I want to go on record as defending Pam Geller’s right to do and say offensive, obnoxious, and hateful things unconditionally. I think it’s wrong of her to say them because I think that setting out to offend someone or hurt their feelings deliberately is immoral. However, that’s her right and should remain so.
I also want to condemn those who are blaming her for the two stupid Islamist terrorists who drew their guns on an armed Texas police officer and were shot dead where they stood. Those who are to blame are the two terrorists and anyone who supported them.
I’m seeing too many signs of a sadly authoritarian streak in American thought. On the one hand there is the law where force is used in upholding it. On the other is morality where no force is used. Something may be bad but still be legal. All bad conduct should not be made illegal. Doing so nullifies the very idea of rights.
I would also like to see a reprieve of commentators stating that the First Amendment does not allow a person to falsely shout fire in a crowded theater. That analogy, introduced by Justice Holmes, was later abandoned in the 60s, as it was too easy to criminalize subversive speech. In Holmes’ time, it was socialists, and anti-Muslim speech could similarly be labeled as presenting a danger of inciting violence.
Yeah, I kvetch about that every time somebody raises the point. There are exceptions to the freedom of speech but that ain’t one of them, at least not in modern legal thought.
One of the ironies is that those citing the matter don’t know the context. It was a war protest, exactly the sort of speech they would, presumably, want to protect. The analogy would be upholding restrictions against Code Pink’s protests against the Iraq War.
“I think it’s wrong of her to say them because I think that setting out to offend someone or hurt their feelings deliberately is immoral.”
You’re not suggesting that, say, satire is immoral, are you? Was Aristophanes immoral when he lampooned Socrates in The Clouds? Or, of more recent vintage, was Gore Vidal immoral when he sent up William F. Buckley in Burr? The whole point of satire, political or otherwise, is to hold the object up to ridicule. And that, I’ve no doubt, the object would usually find offensive.
If the intention is to injure, sure it is. But it’s venial rather than mortal. And in a liberal society of the sort I think we should want it is tolerated.
See also the principle of the double effect.
Agree completely Dave.
Well said, agree with all of it.
As for sam’s satire comment- one of the Charlie Hebdo guys seemed to really want to distance what they do from Geller, and I think his point was that they do satire (aimed at all kinds of institutions) and she has only one target and she put on a provocative event. I do think there is some distinction there although I think Charlie Hebdo just doesn’t want to be on the same side as someone that is associated with the far right.