Pam Geller does not support the First Amendment.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

Last edited Mon May 4, 2015, 04:31 PM - Edit history (1)

For educational purposes, the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment

Pam Geller, August 2007, on her own website. The title of her blog piece is

Ban Islam? Uh ………. yeah

For verification purposes only:

http://pamelageller.com/2007/08/ban-islam-uh-ye.html/

No one here is excusing the two idiots who shot up the event in Texas yesterday. No one.

And most of us, myself included, admit there technically is some 1st Amendment protection to the event itself.

But can we please drop all pretenses that this was poor Pam Geller being punished for celebrating the First Amendment?

She thinks the First Amendment is shit.

[NaturalHigh]

1. While that may be true...

her event was still protected by the First Amendment.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

4. Of course.

But that's not why Geller held it.

[Jackpine Radical]

60. Nor need it be

in order for it to be protected speech, fer Chrissake.

It was a matter of a bunch of thoroughly disgusting people trying to replay Charly Hebdo.

There is a vast difference between legal and smart.

In terms of rationality and predictable consequences for behavior, Geller & Co. were "asking for it."

There is no law preventing me from kicking my neighbor's bull in the ass when it gets into my pasture either. But I think I'll pass.

[awoke_in_2003]

59. Agreed. nt

[Scootaloo]

76. And?

[NaturalHigh]

96. And...a good morning to you Scootaloo.

I thought my reply was self-explanatory.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

2. I support the 1st Amendment, do you?

[Tommy_Carcetti]

3. Naturally.

Pam Geller does not.

And her little stunt yesterday was not about her loving the First Amendment.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

5. Which has no bearing on the fact she was the target of a terrorist attack.

Defending her, up to and including the use of deadly force, is the only responsible thing to do.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

8. I'm not going to defend her. Sorry.

There's a fine line between legal and ethical, and I have no time to waste defending the unethical even if their actions were technically legal.

[Bonx]

10. That's ok. Plenty of us do understand free speech and will defend

her right to it.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

13. You would leave her to be killed by terrorists?

[Tommy_Carcetti]

17. No.

But I'm not going to give cover to her motivations.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

29. Defending her doesn't mean agreeing with her.

I don't agree with you but I would defend you especially from someone of violent intent.

[JustAnotherGen]

30. I wouldn't take a bullet for her

If she has the courage of her convictions - she'll take the hit herself. She should be proud to do so.

She can defend her own right to free speech. And she should own her words.

That's what is the difference here -

You want her to own her words.

So do I.


But not everyone does. There are just seriously irresponsible people in this world who love the culture of chaos that Geller represents.

I'm not saying 'let it go' - just know what you are dealing with here.

[alp227]

66. "Take the hit" as in the bullet?

Do people really deserve to be killed for their opinions even if bigoted?

[JustAnotherGen]

72. Nope

But as MLK knows - even those who speak of peace and unity can be Harmed. This woman is the same damned fool that got folks in the middle of the country who've never been to NYC, and will never go to NYC - all up in arms and hateful over Park51 - google NYC mosque.

She can say whatever she wants.

But I'm not going to dodge in front of her to save her life if someone over reacts.

I would dodge in front of Rep Cummings. In the heat of the moment - he's a treasure and a just, kind, and inclusive man.

She's a hateful vindictive woman. Let someone who agrees with her speech and the place they come from - dodge in front of her.

I would never give up my life for a person like that. She's not good enough.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

28. Freedom of speech has nothing to do with 'being killed by terrorists'.

'Being killed by terrorists' remains illegal no matter what.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

35. Explain that to the BUT-monkeys.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

37. If I understand how you're using that insult, I'm a 'but' monkey.

Because people are not excusing the attack, they're pointing out that this was eminently predictable. That Ms Gellar, for one, expected an attack, probably even hoped for an attack, so that she could advance her crusade of Islamaphobic hate.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

44. I'm one of those silly, muddle-headed milennials but I remember the

murder of Theo Van Gogh, Salman Rushdie, the Dutch cartoon riots, etc. Geller wasn't provoking, she was reacting. I can't help but think that those who are perpetrating these atrocities bear all the culpability for their actions and the reactions.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

49. If you don't think she was provoking you are just too nice.

I won't say you're naive, but that you need to learn a little bit more about this crazy Geller nutjob.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

58. The would-be killers were not automatons. They had a choice.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

73. Cause and effect

[Nuclear Unicorn]

78. So, what you're saying is --

Because the jihadists have enforced their anti-blasphemy laws on non-Muslims with deadly force the effect has been exhibitions such as Geller's.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

79. No. Try again.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

81. This is what I'm saying...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141084751

[Nuclear Unicorn]

82. Okay. And. Jihadists are an anti-everybody-but-them hate group. However --

the difference between Geller and the jihadists is: One side plays with crayons, the other side murders people. The former is protected, the latter, not so much.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

83. You are either being purposefully obtuse, or just don't get it. Have a great day!

This back and forth is over for me. Knock your socks off!

[Nuclear Unicorn]

85. I don't want to "get" nonsense.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

86. Have a nice day!

[Nuclear Unicorn]

87. Snide salutations and rofl smilies don't turn nonsense into non-nonsense.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

88. You're the nonsensical one, not me. You are very confused. So please let's agree to disagree.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

51. I take it you don't believe one person can convince another person to do anything.

Or that, if one person convinces another person to do anything, the only one responsible is the one who did it, not the one who convinced them?

Ms Gellar has a very clearly defined agenda. She hates Islam, wants it destroyed if possible. She deliberately set up an event to insult Muslims. She EXPECTED an attack, and hired on lots of security. And now, because what she expected to happen happened, she can use that in her ongoing crusade to spread hatred of Islam.

If she was simply 'reacting', she wouldn't have bothered to hire on extra security. She knew she was deliberately provoking an attack. She's not a 'silly, muddle-headed' person. She got what she wanted, more 'evidence' that 'Muslims are all terrorists' who 'attack over cartoons', and she'll make a lot of money off of it, as well as advance her agenda. (Even if it turns out the two attackers aren't Muslim, in fact, she'll still use it to spread hatred.)

Yes, the two shooters are 100% culpable and legally liable for their actions. But that doesn't turn Pamela Gellar into some martyr for the first amendment.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

61. The would-be killers were not automatons. They made a choice. They could have chosen to

not attempt mass-murder. That is the only responsible party.

What would you have done? Keep Geller and anyone who doesn't measure-up from holding events, leave them to the killers, let the groups fight it out amongst themselves or intervene against those who would use actual violence?

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

80. Nothing to be done. But if you don't think she instigated this you are wrong.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

84. What absolutely, unequivocally, without peer, instigated this is --

an ideology that demands people be murdered over drawings. THAT is the sole source of the incitement to violence. Without that none of the rest of this would be a topic of conversation and guess what -- there is no constitutional or ethical defense for an ideology that preaches murdering people over drawings.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

89. You may need to look up "instigate" in the free online dictionary.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

90. I know exactly what it means and I used it correctly.

There are people in this world who preach murder against those who do not believe as they do. They instigated this entire series of events. Geller is not the originator.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

91. No, she arranged the function that SHE KNEW would instigate. Please argue with someone else.

This is getting really old.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

92. How could she know that would be the reaction? Because the jihadists HAVE DONE IT BEFORE.

They started this. Not Geller. Not Slaman Rushdie. Not Theo Van Gogh. Not the Dutch cartoonists. Not Charlie Hebdo. The killers and those who preach this madness to them started this. You can deny reality all you want because Geller is more pathetic than sympathetic but the fact remains the killers have been murdering people for years and making excuses for them in the name of political opportunism is sick and self-defeating.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

101. Because the jihadists HAVE DONE IT BEFORE. - NOW YOU GET IT!!!

That's why she was instigating. She new from history that drawing cartoons of Mohammed turns out these whackos.

I rest (FINALLY!) my case.

Good DAY, SIR!!

[Nuclear Unicorn]

104. Why are you advocating for a heckler's veto where the heckler's use murder?

That means anytime someone wants to shut down another group all they have to do is threaten violence and you'll come racing along to advocate for silencing the targeted group.

Don't like abortion? Bomb a clinic.

Don't like Homosexuals? Shoot some.

Don't like Muslims? Firebomb a mosque.

This is the precedent you're advocating for.

Why don't you get that?

And it's "ma'am," not "sir."

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

109. Insanity doesn't become you.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

112. That's not a refutation. If you concede to the violent heckler you enable them in the future.

Do you think you can appease them?

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

115. Appease?

You are really barking up the wrong tree, kid.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

117. Yes, appease; as in --

"conceding to the demands of a violent aggressor out of fear of further aggression." synonyms: surrender, capitulate, mollify, soothe, conciliate, satisfy.

Your entire line of argument has been centered on fear of further attacks.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

118. I have no fear. What are you afraid of?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

122. You say you're not afraid now but your argument is based on Geller not holding her event

because she knew there could be a violent reaction. You demand she concede to those who would react violently (see, Post #101).

It's perfectly possible to defend Geller's right to speech AND disapprove of her message AND make a stand against violent reactionaries. Yet, all I see are people demanding Geller be silenced so as to not antagonize those who are perpetually antagonized.

Do you seriously think if Geller hadn't held her event that the would-be terrorists would have lived out the rest of their days without disturbing anyone or finding cause for violent action?

Those who preach appeasement apparently assume the requisite level of naiveté they hope to find in their audiences.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

126. You don't seem to understand.

She purposefully held "her event" for the SPECIFIC purpose of inciting violence! She therefore is guilty of inciting violence, as far as I'm concerned.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

127. And short skirts incite rape 'cuz some people just can't help themselves.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

128. I'm not playing those games.

I've made my points. Good night.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

130. How many times have you said that now?

Stomp off in a snit if you want but it's still crass victim-blaming and violence-appeasement.

[phil89]

113. You have no credibility on this issue.

you previously stated "maybe" the security guard who was shot was a victim. Just stop please.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

116. How clever you are, little one.

You shall parse every little rhetorical flourish of mine in order to discredit the fact that the woman right now clothing herself in the First Amendment actually hates it.

Bravo. Bravo to you, I say.

[Buzz Clik]

68. "Defend her" as in provide security against the predictable violence? Ok.

Defend her philosophically? Not. Much.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

70. Which is EXACTLY what I'm saying.

[Buzz Clik]

71. Ok. You and I agree.

[HappyMe]

6. The real 1st amendment test for her

would be a cartoon contest to lampoon Christianity, or even her vile self.

She new damn well something might happen, thus the huge security. There's no reason for those 2 asshats to have started shooting. But this was no Hebdo thing by a long shot.

[closeupready]

12. She's ugly, so lampooning her is a cakewalk even for amateurs.

In my personal opinion.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

18. People publicly ridicule Christianity all the time.

Which is weird because those damning Gellar for being provocative generally applaud and laugh when it's Christians.

[HappyMe]

23. I want her personally to sponsor

a cartoon Christianity art contest, just like she did this one. I doubt that she would do something like that. One of the posters here gave a good amount of info about her. She's chock full of hate. She has the right to do any stupid thing she wants. But I also don't have to lift a finger in support of her either.

I don't laugh at or ridicule any beliefs. It's not my thing.

Here's a link to this darling of the 1st.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026616673

[Nuclear Unicorn]

39. People aren't allowed to ridicule things they don't believe in until the ridicule their own beliefs?

When did that become a rule?

[HappyMe]

42. Not a rule at all.

If she's so very all about the 1st, she should have no problem with any lampooning of her own beliefs. It would go a long way to squish any hypocrisy.

She's a dangerous, batshit crazy person.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

45. Okay, maybe not a rule but certainly one of the sillier ideas to be put forward.

[HappyMe]

57. Well, exuuuuse me!

What is so silly about her proving she's not a hypocritical dolt?

[The Green Manalishi]

64. Because her being a hypocritical dolt has nothing to do with anything

on the subject of freedom of speech and that supposed progressives are all to willing to apologize for, defend and not condemn the actions of nutcase extremists merely because these nutcases are not Christian.

I have no problem with what she is doing just as I have no problem with anything ridiculing Christianity (or Judaism, or Buddhism ). all of this bronze age homophobic, sexist bullshit should be condemned in word and action, and those who would defend the 'believers' who act out their offense are part of the problem.

She may be a raving idiot, with reprehensible motives for doing what she does, but she could never be as vile as the people who are offended by her ridiculing (some) beliefs that deserve to be ridiculed.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

103. People that purposly kick laying dogs deserve to get bitten.

[The Green Manalishi]

108. Bullshit

If they aren't capable of restraining themselves and respond with violence to provocation then I agree, they aren't human and should be put down.

I have much more respect for dogs than I do for ANYONE who would even voice a word of support of any person who would respond to mere words with violence.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

110. I do not support or condone violence of any kind.

[The Green Manalishi]

111. I did not say you did

But you seem to imply, forgive me if I am wrong, that there is such a thing as a provocation of any sort that would impute some of the responsibility for the altercation to the provocateur.

This I utterly and completely reject, in any case, in any circumstance, in any context.

A person responding to mere words with violence is an animal, and should be dealt with as we would a rabid animal. A person excusing them in any way, or to any degree implying that the person making the original statement bears any part of the blame is no more than an enabler and in reality not much better than the violent actor.

I care not if it is someone mocking Islam, Christianity, urban youths, self described Constitutional Patriots or merely saying "Fuck You" to a police officer, the person responding to words with violence should be removed from society and those saying that there is any sort of excuse or context that even mitigates this should be ostracized and considered a paraiah.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

114. Yes, you are wrong.

I agree with everything you said, with one caveat. When someone purposefully acts to incite violence, they are at least partially responsible for the fact that violence occurs. They are not in any way responsible for the violence itself. But this person has a long track record of hating any and all Muslims.

[The Green Manalishi]

119. IF you can be incited you are the problem.

I incite conservatives all the time. Tough crap for them. I've been threatened for referring to the 'founding fathers' as 'one percenter slave owners' to my face. They'd best kill me if they ever do take a swing at me; and/or have a VERY good lawyer.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

120. Are you inciting them because you are just speaking your mind....

....and that just so happens to get them upset? Or are you inciting them because you want to make all conservatives look violent and unhinged?

Because the latter is what Geller did. And there is a distinction between the two.

[Oktober]

129. The 1st doesn't require equal opportunity hate...

While all faiths are indeed silly, she has chosen to make Islam her focus.

She is under no obligation, moral or ethical, to spread it around and make sure everyone gets a share.

[oberliner]

41. But people aren't killed over drawing cartoons of Jesus

In fact, it goes on all the damn time.

[HappyMe]

43. Really?

[oberliner]

46. Do you have evidence to the contrary?

If so, please share.

[HappyMe]

54. Read your post wrong.

I find her to be a repulsive person. She's long on hate and hypocrisy. She got exactly what she wanted with her little contest.
As I said before, she should have a contest lampooning Christianity. I would bet the farm she wouldn't do that, and would scream "bigotry! persecuted Christians!" if somebody in Texas held such a thing.

[oberliner]

62. I hear ya

She is definitely repulsive and is long on hate that is for sure.

That being said, I think people should be able to draw cartoons and/or make fun of Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Scientology, Mormonism, and so forth with impunity. Just the same way we have no problem doing so with respect to Republicanism or Conservatism.

[HappyMe]

63. I have no problem with any of that either.

Tack on atheists, the New Age people.....
I also have no problem with cartoons that mess with Democrats either. There are some that make good points whether we want to admit it or not.

[EX500rider]

52. Really....

?token=XwA0pFq%2F21nYvC8INahT1eteeAo%3D

http://cdn.newsday.com/polopoly_fs/1.6643202.1387489299!/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/display_600/image.jpg



?itok=jlLIZ2vp



Should I go on?

[HappyMe]

55. Sure. I enjoy those cartoons.

I read oberliner's post wrong. Replied too quickly because I wanted to run out to the ice cream truck.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

50. She's even worse than Breitbart was. If that's possible.

[HappyMe]

56. She is worse than Breitbart.

I just can't bring myself to defend her.

[The Green Manalishi]

53. I'd enter that

Side by side drawings of both Christ and Mohammad with their heads up their asses.

I have not a single problem with insulting any and all sky faries and their followers, with the exception of providing enough security for the ones who may react violently...

[Goblinmonger]

93. She doesn't have to be a supporter of the 1st Amendment to be protected by it.

And even if she isn't a supporter of the 1st amendment, she doesn't deserve to be shot at because she is exercising her free speech rights even when she doesn't fully support the 1st amendment.

Of course she's chock full of hate. Support the free speech rights of those you agree with is a no-brainer. Supporting the free speech rights of those that repulse you is the true test.

[Bonx]

15. If she can gin up a 'war' with some scribbles of Muhammad

that war is inevitable.

[cali]

19. that is hadly all she's done.

[Bonx]

20. So she's regularly breaking the law in some manner ?

Please elaborate.

[cali]

25. just go to SPLC and see what shit she's pulled

breaking the law is not the only way to harm society.

She's listed as head of 2 hate groups for a reason.

Does David Duke regularly break the law?

[Bonx]

31. I defend free the right to free speech.

not just convenient or likable free speech.

[Capt. Obvious]

27. No, she just wants money

She found a niche.

[Brickbat]

9. It still applies to her.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

11. Of course.

But it's not what she's about, no matter what some people think.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

21. You know who else isn't about the 1st Amendment?

Terrorists who try to shoot up cartoon exhibitions.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

24. Of course.

And your point is?

[Codeine]

14. But I do.

I don't give two tugs of a dead dog's dick what she believes. She's a moron, but even morons are free to speak their minds and draw their idiot cartoons.

[joeybee12]

16. KNR

Amazing that you have to point that out...should be obvious.

[melman]

22. Who gives a fuck what she supports?

Seriously. Besides you.

[cali]

33. I do. So does the southern poverty law center. she's dangerous.

<snip>

Through her website, Geller has promulgated some of the most bizarre conspiracy theories found on the extreme right, including claims that President Obama is the love child of Malcolm X, that Obama was once involved with a "crack whore," that his birth certificate is a forgery, that his late mother posed nude for pornographic photos, and that he was a Muslim in his youth who never renounced Islam. She has described Obama as beholden to his "Islamic overlords" and said that he wants jihad to be victorious in America. In April 2011, Geller accused Obama of withholding evidence in the then-upcoming trial of accused Fort Hood mass murderer Major Nidal Malik Hasan.

Geller uses her website to publish her most revolting insults of Muslims: She posted (and later removed) a video implying that Muslims practiced bestiality with goats and a cartoon depicting the Muslim prophet Mohammad with a pig's face (observant Muslims do not eat pork). Geller also has denied the genocide of Bosnian Muslims by Serbian forces in Srebrenica – calling it the "Srebrenica Genocide Myth," even though the Serbian government itself issued a state apology for the massacre. She wrote, "Westerners are admitting to their role in something that didn't happen, and digging their own graves."

<snip>

In February 2011, she spoke favorably of Soviet leader Josef Stalin's forced relocation and genocide of Chechen Muslims after World War II, arguing – wrongly – that they were allied with Adolf Hitler. Historians say Chechens were fighting to preserve their own freedom and culture.

Geller's incendiary rhetoric and readiness to deny civil freedoms and the presumption of innocence to Muslims hasn't prevented her from gaining a measure of mainstream acceptability. In late March 2011, she was even invited by the Alaska House of Representatives to testify on a proposed anti-Shariah bill.

Geller's anti-Muslim stance has also drawn the admiration of white nationalist and even neo-Nazi proponents on the extreme right – a rather remarkable feat, considering she is Jewish. She has been the subject of positive postings on racist websites such as Stormfront, VDARE, American Renaissance and the neo-Confederate League of the South.

Geller was one of several prominent anti-Muslim activists cited by the Norwegian terrorist Anders Breivik in the manifesto he posted online hours before killing 77 of his countrymen, mostly teenagers, at a left-wing youth camp in August 2011. In the wake of the attack, Geller downplayed the influence of her views on Breivik, making much of the fact that his screed had only mentioned her by name once. This conveniently ignored the manifesto’s dozen citations of her blog and 64 mentions of her SIOA partner, Robert Spencer. At the same time, Geller couldn’t help displaying some sympathy for Breivik’s actions against the young multiculturalists. “Breivik,” she wrote, “was targeting the future leaders of the party responsible for flooding Norway with Muslims.”

<snip>

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/profiles/pamela-geller

[Goblinmonger]

94. And?

She still has free speech rights.

She still shouldn't be the subject of violent crime for non-violent activities.

We don't need to victim blame to say she's a piece of shit.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

95. Pam Geller's not the victim of what happened Sunday.

She wasn't killed or injured. It's not clear whether she was actually at her own event.

She sought to intentionally provoke the reaction that ultimately unfolded. There's no victimhood for her in that scenario.

[Goblinmonger]

97. Her group is.

Those that attended the event are. I thought my synecdoche would be obvious. My fault.

"intentionally provoke the reaction"

Two questions:
1. So Muslims can't control themselves when cartoons of their prophet are being drawn?
2. She got what she deserved?

Neither of those things would have been things I would have expected to see on DU a week ago.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

98. Pam Geller didn't "get" anything except lots of media attention and a bully pulpit.

At which she promptly crowned herself a First Amendment martyr even though she actually hates the First Amendment.

As to the first question, clearly most Muslims can control themselves. Unfortunately, it only takes one (or in this case two), which is precisely what Geller wanted when she pulled this stunt, all so she can broadbrush an entire people.

The only victim was that one security guard.

[Goblinmonger]

99. So if someone is doing something to get media attention and be a bully

they are no longer under the 1st Amendment umbrella? Didn't know that.

If someone is trying to provoke a reaction, they aren't under the 1st Amendment?

I get that she's a horrible human being. I get that she is a racist pig. But even still, she has the right to do those things.

What if this were the Freedom From Religion Foundation holding the exact same event and there was a shooting. Would DU react the same way? Would you?

The true test of supporting free speech is supporting it for those that you find vile and detestable.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

100. Whether or not she's 1st Amendment protected is secondary.

Given that this event was never actually about the 1st Amendment. If it were, it would have been about whatever sacred cow there was, religious, national, secular, etc.

It was geared towards Muslims only for a very specific reason.

In legal terms, Geller got off on a technicality, so to speak. While undeniably blatant, it probably wasn't blatant enough to constitute criminal incitement. But it got ever so close.

It's unfortunate that people have made the story about the 1st Amendment. The story really is:

1) An innocent man was injured due to the criminal acts of two people.
and
2) A shameless huckster intentionally and successfully attempted to provoke a violent reaction in order to try to justify her own bigoted world view.

The First Amendment is ancillary to the story, not central to it.

[Goblinmonger]

102. The First Amendment is key to whether we blame her or not.

She (and her group) was exercising her First Amendment rights. It's not a "technicality." What she was doing is protected free speech.

That's the end of the discussion.

We don't look at the violent reaction to protected free speech and say "yeah, but...."

NOPE.

It was protected free speech. The appropriate response is NEVER violence to protected free speech. I don't care how hateful, vile, repugnant, or awful the free speech is, we ALWAYS support the exercise of free speech over violent reaction. ALWAYS. Not rooms for "but she..."

[Tommy_Carcetti]

105. The fine line between legal and ethical behavior demands further discussion.

There are numerous examples of actions that are technically legal but still highly unethical. This is one of them. What Geller did came within a hair's length of being criminal incitement. Had she expressly came out and literally dared people to attack her little event, I think that would have qualified. She essentially did everything but that.

It's a matter of "can" and "should." As in, "I can do that, but should I do that?" And when it comes to speech, having that discussion might help to dissuade people from doing stupid, reckless actions with their barely legal and highly unethical behavior. Society steps in where the law ends.

And I'm sorry, but again, this story should not be about the First Amendment. This was a blatant and intentional intent to provoke in order to fulfill one person's self-serving agenda. That what happened by the shooting was tragic, violent, illegal and inexcusable shouldn't preclude us from talking about what could have been done differently here.

[Goblinmonger]

106. So this gets to the next point. Offending Muslims means you risk violence?

That is where we are at? This wasn't a KKK "Kill the Jews" rally. This was "draw a cartoon of the prophet" event. Is that possibly offensive to Muslims? Possibly.

But now we need to say "well, if we are going to offend Muslims we run the risk of a violent reaction where people could get killed so don't do that"? I think the VAST majority of Muslims would think that attitude is offensive.

Plenty of left groups and people have used their free speech to provoke and fulfill an agenda. We applaud that. We at least have to allow the same activity for the right. Should we look back at Selma and say "Well, they had to know what was going to happen"? Or "What was Emmett Till thinking whistling at a white woman? He had to know he was going to get his ass kicked."

[Tommy_Carcetti]

107. Intentionally going out of your way to provoke someone.....

.....strictly for the purpose of a self-serving agenda risks violence and is wrong. It is unethical and wrong.

Emmett Till did not want to end up being lynched. I'm pretty sure about that.

On the other hand, it seems painfully clear that Pam Geller wanted there to be a violent reaction to her event, and sadly two idiots took the bait. And as a result, Pam Geller gets to sit back and laugh and claim she is right about whatever shit she claims is true about Muslims.

Please tell me at least that you find Geller's actions here highly unethical.

[EX500rider]

121. "Please tell me at least that you find Geller's actions here highly unethical."

I don't find any cartoon contest "unethical", including Iran's Holocaust denial event. In bad taste? Yes.....unethical, no.

I do find driving to the event to kill people highly unethical though.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

123. So organizing an event in the hope that there may be a violent reaction to that event....

.....is not unethical?

Would you say that to the security guard who was shot? What if there had been someone in the street who was caught in the gunfire?

Intentionally creating a situation with the hope that violence ensues and placing others in harms way for your own self-serving goals is ethical?

[EX500rider]

124. I have no idea if anybody "hoped for a violent reaction", nor do you.

Cartoon contests can be about anything legal as far as I am concerned. People who don't like it don't have to go.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

125. Pam Geller's entire M.O. has been to paint Muslims as blood thirsty savages.

SPLC's profile on her:

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/profiles/pamela-geller

She knew that Muhammad cartoons were a flashpoint for potential violence. She organized this event right after Charlie Hedbo.

Is it silly to get worked up over a cartoon? Sure. Is it inexcusable to commit an act of violence because of that cartoon? Absolutely. But even with those facts in mind, how can you excuse the fact that someone who makes a living painting Muslims in the very worst light organizes an event directed solely at Muslims that she undeniably has to assume carries a high risk that at least one Muslim might react violently to?

She knew exactly what she was doing, and everything about her screams that this played out exactly how she wanted it to play out.

[cbayer]

40. I do. She is a hate mongering bigot who would love nothing better than a boots on

the ground war against muslims in the US.

You bet your ass I give a fuck what she supports.

Why don't you?

[Buzz Clik]

69. I do.

She's a hateful pig.

She intentionally waved the red cape in front of the angry bull.

[Scootaloo]

77. I try to keep an eye on bigoted demagogues. Seems prudent.

[sufrommich]

26. The 1st amendment doesn't care who supports it.nt

[PeaceNikki]

32. I don't care what she supports. I support it.

[NCTraveler]

34. Could care less what she thinks.

The justification thing is sickening. You should also support it. With or without her.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

36. I do support it. But she doesn't.

And she's lying to you when she does.

That's all I'm saying here. No more and no less.

[Agnosticsherbet]

38. She was expressing her right to free speech, by calling for the denial of that right to others.

and for putting on a very stupid cartoon the prophet contest.

I would be very offended, and even support her right to petition the government for redress, if the US Government, State Government, County Government, or City Government told her she could not be say that or tried to deny her the right to use a government building for that reason.

The issue is not that the government tried to make her stand in a Free Speech Zone or a First amendment zone or was behind some plot to stop he speech or use it to trump up a crusade.

She has the right to say anything stupid she wants unless it is screaming fire in a crowded theater, defaming a living person's character, or revealing government classified information to someone who is not authorized to see it.

I think people who went to that contest, or were hurt by the attack, should take her to court for not providing protection at such an event.

The two men who shot up the place had the right to be offended and to protest peacefully.

The issue to me is these men's unlawful use of violence for political purposes. I will continue to be upset by her use of this event to whip up political support for some stupid action against Muslims, like my neighbor, who are good people.

[oberliner]

47. You shouldn't need protection to draw cartoons

There are cartoons here making fun of various Republicans all the time - none of us worry about offended Republicans killing us over it. Nor do we feel like we should stop drawing cartoons mocking Republicans just because it may offend some people.

[vlyons]

65. She is an ignorant, condescending, self-righteous Christian a$$hole

The purpose of her draw the prophet contest was to get herself attention, while insulting Moslems. Does she have a right to do that? Yes she does. Should she have done that? No, emphaticlly no. Why? Because she sought to humiliate Moslems in a way that is deeply hurtful and vile to them. I'm a Buddhist, and we don't go out of our way to insult other religions or other people. What she did was comparable to a drawing contest that depicts Jesus taking a poop, or the Pope sucking off a little boy, or St Paul flogging a woman, or Moses picking his nose. All would be vile and vulgar with the only purpose to be hurtful. When is the established Christian c hurch going to stand up and start teaching their adherents the practice of respect and compassion?

[Buzz Clik]

67. I cannot tell if she is a seething hypocrite or so blinded by hate...

... that she cannot see her hypocrisy.

One way or another, she got the attention she craved.

[Cha]

74. She's also a stupid

birther.

[theboss]

75. Pam Gellar is an ignorant, hateful bigot.

I support the right of ignorant, hateful bigots to say whatever they way.

My ideas are better than Pam Gellar's ideas.