it has caused suicide. The only difference with theses cartoons is that its done on a much wider scale. These cartoons are a direct middle finger to Islam and to all of its followers. They are drawn for the purpose of bullying and making fun of people (because who doesnt like making fun of people right?) It makes fun of and bashes everything about Islam. With a history with Islam being a violent religion it should be expected that violence will be carried out. The killings are not justified but should have been expected. The people who endorsed these cartoons are plain stupid if they expected there to be no violence. There is also a thing called freedom of religion, and I am sad that we have to bring the constitution and all our technical rights just because a bunch of people want to make a a group of religious people angry and our morals and ethics cannot be shown, but anyway we do have freedom of religion that allows people to worship their religion without limitations or infringement. Telling a whole group of religious people that what they worship is dumb and doing it in an unbelievable disgusting way is infringing upon that right. So yes if what it takes for people to be decent is to ban an offensive bullying drawing then so be it. But next time it feels like the whole world is out to get you remember that arguing with them wont work because they can probably twist the constitution around and defend themselves with a law. But I am sure anytime now INNOCENT Muslims would be happy if their religion want being bashed. So feel free to do the right thing and not make someone angry just because you feel like the constitution can protect you.

  • Freedom of Speech + No Establishment of Religion

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.. 1st Amendment US Constitution.

    The 1st guarantees the right of the individual to speak freely without retribution, regardless of how popular the statement is. That's why Congressmen can't be arrested for anything they say on the chamber floor, even if they are proven to be lying.

    But perhaps more importantly, the dogma of not drawing the image of Mohammed (or any man or even any animal) is a tenant of Islamic faith.

    If even the smallest indirect reference to Christianity is deemed a violation of the Establishment Clause, like saying "bless you" after someone sneezes in school, I would venture a wild guess that forbidding a drawing based on a direct religious principle would be a major infraction of the 1st amendment.

  • No as offensive as they may be cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed should not be banded.

    No as offensive as they may be cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed should not be banded. The drawing and distribution of these cartoons are content that is protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution. Banning the display of these cartoons would be caving in to the people who most want to attack our freedoms.

  • Why is that?

    No I do not believe cartoons of the Muslim Prophet Mohammad should be banned. There is violent confrontations everyday so I do not think that they should be banned on account of some people feelings getting hurt. If their going to ban theses cartoons why should it be subjected only to the U.S?

  • How on Earth Would Banning Someone from Drawing Anything be Allowed in the U.S.?

    Banning someone from drawing a picture? Seriously? Just so we don't offend someone? Well, that "offends" me. If we ban everything that causes "confrontation", then why don't we just all commit suicide, because PEOPLE are confrontational. The ridiculous notion that somehow "banning" something that offends someone somewhere will somehow accomplish something is simply pathetic. (Try saying that three times fast). Come on. Since when did we care what ISIS was offended at? They behead people, rape, and burry people alive, and we are worried that we might offend them WITH A PICTURE? People, please, use your brains.

  • Should women be required to wear full coverings?

    If we argue that the cartoons should be banned because violence happens then I suppose women should wear full coverings so they don't get raped. Or battered women should be told to stop upsetting off the men who beat them. Maybe kids should not play outside so we don't tempt the pedophile?

    When do we stop?

  • Anything can be claimed to be offensive

    The one thing I'm not proud of as a european is that free speech is so poorly protected compared to the US. For example: 50 french muslims who said the attacks on Charlie Hebdo where good, where arrested.

    Why such a weak response? When there is such a clear opportunity to discuss the issue. Now people with their opinion will hide it, so you have no idea how big the problem is. The only good reason for such oppression is when you know you're wrong and thus unable to defend your position.

  • Right to Free Speech

    Though the event in Garland may have been inflammatory and meant to provoke it is a perfect example of a protection of free speech. The Constitution protects the right of all Americans to speak their minds even if their remarks may cause a conflict. A topic should not be outlawed because a sub-section of the population violently opposes its discussion.

  • I am a Muslim. I say no to banning.

    I find this cartoon to be fallacious, callous, and unnecessary. However if one does not protect speech one disagrees with, then he doesn't believe in free speech at all. You have the right to say whatever you want, no matter who you are or where you're from or what religion or ideology you subscribe to. However, there is always consequences to every action. Is it right to attempt to kill someone for saying something you don't like? Of course not. However if I go down to an all black neighborhood in an inner city and hold up a sign that says "I hate niggers, we should make them slaves again because the my are less evolved than other races". Is anyone really gonna be all that surprised if someone tries to injure or kill me? Let me reiterate, it is not ever a correct to respond with violence against any words, no matter how harsh those words may be. However when you make a point to viciously attack a deep emotionally held believe someone has, it is no surprise if in a moment of weakness the person might lash out with anger or violence to some degree. So to sum up, should any speech be banned, no of course not. That opens a can of worms that will incrementally lead to more and more forms of speech and various words and phrases being "banned". Plus short of cutting someone's tongue out or cutting off their hands, you cannot effectively enforce such a ban anyways so it would be pointless to even attempt it even it was a good idea, although it clearly isn't.

  • LawEnforcement Prevent Violence!!

    The Constitution of the U.S. supports free speech and local jurisdictions are pledged to uphold it. When the violence originating in our enforcement/judicial branch is overcome, then the police should be able to defend the first amendment. I mean, don't go out shooting Muslims. Find a non violent way to apprehend the perpetrators of violence. Law enforcement should not become a source of violence.

  • Something called the First Amendment

    Of course not. And anyone who thinks otherwise is trying to take away our First Amendment. In America, we have the freedom of expression, which includes the freedom of speech. The people who hosted this has every right to show artwork of Muhammad. These artworks (from the ones I've seen anyways) were not that offensive. It wasn't anything to try to kill over. Sure, maybe those who are Islamic found it insulting, but what about other religions that are made fun of? People take hits at every religion there is. I mean my faith (Christianity) has Piss Christ! I don't remember people getting angry and killing over that. People let them do Piss Christ because they have the FREEDOM to do so, but in Islam, you cannot do that (insult) Muhammad. People only seem to worry if it's against anything Islamic. Maybe it's because they know it can be violent and they don't want to be the next one on video with Jihadi John standing behind them.

    Posted by: CJM

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.