Draw Mohammed Day

Free Speech Under Fire; Two Gunmen Killed at Texas "Draw Mohammed" Contest

Free speech is never a justification for violence - or submitting to the thug's veto.



At a "Draw Mohammed" contest held yesterday in Garland, Texas, two gunmen who opened fire on the crowd were killed:

The attackers drove up and opened fire on the security guard as the event was finishing up about 7 p.m. (8 p.m. ET), said Joe Harn, a spokesman for the Garland police.

Officers at the heavily-policed event returned fire, killing the men.

The suspects' bodies remained at the scene because investigators were concerned there could be a bomb in their car. A bomb squad robot was checking the vehicle, Harn said.

A police officer was also wounded.

More here.

The event was organized by Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer, known for their outspoken views on jihadism and Islam, and the similarly controversial Dutch politician Geert Wilders was one of the main draws (go here for an announcement of the contest). According to a 2013 Daily Beast article, Geller and Spencer have a mixed record at best of defending free speech when it comes to views they find appalling and dangerous.

It's not immediately clear who was behind the attack (one suspected gunman's Twitter account has been removed), despite claims that it was connected to the Islamic State.

Breitbart.com has livestream of the event, an interview with Geller, and much more.

Twitter was full of the event and arguments over the shooting, Geller's reputation for inflaming opinions, and more, including this from a New York Times' foreign correspondent:

It's not fully clear to me that there is an "aside" beyond "free speech," but Reason of course hosted a similar contest back in 2010 after violence in the wake of the Jyllands-Posten controversy and American cartoonist Mollie Norris faced death threats for suggesting such a thing.

Why did we? As I wrote at the time:

There comes a point in any society's existence where it must ultimately, to paraphrase Martin Luther (who himself was more than happy to see opponents put to death), dig in its heels and say here we stand, we will do no other. We don't need to be perfectly consistent philosophically or historically or theologically to assert what is special and unique not just about the United States, with its bizarre and wonderful articulation of the First Amendment, but the greater classical liberal project comprising not just the "West" (whatever that is) but human beings in whatever town, country, or planet they inhabit. And at the heart of the liberal project is ultimately a recognition that individuals, for no other reason than that they exist, have rights to continue to exist. Embedded in all that is the right to expression. No one has a right to an audience or even to a sympathetic hearing, much less an engaged audience. But no one should be beaten or killed or imprisoned simply for speaking their mind or praying to one god as opposed to the other or none at all or getting on with the small business of living their life in peaceful fashion. If we cannot or will not defend that principle with a full throat, then we deserve to choke on whatever jihadists of all stripes can force down our throats.

More on the contest here.

The recent contest comes in the wake of the murder of staffers at Charlie Hebdo, the French magazine routinely and wrongly attacked as racist and reactionary (read Matt Welch on that and on American writers denouncing PEN giving an award to the writers, editors, and illustrated shot to death by Islamic radicals). Much of the commentary over this latest shooting will doubtless revolve the odiousness of Pamela Geller," her track record of "provocations," and the like.

That is simply besides the much larger and more important point that free speech is free speech and should never be challenged by the thug's veto or bullets or violence. The United States Constitution doesn't simply enshrine free speech in the First Amendment but also religious freedom and freedom of assembly. These things are all intertwined and an attack on one is an attack on the others. 

Allowing infringements on any of that—whether out of sensitivity, fear, or distaste with particular groups (whether Charlie Hebdo or Geller)—is not a small thing and it's never a final thing, either. Giving in to violent reprisals doesn't end them, it only sets the stage for the next choking down of free expression and the openness of society.

In the wake of the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, President Obama announced that "the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," while blaming the death of a U.S. ambassador and soldiers on a YouTube video that supposedly created a spontaneous demonstration against the country that had recently helped liberate Libya from a dictator. The president was wrong then and those who say we must rein in free speech are wrong now. The threats to speech are not simply emanating from terrorists who pledge allegiance to a demented form of Islamic theocracy. They are everywhere throughout America today and despite an ever-increasing number of platforms from which to speak, the plain fact is that "incursions against free speech and a truly unregulated marketplace of ideas" are also flourishing.

The future must belong to those who recognize a categorical difference between free expression and violent reprisals. The future must belong to those who affirm speech over silence and freedom over fear, regardless of who is speaking and who is offended.

NEXT: Steve Chapman on False Fears About Free Trade

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Can anyone else believe the victim blaming going on here?

    1. *raises hand*

      Yes. Yes, I can. Cause people actually ARE that retarded. Yep. Not surprising at all. Which is too bad.

      1. Look, that dress was a little bit too sexy, if you know what I mean.

        1. The whole thing looks like a setup to me. It’s just too, too perfect. We have someone who is a professional, public, indeed, prominent enemy of Muslims and Islam, who puts on a provocative show in the heart of gun-nut country. And who should show up at the party but a pair of jihadis ready to commit a massacre, but whose tickets are then definitively punched by local law enforcement, in case there are any inconvenient beans to spill? Would it be that much trouble to locate a couple of crazy people and push them in the right direction? Maybe help them out a little? And have some militarized police wearing combat gear forward them to Allah, as they seemed to desire?

          And then everyone can huff and puff about free speech and feel good all over.

          Everyone should be happy. Enjoy, enjoy.

          1. It is delightful innit? And no bystanders were harmed. Them Texans shoot straight.

            Advice On Texas For Those Ill Informed

          2. I’m sure that all sounded good while it was still inside your head. Unfortunately, you got almost nothing right. We’re still struggling to get our legislature to pass the open carry bill that’s been a hair away from passage for a month now so that we can become the 45th U.S. state to legalize the practice, so calling TX “the heart of gun-nut country” is a profoundly ill-informed comment.

            Secondly, you think the fact that a pair of jihadists did what jihadists have been doing for decades is “convenient” and smacks of a “setup”? Are you similarly suspicious when the sun rises in the East each day?

            Thirdly, the jihadists in question were NOT forwarded to Allah by “militarized police wearing combat gear”. The SWAT team members were inside at the time. The good shooting came from a regularly-uniformed patrol cop who dispatched the pair with his standard-issue sidearm (which, for me, was the most surprising part of the whole story.)

            And…should we not feel good that, in this case, freedom won and would-be mass murders lost?

            1. By the way…the sharp-shooting patrol cop wasn’t even on-duty at the time. He was working security at the center as a side-job, like a lot of cops do.

    2. I wasn’t aware anyone was blaming the two dead victims alleged gunmen.

      1. They’re victims of baiting by intransigent Westerners.

        1. – “They’re victims of baiting by intransigent Westerners.”

          Well, to be fair, the incident quickly started being referred to locally as a case of hunting over bait. 😀

      2. Then you haven’t been listening to the Government Media complex.
        Can’t say I blame you.
        Everyone has a limit to the amount of lies and propaganda they can stand.

    3. Drawing a picture of Mohammed is no different than Adam Lanza killing school children.

      1. Much easier to pick on Christians. They don’t resort to violence when they get pissed off….

        1. Not yet, anyway. Guess they’re just slow learners.

        2. “And if he does not have a sword let him sell his coat and buy one…”

          1. Uhm context much? The disciples were about to go out into the world preaching a new message and had enemies literally around every corner with the Jews and the Romans trying to kill them.

            Or do you not realize that like 12 hours later Jesus was put to death?

            1. Uhm, reading comprehension much?

              That’s kind of my point – there are places in the world right now where Christians have ‘enemies literally around every corner’ who are ‘trying to kill them’ – and succeeding much too often.

              1. How dare you try to justify arming yourself on a thread about people justifying arming themselves!!!

              2. Lol oops my bad. I’m so used to people pointing out that the Bible is violent and blah blah etc.

                You have my apologies!

        3. Christians certainly used to resort to violence when they got pissed off, and in a big way. These days, Christianity has become a lapdog of the state, of course.

          1. Christianity has become a lapdog of the state, of course

            When was that not the case? I suppose for a while the state was a lapdog to Christianity. But it didn’t really take off in a big way until it became a state religion. Pretty much since the Pope stopped having it’s own armies it’s been a tool used by states. Much like most popular religions.

            Anyway, the greater restraint in using violence to fight perceived blasphemy and insults is one of the good things about Christians.

            1. When was that not the case? I suppose for a while the state was a lapdog to Christianity.

              Correct (although it’s probably more accurate to refer to the state as the slave of Christianity).

              Anyway, the greater restraint in using violence to fight perceived blasphemy and insults is one of the good things about Christians.

              Oh, that restraint is good, but it’s a fairly new thing for Christians and Christianity.

              1. Define ‘fairly new’.

        4. Well, hardly ever.

        5. Except Missourians. They hate Mormons so much they issued an extermination order.

    4. This article right here is why I’m drawn to Reason like a moth to the flame. No one else seems to get it as well as they do. The main stream media(propagandist all of ’em) is to chicken shit to post this, not to mention how anti-1st amendment they are.

      1. I like how you make mainstream two words (main stream). It’s like you are implying a golden shower.

        1. Thanks Greg. I am. That is what it feels like every time they spew their drivel.

          1. That is what it feels like every time they spew their drivel.

            That leaves it a bit ambiguous. I can only imagine the physical sensation of a golden shower is rather pleasant. Knowing what is actually going on might be less pleasant. Unless you are into that sort of thing.

        2. It’s better than a mandate.

        3. That is Maine Stream, you doofus.

      2. I like the term Government Media Complex.
        While it doesn’t flow off the tongue like LSM, it is far more descriptive.

      3. and anti-2nd amendment.

        They are so bad, as you say, that even when I read an editorial with which I wholeheartedly agree, as I did in my local rag this morning, I find it distasteful.

        That might be because they write with an arrogance that defiles even their best arguments in support of their own opinion. They write as though they know everything and therefore we should do what they say. They preach. They believe.

        Top men is the phrase that often used here. Top men all of them.

        But, I’ve never met a journalist that I thought had the intelligence of a gnat. Except for those here at Reason perhaps. And a couple who have written for the WSJ of all things, in the past.

    5. I make up to $90 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $40h to $86h? Someone was good to me by sharing this link with me, so now i am hoping i could help someone else out there by sharing this link… Try it, you won’t regret it!……

      1. Ah, Altruism, is it? Your reason for ‘helping others’? You don’t know what we do to Altruists here, do you?


    6. Rukmini needs to go back to making sammiches. What a dumb ass.

    7. They don’t like the victims.

  2. Free speech aside, why would anyone do something as provocative as hosting a “Muhammad drawing contest”?

    Other than their stated goal, why would someone do this?

    1. To develop the definitive portrait of Mohammed?

    2. To illustrate an illiterate goat-fucking child molester?

      1. I don’t think he was actually illiterate.

        1. Draw a picture to illustrate your position please.

          1. o<-< o<-<
            o<-< o<-<
            o<-< o<-<

            Okay they were supposed to be scattered more, but nbsps and regular spaces keep getting eaten by the comment parser.

            1. [squints]

              Eh, close enough for government jihadist work. Say goodbye to your ankles, blasphemer!

        2. If you take Mohammad to be whoever it was that wrote the Koran, he really can’t be illiterate, can he?

          1. If I understand correctly, that is part of the mythos. An illiterate goat herder couldn’t possibly have come up with this on his own. . . . . obviously he was a conduit for Allah. Your mileage may vary.

            1. Sounds like a South Park episode

              1. Or, Christianity, Judaism and a host of others.

          2. Wikipedia

            “According to the traditional narrative, several companions of Muhammad served as scribes and were responsible for writing down the revelations.[10] Shortly after Muhammad’s death, the Quran was compiled by his companions who wrote down and memorized parts of it.[11] “

            the typical history of ‘sacred texts’ is that they are in actuality ‘pastiche jobs’ that compile the story-telling/passed-down sayings of multiple people involved in a religious movement, but over time it is passed off as a single work by a single person and given a narrower focus as the formalization of the religion takes place.

            IOW, they ‘evolve’ to become a sacred-text. Typically for the purpose of reconciling slightly different opinions between interest groups in the early years of religion. Its also notable that a lot of the Koran re-hashes a lot of the same stuff covered in the other Abrahamic religions, so its really just like “v3.0” of the Bible and Torah in many ways.

            Or maybe more like “Children of Son of Dune, Revisited: Die Harder Electric Boogaloo”

            1. The Ark of the Covenant!

    3. You know who else acted provocatively to get a reaction?

      1. “You know who else acted provocatively to get a reaction?”

        My girl-buddy a few years ago: She wore a tight fitting shirt with the Message “It doesn’t get licked by itself.” to an outdoor concert.

        She got the reaction she wanted.

        1. Lots of people licking her face?

          1. No, obviously it was the shirt that needed licking. Or maybe just the word “it” on the shirt?

      2. Grace Whitney?

      3. Your sister?

      4. Lady Gaga?

        1. Madonna taught them all they know.

    4. Starting their statement with “free speech aside…” Proves they want to ignore the point being made. It Is kinda like saying “other than to cross the river why would anybody build a bridge?”

    5. Why not?

  3. Nelson laugh for the dead losers.

    1. How do you take a shot at a dude who isn’t expecting it and WOUND HIS FUCKING ANKLE?!?!? Had they never even practiced before their anticipated massacre?

      1. Maybe the guard tried to deflect the bullet with a roundhouse kick. It did happen in Texas, after all.

        1. Good point. Hadn’t thought of that. Way to go, security guard!! Look forward to your upcoming cameo on “Walker, Texas Ranger”!

      2. Why aim? Just spray and pray and the bullets will hit the mark if Allah wills it.

        1. 1. Level weapon toward mine enemies

          2. Hold trigger down until magazine is empty

          3. Insh’allah my enemy will fall.

      3. Only Imperial Stormtroopers and NYC cops could be that accurate.

      4. Most probably a riccochet off the ground (still poor shooting mind you). Rounds tend to travel close to the ground when they strike a horizontal surface.

        1. Finally. Somebody who understands physics/ballistics when speaking about firearms.

      5. – “How do you take a shot at a dude who isn’t expecting it and WOUND HIS FUCKING ANKLE?!?!? Had they never even practiced before their anticipated massacre?”

        AK-47s. ‘Nuff said.

  4. Roe vs. Wade aside, why would anyone build something as provocative as an abortion clinic?

    1. Freedom of Association aside, why would anyone build something as provocative as a bakery shop?

    2. This reporter’s question needs to become a meme!!!!

      “Free speech aside, why would anyone need the First Amendment?”

      “Free speech aside, why not just shut up so that no one gets upset?”

      1. “Free speech aside, how did you like the play, Mrs. Lincoln?”

        “Free speech Assad, what ever happened to Syria?”

      2. How about just Question Begging? The real question seems to be: “why would anyone want free speech?”

        1. Well, free speech is important for government-recognized media professionals, so that they can spread the party line. That’s the way it works in Europe anyway.

  5. dig in its heels and say here we stand, we will do no other

    Jean Luc Picard said it better.

    1. So put the link up, dude….

        1. Thas wut Im talkin bout!

          1. So who will be our Jean-Luc?

            1. Q was the libertarian on that show.

              1. Not even close

                His first act when contacting humans was to kidnap the bridge crew and put them on trial in a court where guilt was predetermined.

                1. I think he was making a point, not actually putting them on trial.

                2. He constantly questioned the Federations motives, made them confront the Borg something they to which they couldn’t apply their Prog based diplomacy,etc.

                  Q was the only libertarian on the show.

                  1. Which helped them avoid a path where they would otherwise be assimilated by the Borg. As was later revealed on ‘Voyager’.

      1. the Federation and Picard were commies,I hate Star Trek.

        1. “If you don’t need money, then you certainly don’t need mine,” – Nog

        2. Well, conveniently in Star Trek when you can convert energy to matter and have an unlimited supply of energy thus eliminating scarcity…except for Romulan Ale, apparently.

          1. and no jobs work,no Giant Eagle,steak Houses ,malls,ect.Just hang out in the Holo deck..The only jobs are government.

            1. They didn’t really make it clear how things worked outside of Star Fleet, did they?

          2. And blood wine. I don’t think they’ve figured out a way to replicate vintage 2309.

        3. Star Trek was all over the place, with people making all sorts of choices. Federation citizens weren’t prohibited from making money. I think it was more similar to the US, with a large government sector, a big social safety net, but also lots of liberty.

        4. The Ferengi were pretty awesome though. They made DS9 so much more enjoyable.

        5. Horse pucky. The Federation was full of capitalists. Cyrano Jones, Harry Mudd…the various Enterprises constantly responding to distress calls by merchant vessels, etc.

      2. meh, blockquote was about all I could muster this AM…

  6. You don’t need to ‘slander’ the’ prophet’,hell just read the history of his life.He was a horrible person..

    1. You are slandering The Prophet by misunderstanding his rape, pedophilia, adultery, slaving, murdering, and thieving. He did those things for you out of love.

      1. You forgot bestiality.

        1. Moslems are not allowed to eat any animal that thy fucked.


        2. I’m thinking a historical fiction re-enactment play along the lines of Catherine the Great but with Mohammed and a giant Pig?

          1. The Book of Mormon Muslim

          2. Maybe the pig could pork Muhammed?

          3. Maybe the pig could pork Muhammed?

    2. If he even existed. There isn’t much about Mohammed that is contemporary to his life. I just assume that, much like Jesus in the Bible, he is a mostly fictional character, probably loosely based on a historical figure.

  7. They drew a picture of Mohommad, that violates the NAP, do they had it coming v

  8. There’s only one thing to be done – open the borders!

    1. We are down a couple of crazy Muslims now – so sure!

    2. Ummm, suuurrrrrre,

      And this demonstrated one of the problems with the ideal of open borders. Along with importing diseases old and new of course.

      The truth is, we have an opportunity to have a generally libertarian society only WITH controlled borders. People do not all come here to enjoy liberty, some come here only for economic opportunity, some because they are persecuted minorities where they are and may be as intolerant as those that persecute them, and some come for the purpose of hurting us.

      Open Borders are guaranteed to kill the libertarian dream under a flood of people trained in socialism and continually introduce diseases we try to control or eliminate by re-introduction from the outside.

      It is always to be hoped that we will achieve a more libertarian society and spread it to others by good example. But first we have the achieve it. As a group we do not think tactically very well I am afraid.

      1. Gosh, thanks for reminding us that rights and liberty are a utilitarian circle jerk.

        Everyone knows the only good rights are the ones with an outcome-based test.

        1. A controlled border is the type of thing that screams “it’s an emergency and we don’t know what to do”, like imposing a curfew or issuing an evacuation order. This is appeasement; “if we just give the statists most of what they want, they’ll leave us alone to carve out a little bit of a quasi-libertarian society”. Except of course that they won’t, since they’ll tax you, imprison you, and when they feel like it, storm your home and shoot you and your dogs.

          It is ironic that people choose this particular example to hoist the “secure the border” flag. The real aggressors here are the violent Muslims, just like the real aggressor with regard to immigration is largely the government. Who promises people favors extracted from your pocket in return for their votes?

          1. Fucking threading.

      2. The truth is, we have an opportunity to have a generally libertarian society only WITH controlled borders.

        You have a wrong conception of a “libertarian society”. You seem to think that it is a society in which people come into the country and then do what they please in a society that otherwise looks like our own, with public roads and tons of public infrastructure. In a truly “libertarian society”, the notion of “controlled borders” becomes pretty much irrelevant because what matters is who the private owners of roads, subdivisions, shopping centers, etc. choose to associate with. So, nominally, a declared fanatical Muslim might cross the border, but he would get turned away at the next private highway entrance.

        In a truly libertarian society, citizenship would be replaced by a set of certifications, bonds, and insurance policies. Private property owners (usually, large associations of individuals) would set conditions for what certifications, bonds, and insurance policies you need in order to enter their property. The result would be a more rational, and likely more selective, system of controls that function like current immigration restrictions, but are not subject to lobbying and rent seeking.

      3. You can’t control the borders sufficiently without a giant police state which will also definitely kill any libertarian dream. Native born Americans are a much bigger threat to any kind of libertarian dream than immigrants. Immigrants come here to work. Americans think they are entitled to free shit at other people’s expense.

        1. “Immigrants come here to work.”

          There are lots of immigrants who come here to crash 4 years at colleges or their cousin’s house. And to collect welfare too.

          Immigrants are VASTLY more pro – big government than native born Americans. Most of the 6% that voted for Sarvis are almost assuredly white.

    3. Perhaps Cytotoxic will be around soon to explain why we should blow up as many muslims as possible overseas, but also let as many as possible immigrate into the United States.

    4. There’s only one thing to be done – open the borders!

      This is Bo-level trolling. It happens a lot, and the names change from time to time, but it has the intellectual heft of a giant shit.

      1. “I disagree with this for fundamental reasons, but I’ve got no way to reason against it, so I’ll point and sputter”

        1. There was no argument to begin with.

          1. He doesn’t need one. Your open borders dogma is self-evident lunacy.

            1. Another marvelous non-argument.

              The US was a fuckload more libertarian when we did have pretty much open borders. You people are utterly full of shit.
              We have fairly tightly controlled borders now. Yet you talk as if we just let anyone in who wants in. Do you have any idea how hard it is for a poor person to get a visa? I will bet you a bunch of money that if the gunmen were immigrants they came legally. And very few people coming illegally are coming from overseas.
              The southern border can’t be closed completely. It’s thousands of miles of fucking desert. The only way to keep people from coming in is to implement a huge police state and require everyone to carry identification documents that must be presented on demand. That is not a recipe for a free society. Just a different flavor of fascism.

              1. Fucking walls and fences, how do they work?

                We can have secure borders without a police state. I’m all for foreigners coming here to make some cash, and I would love to have the immigration process streamlined so that nobody has to wait years on end to become a citizen. I just want to keep the dirty bombs and problematic diseases out of the US.

              2. “And very few people coming illegally are coming from overseas.”


                It’s not fascist for a nation to have regulated borders. Most counties don’t have illegal immigrant problem (and possible terrorist threat among them, even slight) of our scale because no one goes there. And they don’t guarantee anything to non citizens.

                Sure, it might be hard to get visas. But its incrementally getting easier to obtain work visas. Edison cleaned house to hire foreign workers and that got the attention of democrats.

                If you can get here somehow, then you can exist here for years without fear of deportation. A chunk of illegals overstayed their visas. America affords unprecedented level of ,privilege, protection and privacy to immigrants of any kind.

                We have like ten times the immigrant population of Canada, where healthcare is free and immigration is supposedly “humane”.

            2. Your open borders dogma is self-evident lunacy.

              Is this a troll-a-thon?

  9. The president was wrong then and those who say we must rein in free speech are wrong now.

    God. Damn. Right.

    That is all.


    1. That’s what my girlfriend tells me when she feel sfrisky….

      1. You wish.

  11. The attackers drove up and opened fire on the security guard as the event was finishing up about 7 p.m. (8 p.m. ET), said Joe Harn, a spokesman for the Garland police.

    Know what would have been *really* “provocative”?

    If the spokesman had been named “Mo Ham”.

  12. This picture was apparently taken just before the shooting. Sounds like these people got what they wanted.

    As for the hand-wringers wringing their hands about how racist this…hosting a “fuck your false religion” contest isn’t particularly good manners, but neither is, you know, attempted murder.

    1. As for the hand-wringers wringing their hands about how racist this…hosting a “fuck your false religion” contest isn’t particularly good manners, but neither is, you know, attempted murder

      Tell me, is there another faith in the world where a contest of mockery would predictably lead to violence? Most of them shrug off slander with much more aplumb (and there has not been a single faith that has not been slandered, or is not still facing it)

      1. is there another faith in the world where a contest of mockery would predictably lead to violence?


        1. You intolerant people need to be more tolerant of the intolerant beliefs that lead muslims into attacking intolerant bigots! Now, Progressives don’t tolerate intolerance unless it’s intolerance of the intolerant. Fortunately, intolerance of intolerance isn’t true intolerance.

        2. Nice, Rich.

      2. That’s what cracks me up about this. If you read the comments in this DB article, you’ll learn that apparently the organizers bear the sole responsibility for violence. Not, you know, the people who did the violence.

        Uncle Frank 7 minutes ago
        The promoters of this event succeeded in their goal. To instigate a violent reaction. Now they can brag “See, Islam is a violent religion. We just proved it so.”

        It’s a bizarre reaction. Do they just not see brown people as full humans with moral agency? It’s like they think, of course the Muslims were violent, the right-wingers made them be violent. What else could they be? They’re brown people. It’s a truly sickening attitude and it gets more so the more I think about it.

        1. Do they just not see brown people as full humans with moral agency? It’s like they think, of course the Muslims were violent, the right-wingers made them be violent. What else could they be? They’re brown people.

          Why ‘brown people’? Islam is not a race.

        2. That comment section is greatest argument for secession ever articulated.

      3. +1 Touch an Alter Boy Inappropriately Day

        1. Reinstating clerical marriage would help the church fix that problem by not making the post one that only appeals to those with… ‘issues’.

          1. They’d have to do away with confession. Because you know that people come home and bitch about work.

      4. Tell me, is there another faith in the world where a contest of mockery would predictably lead to violence?

        Pretty much all of them, depending on which period in history you look at. Christians used to get vicious and murderous when people as much as chose not to be part of it, let alone mocked or blasphemed it. Blasphemy against Christianity used to be against the law in large parts of the West.

        1. I suppose it depends upon what the definition of “is” is in the question.

          1. Or it depends on your definition of “Christians”. Most people who call themselves “Christians” today are deistic humanists; a smaller minority are social conservatives with sexual problems. That’s quite different from the fervent Bible followers and colonialists of only a few centuries ago.

    2. At least the right people died for once.

  13. Officers at the heavily-policed event returned fire, killing the men.

    “”Draw, Mohammed!”

    1. +1 Co-Worker distracting laughter.

    2. Good one, Rich.

  14. At a “Draw Mohammed” contest held yesterday in Garland, Texas, two gunmen who opened fire on the crowd were killed

    Apparently the gunmen thought performance art was also permitted in the contest.

    1. Where was their mattress?

        1. Rich is on a good roll this morning.

          1. It must be the Monster Energy Drink.

      1. On their stomachs because they like ass-sex, without the pot and Mexicans.

        1. What good is it without pot and Mexicans?

          That’s like a fish without a feminist.

  15. Is anyone else concerned that Pamela Geller and Geert Wilders are practically anagrams of each other?

    1. I am now.

    2. Quiet, Fete of Tits.

      1. THERE’S NO COMMA IN MY NAME. Where’d that come from?

        1. The Archangel Gabriel brought it from Allah.

          1. I think it was really Moroni.

  16. Free speech aside, why would anyone do something as provocative as hosting a “Muhammad drawing contest”? making a picture of a crucifix in a jar full of urine?

    1. Either all religions are fair game or none of them are. If we make an exception for one religion because it’s violent then all we are doing is saying violence works. By giving into terrorism we are supporting it, we are making it work.

      The fact that these assholes are so prone to violence is exactly why we should be mocking them.

      1. …it’s why we should be killing them. FTFY.

      2. That will never work for the progtards. Can’t wait to see how the Botarded one and Tony perform their retiredly retarded mental gymnastics to explain how it’s ok to have ‘Piss Christ’, but not a ‘Draw Muhammed’ contest.

      3. Guess you don’t fly much. We’ve already given in. We made it work for them.

        You know, they really don’t want to kill us. They want to kill our way of life; our freedom as it may be.

  17. “…why would anyone do something as provocative as hosting a “Muhammad drawing contest”?

    Would this reporter have asked, “Free speech aside, why would anyone do something as provocative as drawing Muhammad?” the same day as the Hedbo massacre? If not, why not?

    1. Because she’s an asshole, but she is not 100% a dick.

    2. I drew Mohamed as an insane, retarded, illiterate sheep fucking child molesting murderer because that is what he was. Fuck all you Moslem assholes.

      1. I wipe my ass with pages from the Koran every day. I’m thinking of starting a business selling Koran-printed toilet paper.

        1. Maybe even Koran-printed tampons.

          1. Where do I buy them?

            Score for latest round:
            Civilized Folks Goatfuckers
            2 0

        2. Just don’t do that in Germany; it makes you a felon there. Probably same in France and the UK:


          The early retirees had toilet paper stamped with the phrase “Koran, the Holy Quran” and then distributed to several TV stations as well as 22 mosques and Islamic cultural associations. The sentence was to be regarded by the Mohammed cartoons in the context of the current political debate, said Judge Carsten Krumm from the Amtsgericht L?dinghausen (Nordrhein-Westfalen). “The meaning has been significantly enhanced by the global political situation.”

          The sentence for abuse of confessions and of disturbing the public peace has been suspended for five years on probation. In addition, the account of other offenses repeatedly convicted man must do 300 hours of community service. Judge Krumm spoke of a “significant blindness” in which 61-year-olds.
          The Islamic Republic of Iran had approached prior to the process in an official note to the Foreign Ministry in Berlin and sharp protest against the denigration of the Koran. Even the chief prosecutor stressed the sentencing was a “clear signal has been set out.” The judgment is final.

          As a reason for his action of 61-year-old stated that he had responded to the terrorist attacks by Islamists in London in 2005 and the murder of Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh in November 2004. He wanted to fund a memorial for victims of Islamist terror, he said in court.

      2. I think you meant to say ‘insane, retarded, illiterate child fucking sheep molesting murderer’.

  18. “…why would anyone do something as provocative as hosting a “Muhammad drawing contest”?

    Free speech aside, why don’t you please shut the fuck up?

  19. Free speech aside, why would anyone do something as provocative as hosting a “Muhammad drawing contest”?

    Maybe it’s a test for you epistemological savages.

    Try not banging rocks together in your head long enough, to join the rest of us in the modern world.

    1. Maybe it’s a test for you epistemological savages.

      Epistemology, is that like the study of intersectional gender specific fairness? /Prog

  20. Hey, I hear one of these guys had a grandfather from Morocco. Yahoo! Time to start drone bombing!

  21. I presume that we’ll soon be seeing the “Je Suis Pam” and “Je Suis Geert” Twitter accounts, picket signs, T-shirts, etc.

    If not, are we to presume that those two are more declasse than Charlie Hebdo?

    1. Well, number one, they’re not French. So yes.

  22. Don’t worry guys, the SPLC said the Mohommad drawing group is a hate group so they had it coming.

    1. I was listening to NPR on the way into work and they led off with the SPLC/hate group bullshit. It seems they had to telegraph to their listeners that “those hateful bastards had it coming.”

      1. And they got it too. Dead and buried.

  23. Free speech aside, why would anyone do something as provocative as hosting a “Muhammad drawing contest”?

    Because the people being provoked have sensitive little feelings that are in dire need of desensitizing.

    1. Let them sooth their hurt feelings in the arms of the houris.

      Or demons, as the case may be.

    2. I deal with that every day. Working with minorities and women. Protected class employees have taken it to the limit. Exclaiming “Oh boy” after seeing a mess left on the floor had me up on racial charges one day.

  24. I really think we – the West – should emphasize that it not really blasphemous to depict Mohammed (PBnJ). There have been many depictions of him throughout history by and for Muslims.

    1. We’re not really in a position to tell Muslims what is and what is not blasphemous. But luckily one man’s blasphemy is another man’s don’t give a fuck. What we as westerner’s are in a position to do is criticize the lack of civility that abounds in Islamic societies and drawing Muhammed is one way to do that. If Muslims by and large don’t become disgusted every time they hear of another Muslim killing or rioting because someone drew a picture, then Muslims by and large aren’t worth the calories they consume and we’ll know who the enemies are.

      1. I agree.

        Western Muslims should step up and be a bigger part in getting their brethren to modernize.

      2. Realistically, if we want Muslim fundamentalists to stop killing, we do have to get them to change their views on what is blasphemous. We shouldn’t have to, but in practice, it’s the only way. That’s also how civil society stopped Christianity from murdering people, and make no mistake, Christians were far worse than Muslims are today.

        1. Uh….what?

          1. Well, just for starters:


            Also, this was almost all tithing Christians killing non-Christians:


      3. +72 VIRGINS for you sir.

    2. Like when he and the other Superbestfriends saved America from the Blaintologists

    3. Most of the Muslim depictions I’ve seen come from Persia, a traditionally artsy place.

      1. The Shia seem to ne a bit more open to it.

        1. No more Shia! He sucked in Transformers. Also, he was a key contributor to the abortion that was Indy 4. I say exterminate the Shia.

  25. Free speech aside, why is the New York Times Company, a *corporation,* allowed to exercise First Amendment rights?

    1. A point I have raised every time a proggie raises the corporations aren’t people argument. It generally results in crickets. They don’t seem to get that the first amendment is a restriction on congresses power not a declaration that corporations are people but then again all they have is the talking points huffpo gave them. Anything beyond that confuses them.

      1. I’ve heard the argument being made (I ferociously disagree with it) that freedom of the press is specifically spelled out because that’s the only corporation the founders wanted to have free speech rights.

        1. Of course that is complete and utter nonsense. Speech is spelled out too. I assume you are referencing “the” in the article but “the press” was a physical thing in 1790. The notion that it was meant to apply to corporations is absurd primarily because the modern corporation didn’t exist in 1790. Basically they just want their corporations to be able to say what they want while silencing everyone else. Yes this is a trend.

        2. As a side note I would ask them what corporate newspaper existed in 1789 that the bill of rights was trying to protect. They probably haven’t learned their response to that yet.

  26. Possibly the coolest news I will read today. May they be raped for eternity by 72 well endowed virgins. The story really should have ended “And they live happily ever after”

    1. “And there was much rejoicing”

    2. May they be raped for eternity by 72 well endowed virgins.

      Well, they never said the virgins were going to be female virgins did they? In all likelyhood it is 72 other pissed off blue-balled dudes just like them.

      And who wants 72 vigins anyway? Wouldn’t 72 sluts who know what they’re doing be better?

      1. In Saudi Arabia, young unmarried men are unofficially encouraged to fuck other men to cast out their lustful demons. As opposed to defiling a woman outside of marriage. Saw this a lot in their Army during Desert Storm.

        Sick Islamic faggoty fucks.

  27. why would anyone do something as provocative as hosting a “Muhammad drawing contest”?
    Let me punch you in the mouth and ask you why would anybody do something as provocative as asking why would anybody do something as provocative as hosting a “Muhammed drawing contest?”. The question isn’t why someone would do it, the question is why aren’t you doing it?

  28. Fuck those cowfucking shitwads. More groups should hold contests like that.


    1. ***The end of my comment seems to have cut off. That smiley is my picture of Mohammed

      1. That is Mohammed’s dick.

        1. Hey, what happened to the

          1. Well, that version works. I was trying to use the greater-than symbol to indicate a small penis. But as it is, my basic point was made.

            1. You can’t use the greater-than symbol to depict penises. That’s against HTML policy. You can, however, use the lower-case c, like so: c====8

              1. But with less equal signs.

              2. I usually do it like &=====3

                1. c8

    2. For those who get the reference, I say ‘M Day’ should actually have been ‘No more muslims’.

  29. It’s well known that too many followers of Islam feel it’s acceptable to inflict violence on someone who draws a CARTOON. What worries me beyond anything else, is how casually people say “well they should have expected it”. When did people start to accept this shackle, this restriction? And we all know that if an Christian kills an abortion provider, not one of them would say “pfft, he should have known Christians tend to believe abortion kills babies”.

    1. What’s the definition of fanatic, again? Oh, yeah, someone so obsessed with their particular issue that they have to bring it up in every conversation, even ones totally unrelated to the subject at hand.

      1. Hey, have you ever tried CrossFit?

        1. I heard Jesus wasn’t a big fan of that.

  30. I wish I had enough drawing skills to illustrate the following:

    Mohammad, bent over and getting fucked in the ass by Jesus while blowing a very fat buddah.

    the Christians will be annoyed, but all they do is pray for people and hold signs n stuff. The Buddhists aren’t likely to give a shit one way or another, but my guess is some small contingent of them will derive great pleasure from it as if it’s some koan.

    1. Why stick Jesus and Buddha in there at all? Why not just Mo and a goat?

    2. Mohammad, bent over and getting fucked in the ass by Jesus and Moses while blowing a very fat buddah. And Vishnu is in the background giving hanies to 8 other Hindu gods.

      FTFY. If you’re going to be offensive might as well include the Hindus and Jews as well, otherwise they might feel left out. And being “inclusive” is important.

      1. Ignoring Krshna is waaaaayyyycist!

    3. I would prefer Porky Pig plowing his ass while he smokes Peter Porker The Spectacular Spider Ham’s sausage. All while greased up in bacon fat and pig shit.

    1. NSFW, incidentally

  31. “Free speech aside, why would anyone do something as provocative as hosting a ‘Muhammad drawing contest’?”

    Regardless of the fact that people are free to do it, why are people free to do it, anyway?

    Little red Marxians can say the damnedest things!

  32. It’s not fully clear to me that there is an “aside” beyond “free speech,”

    C’mon, Nick. For Little Marxians, there’s an aside to free speech, the right to freely assemble and possession of property. That is why they’re authoritarian and totalitarian thieves.

  33. Pretty damn effective counter-terrorism, IMHO — it takes months, even years, for the FBI to ensnare would-be Islamic extremists – we should have “draw Mohammad” contests all over the country.

    1. To be fair, I’m sure there are plenty of “secular” leftists who would have no problem killing you for disrupting their blind faith in inherent Muslim goodness.

      1. Yea but – generally – they don’t have guns. Libertarians and conservatives have lots of guns.

        The Progs have the cops but not many cops are gonna side with the secular retards on this issue, so I’m thinking they won’t do much killing over THIS issue.

        1. They have one really big gun: the state. In 15 years, give or take, hate speech laws will make it illegal to “slander” select minority religions. If the NYPD has no moral compunctions shooting people for selling untaxed cigarettes, I see no reason why they would abstain from deadly force in enforcing hate speech laws. Hell, they imprisoned the guy who supposedly incited the Benghazi riots for a youtube video (why does no one talk about him anymore)?

          Never forget, the authority to legislate derives from the authority to kill.

          1. Hate speech laws violate the First Amendment. See e.g. Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969)

            1. Yes and our lovely Democratic Senators are doing their best to remove such a pesky restriction. Just give them some time!

          2. Or we could just wipe out the progressives before we let it get that bad.

    2. Yes but, that would be entrapment………..vs ensnarement. And, you know that entrapment is against the law.

  34. Note the significantly different response to the actual Charlie Hebdo. Kind of why the Second Amendment comes right after the First.

  35. The goddamned victim-blaming on NPR is absolutely unprecedented….even for NPR!

    Cunt #1: “AFDI is a hate group. That explains it all. Too bad a guard was injured – in defense of a hate group.”

    Cunt #2: “Those who hide behind the vale of free speech are disingenuous. Free speech should not include hate speech, especially for people who hold dearly the traditions of their religion.”

    Cunt #3: “The Muslim-baiters got the reaction they were angling for. Sad that the security guard suffered for it.”

    1. The security guard is a heroic defender of liberty in this case. The same cannot be said of the fucktards over at NPR.

  36. Honestly?

    When Reason holds an “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day”, it really is about free speech.


    When Pam Geller holds the same event? I’m not so sure free speech is really the central issue–especially not when Geert Wilders is the featured speaker.

    Geert Wilders is a Dutch politician who campaigns on banning the Koran in the Netherlands.


    I am absolutely in favor of free speech rights for anti-Muslim activists, but I think we should emphasize that these are anti-Muslim activists we’re talking about–not free speech advocates.

    1. I disagree with you, sir. If people’s lives are threatened for exercising free speech, I believe that the content of that speech is irrelevant. If someone is murdered for depicting the prophet Mohammed, it is essential that we reject the heckler’s/murder’s/terrorist’s veto and depict the prophet Mohammed. It stops being about the content and becomes an issue of the act itself.

      I don’t give two shits about Islam one way or the other, but if people are killed for drawing Mohammed, I present you the following. Behold my abstract rendition of getting fucked by a goat and enjoying it:


      1. “I disagree with you, sir. If people’s lives are threatened for exercising free speech, I believe that the content of that speech is irrelevant.”

        In terms of the law, it should be.

        In terms of free speech advocates, who we are, and what we care about, it isn’t irrelevant at all.

        In the case of Geert Wilders, in particular, we’re not talking about a free speech advocate at all. Geert Wilders is a politician who wants to ban the Koran. I gave you a link showing that he campaigns on banning the Koran.

        As a free speech advocate myself, I’m not going to stand around and let people think that these people are free speech advocates. They’re not!

        I suspect Pam Geller might use the government to ban radical Islam if she could. Me? I happen to think that the First Amendment protects speech up to and including advocating for the violent overthrow of the U.S. government.

        Should anti-Muslim speech be protected by the First Amendment. Hell yeah!

        But I’m not about to stand around and pretend that these people are really all about free speech when they’re not.

        Like I said, neo-Nazis should have their free speech protected, too–but just because their speech should be protected doesn’t mean I can’t or shouldn’t point out how detestable neo-Nazis are.

        1. By the same token, Charlie Hebdo, while supporting free speech for *itself,* showed no particular tolerance for Christians and Jews. Indeed, they seemed to endorse the moral-equivalence narrative by which all three of the major monotheistic religions must be bashed as if they’re *all* equally evil – though notice that Jews and Christians didn’t bomb their headquarters.

          Also, Geller has a Web site, so if in there she calls for censorship it would be mentioned – unless you think she’s the kind of person to conceal her real views, which if she was, she wouldn’t be risking her life publicizing her views.

          1. I’ll never get back what little time I’ve wasted reading Geller’s scaremongering site.

            But my first Google search on her and censorship sent me to this quote:

            “Al Jazeera is planning to expand into the United States, and the chattering classes are treating it as a simple free speech matter. Let’s not let the Islamic supremacists once again invoke the freedom of speech to kill our freedom of speech. The ruse of using freedom of speech to allow propaganda broadcasts over our airways is another stealth attack on the United States of America.”

            —-Pamela Geller


            She may be advocating free speech, but she ain’t no free speech advocate.

    2. I am in favor of free speech rights. Full stop. Anything after the “but” is just derp.

      1. Same here. It’s sad that there’s too many people on BOTH sides that advocate the “you deserve to get your ass kicked for saying the wrong thing” belief. The ONLY acceptable reaction to offensive expression is a verbal rebuttal such as “shame on you” or “I respectfully disagree” or “fuck you”. Swinging fist and nose and all that.

        1. “Same here. It’s sad that there’s too many people on BOTH sides that advocate the “you deserve to get your ass kicked for saying the wrong thing” belief.”

          If you think I said that here, you’re delusional.

      2. It isn’t derp at all.

        When we stick up for the free speech rights of neo-Nazis, most people think we’re sticking up for neo-Nazis.

        I hate neo-Nazis. I wish they’d all set themselves on fire, but I stick up for their free speech rights because those are my free speech rights, too. If I want my speech against neo-Nazis to be protected by law, then I need a law that will protect the speech of neo-Nazis, too.

        Being able to tell the difference between sticking up for free speech rights and sticking up for the sometimes detestable people who need their free speech rights protected is not obvious to most non-libertarians. And for all those people out there who can’t tell the difference between sticking up for detestable people and sticking up for free speech rights, it’s important that they understand…

        I can stand up for people’s free speech rights even if I detest them.

        That isn’t derp. That’s what makes us libertarian, and an awful lot of the non-libertarians out there are non-libertarians because they can’t make or don’t understand that distinction.

        1. Yes everyone has 1A rights regardless of the attractiveness of their views. But the moral equivalence liberals — and sometimes libertarians — draw between different kinds of speech can border on the absurd. Islam is a fundamentally repressive, anti-libertarian ideology on par with communism or fascism. While the adherents of such ideologies should be able to profess it freely, they should not be surprised when normal western people mock and condemn them.

          1. “Islam is a fundamentally repressive, anti-libertarian ideology on par with communism or fascism. While the adherents of such ideologies should be able to profess it freely, they should not be surprised when normal western people mock and condemn them.”

            And when Americans use invoke free speech as a justification for mocking other people’s religious beliefs, it shouldn’t be surprising to see libertarians run to the defense of the First Amendment…

            Again, there are an awful lot of people who can’t tell the difference between 1) publicly advocating against something and 2) advocating using the coercive power of government to fight it. For most Americans, those two things are the same thing.

            It is our responsibility as libertarians to disabuse them of that stupid notion. Differentiating between those things is a libertarian characteristic–with the extinction of the honest liberal, libertarians may be the only people who can consistently make that distinction.

            Incidentally, we fought wars against fascism and communism. You don’t think we should fight wars until there is no more Islam, do you? There’s 1.5 billion of them out there in the world, and millions of them are American citizens by birth.

            1. You don’t think we should fight wars until there is no more Islam, do you?

              What do you think we’re doing?

            2. Don’t be silly, of course I don’t think “we” should fight wars against Islam or deprive Muslim citizens of their legal rights.

              I merely think that we should have the courage to call a spade a spade. In this case, denounce Islam as a harmful ideology just as we do for progressivism, communism, etc. We need to stop thinking of religion as some intrinsic characteristic of a person like race or sexual preference that is beyond the realm of acceptable criticism. Private discrimination against people of reprehensible religions ought to be perfectly socially acceptable in a free society.

          2. And we have some carve outs to free speech. I for one want to put an end to Marxism once and for all. It is inherently treasonous, and should have little or no protection. Not stamping it out in the fifties has lead to the mess we are in now.

            1. Then stamp it out with speech. Convincing speech. Not arms.

              The only reason to take up arms is in defense. Not to stamp out a failed philosophy of state power.

        2. Yeah, but I think that you can’t blame people who support freedom of speech or NOT for the acts of these lunatic individuals. I am in favor of the gunmen having full access to weapons, yet that doesn’t mean I’m supporting what they do. I also think that this group did a good thing in terms of personal responsibility (something I value as a libertarian,) by hiring quality armed security. Whereas I can’t feel that the Charlie Hebdo people let themselves down on the personal responsibility aspect due to them not hiring accurate security. N.B. I would have made the guns carried by the Hebdo killers made legal too, but I don’t support them.

    3. I am absolutely in favor of free speech rights for anti-Muslim activists, but I think we should emphasize that these are anti-Muslim activists we’re talking about–not free speech advocates.

      It wouldn’t matter if Wilders were a Nazi or a communist; free speech is essential for everybody. Yes, even Nazis and communists should have free speech, if not for any other reason, then simply so that other people can respond to them and express their disapproval.

    4. Charlie Hebdo wasn’t mocking Islam as a matter of free speech, Ken, they were mocking Islam because it’s a disgusting repressive ideology that seeks to destroy all that is good in the world–if, that is, you believe that ‘good’ includes things that are outside the complete and total submission to the will of Allah.

      Pam Geller, ASDI, and Geert Wilders are doing the exact same thing

      Reason, sadly, was not.

      Pam Geller, ASDI, and Geert Wilders went on even as they were being shot at.

      Reason cut off comments why?—-

      high, server-crushing volume of comments and the gratuitously insulting imagery of many of them?it seems that if there’s one group of folks more obsessed with gay sex than Islamic terrorists, it’s critics of the same?we’ve decided to shut down comments to this post.

      Because they were offensive? Really?


      1. And then Reason kicks itself in the nuts–

        For those who wrongly equate this with censorship, please note that the Web, like the world itself, is wide and there are plenty of places you can go to post your comments about just about anything.

        Ah, so ‘we can go somewhere else, somewhere besides the place where they claimed they were having an ‘everybody draw Mohammad’ contest because your submissions have become too offensive

        To who?

        Reason was jumping on this bandwagon for free speech, in the same manner as the woman who suggested the day.

        But it’s not just about free speech. It’s about defying the demands of a monstrous philosophy is making upon non-believers and about the cowardice of free speech advocates.

        If this be censorship, then kicking drunken party guests out of your living room at 6AM is ethnic cleansing. And the murder of Theo van Gogh simply another bad film review.

        No, Nick, this isn’t censorship. It’s cowardice.

        1. Yes but, Reason owns the website and is free to control access, postings, etc.

          You can start your own, wide open website any time you choose.

  37. Observe that nobody opens fire on peaceful Texans and lives to brag about it.
    HL Mencken has some good observations on Mohammedans in “Treatise on Right and Wrong”

    1. Yeah, the guys who stormed this gathering really didn’t think this thing through.

      I don’t know what percentage of Texans carry, but whatever that percentage is, you can probably multiply that by some number when you’re talking about patriotic Texans going to an anti-Muslim event.

      The article said they had a SWAT team in the back. Because Geert Wilders was the featured speaker, they probably disarmed all the civilians–since Geert Wilders has been marked for death and ISIS, apparently, called for some “martyrs” to storm this particular event. My guess is that they had the SWAT team there–especially–because they weren’t going to let just anybody in carrying a gun. I bet they had a metal detector.

      Generally speaking, though, yeah, storming a bunch of patriotic Texans attending an anti-Muslim event is probably the next best thing to “suicide by cop”.

      1. Those two art critics kind of wasted their lives for a non-event if you ax me.

        1. A total waste of 2 perfectly good goat-fuckers indeed… I could’ve used ’em up, chopped ’em up, at my bait shop. I have many-many master-baiters in my customer base; they’d have loved their little pieces, to pieces! Chop-chop!
          (Put their little pieces between two slices of bacon, and the fish, especially catfish, can NOT resist, I am told!)

      2. Geert Wilders has been marked for death and ISIS, apparently, called for some “martyrs” to storm this particular event.

        And they were only able to find two nimrods dumb enough to try it.

        Keep that in mind when Obummers or some other asshat demands that we give up even more of our freedoms because “ISIS followers are already here among us!!!11!!!1!!!” or some such horseshit. They put out a call for people to storm an even to kill Geert Wilders and only two of their idiot twitter followers were willing to try it. In Texas, which apparently has the 8th highest muslim population of any state.

        Like I said, something to keep in mind when some jackass tries to use this event as “proof” that ISIS is among us or something.

        1. I thought the art critics drove over from Phoenix. I may a crazy northerner, but I’m pretty sure Phoenix is not yet part of the Republic of Texas.


        1. Time to start playing ‘Cowboys and Muslims’. Which does not auger well for the Muslims.

      4. Back in ’91, I was talking to a former schoolmate of mine who had relocated to Dallas. I asked him if he was concerned with rioting there after the Rodney King incident. He said “We’re ready for that here, and if they do it will last about two minutes.” And I suspect he was right.

        This event simply reinforces the old slogan “Don’t mess with Texas”.

    2. Those moslems picked the wrong fucking state to pull their terrorist bullshit. Which is probably why the organizers held the event in Dallas in the first place. And the right people died. All in all, a good result.

      I look forward to seeing more moslem extremists exterminated like the vermin they are.

  38. Lampooning Islam is not only a legitimate exercise of free speech, it is an eminently practical way of identifying savages for extermination. Nice to see SWAt teams finally put to good use.

  39. “Not murdering people” (kinda cute but out-of-fashion idea, that) to the side, what’s so bad about responding with REAL manly violence, when someone does verbal or pictorial violence to my honorable goat-fucking customs and traditions?!?!

  40. “Free speech aside, why would anyone do something as provocative as hosting a “Muhammad drawing contest”?”

    Charlie Hebdo needs fresh talent?

  41. I understand the article, and I understand the point being made. I don’t disagree with it.

    But….I wouldn’t feel good if I had done this and 9 innocent people were killed. I would regret that action for the rest of my life. As it was, a guard was shot, and I think released from hospital quite quickly, and two bad guys were killed. So, essentially, no harm no foul. But, that is a big fluke.

    I suspect Geller doesn’t care if someone dies.

    1. More blaming the victim.

    2. You suspect Geller doesn’t care if Geller dies?

    3. Pulse guy no one made them show up to the contest.

      I suspect that some of my fellow armed Christian Texan’s may have secretly hoped for such an event .

    4. I thought Geller wanted to save lives, by keeping Sharia out of the U.S. One would think that free-thinkers, gays, atheists, feminists, and the like would be applauding her efforts to keep them safe from a future where people throw rocks at their heads until they are dead.

    5. Gee, let’s suppose for a moment that those offended responded the way normal people do when the neo-Nazis put on a march? Show up with posters & call him names, don’t show up with guns.

      You can consider Geller a provocative turd, but suggesting he should censor himself in order to protect the sensitivities of psychopaths is a pretty serious inversion of ethical morality.

  42. “”Free speech aside, why would anyone do something as provocative as hosting a “Muhammad drawing contest”?””

    Because “contempt” is a natural and healthy reaction to bearded religious zealots who set people on fire for fun?

  43. “”Free speech aside, why would anyone do something as provocative as hosting a “Muhammad drawing contest”?””

    Because some people want to live in the post-Enlightenment world, where words and pictures aren’t magically “blasphemous”?

  44. My dear, the next five minutes can change your life!
    Give a chance to your good luck.
    Read this article, please!
    Move to a better life!
    We make profit on the Internet since 1998!
    ????????????? http://www.jobsfish.com

  45. I used to see a fantastic, psychedelic illo of Muhammed riding his buraka (a magical beast) from Jerusalem up to Heaven on tha internet but I can’t find it anymore.

  46. I have little doubt the reason this event was held in Texas is the organizers knew the loons would show up and they would be killed when they attempted to shoot innocent people. As a Texan, I have no problem with that mindset at all because we are at war. We are at war for the very survival of what this country was founded on, freedom. Freedom to do, think, and say whatever choose. The freedom to allow everyone to do the same even when we totally oppose everything they believe. The left screams about insulting Islam and makes phony comparisons to Christianity and Judaism, yet I have yet to read or hear a story about someone committing amass shooting in the name of either faith. The true point of this event is to make on thing very clear to anyone thinking about engaging in terrorism in Texas, try it and we will kill you where you stand…

    1. So if the event had been held in Maine, the loons would have said “oh, okay, we’ll leave that one alone”?

  47. “Free speech aside” is like the popular “I’m for free speech, but” of many liberals. At heart, they disapprove of the Bill of Rights when they don’t like the people taking advantage of it. They think people should be free to think what liberals think, say what liberals say, and do what liberals do.

  48. OK, let’s go all out, and put enemy combatants bodies on display, wrapped in bacon, in a vat of pig urine, and a little coin-operated doohickey that burns a Koran for $1.
    Call it the intersection of art, war, and capitalism.
    We could even put a little button on it that says “Are you a Muslim?” and if the customer presses “Yes”, the Koran burning is free, but it sprays a bit of pig urine in the face of the customer. I figure that donations could replace the lost revenue from the Koran burning.
    I figure a Muslim rage boy in a Plexiglas cage with a mike/speaker setup should do quite nicely as a barker for my freak show..
    Sadly, bars are out, we don’t want him foaming and salivating on our valued clientele.
    Now all I need are investors.

    1. We already allow that sort of thing regarding art of other religions. What’s your point? That Islam shouldn’t be considered equal before the law and society?

      1. Go ahead, test it: set up a little automatic thing where a Bible will be burned upon insertion of a dollar, and see what the difference in reaction is from burning a Koran.

  49. This is a good instance where someone who is generally liberal like me can find common ground with libertarians. Unless there is an implicit threat of harm or intimidation to an actual person or place, let the public decide whether to applaud or shout down the authors of any words/drawing/ideas.

    We have the right to be offended, but anyone who needs to have the idea that the First Amendment doesn’t mean crap when others don’t have the right to be offensive, needs a refresher on the Constitution.

  50. That the organizers anticipated that their ‘occasion’ might have been the cause of trouble in the ‘land of the free etc’ was reasonable. Hiring what appear to be the kind of ‘security’ one might expect to find in downtown Kabul was, in light of events, eminently sensible. (But obviously, any one of them ‘going postal’ for some reason, could have put a real damper ‘ on the shindig. More unreasonable things have happened involving guns.)

    Given the dearth of information about the prizewinners, best in show, ‘people’s choice’ of drawing, the Awards, etc – even Geert Willders address to the artists – can we say the event might have failed to meet some expectations?

    1. Actually, it’s known that they paid for extra security because they were advised to do so by police. If they hadn’t, you would of course now have people saying “they tried to set themselves up as martyrs”… oh wait, you seem to be suggesting that was rather the case anyways.

  51. This news has an odor about it. Smart readers will be waiting for subsequent shoes to drop before reaching any conclusions that lead to action.

  52. Ladies and gentlemen, I believe we have stumbled on a new strategy for ridding our country of “lone wolf” terrorists. We need to hold ‘Draw Mohammed Contests” all over the country every week of the year — thousands a year. All we need to do is place our SWAT teams in strategic places around the contests and let them pick off the terrorists as they arrive. This could be FUN FUN FUN!

    From what I hear, Mohammed is gay anyway.

    1. Good. I can showcase my ‘Faggot Muhammed’ drawing in which Muhammed is depicted in a San Francisco bathhouse being gang fucked by many swishy looking men. Lubed up with bacon grease and appearing quite enthusiastic, of course.

      1. We can put it in a museum alongside the cross suspended in urine.

        See how easy tolerance is? -:)

        1. Hmmm……..if the two of those things side by side get you off better, then so be it. Fap away, and in good health sir.

  53. Wouldn’t it follow that, if in fact money is free speech, then gun play would also qualify?

    1. You’re endorsing violence as free speech in order to compare it to a non-violent form of speech (as defined by the Supreme Court)? Ah, well, no worries I guess, Salon agrees with you.


  54. Re the two bums who are no longer with us, their bodies should be left to rot, or buried with pig waste.

    1. Alan — I understand the president has already ordered the same team who prepared Bin Laden’s body for the proper Muslim burial to also going to prepare these bodies in Texas for the same.

      1. Clearly a State funeral, at taxpayers expense of course, is warranted. And burial in Arlington. Administration representatives in attendance. To show proper respect to the ‘religion of peace’.

  55. Southern Poverty Law Center just labeled Ms. Geller “extremist” and put her on a watch list.

    1. Oh, well that settles it then. The SPLC is a piece of shit.

    2. So, her coolness factor just skyrocketed again. Awesome.

  56. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.netjob80.com

  57. Religions are ~2000 years old;
    Humans are ~200,000 years old;
    Religion was born when the first con man met the first fool;

    1. I think there might be a zero missing from the first number, seeing as how ancient mesopotamians had religions.

      1. Mesopotamians = Iraqis

        Think about it.

  58. Offensive speech or “politically incorrect” is the REASON for the 1st amendment. Progressive love to pretend the 1st amendment only applies when what is said is not offensive, but the term offensive is dictated by the times. When Martin Luther King called for all Americans to be treated as equals, there were many who found his words offensive. When the suffrage movement was playing, many men found the discussion of women voting to be offensive. When people lose the ability to speak openly, even when what they say is offensive, no one is free.

  59. Say whatever you want about free speech and murder but remember the nearest right to be protected in the Bill of Rights after the First Amendment in America is the Second Amendment. In France how many would have been killed? Would there ever be a public competition like this there anyway? Never call an elderly judge senile to his face and expect justice anyway. – I suspect the American judicial oligarchy will have ex-judge Jimm Larry Hendren’s back forever.

    America does not protect the honor of an original speaker by allowing exclusive control of “fixed” free speech “for a time“. Most of Europe does this today after England did first in 1734.

  60. Of course speech is justification for violence. What planet do you live on? You guys are no more libertarian than the “liberals.”

    1. lol wut?

  61. I forgot about Obama’s “the future does not belong to those who defame Islam” comment. What the hell is wrong with an American president who can’t defend Free Speech without reservations?

    Oh, and we should tell Obama – yes, the future does belong to we defamers.

    We’re here. The gunmen are dead.

    1. Well if SCOTUS can’t defend free speech consistently and without question, then why should we expect more of a POTUS?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.