Canada Journal – News of the World Articles and videos to bring you the biggest Canadian news stories from across the country every day
Megyn Kelly on Tuesday took apart a guest who claimed the Texas “draw Muhammad” exhibit that resulted in a failed attack by two gunmen somehow exceeded the limits of free speech because of its offensive nature.
Kelly said the relevant question wasn’t whether the organizers “said something offensive,” but “what do we want to do about a group that wants to kill us?”
Guest Richard Fowler disagreed and said the group was irresponsible for hosting the event.
“So we in this country need to limit our constitutional rights, we have to limit our free speech, lest we invite attack?” Kelly asked. “That’s the way we need to be looking at this?”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5m6XszYmk-s
“Freedom of speech comes with limits,” Fowler said. “And this is a clear limit.”
“No it isn’t!” Kelly shot back. “You’re totally wrong.”
Fowler claimed that the event held was similar to an individual yelling “fire” in a crowded movie theater. Kelly adamantly disagreed, citing case law in her effort to show that he was “fundamentally confused and wrong.”
“This is not about case law. This is about common sense,” Fowler countered.
“You said the limits of free speech end and that this is akin to yelling ‘fire’ in a crowded movie theater which is not protected speech — and I am telling you, this is protected speech!” Kelly fired back.
Fowler dismissed Kelly’s argument, saying the event didn’t make any sense and was offensive.
“Why would you show up at funerals of dead soldiers?” Kelly asked, in her effort to argue that the message of the group was not relevant to whether it was protected free speech.
“I’m not condoning the Westboro Baptist Church,” Fowler responded.
“The speech! The more offensive the speech is, the more protection it needs! That’s how the First Amendment works!” a visibly frustrated Kelly countered. “You can defend the First Amendment right to say it without aligning yourselves with the message!”
The segment concluded shortly after with neither Kelly or Fowler coming to any sort of agreement.
“Wow. Richard, I am concerned about the America you would have us live in,” Kelly said.
Agencies/Canadajournal
I don’t live in an ISIS controlled region of the world, where men kidnap and kill innocent people. I don’t live in an area of the Middle East where religious police cause women to be stoned, and men beheaded or lashed. I live in the United States, where per the First Amendment we have the freedom, and the privilege, of free speech. And if two terrorists bent on the destruction of an approved Freedom of Speech rally here in my United States get themselves killed by the police, or by Texans , I just don’t see the problem.
What Geller does is no different than Charlie Hebdo, yet because she comes from a conservative bent leftists attack her and even so called conservatives like Bill big mouth on FoxNews, I always remember the when they came for the (fill in the blank) story, and it ends with when they came for me ,no one else was there to help.O’Reilly and his ilk are apparently all to willing to let someone else loose their rights as long as it does not affect them.
If you follow O’Reillyy’s thought process, then it is the Christians fault that they are being beheaded by ISIS because they are there and are Christian.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/charlie-hebdo-and-a-rubicon-moment-for-free-speech-1430952005 Charlie Hebdo and a Rubicon Moment for Free Speech
Anyone familiar with the saying, “just because you have the right to do something doesn’t necessarily mean it is the right thing to do?” People need to look at the big picture and the slippery slope you are creating by thinking that “free speech” trumps any kind of respect for your fellow man. How many of us go around telling every person we met our honest opinion all the time? That’s free speech isn’t it? But we didn’t do that on account of respect, or timing or what have you.
You all know the little fish symbol that Christians put on the back of their cars right? We have all seen them. We have also seen the people who hate Christians use that symbol as a way to jab at them. I have seen Darwin in side one, with little feet. I have seen the word evolve and have even seen them with Satan inside. Now, what if Christians began killing people with these offensive stickers? Would we call for the banning of the stickers? Or would we condemn the killers? What is next, killing over any bumper sticker that is offensive? Who defines offensive? Megyn is spot on as always.
Fox news is the perfect example of how free speech works in the USA – they have 24 hours a day for inaccurate, misleading, and inflammatory reporting, and they use every minute of it.
Too many Americans believe our right to free speech protects us from consequences. It does not and never has. Government censorship – yes. Charges of libel, slander, defamation, incitement to violence – no. Loss of employment, accreditation or licensure – no. Custody of minor children – no. Megyn Kelly is wrong, free speech does come with actionable consequences. Our educational system has failed in its obligation to educate multiple generations in even the most rudimentary basics of civics and government.