Up to Speed: Who Is Muhammad Cartoon Contest Organizer Pamela Geller?

[cbayer]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/05/04/up-to-speed-who-is-muhammad-cartoon-contest-organizer-pamela-geller.html


Jason Andrew/Getty Images

Courtney Subramanian

INFLAMMATORY
05.04.153:19 AM ET

She’s claimed Obama is the secret Muslim love child of Malcolm X and compared Muslims to savages. Meet the blogger behind the controversial Texas event that came under attack Sunday.

The woman at the center of Sunday’s Draw Muhammad event, where three people were shot, is controversial blogger and activist Pamela Geller, whom the Southern Poverty Law Center has described as “the anti-Muslim movement’s most visible and flamboyant figurehead.”

Geller, who began her career as a journalist for the New York Daily News and went on to become associate publisher of the New York Observer, first came to the attention of many Americans in 2010, when she helped to derail the Park51 Project near the former site of the World Trade Center, condemning the proposed Islamic community center as “shrine to the very ideology that inspired the jihadist attacks” of 9/11 and campaigning for protests throughout the country. Geller continued to rail against the spread of Islam through her blog, Atlas Shrugs, where she wrote of her belief that President Obama is a secret Muslim who wants to destroy the United States from within the White House and is the love child of Malcolm X.

The blogger is also a co-founder, along with Robert Spencer, of the New York-based American Freedom Defense Institute, which says it is committed to preventing “specific Islamic supremacist initiatives in American cities.” The organization rose to international fame when a federal court ruled on grounds of free speech that New York City was required to run the anti-Muslim ads Geller had purchased in 2012. “In any war between the civilized man and the savage,” Geller’s ad read, “support the civilized man. Support Israel. Defeat jihad.” Critics, among them prominent national Jewish organizations, were quick to condemn the ads as Islamophobic, but Geller continued to push her anti-Muslim rhetoric through a series of transit ads, including a recent bus billboard containing the phrase “Hamas Killing Jews.” In response, the city’s MTA board voted last week to ban all political ads on its subways and buses.

more at link

[trotsky]

1. Really, cb?

Two religious fanatics tried to murder people. Who gives a shit what horrid political opinions the organizer of the event had?

Isn't the bigger problem the people who wanted to KILL someone?

[GoneFishin]

2. Of course. No larger conclusion can be drawn from this incident.Nothing else to see here.Move along.

"The only thing you should conclude from this incident is that all Muslims are evil."

[Act_of_Reparation]

4. Is that what trotsky said?

Doesn't look like it to me.

[trotsky]

17. You should probably stick with fishin'. n/t

[whathehell]

101. LOL..

You've got the goods on First Amendment Absolutists -- They are very narrow,

and see little else beyond it.

[beam me up scottie]

117. What's a "First Amendment Absolutist"?

And why aren't you one?

[whathehell]

119. One who believes there should be no abridgement of speech anywhere for any reason

It's not, btw, the First Amendment right we currently live under.

[beam me up scottie]

131. Do you believe Gellar had no right to hold a contest for cartoons of Mohammed?

[whathehell]

133. Do you believe rights come with responsibilities?

[beam me up scottie]

136. I don't believe people should be shot because they pissed off the wrong people.

Now answer my question, do you believe Gellar had no right to hold a contest for cartoons of Mohammed?

[whathehell]

139. I don't think so either, but one should consider the law of probabilities

or maybe just common sense.

As to your question, yes of course she has the "right". Now you

answer my question: Do you think rights come with responsibilities?

[beam me up scottie]

142. So you are a "First Amendment Absolutist" then.

Thank you.

Not sure what you mean by "responsibilities" but I'm not interested in victim blaming, Gellar is a hateful bigot but one who still didn't deserve to get shot at.

The shooters had a responsibility to not attack other people.

[whathehell]

146. Um, no..We don't have absolute First Amendment rights..

and I'm sure you are NOT "interested in victim blaming", at least

when you believe Pammy is a "victim" -- I think the dead guys have

first dibs on that characterization.

[beam me up scottie]

149. So people who get shot at are only victims if you sympathize with them.

Good to know.

[whathehell]

151. They are "victims" if they are hurt/killed -- Idiot Gellar took a chance and KNEW she was doing so.

[beam me up scottie]

152. So they have to be physically harmed and/or murdered to be the victim of an attack.

[whathehell]

153. Do you consider those killed while willingly playing Russian Roulette "victims"?

Back at ya.

[beam me up scottie]

157. People who offend muslims are playing Russian Roulette?

And muslims are like loaded guns?

I don't know who should be more offended, free speech advocates or people who hate islamophobes.

She and you both believe muslims will respond with violence, you have a lot in common.

[whathehell]

159. Answer the question.

I answered yours and so far, you've not answered even one of mine.

[beam me up scottie]

162. Nope, not interested in discussing why you think muslims are like loaded guns.

You've said all I needed to hear.

[whathehell]

173. I knew you couldn't answer, LOL

and that tells me all I needed to know.

[AtheistCrusader]

163. Are you comparing muslims to a mindless random chance at a empty or full chamber in a gun?

Because this is not better than 'poking a bear with a stick' that someone else tossed out earlier.

Muslims are thinking, rational humans, not bears, or partially loaded guns.

[skepticscott]

169. Some do, some don't

What's your point?

[Goblinmonger]

3. Too bad she wasn't killed, huh?

[trotsky]

26. Clearly she must have deserved it, because of her opinions. n/t

[okasha]

5. She's a randie, a fan of Gert Wilders,

and one of the most viciously dishonest bloggers--no, make that one of the most viciously dishonest hyenas posing as a human being--on the internet.

Yet she has a couple sympathizers here on a progressive website. Go figure.

[cbayer]

6. She's effective. When someone like her can get people on the left to cheer for her,

she wins and wins big.

There are a lot of factors at play here, but embracing her in any way whatsoever is sickening.

Holding a light up to this despicable and evil person in no way absolves the gunman of responsibility. It is only those who can't see both sides of a story and must take a position in favor of one and against the other would see it as such.

They are her patsy's and she's laughing her ass off, I bet.

[skepticscott]

7. Who on the left is cheering for her? Who is "embracing" her?

But yes, when people like you say something to the effect of, I don't blame the victims in any way, BUT... and then proceed to do exactly that, it makes it look like you're embracing those who would commit brutal murder because their feelings were hurt.

[GoneFishin]

9. And there you go demonstrating exactly the point cbayer was making.

[skepticscott]

11. Show me where I'm "cheering" for her

or "embracing" her.

As opposed to standing up for the right of free speech, even when it's speech that is hateful and offensive, and standing up for the principle that offense and hurt feelings NEVER justify murderous violence.

Go ahead...

[GoneFishin]

10. No doubt that she is laughing her ass off at everyone who she fooled with the "free speech" ruse.

[skepticscott]

12. Go ahead and explain why

people shouldn't have the right to express themselves in ways that offend other people.

And then explain why you're defending people who commit murder because their feelings are hurt.

[GoneFishin]

15. Why would I explain either of those things when I agree with neither of your two assertions?

[skepticscott]

24. Then you have no basis for your assertion

that what either she or the cartoonists did was not protected as a form of free expression.

[GoneFishin]

25. I made no such assertion. I assert that she would not have the least interest in such drawings, and

would not have held this event, if the drawings were not known to be extremely inflammatory. Therefore, her primary motivation was to bait people, not to "exercise free speech". I am 100% certain that if there had been an art exhibit across the street displaying artwork depicting naked gay couples urinating on, and defecating into, a broad spectrum of religious articles, including all manner of religious clothing and headwear, her enthusiasm for their free speech would quickly wane.

I think she is a hypocrite and a provocateur bigot. That is the "ruse" I refer to.

The fact that the other two are despicable, violent, criminal morons does not lessen her scumbaggery.

[skepticscott]

44. Her motivation was to make a political point

As much as you may dislike that. Which is protected free expression, with no "ruse" required. Even if your presumption of her hypocrisy is accurate, how is that relevant to whether this is protected free expression? As disgusting as it may be, she has that right, even if she doesn't respect it in others.

Try again.

[GoneFishin]

46. I made no such assertion. You try again.

[skepticscott]

49. You asserted that her primary motivation

was not to exercise free speech. Which is irrelevant, even if it were true. She did not employ the "ruse" you asserted that she did, because no "ruse" was necessary. Her rights of free expression exist whether or not she has the first clue about them.

[cbayer]

28. She's not about free speech. Do you stand with Pamela Geller?

It is a ruse.

[Goblinmonger]

40. Do you stand with those that wanted to kill her?

Seriously? Yeah, I stand with Pam Geller on the free speech issue. No problems when the other option is crazy fucking religious zealots that wanted to kill people because THEY WERE DRAWING PICTURES OF THEIR PROPHET.

Fuck.

[cbayer]

42. Sorry, I misread your post as sarcasm and now understand that it is not.

We agree. This has nothing to do with free speech.

[trotsky]

48. "nothing to do with free speech"

Right, it's only about people with offensive opinions who deserve to be killed for those opinions, apparently.

What. The. Fuck.

[LiberalAndProud]

14. You mistake principle for cheering.

The woman and the group positively make my stomach churn. But the free speech principle is paramount. Were they begging for a radical response from the Muslim community? Absolutely. They were prepared for and expected a violent response and they got it. I do not defend them. I defend their absolute undiluted right to draw pictures of Muhammad and speak as hatefully as they will against the Muslim religion, regardless of how violently I disagree with their views.

If the gunmen acted from religious conviction, how are they different from Dr. Tiller's murderer or the abortion clinic bombers? Explain it to me like I'm a fifth grader, cbayer.

[cbayer]

30. I don't mistake principles for cheering.

I can read posts and some people are cheering.

Free speech is paramount, but she's not about free speech, except her own.

It's possible to defend people who want to draw pictures and still condemn this hate monger and her organization.

I have absolutely no interest in defending the gunmen. They are not any different than Tiller's murderer.

Is that simple enough for you, LiberalAndProud?

[LiberalAndProud]

32. Wow. Really cheering, huh?

I haven't seen those posts. Somehow I doubt it.

[cbayer]

35. Doubt it, but make the effort to look around before you do.

She's done a great job here and she has gotten exactly what she hoped for, including support from the left.

Sickening.

[trotsky]

36. Support for the principle of free speech, yes.

Support for her message, no.

To read anything else into this as part of one's destructive agenda to crusade against fellow DUers is what's really sickening.

[LiberalAndProud]

67. Damned right I support her right to organize controversial events.

And even her right to bait and provoke suicide missions for religious zealots. The rightwing provocateurs have always been among us. I can't make them go away, try as I might.

Religious warriors on both sides are welcome to burn in the hell of their own making, as far as I'm concerned.

[cbayer]

71. I also support her right to organize any controversial events she wants and

to bait whoever she wants, just as I would for anyone.

And I have never said otherwise. But support for her? I have zero.

[LiberalAndProud]

73. Show me one post celebrating what she did.

Just one. I'll wait.

[cbayer]

76. There are many posts and threads right now championing her 1st amendment rights.

That is what I see as cheering. Many of them were written before some of the advocates really understood who she was and what she was doing.

It is my position that she doesn't give a shit about the 1st amendment and that this event was not about that at all.

So you may disagree with the words I am using, but I'm telling you why I see this as "cheering".

Hope you didn't have to wait too long.

[LiberalAndProud]

79. So. I'm cheering. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

[cbayer]

81. Your welcome, I guess.

[beam me up scottie]

82. If "championing her 1st amendment rights" is "cheering" then I'm guilty too.

Fuck those who don't champion others' rights just because they don't agree with them.

[LiberalAndProud]

84. Welcome to the squad, bmus.

[rug]

102. Lol!

[muriel_volestrangler]

126. Championing someone's 1st amendment rights is not 'cheering' or 'celebrating' those people

Ask the ACLU, who champion the 1st amendment rights of everyone, including neo-Nazis.

[cbayer]

129. I explained as best I could what I meant.

I really feel that people began cheering for the organizers of this event before they really knew who they were.

As the information has become more available, I am seeing a much better separation between cheering for 1st amendment rights and cheering for the individuals that were using that to promote a really hateful agenda.

That's good. It galls me to see her getting anything positive out of this.

I also champion the 1st amendment rights of everyone, including ms. Geller, but I find her personally despicable.

[muriel_volestrangler]

132. I've been reading a lot of the threads on this, and haven't seen anyone cheering for the organizers

I have seen one thread saying people 'should' offend religious sensibilities and that was only started 2 hours ago, long after you started this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6620528

I've seen several people saying Geller bears some responsibility for the shootings, and implying the the gunmen didn't have any free will - but Geller did.

[cbayer]

137. There has been a process as the day has gone on.

You may want to look at threads by cali, as she has been one of the strongest voices that challenged what appeared to be support or cheering.

There is a lot and I don't expect that you would really be able to read it all, but I think that there have been positions all over the place.

My primary concern right now is that Geller get as little mileage out of this as possible. So, I think it's important to voice strong support for 1st amendment rights while simultaneously noting that this woman is a dangerous bigot and that this event may have used the 1st amendment as a cover for a much more nefarious agenda.

When it comes down to it, Ms. Geller does not really believe in 1st amendment rights for everyone.

[muriel_volestrangler]

141. I've read several threads by cali, and they don't reply to anything anyone has written

They just launch into explanations of why what Geller says is hate speech. maybe you have just been assuming that since cali is posting them, then someone on DU was celebrating or cheering Geller.

Looking back at one now, I agree (for once) with Nadin that your "she gets support from the far right and the far left" remark was hippie punching.

[cbayer]

210. You know, I hate to indulge this kind of "find me a actual post, I will wait" bullshit, but this one

is just too good to pass by.

I'm assuming you will find 101 ways to dismiss it, but it's just one random post of so many.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6617866

[muriel_volestrangler]

213. Why is needing some actual examples 'bullshit'?

To answer your question of "why are we arguing about this", you said earlier "I really feel that people began cheering for the organizers of this event" as if that was a general opinion on DU - just 'people'. I don't think was the case at all, right from the beginning of this story. I think the general feeling on DU was that everyone was quite aware of what Geller and the others were doing; which is why the "they bear some responsibility" claims came up so quickly. If they'd been doing something nice, no-one would have been blaming the target of the attack.

[trotsky]

217. Great sigline, m_v. n/t

[cbayer]

174. Why are we arguing about this?

If you don't see it, great. I did and pushed back against it. Do we really need to debate the details of whether it is happening or not?

Ok, no one was in any way showing support for Geller at any point today.

Better?

[trotsky]

216. "Ok, no one was in any way showing support for Geller at any point today."

You mean this was all a stupid stunt on your part to make others look bad?

Isn't that exactly what Pam Geller did? How fascinating.

[skepticscott]

145. If you're championing Pam Geller's First Amendment rights

then by your own accusation of others in post 76, you're cheering for her. Like that, cbayer? Do you like the fact that your own words now have you cheering for this piece of crap?

[whathehell]

135. Many lawyers who worked at the ACLU actually left it because of that decision

It was by no means unanimous.

[skepticscott]

83. Oh, for cripes sake...are you serious?

Are you really fucking serious, cbayer? Please tell me that someone on a progressive web site isn't saying that if I'm defending someone's right to free expression of their opinions it means that I'm not only agreeing with their opinions, but cheering them. Because that would be some really vile, despicable shit. And utterly at odds with the principle "I may despise what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".

[Warren Stupidity]

103. I am totally for people's right to express their opinions and totally against people being shot for

doing so. If that is "cheering Geller" count me in.

Two words: Ben Carson.

[LiberalAndProud]

255. Clearly you don't.

You have so much hate in your heart for her that you would gag her. Short of that you will argue endlessly with anyone who takes a stand on her right to organize and her right to speak even when her speech will offer offense.

To imply that Muslims can't possibly take a rational decision to ignore her baiting is dehumanizing to them. Most Muslims did. Two fuckers didn't and ended up dead. Do I love Geller? Oh HELL no. The constitution offers equal protection to even the most vile among us. I cheer that. I argue for that. I defend that because that umbrella keeps us all out of the rain.

The gunmen earned their just rewards. Period.

As for what moves me, you haven't a single clue.

[cbayer]

270. Clearly I don't what?

Hate in my heart? I despise her. I would hope that every liberal and progressive person on this site would despise her. She's is truly despicable.

I haven't put up a single argument against her right to organize or speak. Not a single one. You have made that up.

I have also not implied that Muslims can't possibly make a rational decision to ignore her baiting. In fact, I would say that the vast majority of muslims do just that and do it extraordinarily well. Some DU members would benefit from following their lead. You have also made this up.

I also cheer and advocate for equal protection and freedom of speech. I would defend Ms. Geller's rights to the bitter end. But I still despise her.

I might actually know what moves you. You answered the same post twice. That could be a clue.

[trotsky]

34. "It's possible to defend people who want to draw pictures and still condemn this hate monger"

And that's exactly what I see people doing on DU.

So why are you trying to dishonestly portray them as supporting her directly?

[skepticscott]

8. It seems like the guys out to commit brutal murder

over hurt religious sensibilities are the ones with hard-core sympatizers on DU, okasha. Wouldn't you agree?

[Goblinmonger]

20. Sympathizer? No. Fan of free speech? Yes.

So are you saying that what she did was wrong? That she should have expected this reaction? That the reaction was justified?

Geller is a vile piece of racist shit. She still has free speech rights in this country and I would never change that. And anybody that wants to kill her or other like her for exercising said free speech are fucking idiots that deserve no respect regardless if they are doing what they do for religious reasons. THEY WANTED TO KILL PEOPLE BECAUSE THEY WERE DRAWING PICTURES OF THEIR PROPHET! Do you not realize how fucking stupid that is?

[trotsky]

27. That is a dishonest and digusting smear, and you should be ashamed of yourself.

No one on DU "sympathizes" with her that I've seen. What people are defending is not her, but her right to speak her deluded opinions and not expect to be fucking killed for it.

What's sad though is that this is something I've come to expect from you.

[rug]

104. Horrors!

How many disgusting and vicious smears have you posted about her and cb, Trotsky?

[okasha]

172. I think the last count for personal attacks on cbayer

was somewhere over 1800, counting those that may have accidentally addressed the subject of the thread.

[whathehell]

147. Yep.

It's the insanity of black and white thinking.

[MellowDem]

13. I'm just a glad I'm up to speed...

On the latest way to blame the victim.

[cbayer]

31. Which victim is that? Pam Geller?

[MellowDem]

41. Her, and everyone targeted that night...

The point was to terrorize them.

But I see many blaming Geller. Like I saw many with Hebdo. Hell, I don't even like Geller, but I won't blame a rape victim just because they happen to be conservative. This disgusting double standard needs to stop.

It's only the privilege of religion that would allow people to even contemplate blaming the victim in this situation.

I suppose if a bunch of fascists shot up an anti-fascist rally, by the logic many are showing here it would have been a "provoked" attack.

The blame lies on the attackers, and on the religion they follow, which says some seriously heinous and bigoted shit, and which can easily be read to condone all sorts of violence and oppression.

[cbayer]

43. I'm not defending them in any way whatsoever.

This doesn't bear any resemblance to Hebdo. This isn't about free speech. She wanted this and she got exactly what she wanted.

You don't like Geller? Well, that's good to know.

What do you imagine was going through her mind when this photo was taken, right before the attack?



She is a raving, hate-mongering bigot. She's unscathed by this, other than having gained a tremendous of press and loads of support from all the free speech advocates on both the right and left.

The blame lies on the attackers for what they did. The blame lies on Geller and her posse for what they did.

They can both be wrong, you know, but to paint her as a victim is ludicrous.

[skepticscott]

45. Sorry, but trying to shift blame onto others

IS defending the attackers.

[MellowDem]

51. She IS a victim...

That's the problem with using violence against bigots, even bigots can be victims. And then you strengthen and justify extremists by doing so. Like this attack did.

There is no more blame for what she did than for blaming a victim of rape because she walked naked through a frat party full of drunks. It doesn't matter how irrational or "provocative" you think it was, it's simply blaming the victim.

[cbayer]

53. Sorry, I'm not going to defend this despicable person.

And I'm not going to defend the attackers.

They are all cut of the same cloth, imo.

You go ahead and take sides here. There is absolutely no comparison with a rape victim. Ms. Geller is 100% in control of her environment and imo she hoped for and anticipated exactly this outcome. She was never personally going to be harmed.

But you go ahead and take her side on this.

Me? I'm not taking either side but going to strongly condemn them both.

This event was not about the 1st amendment. Ms. Geller has shown very clearly that she doesn't give a shit about the 1st amendment when it comes to muslims.

[MellowDem]

54. You don't have to defend her views...

You do have to stop blaming her if you agree with freedom of speech and don't want to be a hypocrite.

If you blame the victim, you ARE siding with the gunmen.

The rape analogy works well, a woman fully in control of herself that walks through a frat party naked for whatever crappy reason you can think of can't be blamed for getting raped.

[cbayer]

55. I will defend her and anyone else's right to free speech and have not said

a single word contrary to that.

As I said, I'm not blaming the victim. I'm holding Ms. Geller responsible for her role in this that has nothing to do with the first amendment.

If you give her a pass because you think this is strictly a first amendment issue and can't' see the other issues involved, then you ARE siding with bigots like Ms. Geller and have completely fallen for her game.

[skepticscott]

60. And what is that role, that you keep claiming

has nothing to do with the first amendment, cbayer? You conveniently keep leaving that little detail out of your repetitious assertion.

[MellowDem]

66. What is her role in this?

This is where you're blaming the victim. Sure, I can see there are other factors at play, but none of them make Geller partially responsible for terrorist attacks on her or her organization.

[cbayer]

69. She orchestrated this entire event. She is not a victim.

I have not said she is responsible for for terrorist attacks on her organization, but she will thrive on them for some time to come.

Just watch, but you might want to ease up on the support. She's not on your side.

[beam me up scottie]

74. Just like I'm not a victim if I'm raped "because" I wore a short skirt?

Or a woman who is beaten to death for disrespecting the koran?

[rug]

106. Are you asctually comparing short skirts to hate speech?

[AtheistCrusader]

110. No, and you know full well.

The comparison is Victim Blaming, substituting one crime for another. The equation works out the same.

How short a skirt isn't a valid question for a rape victim, period.
Just like how vile Gellar's speech is, isn't a valid question.

Neither justifies an attack.

[rug]

118. It's an obnoxious, demeaning and repulsive analogy.

[AtheistCrusader]

121. No, it's not. It's devastatingly accurate.

There is and should be ZERO implicit blame for the victim of any crime. NONE. Not a shred.

It doesn't matter if Gellar is talking about puppies, or the vile anti-Islamic nonsense she spews. It's protected speech. It's not a threat. It's not so far been actionable in any court. Therefore, protected speech even if it rankles the senses of reasonable people.

Responding to it with violence is intolerable.

Because there is no implicit, and in fact, is an active DENIAL of victim-blame in the analogy, it's fully acceptable. And fully accurate.

You just don't like it.

[rug]

122. "devastatingly accurate"?

Short skirts are now free speech?

Short skirts are a "provocation" like hateful drawings of Mohammed intended to incite?

Good to know where you're coming from. I'll be sure to avoid that place.

[beam me up scottie]

125. I was the victim of a violent attack because I "provoked" a man by wearing a short skirt.

Victim blaming is victim blaming.

And those that do it can fuck off.

[rug]

127. A rape victim is not comparable to Geller.

Walking down the street minding your own business is not the same as orchestrating a hatefest.

[beam me up scottie]

130. No, but the people who say we deserved it are comparable.

Saying "She orchestrated this entire event. She is not a victim." is no different than saying "She wore a short skirt in front of rough men. She is not a victim."

If someone shot up a Klan rally I wouldn't say they weren't victims.

I expect people to control their violent tendencies, no one gets a pass.

No one deserves to be violently attacked.

[rug]

134. I got shot at by the Klan at an anti-Klan rally.

What distinguishes free speech in the abstract from hate speech in reality is the latter leads to some very hateful, dangerous, violent and very real actions.

[beam me up scottie]

138. And if you had been marching with the Klan and been shot at you'd still be a victim.

I'm not claiming there's no difference between hate speech and those that oppose it, I'm comparing the kinds of people who blame victims.

The people who said I wasn't a victim thought so because I was wearing a short skirt.

The people who say Gellar isn't a victim think so because she used hate speech.


People who are violently attacked are victims.

[rug]

140. Tell me. If you were in the Weimar Repblic in 1931, what wold you do abot the Brown Shirts?

[beam me up scottie]

150. People who are shot at *even if they're using hate speech* are still victims of a violent crime.

Do you disagree?

[rug]

154. It depends on how close the hate speech is to a hate-motivated action.

Geller wasn't even close to it but there are many hate groups that are very, very close.

What is the time span from a Klan Rally to a lynching? What is the time span from a Brown Shirt rally in Munich to attacking Jewish stores? What is the time span from a Skinhead march in Manchester to attacks on immigrants?

[beam me up scottie]

161. That's not what I'm arguing.

My point was about those who claim Geller wasn't a victim because she was using hate speech.

It seems we agree on that.

Was she trying to incite others to attack muslims?

Probably not directly, but she was trying to gin up hatred for them.

Hopefully we can agree on that as well.

[rug]

165. I'll go along with that.

But this case is only a small sliver of the hate speech / free speech spectrum. It's important stuff.

[beam me up scottie]

166. I don't imagine it's easy to prove that hate speech is an incitement to violence.

Nor should it be.

Geller didn't cross the line, but I have no doubt she's happy that violence did occur, no matter who got hurt.

She got what she wanted.

[okasha]

176. "She got what she wanted."

"... no doubt she's happy that violence did occur, no matter who got hurt."

That's exactly right.

She set up this event in the cold and deliberate knowledge that violence might occur--in the cold and deliberate knowledge that people attending the exhibit could be injured or killed. And she got what she wanted.

She's what my generation called a pig provocateur. Provocateurs are not victims. When they put other people's safety or lives in danger, they're every bit as guilty as the ones they incite to violence.

She got what she wanted. And it had nothing at all to do with free speech rights.

[beam me up scottie]

177. That doesn't mean I think she deserved to be attacked.

I will never defend hate speech but I will defend their right to use it.

And anyone who is the victim of a violent attack is still a victim.

Unless you think they deserve what they got.

[okasha]

180. The people Geller endangered are victims.

Provocateurs are not.

The people at the show didn't deserve to be attacked. Geller doesn't deserve to be absolved of that attack because she was "exercising free speech." "Free speech" is a red herring here.

[beam me up scottie]

182. The people at the show were participants just like Geller.

How can you tell which are victims and which ones deserved it?

[okasha]

185. Geller set it up. She was far more than a "participant."

[beam me up scottie]

187. So she deserved to be attacked it because she set it up?

[okasha]

192. No.

She deserves to be held responsible for her role as a provocateur.

[beam me up scottie]

195. Responsible to whom?

[okasha]

199. To those she endangered and might endanger in future.

[beam me up scottie]

201. But you're still insisting she's not the victim of a violent attack?

[okasha]

205. One more time, and we're done.

Geller is a victimizer. Whether her actions in this case can be shown to rise to incitement under the law remains to be seen. A provocateur is not a victim.

[beam me up scottie]

207. "A provocateur is not a victim"

When I was attacked some people said I wasn't a victim because I was dressed provocatively .

Now you're telling me Geller isn't a victim because you think she's a provocateur.


People who are violently attacked ARE victims.


How you personally feel about what they did before they were attacked doesn't fucking matter.


They are still victims.



Period.




I agree with Goblinmonger's post here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=196129

and MellowDem's here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=196163


Those who blame victims are more vile than Geller.

[okasha]

208. On second thought--

Are you a victim if you "got what you wanted?" Those are your own words.

There's a legal adage: you cannot kill your parents, then throw yourself on the mercy of the court because you're an orphan.

To most people, if you get what you want, you're a success.

[beam me up scottie]

209. What you think the intent was doesn't matter.

Last edited Tue May 5, 2015, 07:04 AM - Edit history (1)

Even if you think I wanted to be attacked that doesn't mean I wasn't a victim.

No one deserves to be violently attacked for provoking another.


Not even if that person deliberately set out to provoke them.

The intent doesn't matter.

[Warren Stupidity]

220. "she asked for it" in a different context is obvious victim blaming. nt.

[Dorian Gray]

261. Those people are scumbags

BMUS. You are right. No one deserves to be attacked. And I am horrified that anyone tried to turn around a sexual assault on you like that. Horrible and always wrong.

You can decry what Gellar SAYS and still uphold that nobody at her event deserved to be shot at or attacked by jihadists. Or even uphold that they had the right to hold their event. I don't know if that's what people are trying to say, but that's how I feel.

[beam me up scottie]

271. Thank you, Dorian Gray, even CAIR supported Geller's right to hold that contest:

"hosting the Draw Muhammad contest was Pamela Geller's right"

I am heartened by the DUers who reminded us that it's unpopular speech that needs to be protected. Nobody tries to shut you up for loving on kittens and sunshine.


From a 2012 ACLU press release:

“Defending the rights of groups that the government tries to censor because of their viewpoints is at the heart of what the First Amendment and the ACLU stand for, even when the viewpoints are not popular,” says Brenda L. Jones, executive director of the ACLU-EM. “If we don’t protect the free speech rights of all, we risk having the government arbitrarily decide what is, or is not, acceptable speech.”

By defending the KKK the ACLU didn't just protect the free speech rights of neo-nazis, they protected our rights as well.

[muriel_volestrangler]

143. But your free, non-hate speech, while admirable, also 'led' to a hateful, dangerous, violent action

in the same sense that the action came after, that if you and your group had said nothing they wouldn't have shot at you, and that a violent person decided to shoot at you because they thought they were 'right' to. The difference was that your own speech wasn't hate-filled; not in the actions that happened after.

[rug]

148. Oh no, there was a lot of hate speech, all directed at the Klan.

https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1454&dat=19800913&id=HsAsAAAAIBAJ&sjid=LBQEAAAAIBAJ&pg=7162,2947869&hl=en

So, muriel, what would you have done about Mosley?

[AtheistCrusader]

158. You had every right to participate in that rally free from harm or threat of harm.

Even though the clan has a history of responding to speech with force, you had every right to participate, and every right to an expectation of safety. You were a victim of people responding to speech with force.

Staggering that you seem hell bent on treating others as if their speech is conditional on its agreeableness.

[rug]

164. Analyzing hate speech through a lens of victimhood leads to very distorted conclusions.

I'll throw you a line before you fall down.

The body of cases on hate crimes and free speech turn on the imminence of action stemming from the hate speech. (You should be relieved to know it's a content-neutral analysis)_

Start with Brandenburg v. Ohio.

http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1968/1968_492

[AtheistCrusader]

167. I am ignoring the nature of her content.

I already evaluated it under my understanding of hate and inciting speech, and i do not find it rises to that level, noxious though it may be.

You're free to circle back and let us know if she's prosecuted and convicted under a similar standard.

[rug]

168. I don't think it reached that level either.

But the day is young.

[AlbertCat]

235. Walking down the street minding your own business is not the same as orchestrating a hatefest.

How about drinking in a bar.... or going to a frat party in a skimpy skirt.

Is that provocation?

Drawing cartoons of dead prophets of religions you don't practice is not a valid reason to attack anyone.... even if Muslims say it is.

[rug]

242. .

[AlbertCat]

245. Yes I see that MY point...

...went right over your head.

[AtheistCrusader]

155. No, they aren't a provocation. That's the point.

And you fucking know it, trying to flip that shit around on someone.

I suppose next you'll pretend you didn't mean the legal meaning of 'incite' either.

[rug]

156. I know the precise legal meaning of provoke and incite. "Short skirt" ain't in it.

[AtheistCrusader]

160. Neither is protected speech.

The attackers committed a crime. Gellar and her crew didn't.

Nobody gets to respond to speech they deem disagreeable with force, any more than they get to respond to a manner of dress they deem disagreeable with force.

It's wrong, and for the same principle.

[Dorian Gray]

260. She provokes people

in the same way Anne Coulter provokes people.

I don't support any violent action against either of those women. Ever. Though I find them both reprehensible, I handle that by ignoring them. Ignoring them diminishes any power they have over anyone.

I will not hold Pamela Gellar up as a free speech activist, either. She is on record saying she wants Islam banned in the USA. Some activist for the rights of others. :eyeroll:

(Still never deserved to be shot at, attacked, or anything else. Violent action is reprehensible. I do agree with you that victims should never be blamed for the crimes against them. That's on the attacker. At the same time, I do think that Gellar loves to be provocative and she will use this to her advantage in drumming up hatred for Islam.)

[beam me up scottie]

113. No, I'm comparing criminals who attack others because they're "provoked".

You know that but you're just using this as an excuse to attack me.

No one deserves to be shot, raped or killed because they did something else someone else found provocative.

[rug]

120. You're comparing a short skirt to deliberately provacativer hate speech.

"you're just using this as an excuse to attack me."



You posted that drek and now you're crying persecution?

This, like the vast majority of the world, has little to do with you. Other than your name next to the post.

[beam me up scottie]

123. I'm responding to cbayer's victim blaming "She orchestrated this entire event. She is not a victim."

Whether or not Gellar orchestrated the event she still doesn't deserve to be shot at.

I was attacked while wearing a short skirt, rug, and I was told that I shouldn't have worn it.

No one deserves to be violently attacked.

[rug]

124. Neither cbayer nor anyone else is arguing Geller o ranyone else deserves to be shot.

Sorry to hear what happened to you.

[beam me up scottie]

128. Thank you.

I was referring to cbayer's post "She orchestrated this entire event. She is not a victim".

Gellar is a hateful bigot and I despise her message as much as everyone else here, but getting shot at makes her a victim.

[MellowDem]

75. I have no problem understanding...

the difference between defending Geller's rights and defending her views. That's you.

She organized a draw Muhamed event, so what? She's still a victim along with everyone there that was part of the event. She will thrive on it, which is sad, and people that blame her will make her thrive more as well I'm afraid.

It's possible to be a victim and hold terrible views.

[cbayer]

57. BTW, here is a nice image of your victim.

She's at war.

[Goblinmonger]

59. Let's fucking kill her.

What a bitch.

in case one is dense.

[skepticscott]

61. Which is relevant to her free speech rights...

How, exactly?

Answer-not in the least. Just an attempt to shift blame from the attackers to her by making her look unsavory.

[MellowDem]

68. Ad hominem isn't a point...

I think Geller's worldview is disgusting, I don't think people would be even partially justified in murdering her for it.

[cbayer]

72. We agree. No one would be justified in murdering her.

[Goblinmonger]

56. Defending the free speech rights of those you despise

is the true test of whether you believe in free speech.

She's a hateful racist bigot. And she has free speech rights even to that effect.

Even if she doesn't care about the rights of anyone else, she still has them herself and I'll defend them.

[whathehell]

144. Aw, poor Pammy and her widdle hate group

I frankly feel just a LITTLE more sorry for the dead guys,

but I guess that's just me.

[Goblinmonger]

170. Really?

You feel more sorry for the terrorists that came to kill people that were engaged in non-violent, protected free speech? Those guys are the ones you feel for? That wanted to shoot people because they were drawing pictures of their prophet?

You sure you're in the right place?

[cbayer]

175. But, but, but, she's a victim! Just like a rape victim at a frat party!

Un-fucking-believable shit going down here.

[okasha]

179. Truth.

She deliberately set up a situation that endangered the innocent people at that show. Talk about "depraved heart." She has one.

I'm not surprised at her defenders. I wish I were.

[cbayer]

181. I've seen much of DU come around today, and that's been good.

I think that initially people really didn't understand who she was or what this was really about.

I think there were some false assumptions that this even really was about free speech.

Most people backed away once they began to see what was really going away.

She's really good at this shit and I think this pretty much went exactly like she hoped it would. Now we just have to make sure that her use of the 1st amendment to claim victimhood in this scenario isn't allowed to proceed without challenge.

But you know what happens if you or I say "white", don't you? Some will cling to the notion of "black" and never be able to let go.

Anyway, I have to run out to attend a Ben Carson fundraiser, as he is apparently my new selection for POTUS. Cuba Gooding Jr was really good in the movie about him and I have become absolutely smitten. His political positions are completely irrelevant to me at this point.

for those who will actually use this against me, and they will.

[okasha]

191. Oh, yeah.

It's good that the reasonable folk are backing away from Geller.

Lie down with that dog-- there's not enough Frontline in the world to kill those fleas.

[cbayer]

193. You've got that right.

I am hoping this will really backfire on her. It's not at all difficult to support her constitutional right to speech while still utterly condemning what she did here.

Most everyone will land on that space, and those that don't will remain howling on the margins. When you let your hate consume you, it is the end of you.

[skepticscott]

215. Except you've claimed over and over that this is NOT about free speech

But now it is, apparently. Until it isn't again.

[skepticscott]

214. Apparently you can't distinguish either

between defending what she did and defending her RIGHT to do what she did.

And the subtle anti-Muslim bigotry that is embedded in every post implying that it was somehow "inevitable" that violence would result from this because it was Muslims that were being offended is really disgusting. Do you have that reaction when someone does something to offend Xstians? No, you don't. But you and your cohorts here automatically assume that Muslims will react violently to blasphemy. Why would that be, okasha?

[Goblinmonger]

218. Why did it endanger innocent people at face value?

Are Muslims just going to go off and try and kill people that draw cartoons?

And did MLK and other Civil Rights activists get what was coming to them when they were beaten for what they said?

Yeah, I know, Geller's a piece of shit. And I'm not comparing her message to MLK. I'm comparing free speech to free speech. It's easy to say MLK had the right to free speech. It's harder to say the same thing about Geller. But we have to. Otherwise we're fucked. Defending the free speech rights of those you find repulsive is the real test; defending the free speech rights of those you agree with is a no-brainer.

[trotsky]

219. Maher and many other critics of Islam have been frequently called "racists."

Now putting aside the absurdity of using that term to describe someone talking about a group of people who are made up of ALL races, wouldn't it more aptly describe those who seem to indicate that Muslims can't help themselves, that they're violent and will react violently to anyone provoking them by drawing cartoons?

Who's doing the generalizations here?

[MellowDem]

211. You can say that again...

You're agreeing with someone who felt more sorry for attempted murderers than for the people they tried to kill, all because they're a hate group.

It looks like the rape analogy is working better and better, because on here at least, most people understand that you don't blame victims for rape, no matter what, even if the victim is a bigoted asshole and the leader of a hate group.

And exposes all the hypocrites very clearly.

[whathehell]

227. LOL!

I know. It's a freaking joke.

[cbayer]

231. Unbelievable.

[AlbertCat]

232. Un-fucking-believable shit going down here.

Yeah.... because of religion.

Defending terrorists who were there to kill over some cartoons and completely wanting to shut up some Christian who set up the whole thing because she knew how religious loonies would act (after all she's one).

Also, because of religion, a complete lack of understanding of the 1st Amendment or citizen's rights... just like Hobby Lobby or that IN law.

The whole set up, response and unthinking "revenge" and aftermath completely brought to you by the ridiculousness and prejudice and special treatment of religion and the religious.

[cbayer]

233. No one has defended any terrorists that I can see.

Certainly I haven't. I have unequivocally held them entirely responsible for their actions.

And I have never said anything remotely close to this not having to do anything with religion.

The world is full of lunatics and both sides of this scenario represent them. There is hate and intolerance and a wish to rid themselves of the "other".

So what is your solution? Rid the world of the religious? Yeah, that's the ticket and not dissimilar to the actors in this horrible scenario.

[muriel_volestrangler]

234. In #144, to which you were replying, whathehell said they felt more sorry for the terrorists

than for Geller and her group. That remark seemed fine to you, judging from your reply.

[cbayer]

236. I guess you could interpret that as defense, but that's not what she actually said.

She said she had more sympathy for them than she did Geller and her group.

I don't have any sympathy for any of them. Others do and I'm not going to judge them for that or read it as a defense.

These are despicable human beings all the way around. I support none of them.

[AlbertCat]

237. and not dissimilar to the actors in this horrible scenario.

It is completely different!

Ridding the world of religion would be GREAT!...but no one thinks that's an attainable goal.

Keeping these ancient superstitions away from government and laws is a noble goal.

No religions can ever agree....hell even sects of the same religion can't agree because it's all made up anyway and there is nothing concrete to latch onto. So keep it at home and treat it like Astrology or some other silly woo and maybe killing over the bunk will look like the horrifying absurdity it is.

Having a "make fun of someone's religion party" is not worth killing over. Geller is a shit stirring jackass, but pissing some religious nuts off is not as bad as killing people over cartoons....and that's what what you call "support from Dems" amounts to. Thinking that her stupid stunt is anywhere close to attending her stunt to kill people is supporting terrorists. Thinking religion is above any law is supporting law breakers.


Personally, I think it's obvious she set it up. Otherwise why not have it in VT or where her HQ are in NY? TX was chosen for its gun loving lawlessness and bigotry.... I think deliberately. I think she should be prosecuted for "yelling fire in a crowded theatre". But I'll bet proving in a court of (secular!) law that was her intent is impossible.

[cbayer]

238. Ridding the world of any group that you are ideologically opposed to is the same thing.

It wouldn't be GREAT. It would be exactly the same thing as Pam Geller wanting to rid the world of muslims. She's got a long list of reasons that make a lot of sense to her as well. Maybe people with anti-religious beliefs could also keep it at home and treat it like astrology.

Again, I have never defended the guys with the guns and I never will.

I think she set it up, too. And I think it went exactly as she hoped. She chose Garland because it's already a hotbed of pretty extreme anti-islamic bigotry.

Initially I think she got a pretty positive response from a wide spectrum of people. She painted it as a 1st amendment issue and that drew a substantial amount of support. But I think as people began to get educated on who she is and what her sick goals are, that changed.

Reasonable people were able to condemn both the gunmen and Geller, and that's a rational position to take.

[beam me up scottie]

240. You are so full of shit, AlbertCat never said they wanted to get rid of religious people.

Ridding the world of religion would be GREAT!...but no one thinks that's an attainable goal.

Keeping these ancient superstitions away from government and laws is a noble goal.

While I'm not surprised you're claiming that a DU atheist wants to "rid" the world of religious people because we're all just like Geller, I'm going to call you out because I'm sick of it.

There's no limit to what you'll do or say to smear us.

Disgusting.

[AtheistCrusader]

241. Pretty despicable sleight of hand you just pulled.

Ridding the world of any group that you are ideologically opposed to is the same thing.
It wouldn't be GREAT. It would be exactly the same thing as Pam Geller wanting to rid the world of muslims.

Albertcat said that about an IDEA not about a group of people. Gellar is quite happy getting rid of people, so no, it is NOT the same thing, and that was incredibly vicious to say.

[AlbertCat]

246. that was incredibly vicious to say.

I forgive her.... domini domini domini...Pax nabisco.... or something...

But what a piece of work. It's what happens when you have your cerebral cortex hardwired to DU 24 hours a day I guess.

[AlbertCat]

243. It would be exactly the same thing as Pam Geller wanting to rid the world of muslims.

Nonsense.

She doesn't know what a muslim even is. And she wants to kill them.

I'd like for people to leave religion and forget the unnecessary guilt and judgement and enter a world of logic, reason and the wonder of science and reality instead of wasting time on Bronze Age guesses and fantasies..... and do it while remaining alive.

This is NOTHING like Pam Geller. You know it so stop claiming it is. Pam Geller's main goal merely involves Pam Geller.

[cbayer]

248. Not nonsense at all.

I think the world should be rid of muslims = I think the world should be rid of atheists = I think the world should be rid of religious people.

She's ideologically opposed to some caricature she has created and that's very similar to those that want to get rid of any group based on their ideology.

Wanting to rid the world of people who believe differently than you is not based on logic, reason, reality and the world of science. It is based on ignorance and bigotry. It is based on a belief that one's position is superior and that one are dealing with people that embrace "fantasies" that you have personally dismissed.

It's the same thing, though clearly there are serious degrees of grey here and she is way past grey.

[beam me up scottie]

250. Why do you keep lying about what AlbertCat said, cbayer?

Why are you doubling down on your despicable slander?

You're the Geller in this room, you constantly lie about and vilify atheists the same way she slanders muslims.

Once more for the jurors who read the alert on my post and think I'm making it up, this is what AlbertCat posted:

Ridding the world of religion would be GREAT!...but no one thinks that's an attainable goal.

Keeping these ancient superstitions away from government and laws is a noble goal.

NOTHING about wanting to be rid of religious people.

[AlbertCat]

251. It IS nonsense

Like most the stuff you post

Por Ejemplo: " I think the world should be rid of religious people. "

No one has said that but YOU.

[cbayer]

254. Most of the stuff I post is nonsense?

Ad hom. You lose.

See you around.

[AlbertCat]

256. Most of the stuff I post is nonsense?

Facts are facts.

Just look at the stuff you are saying here!

I don't think your "other ways of knowing" are doing you any favors judging from what you claim here and around.

[AlbertCat]

244. Reasonable people were able to condemn both the gunmen and Geller, and that's a rational position

Actually.... I haven't seen any other.... except people who seem to think Geller is as bad as the guys who came with guns...which is definitely irrational.

[cbayer]

249. She is as bad, imo, just in a different way. Evil is evil. Are you defending her?

Do you think she deserves more sympathy than the gunmen?

[AlbertCat]

252. Are you defending her?

Oh do shut up!

Jesus H Christ!

[cbayer]

253. Ok. I was just playing on your accusation of defense earlier in the sub-thread.

I do not think you are defending her in any way.

[AlbertCat]

258. I was just playing on your accusation.....

uh huh


good try, but no cigar.

[AlbertCat]

257. Evil is not always just evil.....evil is subjective....and has degrees.

Any rational person understands that.

[MellowDem]

212. Wow...

Your views are fucked up. Feeling more sorry for members of one hate group over another that tried to murder them. I don't know what sort of fucked up reasoning goes into that one.

[whathehell]

226. Wow...

"Your views are fucked up"

Really?
That's such a finely nuanced argument, I'm not sure I can respond.

[MellowDem]

229. I said why...

Feeling more sorry for attempted murderers than for their targets makes no sense, you didn't provide your reasoning, but sure sounds fucked up.

[whathehell]

239. Idiot Geller deserves no sympathy in my opinion

The failed jihadis deserve MAYBE only a smidgeon more.

[MellowDem]

247. I don't think she deserves sympathy either.

[Dorian Gray]

262. Well

you've lost me with this argument.

WTF!?!?!?!

[whathehell]

269. Well

"you've lost me with this argument".

I don't know that I was trying to "keep" you, actually, since

I don't recall your being part of this exchange, but if you want

to understand, forget the "WTF?!?s and go back to the start of

my exchange with MellowDem.

If you'd rather not, that's fine too, just don't expect me to go back

and explain a discussion that's already on the thread.

[Dorian Gray]

275. I read the whole exchange

Gellar is terrible. But insinuating in any way that the jihadis who went there to MURDER people that they didn't like deserve perhaps a smidgeon more sympathy than Gellar? They're all reprehensible people. Gellar should be ignored. The jihadis, who attempted to kill people, ended up dead themselves. Probably not a surprising outcome.

I don't and never will have sympathy for any person who will take up arms against people who are expressing themselves, no matter how distastefully, in a way they are legally guaranteed in the US.

As for "keeping" me... I assume that you are arguing/debating your points knowing full well you have a public audience. Usually the point of debate is to convince others that your viewpoint is the correct one. While I was on the fence with the whole discussion you were having, expressing any iota of sympathy for the jihadis lost that simpatico consideration.

That seems obvious to me. Perhaps I should have spelled it out in my first post.

[whathehell]

276. Okay.

On further reflection I decided you were right. The Jihadis deserve no sympathy either.

It's just that I tend to think these violent extremists have a screw loose, if you will, and they are, of course, dead.

[edhopper]

16. So if i think people

have every right to march in opposition to abortion, or peacefully protest a court decision that legalizes gay marriage, i am embracing those people and their agenda.

I didn't know that is how civil rights work?

[cbayer]

33. Are you embracing Pam Geller and her organization?

This has nothing to do with supporting people's right to protest or the right to free speech.

This is about being very careful about who you lie down with.

It's possible to condemn both Geller and the gunman. It's possible to support free speech and condemn hate groups that have nothing at all to do with free speech.

That's how civli rights work.

[Warren Stupidity]

37. Are you now, or have you ever been....

get the phrase right.

[skepticscott]

47. Groups that have nothing to do with free speech??

WTF does that even mean? Here's a news flash for you: Even if she and her cronies didn't believe for a minute that the right of free expression existed for anyone, even if they never stood up to defend it, even if they tried to deny it to others, they still have that right. Even if it has to be defended by more enlightened people who may be disgusted by how she uses it.

You and your cohorts here just don't get that, do you? You're backed into a corner and trying desperately to excuse the attackers by claiming that this was not protected free expression, since the people doing it don't fully understand and respect that right. Baloney.

[AtheistCrusader]

52. Just because the victim is an unpleasant person with vile speech doesn't make it ok to attack her

with physical violence. (As the attackers attempted to do.)

The content of her speech is unimportant to this issue. The content of her character is unimportant to this issue.

She had every right to engage in free association and free speech, and NO reasonable expectation of violence in response. None whatsoever. It is not a reasonable response to her speech, however vile it may be to you or I.

The attackers made a critical error in their victim selection process.

[edhopper]

62. No more than I embrace

those who are opposed to abortion or gay marriage.

I just think they should be able to air their views without threat of physical harm. That is how civil rights work.

And I don't have a false equivalency between someone who says bad things and someone who shoots people.

Be careful? because what I say might mean I endanger myself? Really, is that how freedom of speech works?

[cbayer]

63. This isn't about civil rights. This is about Ms. Geller's war on american muslims

and her gross attempts to take away all of their civil rights.

She doesn't give a shit about the first amendment. She is using it and those who support it as tools in her anti-muslim crusade.

I think it's important to step back and realize what is really going on here. I fully support freedom of speech no matter who is saying it, but I seriously condemn everything about Pamela Geller.

[trotsky]

65. Does she deserve to be killed, cbayer?

Yes or no. How do you answer that question?

[skepticscott]

78. Why do you keep harping on the fact

that she is a despicable person, as if that was news and as if anyone here disagreed with that?

And why do you keep beating on the non-point that she doesn't care about the first amendment since, even if you knew her well enough to be sure that was true, it doesn't fucking matter? First amendment protections apply to her and her group whether she cares or not. And yes, it's disgusting that she uses her rights in this way, but she's hardly the first and hardly the only one now who does. Many religious fanatics use their free speech rights to spread their hate. Having to put up with that is part of the price you pay to be sure that when your turn comes to express your opinions, that someone else won't have decided that yours shouldn't be allowed.

You keep repeating the same empty talking points over and over, but you don't seem to have any point to make that has any substance,

[beam me up scottie]

64. Oh sure, and I suppose you embrace the Klan, too!

Embrace = support their right to freedom of speech

[edhopper]

70. I didn't know that was the equation

thanks for clearing it up.

[AtheistCrusader]

18. Who?

Why does this person matter?

[snooper2]

19. She is the asshole fundie that pissed off the even bigger asshole fundies that ended up dead

[AtheistCrusader]

21. I've only heard one view of the attack/cause but it sounds like an attack on

free speech, rather than anything else.

We are still allowed to say controversial things, right, even asshole fundies?

[trotsky]

22. Are we allowed? Sure.

But if you do, there might just be consequences, possibly being brutally murdered. So we have free speech, we just shouldn't engage in it in a way that would offend anyone.

Or as the most wonderful pope EVAH has said, "it's normal" to expect to be violently attacked if you say something that someone doesn't like. That's just religion, man. It's special.

[AtheistCrusader]

23. I'm sure we'll be told by certain parties, just how much is too much on the

controversy scale, before it's 'welp, expected, you poked a stupid bear with a stick' victim blaming.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

29. You're always ALLOWED to say all sorts of stupid things.

And if you want to, you can expect nothing to happen as a result. But sometimes you're betting your (or other people's) lives on it.

It's illegal and immoral to mug people. But I still wouldn't walk through a crappy neighbourhood waving 100 dollar bills. That would be incredibly stupid, no matter how much 'right' was on my side.

[AtheistCrusader]

38. I find life is too short to go through it worrying if my skirt is too short.

I just deal with problems as they arise.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

39. That's your choice.

We all have our choices to make, and we don't all make the same choices.

[trotsky]

50. Hey, look at all these "anti-Muslim bigots" lining up to support Pam Geller!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026619895

[font size=+2]Muslims[/font] Defend Pam Geller’s Right to Hate
Both before Pam Geller’s Draw Muhammad event and after the attack Sunday night, Muslim-American leaders vigorously defended her right to draw whatever she wants.

Go get 'em, cb!!!

[skepticscott]

58. I'm sure some people are really irritated to find out

that a lot of the Muslim community is as tolerant as they keep claiming they are. Much more tolerant than the posters here who've made that argument.

[guillaumeb]

77. Ms. Geller has a right to speak freely.

But is there a Constitutional "Right to Incite"?
From the following link:
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/sorting-out-what-freedom-of-speech-is-and-isnt
"Even though the First Amendment represents our blueprint for personal freedom, its protection is not unlimited. Some narrow categories of speech do not deserve protection (or deserve it). Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes expressed this concept with his “shouting fire” metaphor in United States v. Schenck (1919): “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man from falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.” Obscenity, child pornography, true threats and incitement to imminent lawless action are a few of these proscribable categories. "

My premise is that the "Contest" was nothing of the sort. Geller has a history of incitement. In my opinion, she is a terrorist who incites violence with her vicious hate speech.

Incitement is NOT protected speech. In Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919), the Court held that speech specifically intended to incite to violence is not protected.

[cbayer]

80. Interesting. I wonder if there will be any legal ramifications of this.

I agree with you about Ms. Geller and would like to see her stopped.

[beam me up scottie]

85. How should she be "stopped", cbayer?

A bullet?

Thrown in jail?

[LiberalAndProud]

86. Because we should expect Muslims to be violent.

You know what, rightwing Christians are always provocative and always looking for a fight. Because one particular religious sect is prone to violence it is *not* incitement.

Put the blame for this where it lies.

[cbayer]

87. The member said nothing about expecting Muslims to be violent.

Pretty much anyone can be incited to violence if pushed far enough.

RW christians are often provocative and looking for a fight and if they incite violence, I suspect the same laws would apply to them.

I don't think one particular sect is more prone to violence than others. Do you?

[beam me up scottie]

89. "Pretty much anyone can be incited to violence if pushed far enough"

No, they can't.

Most muslims don't kill people who draw cartoons.

Are you saying the ones who do can't help themselves?

[LiberalAndProud]

90. Yes, actually I do.

I don't recall a time when Westboro Baptist Church was countered with violence. I didn't read about "Memphis Exalts Jesus," dodging any gunfire over Easter weekend. I could go on and on about the number of times these hooligans flaunt their first amendment liberties. And still, only ONE group countered with arms.

Yes. I do. And all of those who are saying "Could have seen this coming," are saying exactly the same thing.

[cbayer]

92. You are not aware of acts of violence perpetrated by any religious groups but muslims?

What about heinous acts of violence done by those that feel provoked for completely nonreligious reasons.

That you have company doesn't make it right. What in the world are we going to do about those muslims? If we could just be rid of the ONE group, life would be perfect.

[LiberalAndProud]

97. Reductio ad absurdum doesn't move me.

[cbayer]

98. Yes, LAP. I'm aware of what moves you.

and I'm done playing.

[Warren Stupidity]

223. Wild Thing!

Wild thing, you make my heart sing
You make everything groovy, wild thing
Wild thing, I think I love you
But I wanna know for sure
Come on and hold me tight
I love you

Wild thing, you make my heart sing
You make everything groovy, wild thing
Wild thing, I think you move me
But I wanna know for sure
Come on and hold me tight
You move me

Wild thing, you make my heart sing
You make everything groovy, wild thing
Wild thing, you make my heart sing

Is that what you meant?

[beam me up scottie]

88. Using your "premise" the cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo were inciting violence too.

In my opinion, she is a terrorist who incites violence with her vicious hate speech.

What were the shooters, then?

Freedom fighters?

[guillaumeb]

222. Stephane Charbonnier was a provocateur.

And what he oversaw during his tenure at Charlie Hebdo was hate journalism and incitement at its worst. Charbonnier claimed to be a fearless attacker of bigotry and hatred but a large amount of his anger was directed at the Muslim community in France. His so-called cutting edge satire was merely the Gallic form of KKK style bigotry directed at the mainly Algerian Muslims in France. That community is discriminated against in much the same way that blacks are in the US.

The shooters were not freedom fighters, they were killers. But Pamela Geller was the match that lit the fuse.

[Warren Stupidity]

224. well at least you are consistent in your victim blaming.

some people try to weasel out of the implications, but not you, you are taking a stand on principle.

It is a principle that I find abominable, and yet, quite oddly not one that incites me to commit violence, or to think that you, for simply stating your opinions, are to blame for whatever violence is visited upon you.

[guillaumeb]

225. The people who were killed are victims. I do not blame them.

But Pamela Geller bears some moral responsibility for the deaths. In my opinion, of course. Her "contest" was the spark that lit the torch. No better than the Koran burning that the Christian pastor publicized and encouraged. He also would deny any responsibility or culpability.

[Warren Stupidity]

228. Stephane Charbonnier - killed.

You blamed him upthread.

Stephane Charbonnier was a provocateur.

And what he oversaw during his tenure at Charlie Hebdo was hate journalism and incitement at its worst.

"incitement at its worst" is intended to provoke a reaction, right? And yet you claim now that you do not blame him.

I take back everything I said about your standing on principle. Obviously you are weaseling out of the implications of what you just said.

[guillaumeb]

230. Try rereading what I said.

And here it is:
And what he oversaw during his tenure at Charlie Hebdo was hate journalism and incitement at its worst. Charbonnier claimed to be a fearless attacker of bigotry and hatred but a large amount of his anger was directed at the Muslim community in France. His so-called cutting edge satire was merely the Gallic form of KKK style bigotry directed at the mainly Algerian Muslims in France. That community is discriminated against in much the same way that blacks are in the US.

The shooters were not freedom fighters, they were killers. But Pamela Geller was the match that lit the fuse.

And I will add, in response to your post:
I blame him for his deliberate provocation that was INTENDED to provoke. I do not blame him for being killed. I blame the killers. Charbonnier's provocation does not justify his killing.

[muriel_volestrangler]

221. She didn't incite the gunmen to violence, though

She was against them, not on their side.

Perhaps, if you can find what she said, you might find an incitement to violence by her audience, but I doubt it, since she's careful. I've found an online copy of Wilders' speech at the meeting, and I don't think there's any way if could be called incitement to violence. I'll send you a link or post it, if you want.

By the way, in Schenck v. United States, the court held that opposing the draft in a time of war was not protected speech. It wasn't about incitement to violence. In a later decision, as rug pointed out in #164,

Brandenburg, a leader in the Ku Klux Klan, made a speech at a Klan rally and was later convicted under an Ohio criminal syndicalism law. The law made illegal advocating "crime, sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism as a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform," as well as assembling "with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism."

Question
Did Ohio's criminal syndicalism law, prohibiting public speech that advocates various illegal activities, violate Brandenburg's right to free speech as protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments?
...
The Court's Per Curiam opinion held that the Ohio law violated Brandenburg's right to free speech. The Court used a two-pronged test to evaluate speech acts: (1) speech can be prohibited if it is "directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and (2) it is "likely to incite or produce such action." The criminal syndicalism act made illegal the advocacy and teaching of doctrines while ignoring whether or not that advocacy and teaching would actually incite imminent lawless action. The failure to make this distinction rendered the law overly broad and in violation of the Constitution.

http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1968/1968_492

So you need to find Geller inciting imminent lawless action and show that it was likely to succeed.

[hrmjustin]

91. I detest this woman but violence is wrong.

I am glad the officer recovered.

Hard to feel sympathy for Gellar but we have the right to free speech.

[LiberalAndProud]

93. Et tu, justin?

You're going to need these.

[hrmjustin]

95. oh?

[cbayer]

178. C'mon justin. Keep up!

Today I love me some Ben Carson and am supporting him for president and I am totally against free speech and think Pamela Geller should have been shot.

My husband remains a homophobic bigot, so there is that.

Smells like teen spirit.

[hrmjustin]

183. I always knew you were Satan Incarnate!

Hugs to you my friend.

[cbayer]

186. I am the Satan Incarnate of all trolls. There is no one more satany or incarnate or trolly than I.

You can take that to the bank.

[hrmjustin]

189. I always love it with you cause trouble.

[cbayer]

190. I try to stay out of trouble, but it seems trouble always comes looking for me.

It's like it's stalking me and obsessed with me for some reason.

Maybe I should write a country song. Would you help?

[hrmjustin]

194. Being from NYC I have no idea how to write a country song.

But yes I know what you mean about the obsession part.

I had that last week and it was a tad annoying.

[cbayer]

196. Ok, we could do some club music then.

Something we could dance to and has a snappy chorus that gets repeated a million times.

I want you, I want you, I want you, I want you, I want you, I want you…

to fall down a manhole and get eaten by sewer sharks.

Boom, boom, boom, boom.

Everybody dance now!

[hrmjustin]

198. Lol that could be fight song for the religion room.

[okasha]

202. Chorus:

Oh, baby, I've had enough of your snarks,
So fall down a manhole, a snack for the sharks.
Oh baby, I've had it so totally with you,
We're history, we're over, we're done, we're through!

[hrmjustin]

203. Holy shit that was so freaking funny!

I can't stop laughing.

[cbayer]

204. Love it. I think we're going to the grammys, girlfriend.

[okasha]

206. We can do it!

With Justin, we can be a trio.

[okasha]

197. LOL

That "trouble" has a name. Justin and I each seem to have one, too. It's a bit like being chased by the paparazzi, as we yachting types know all too well.

[cbayer]

200. I know! The paparazzi is (are?) driving me nuts!

Why just today, we tried to sneak away by getting on a colectivo. The driver pretended not to recognize us then completely "forgot" that we were on his bus and took us miles away from our destination.

All the while, we see hiding under the seats to avoid the incessant flashing of the cameras.

Wait until they find out that I love Ben Carson and am against the 1st amendment. All hell is going to break lose!

[cbayer]

94. I feel nothing but contempt for Ms. Geller, but that doesn't mean I think she should

be a victim of violence or is not entitled to free speech rights.

[hrmjustin]

96. Agreed.

[beam me up scottie]

99. You just posted you wanted her "stopped"

cbayer (144,051 posts)
80. Interesting. I wonder if there will be any legal ramifications of this.

I agree with you about Ms. Geller and would like to see her stopped.

[Warren Stupidity]

109. At a red light, for example.

That is obviously what she meant. So she could take a picture perhaps.

[beam me up scottie]

111. I wish she'd make up her mind, either she's cheering for Gellar or not.

[AtheistCrusader]

100. Uh oh! Dissention in the ranks! About Face! March!

Careful, you're a slip of a word away from 'cheerleading' for Gellar there.

[Warren Stupidity]

107. Welcome aboard CBayer.

You are now officially in the Pam Geller fan club.

[Warren Stupidity]

105. Well you are now officially in the Pam Geller fan club!

Welcome aboard Justin.

[hrmjustin]

108. I have met the woman and can tell you she is a despicable woman.

But violence is wrong.

[LiberalAndProud]

112. ^ That's what I'm saying.

(The pom poms were in reference to the "cheerleading" accusation upthread. No worries.)

[hrmjustin]

114. Thank you for explaining.

[AtheistCrusader]

115. Thank you.

Perhaps you could help Cbayer understand that. Because she is denying that Gellar is a victim at all.

It is, indeed, possible to separate her despicable nature from the fact that lethal force is not an appropriate response to detestable speech, no matter HOW detestable.

Further, that defending even a vile, hateful person's right to express their view, doesn't amount to 'cheerleading' for that person, or their cause.

It's refusing to establish a precedent that could reach back to ourselves in some other way. Speech is speech, and as long as it is not incitement or threatening, bright lines the courts have established, it is protected.

[beam me up scottie]

116. Thank you Justin.

That's what we're all saying.

[Goblinmonger]

171. I haven't met her but would have guessed that is the case

We agree on the violence, too.

[DesertFlower]

184. a dark haired ann coulter.

[cbayer]

188. Worse, imo. She's pretty effective and is looking for an all out war.

This was a battle she feels she won, and I do not doubt that she will risk lives to win.

She is frightening. Ann Coulter is just pathetic, imo.

[Yorktown]

259. The fact Pam Geller is a provocative firebrand is irrelevant.

She wanted to draw attention to the danger she thinks Islam represents.
Cartoons being one way to summarize that opinion.
You might disagree with that opinion, but it's a defensible one.

At any rate, the doctrine of Islam certainly has tenets that should raise alarm.
The Quran includes notions such as the unbeliever must give way on a sidewalk.
Unbelievers should wear a dress code to be set apart from the believers.
Not to mention the laws on imaginary crimes (adultery, blasphemy, being gay, etc)

Beyond that, the attacks on the Jyllands-Posten and Charlie Hebdo show there is a problem,
namely that some believers think cartoons give them the right to shoot.

At the end of the day, the question is not that of Geller's style (which is questionable), but of the substance of her question: should criticism of ideologies be self censored for fear of violence by literal believers in some medieval book?

[cbayer]

263. Your support of Pam Geller and her agenda is really quite disturbing.

[Yorktown]

264. The fact you share some views with violent believers disturbs me.

And IMHO, your posture is far more dangerous for democracy than mine.

[cbayer]

265. What views do I share with violent believers?

Your "posture" is not just dangerous for democracy, it is decidedly un-democratic.

Seriously, you might want to tone down the overt support for the anti-islamic agenda.

[Yorktown]

266. You share their view religions should be shielded from mockery

And, as usual, you try to sidestep the key issues and tar opponents with a smear brush.

I do not have an anti-islamic agenda: my agenda is reason and Liberty.

It just so happens it's an agenda which fundamentalist Christians oppose (condoms in Africa) and that is in direct conflict with a literal reading of the Quran.

Deal with it. But you won't.

[cbayer]

267. Again, you have made that up.

I don't in any way think religions should be shielded from mockery.

I am also opposed to any group that would restrict access to condoms in Africa, but I'm not sure what that has to do with anything.

Reason? I'm not so sure about that being on your agenda. Liberty? Is that for everyone or just some?

[beam me up scottie]

272. cbayer: "I agree with you about Ms. Geller and would like to see her stopped."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=196173

[trotsky]

268. There is NOTHING in Yorktown's post indicating support of Geller or "her agenda."

That is a nasty thing to say.

[beam me up scottie]

273. Well she said that "championing her 1st amendment rights" is "cheering" Geller.

There are many posts and threads right now championing her 1st amendment rights.

That is what I see as cheering. Many of them were written before some of the advocates really understood who she was and what she was doing.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=196166

She's slandered DUers who support her free speech rights endlessly in GD.

Like if she says it enough times everyone will believe we all support Geller's bigotry.

She and Geller have a lot in common, they are both willing to lie about their enemies if they think it's necessary.

[trotsky]

274. Oh FFS.

What despicable behavior. When will the bullying end?

She and Geller have a lot in common, they are both willing to lie about their enemies if they think it's necessary.

BINGO.