So a fierce debate has sprung up over whether such speech is protected speech or not, "hate" speech, protected speech but unwise to engage in, etc...aside from the solid political Right, I think that most of the media is at best engaging in a complete lack of critical thinking and at worst has lost its mind.
Fox News, generally reliable for conservatism, has had multiple hosts fall into the, "I support free speech but..." line of thinking:
Bill O'Reilly: "The American Freedom Defense Initiative spurred a violent incident. Insulting the entire Muslim world is stupid…It does not advance the cause of liberty or get us any closer to defeating the savage jihad. Just because you can say it doesn't mean you should say it…It is stupid. It accomplishes nothing."
Bill also claimed that the principles of free speech were not in play during this event. Well Bill O'Reilly is wrong, in a multitude of ways. For one, the principles of free speech were very much in play at the event. If any ideology is threatening murder if you do something it finds offensive, that right there is reason enough to perform the offensive act. Secondly, the American Freedom Defense Initiative did not "spur" a violent incident. That's like saying that when African-Americans were out protesting for their civil rights, that they were the ones who "spurred" the violence against them. Like the fire hoses being sprayed at them, the police dogs attacking them, and the police beating them with clubs. That was their fault. Not, you know, the police themselves. Or like saying if a black person did something that "offended" the whites in the old South and got lynched for it, that was their fault, as they should have known not to provoke those whites.
Third, Bill is wrong in claiming that insulting the entire Muslim world does not advance the cause of liberty. Actually, it does, because who is threatening liberty within Islam? Radical Muslims. And what is one way to advance the cause of liberty in the face of such tyrants? People around the world showing that they aren't afraid. Movements like radical Islam get a good chunk of their influence out of raw fear alone. If the populations of the world show that they aren't afraid, that unto itself helps to advance the cause of liberty. So holding a Mohammed cartoon contest most certainly advances the cause of liberty. If every major city in the world hosted a Mohammed cartoon contest (or a religion cartoon contest featuring all religions for those not wanting to single out only Islam), it would make a huge step towards showing radical Islam that the free world is not afraid and is not going to live under its tyranny.
And fourth, such cartoons thus DO accomplish something.
Then there was Laura Ingraham:
Laura Ingraham: "It is not beneficial to us as Americans to criticize an entire faith, and what was done at this convention doesn't accomplish anything. There are a lot of things that we can say, that we have a right to say, that we shouldn't say."
It doesn't accomplish anything and we shouldn't say it? Again, it does accomplish something and the fact that radical jihadists are threatening violence over it is alone reason enough to engage in it.
With regards to Chris Ofili's infamous "The Holy Virgin Mary," a "painting" made out of elephant dung fashioned to resemble the Virgin Mary, Ingraham said she supports the artist's right to do it, but that it is wrong to "unnecessarily" offend people: "We shouldn't unnecessarily insult people, personal attacks."
Jesus Effing Christ (no pun intended to Christians). For one, there's a HUGE difference between doing something highly offensive and provocative with regards to a religion in which you are safely assured that no one is going to engage in violence against you and doing something offensive or provocative, or just some light comedy, with regards to a religion that threatens to kill you over the slightest offense. Two, we should provoke and offend ideologies, political, religious, whatever, in various ways, as that is a part of engaging in critical thinking. Politics in particular is famous for engaging in mockery and jokes of some of the ridiculous aspects of politics and politicians. The Soviets had tons of political jokes. And we make lots of them in the Western world regarding our own democratic systems as well, ranging from cartoons to television skits to jokes by the late night talk show hosts.
So yes, we SHOULD insult people in religions and politics, and in particular if said religion, political ideology, cult, etc...is threatening murder if people do so.
Next up was Martha MacCallum, on Twitter:
Martha MacCallum: 100%. Wipe out ISIS now w/Egypt & Jordan. Don't stoop to their level
:::steam pressure building:::
Okay, now I am going to start yelling:
HOW IN THE LIVING HELL IS CRITICIZING MOHAMMED THE SAME AS STOOPING TO THE LEVEL OF THE JIHADISTS!?
So back in the 1930s, if someone was criticizing the Nazis for rounding up and slaughtering Jews, they were then stooping to the same level as the Jews!? In an interview with the founder of AFDI, she said: "If you want to make a difference, you do it in a Christian way, you don't do it in a crass way by insulting someone's religion."
Okay, well first of all, not everyone is Christian. Secondly, "insulting" one's religion is not crass when said religious ideology is out slaughtering people and threatening murder over the most minor insults. By the standards of radical Islam, just drawing a picture of Mohammed period is a crass insult and worthy of killing the drawer. You are not allowed to depict Mohammed in Islam. That is why, unlike Christian architecture in which you see loads of imagery of Christ, Mary, and so forth, in Islamic architecture, you only find geometric and mathematical patterns.
Not all mockery is something highly offensive and provocative. To give a comparison, let's think about criticism of President Obama. There are many genuinely funny criticisms made of him, same with all major politicians. But then there have been some hateful ones as well, for example an image showing Obama shining a man's shoes. This is clearly a racist image. And just as there are light-hearted and hateful criticisms in politics, there are light-hearted and hateful criticisms towards religions. The thing with radical Islam is that it considers as highly offensive ANY type of mockery or criticism. So to claim that it is wrong to criticize Islam via things like cartoons because such cartoons are "crass" or "provocative" or "offensive" or "obscene" doesn't hold water.
Fourth for Fox, there is Greta Van Susteren:
Greta van Susteren: "My message is simple — protect our police. Do not recklessly lure them into danger and that is what happened in Garland, Texas, at the Mohammed cartoon contest," she said. "Yes, of course, there's a First Amendment right and it's very important, but the exercise of that right includes using good judgment. It's one thing for someone to stand up for the First Amendment and put his own you-know-what on the line, but here, those insisting they were defending the First Amendment were knowingly putting officers' lives on the line — the police...[who] had no choice but to do their job."
This criticism sounds reasonable on the surface, but when you dig into the nuts and bolts it really falls apart. Because the thing is, by that logic, ALL forms of speech and expression can be curtailed simply if someone is threatening violence in response to the speech. For example, when a gay pride parade is held, what if there was a violent anti-gay group that was threatening violence? Would people reason, "Well, we're going to have to suspend all the gay pride parades. We can't risk offending this group and risking the lives of people in the process." Or would the reaction be, "We are NOT going to be dictated to by this hateful group. And we not only are going to have the gay pride parade, but we are going to have multiple gay pride parades in every major city in the country." Personally, I hope it would be the latter. Something tells me that the annual gay pride parades held wouldn't get shut down if ISIS started threatening them. Instead, the parades would continue to be held, but with a massive security presence. So would the parade people then be acting selfish? Would they be unnecessarily risking the lives of spectators and the police protecting the event? Should they only express their homosexuality so long as only they themselves are the ones risking anything? So in the end, Greta's logic doesn't hold up. All speech would be at risk with that kind of thinking.
Luckily, Sean Hannity and in particular Megyn Kelly have not fallen into any of these traps about speech. Kelly has been extremely fierce in her defense of free speech. People at Fox weren't the only ones though, the people at the much more left-leaning networks have also folded up like lawn chairs, with some, such as Yale Law School graduate Chris Cuomo of CNN, saying that such speech is not protected by the Constitution due to the fighting words doctrine and chastising people in a tweet to "read" the Constitution to how such speech is not protected. Well I've looked at the First Amendment and don't see anything in it about speech being protected so long as it doesn't offend a very violent religious ideology that is given a lot of leeway due to extreme political correctness in our society. And the fighting words doctrine is blatantly un-Constitutional I'd say.
The New York Times brings a whole new level of stupidity and insanity to this issue with an editorial it wrote, titled, "Free Speech vs Hate Speech." First, let's look at the title: "Free Speech vs Hate Speech." In other words, they only believe in free speech when they agree with it. Anything "too" offensive is "hate speech" and thus not protected speech (i.e. free speech). They also ignore that the definition of hate speech is incredibly arbitrary. One could easily accuse the New York Times itself of having engaged in hate speech (more on that in a bit).
Then come some of the paragraphs from the article: "But it is equally clear that the Muhammad Art Exhibit and Contest in Garland, Tex., was not really about free speech. It was an exercise in bigotry and hatred posing as a blow for freedom." Bigotry and hatred are free speech. The political Left have no problem with engaging in bigotry and hatred when it is something they disagree with. It's only bigotry and hatred when it's towards something they like. Nor, as I have pointed out above, does this constitute a blow for freedom. This is a murderous ideology that will murder over the slightest offensive, bigoted or not.
"That distinction is critical because the conflicts that have erupted over depictions of the Prophet Muhammad, most notably the massacre of staff members at the French satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo in January by two Muslim brothers, have generated a furious and often confused debate about free speech versus hate speech."
Again this nonsensical distinction between free speech versus hate speech. The article then makes the distinction it sees between Pamela Geller and Charlie Hebdo, saying that Charlie Hebdo is a publication that specializes in graphic satire of politicians and religions of all stripes, whereas Geller has a history of specific hatred towards Muslims:
"Whether fighting against a planned mosque near ground zero, posting to her venomous blog Atlas Shrugs or organizing the event in Garland, Ms. Geller revels in assailing Islam in terms reminiscent of virulent racism or anti-Semitism. She achieved her provocative goal in Garland — the event was attacked by two Muslims who were shot to death by a traffic officer before they killed anyone."
Well a few things on this:
1) Fighting against the proposed mosque at Ground Zero had nothing to do with anti-Muslim bigotry, it had to do with the fact of how, well, offensive putting a mosque right at the sight of the biggest mass slaughter of Americans on American soil in American history by Islamic radicals, is to a great many people. Oh but that is fine by them it seems. Who cares how many people are offended by that.
2) I do not know much about Pam Geller, so I do not know if she is anti-Muslim or just anti-radical Islam or maybe anti-Islam but not anti-Muslim (quite a few people argue that Islam itself is in fact a violent religion and that the true "radicals" of the religion are the peaceful Muslims, that the radical Muslims are just adhering exactly to what the religion says to do). But regardless of what she is, it shouldn't matter. Speech mocking and/or hateful towards any ideology is protected speech, and in particular if said ideology is a murderous one threatening to kill anyone who engages in the slightest offense. If a group is going to engage in truly hateful, bigoted speech, you don't ban the speech, you counter it with more speech. So when the Nazis march somewhere, anti-Nazi people march to counter them. That sort of thing.
"Those two men were would-be murderers. But their thwarted attack, or the murderous rampage of the Charlie Hebdo killers, or even the greater threat posed by the barbaric killers of the Islamic State or Al Qaeda, cannot justify blatantly Islamophobic provocations like the Garland event. These can serve only to exacerbate tensions and to give extremists more fuel."
Actually, yes they can. If there's a murderous ideology killing people over any and all offenses, that unto itself fully justifies mocking and derision. But in addition, Pamela Geller was not the one being "provocative" here. The ones doing the provoking are the radical Islamists. They're the ones who said, "You offend us, we kill you." Well that's a great way to provoke a response from people who are going to take them up on that. So it is wrong for the Times to blame Geller for doing any "provoking" here. As for "exacerbating" tensions and "giving the extremists more fuel," that is like trying to appease the crocodile. They ALREADY hate us. Criticizing them is not going to somehow make them hate us more. They already have all the fuel they need. The tensions are already exacerbated. This is the free speech equivalent of claiming that you do not stand up to the aggressor because it may then make the aggressor act more aggressively. Weakness is what inspires aggression, not strength.
"Some of those who draw cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad may earnestly believe that they are striking a blow for freedom of expression, though it is hard to see how that goal is advanced by inflicting deliberate anguish on millions of devout Muslims who have nothing to do with terrorism. As for the Garland event, to pretend that it was motivated by anything other than hate is simply hogwash."
"Inflicting deliberate anguish on millions of devout Muslims?" :::BANGS HEAD::: I highly doubt that Muslims are so fragile and sensitive that a cartoon event is going to cause them all to go into severe mental anguish and stress. Secondly, the Times didn't give a crap about the anguish it inflicted on millions of devout Christians when it displayed the images of Piss Christ or "The Holy Virgin Mary," no that was high art and free speech. If some Christians were offended, well they need to toughen up and understand that we live in a free society. But can't do anything that might offend the sensibilities of Muslims. So the Times has shown itself to be very hypocritical in this sense.
