Hebdo-Gellergate: Can we Square a Free Speech Circle?

[Warren Stupidity]

Sticking a toe into the Charlie Hebdo/Pamela Geller question has not interested me. Watching a debate about what constitutes “authentic” freedom of speech that is meant to provoke, vs “inauthentic, hateful” freedom of speech that is also meant to provoke — often with the very same voices taking both sides — has left me thinking more about how too many people in America believe, along with the president, that no crisis ought to be wasted; everything is fodder for ideological exploitation and the excitement of legislation, all of which is about the acquisition of power.
In this case, it appears that there are people eager to use the failed attack in Garland, Texas as an opportunity to promote the idea that some speech ought not to be protected, and our elites in government leadership and the press will helpfully spell out for us exactly what “free” speech is legitimate and permissible, and what is not.
It is clear, for example, that any-and-all criticism of Christianity, via whatever means — essay, artwork, music, cartooning — is permissible free speech because the people dunking crucifixes in urine, covering crucifixes with ants and using elephant dung and vulvas to depict the Mother of Jesus, all constitute thoughtful, artistic commentary by “smart” people, and if it offends some, well, that’s too bad, but free speech is a protected and valuable thing, you know, and besides, if stupid people can’t be introspective about provocation then they’re only making the artist’s point for him or her — the point usually being that their religion is intolerant, and its teachings do not enlarge human understanding, but only narrow it.
It is equally clear that any depictions of the prophet Mohammed are illegitimate and not permissible, ostensibly because they immediately and unquestioningly constitute “hate-speech” by stupid people undeserving of defense. Because no smart, tolerant person would ever engage in something which is so hurtful and offensive to some people.
Now, square that circle.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/theanchoress/2015/05/07/gellergate-can-we-square-the-free-speech-circle/

[Warpy]

1. It should be pointed out that governments interfered with neither

Charlie Hebdo in France or Geller in the US.

However, this is separate from the real world consequences of insulting someone, whether his religion or his mother. Those consequences have to be taken into account.

[Warren Stupidity]

2. many people. including people here on DU, are arguing that it should

on the grounds that such speech is unprotected incitement, for example.

[Leontius]

3. Not according to some people here

When I said the same thing concerning the zombie Christ and Mohamed characters in the Pa parade that were attacked a couple of years ago I was accused of trying to destroy the First Amendment.

[backscatter712]

5. I'm not one to surrender to the heckler's veto.

If you don't like somebody's free expression, go read/watch/listen to something else.

[backscatter712]

4. People need to understand that religion is not and should not be immune to criticism and ridicule.

Pamela Geller may be a reprehensible person, at least for the reason of wanting to deny Muslims civil liberties while hiding behind the First Amendment.

And her exhibits of naughty pictures of the Prophet Muhammad may be in bad taste.

But they are, and should be legal and protected by the First Amendment.

Pamela Geller doesn't understand that the Constitution should apply to everyone, not just to people like her.

Her attackers had the same problem - Gellar and the attackers she trolled up are two sides of the same coin: "Freedom for me, but not for thee."

If you think it's OK to shoot someone or beat someone up because they drew a naughty picture, go check yourself into a psych ward.

The people screaming and yelling about how offended they are because people are mocking their religion show a huge amount of insecurity.

You'd think that the all-powerful creator of the universe is big enough that He's not going to be butthurt by naughty pictures. It goes to show that religion does not deserve a shield from criticism and ridicule. In fact, it desperately needs criticism and ridicule.