Free speech or hate speech?

I'm still kinda sorting all this out, so I'll ask you the questions I'm asking myself.

Maybe you haven't been following the latest in the Charlie Hebdo matter, what with the elections in Canada and the UK and all.  Here's an excerpt to catch you up.

Critics argue that Charlie Hebdo routinely engages in Islamophobia, and many Muslims take issue with its depictions of the Prophet Muhammad, which are considered blasphemous.

Defenders counter that Charlie Hebdo, a provocative left-wing publication, lampoons religious leaders and politicians of all stripes and has devoted more time to attacking conservative politicians who favor anti-immigration laws — such as the National Front — than Islam.

First question: are we all still "je suis Charlie"?

Closer to home: was Pam Geller yelling fire in a crowded theater when she sponsored her Muhammed cartoon contest?  (Let's look past her ridiculous and Orwellian "I'm saving lives" justification for what she says and does for the moment.)  Is it a good thing that she hires her own heavily armed security for these events -- you know, Second Amendment remedies for First Amendment provocations?  Less important question: Were the two single cells in the Garland, TX "terrist network" ready for jihad... or just martyrdom?

Update: Ted Cruz blames Obama, of course.

Most important question: do you really and truly feel like defending to your death the right for Geller, or Charlie Hebdo, or anybody else to keep on like this, under the current global socio-political circumstances?

Report.  Decide.  Ted Rall's opinion.

When exactly does free speech cross over the line to hate speech?  What is the proper reaction when it does?   (Obviously not shootings and bombings... but what?)  Certainly it's got to be okay to tell people to shut up.  That's free speech also, yes?  Or is that censorship?  If it's not OK to tell them to shut up, is it acceptable to ask them to tone it down a little?

Is this just an endless loop of point/counterpoint, as Nick Anderson shows?  (Don't skip the petulant complaints and baiting taunts from the very worst of Houston's conservatives in the comments.)

If you have the right to insult people to the point that they become so angrily deranged that they kill you -- religious excuses aside -- why is it wrong for others who don't want to be caught in the crossfire or maimed by the blast or the shrapnel to tell you to pipe down?

No answers here yet.  Still just asking the questions.  But a few more toons posted here on Sunday will further illustrate the quandary in which we we all find ourselves.

How much intolerance is tolerable?

Imagine a Green elected Texas governor

And you'll be able to relate to what happened in Alberta -- the Texas of Canada -- this week.

On Tuesday night, the near-unthinkable happened here in Canada when the New Democratic Party (NDP) stormed to a commanding majority in Alberta's provincial elections. To explain this in American terms: Imagine that Texas just overwhelmingly elected a legislature dominated by a left-wing party that opposes major oil pipeline projects; promises a core review of the obligations that oil and gas companies have to their communities; and favors fundamentally rethinking the tax structure toward large-scale redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor. Oh, and it's going to insist that climate change is real, man-made, and should bear on any policy that involves burning more hydrocarbons.

Even this comparison is tough, because Americans don't support a mainstream party as unabashedly left-wing as the NDP. (The Greens would be a decent analog. Or a breakaway party of Bernie Sanders acolytes.) Publicly NDP members say they're “social democrats,” but most of its members, like Canadians at large, use that term interchangeably with “socialist.” Alberta has traditionally been unyielding soil for the NDP. The province is defined by its vast fossil fuel reserves, comparable to Saudi Arabia in its oil underfoot. Once oil was discovered there in the 1940s, actual Texans rushed up to establish companies and, concomitantly, a pro-capital, pro-religion, pro-firearm style of politics that the rest of Canada regards as distinctly American. For 44 years before Tuesday night, a span of twelve straight elections, Alberta has been run by the Conservative Party, a decent analogue to the Republican Party. Before that was nearly 40 years of even more conservative rule under the Social Credit Party.

Kaboom (and that's not the sound of an exploding tar sands oil train, either).  This is what revolution at the ballot box looks like.

Still, to put what just happened Canada in context for you Yanks, imagine Bernie Sanders becoming Texas governor by a big majority.

— Doug Saunders (@DougSaunders) May 6, 2015

Honestly, I'd rather see Sanders in Washington as opposed to Austin; after all, he wouldn't be able to deal with the Lege that would still have too many Republicans in it (unless they shock us all and manage to let Texans get stoned legally, but that's another story).

It’s a game-changer for a number of reasons, one of which should have been immediately obvious: Alberta is home to the massive tar sands deposits that the oil industry wants to tap and ship south via the Keystone XL pipeline. And with the changing of the guard, the industry’s just lost a top Washington lobbyist – and is now facing leadership that opposes the pipeline and is committed to reducing the climate impact of oil development.

Can it happen here? Can something sort of like it happen here? Please?!