That I agree that the 'downside' of free speech is that you have to tolerate hateful speech as long as it doesn't violate the constitutional freedoms of others?

Yes, that's not surprising at all.

"Tolerate" in this case refers to the legal right of others to free speech - this is what MysticCat and I are discussing. I actually deleted a post similar to his just to prevent this kind of misunderstanding.

It should not be surprising, therefore, that I support the right of the Muslim community to speak out and protest these kind of characterizations as offensive - in that sense, I don't expect "tolerance" in the sense of non-response or laziness.

You're in law school, no? Seriously - this is a basic tenet of the founding ideals of the US. It sucks because we have to deal with bigoted idiots - but it's FAR better than the alternative, no?

I'm a Catholic living in Oklahoma. Needless to tell you, I've been told many times how my religion (sadly) will send me straight to the firey pits of hell, etc. I've heard it. It's intolerance, ignorance, etc. I ignore it or I try to educate depending on the situation. Heck.. the ignorance being spewed by certain Muslims regarding the Pope is as idiotic and ignorant as anything the Pope himself has said -- moreso IMHO.

My civpro prof would have me strung up by the toenails for uttering such an abomination. They = ignorant Muslims making death threats (and in some cases following through) because their dumb asses were offended.

As long as you're not making death threats or killing people who disagree with you, you're well within your rights. Otherwise, what are you suggesting? That the U.S. allow Muslims to make death threats and commit violent acts because they are offended while they compel people with offensive bobblehead dolls to remove said dolls from sight? WTF?

What does law school have anything to do with anything?

If the KKK were in my vicinity preaching hateful speech, I would exercise my right to speak against it. And I will not tolerate it, either.

In any case, I still don't understand what this ex-marine's business venture has to do with radical Islam?

You did not specify who "they" were. I was talking about OTW's post, and you went right to the riots over what the pope said. BTW, there were riots in remote areas, mostly areas where there is conflict. It should not surprise you that people over there would act. Have there been riots in your general area? I live near the largest Arab/Muslim population in the US, and I should didn't hear about them. Like I said, next time please do specify because like 99% of the muslim people do not riot and make death threats.

I think your problem is when you hear the word muslim, these "certain" images pop in your head, just based on the way you post.

Bobblehead Mohammed is offensive to me because it is a disrespect to ME. I have right to say something about it, and not tolerate other people walking all over something I believe in. I would do the same thing if it were about my skin colour, as well. But I guess I should tolerate it, eh? Because this is an acceptable discrimination.

Ok there!

Amazingly, you knew who "they" were. I was pretty sure there was no need to spel it out.

No one is saying you can't speak out against it.

As others have said quite well, that's the cost of living in a free society with freedom of speech. I think it's a shame anyone seems to be suggesting that "intolerable" speech can be punished.

You seem to be drawing a distinction between speaking out against that which offends you and not tolerating it. What would you do to show you will not tolerate that which offends you?

I don't care if it rains of freezes
'Long as I got my Plastic Jesus
Riding on the dashboard of my car.
Through my trials and tribulations
And my travels through the nations
With my Plastic Jesus I'll go far.

Plastic Jesus! Plastic Jesus,
Riding on the dashboard of my car
I'm afraid He'll have to go.
His magnets ruin my radio
And if I have a wreck He'll leave a scar.

\musical interlude

I didn't mean it as any sort of pejorative, just to note that I'm framing this as a 'legal' discussion, and trying to direct you back there.

Again - we're now in a semantic trap where we're using "tolerate" to mean two different things.

Speak against it, but recognize they have the right to say it. That's the entirety of the point MysticCat and I are promoting.

Agreed completely - it's very suspect in this thread.

er, I never said anything about punishment or doing anything illegal.

How would I show my distaste? I already have, buddy.

I never once suggested that they didnt have rights under free speech legally because I agree.

Yet you have said things like, "I would exercise my right to speak against it. And I will not tolerate it, either." These statements suggest that "not tolerating" something involves more than speaking against it. And since the primary definition of "tolerate" is along the lines of "to allow the existence, presence, practice, or act of without prohibition or hindrance; permit," it follows that "not tolerating" something means either not to permit it or to impose retribution for it.

We're just trying to figure out exactly what you mean when you say hate speech or offensive speech should not be tolerated. If we're misunderstanding you, just say so. If you have "already shown" how you would show your "distaste," you must have done it somewhere other than in this discussion.

No, tolerating could mean that you voice your opinion against hate speech. I will give you an example, there was a KKK rally where I live in the beginning of summer. While the KKK had a right to rally in the steps of the Capitol, there was also counter-protests. Is this illegal? No. It just shows that people living here will not tolerate hate speech in their neighborhood. Now, I am not a fan of rallies. Alot of the time, people are not on the same page. I avoid it.

And I meant that I already showed my distaste by pointing out, in this thread, that it is hateful speech. What did you think I meant? lol. I bet you wouldnt ask me that if you thought I was christian or jewish. :) But I forgive you.

Cool. Then we're on the same page. However, I stand by the questions, since as I said, your earlier posts do clearly suggest that "not tolerating" something involves more than speaking against it.
I didn't know what you meant, hence the question.
You would lose that bet. My questions had nothing to do with your religion and everything to do with your statements and my attempt to understand them.

But I forgive you for assuming prejudice as the reasons for my questions. ;)

What do you think I was suggesting? Look, all I said was hate speech should not be tolerated. End of story. How is that suggesting more than speaking out.

As I said four posts up:

Yet you have said things like, "I would exercise my right to speak against it. And I will not tolerate it, either." These statements suggest that "not tolerating" something involves more than speaking against it. And since the primary definition of "tolerate" is along the lines of "to allow the existence, presence, practice, or act of without prohibition or hindrance; permit," it follows that "not tolerating" something means either not to permit it or to impose retribution for it.

I don't think it is at all unreasonable to understand your statement -- "I would exercise my right to speak against it. And I will not tolerate it, either." (my emphasis) -- to suggest that "not tolerating" is more than, or at least different from, speaking out. Otherwise, no need for "and" or "either."