NYC Institutes Sharia, Bans All Speech Which Might Insult The Prophet of Islam
They've rewritten their blasphemy laws to try to fit them into the "Fighting Words" exception to free speech, as Allah admirably explains.
This means that if you would like to exercise your peaceful right to free speech, and someone else wishes to unlawfully exercise his non-peaceful non-right to engage in violence over your statement, your right is limited by his non-right.
Now, I suppose even liberals would understand the problem with this, if this "rule" were being generally applied. But they know it's not-- this "rule" shall only be applied to protect the de facto state religion of the US (the only religion afforded any sort of protection from "slander" and "provocations" in our laws), Islam.
There is a confusing aspect to this article that kept me from mentioning it earlier. I still cannot figure it out.
First the article says that ads like Pam Gellar's will be "prohibited," because violent people might use them as an excuse for illegal violence. So her rights will have to be taken away from her, so that violent thugs' non-rights aren't exercised.Suppose you accidentally click on a link and wind up seeing the raunchiest, most grotesque pornography imaginable.
What do you do?
You probably close the link and perhaps bark at whoever linked you to it.
But do you attempt to have the site shut down?
In all likelihood you do not. And that doesn't mean you approve of the pornography, or even tolerate it.
You don't attempt to have the site shut down, or stir up a rage, because you know it will be futile. The law has spoken on this point; and where the letter of the law hasn't spoken, the actions of thousands of LEO's and politicians have. There will be virtually no action taken against pornography, ever.
So you don't attempt to get the site shut down because the letter of the law, and the actions of those enforcing it, have informed you that it is a situation you'll just have to live with.
The law has become normative. You may not agree with it (or, of course, you might). But you have internalized the teaching of the law, just as a student internalizes the real rules of his school, what he can get away with, what he can't.
The law has taught you what you will have to accept, what you will have to work around, what you will have to teach yourself to ignore and come to peace with.
The law is normative. It establishes our norms.
The law is currently establishing a new norm. Some -- liberals, chiefly, are quick to line up to embrace the new norm.
The new norm is that certain religions -- oh, why be coy with the plural? One religion -- shall have the protection and sanctification of state power.
One religion, and one religion only.
Piss Christ is being shown in New York City again. There are few calls for the exhibit to be banned, and none for the artist to be arrested -- or vigorously investigated to find if there are any breaches in his past to be arrested for.
Because we know the law and the action of government in executing the law would not be responsive. Not even a little bit.
The law is normative. We have learned there is no point protesting Piss Christ, or any thousand "slanders" against the Prophet of Christianity. We have learned that we will just have to live with it, and, if such things offend us, learn to control our tempers, and learn to avoid certain things that might otherwise give us pleasure, like museums.
What norms are the laws currently teaching the most extreme and intolerant members of Islam?