Here's the winning cartoon at Gellars event. pic.twitter.com/yTOPZHIFvY
— LaurieAnn (@mooshakins) May 5, 2015
Fox News hosts @megynkelly, Bill O’Reilly clash over shooting at “draw Muhammad” event: http://t.co/5bL3fMb5DJ pic.twitter.com/pouPFmj3XX
— TheBlaze (@theblaze) May 5, 2015
"The Garland police just showed how to defend the Constitution." -- @DavidAFrench
http://t.co/TyVvwLANvu
— National Review (@NRO) May 4, 2015
◼ Obviously, not even having the slightest idea of the law, they even suggest the possibility that charges could have been leveled against the organizers! - Weasel Zippers
◼ “After Texas Shooting, If Free Speech Is Provocative, Should There Be Limits?” - McClatchy DC
They shelled out $10,000 for extra security to patrol the controversial event, which featured a speech by a Dutch politician who’s on al Qaida’s “hit list” and a contest for the best cartoon of the Prophet Muhammad. Local law enforcement was on the alert. A SWAT team and a bomb squad patrolled.
The two gunmen who opened fire with assault weapons outside the exhibit on Sunday were killed by a police officer. They have been identified by law enforcement as Elton Simpson and Nadir Soofi, both of Phoenix. They appear, from social media posts, to have been motivated by a desire to become mujahedeen, or holy warriors.
The attack highlights the tensions between protecting Americans’ treasured right to freedom of expression and preserving public safety, and it raises questions about when – if ever – government should intervene.
There are two exceptions from the constitutional right to free speech – defamation and the doctrine of “fighting words” or “incitement,” said John Szmer, an associate professor of political science and a constitutional law expert at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte.
“Fighting words is the idea that you are saying something that is so offensive that it will lead to an immediate breach of the peace,” Szmer explained. “In other words, you are saying something and you should expect a violent reaction by other people.”
The exhibit of cartoons in Texas might have crossed the line, Szmer said.... KEEP READING
MEGYN KELLY: 1st Amendment isn’t meant to protect popular speech; it’s meant to protect “the MOST outrageous, offensive, incendiary speech.”
— slone (@slone) May 5, 2015
The #GarlandShooting is not an ordinary crime. It is a symptom of the global terror created to silence criticism of an entire religion.
— Chile's Atheist (@lalodagach) May 5, 2015
NBC News Reporter Ayman Mohyeldin Wants Islam Protected From Satire - Breitbart http://t.co/JD5RZHpRBk via @BreitbartNews
— John Nolte (@NolteNC) May 5, 2015
RT @dcexaminer: White House: 'Offensive' content doesn't justify Texas shootings http://t.co/LAvEBVaoXc pic.twitter.com/eTUJM9SXdO
— WhiteHousePressCorps (@whpresscorps) May 5, 2015