Discussion for article #236094
Wow. This is like watching a bunch of wild rats crammed into a shoebox turn on one of their own.
Let me give you a scary hint at what weāre thinking, Geraldo. NONE of you care about free speech. Not ONE of you.
What has you breaking out in a cold sweat at night is that you are suspecting you can no longer convince some of us that you DO.
7 Likes
Poor Pam, she gets the āmean girlā treatment, what a shameā¦
Poor Pam Geller. When youāve lost Geraldo, your credibility is damaged beyond repair.
2 Likes
I think this is pretty funny. Pammy goes on Fox Not the News, expecting to get a free pass, and the denizens there, terrified theyāll get branded as irresponsible kooks too, turn on her.
The one that DOES surprise me is Franklin Graham. Billyās boy has been an Islamophobe from WAY back.
2 Likes
How can a person say āIām a champion of free speechā while simultaneously calling for books to be banned?
5 Likes
IOKIYAR
or
IOKIYARWTM.
4 Likes
right wing taunt meister?
1 Like
RE: Franklin Grahamāand also, not so way back, too.
Local observers noted that Geraldo had not yet had his coffee.
New REALLY? TV
āAs the Fox Turnsā
Thatās not the turning point. When she gained Mike Huckabeeās support thatās when her credibility was damaged beyond repair.
2 Likes
Some folks need to get their priorities straight. In democratic society, violence in response to speech is a cardinal sin. Much of the media, and even society in general, seems to have forgotten this. If Pam Geller went around the country saying that all men are evil, and some guy killed her for it, how many would suggest she had it coming?
As children we are taught, āSticks and stones will break my bones, but names will never hurt me,ā so why is it that grown adults are harping on the vileness of one personās opinions instead of spending that same time expressing outrage about the vileness of violent actions in response to opinion? What is more important, defending an offensive individual from being murdered, or defending a murderer from being offended?
In a society that holds freedom of speech as a core principle, there is no right to not be offended. There is also no excuse for using violence in response to verbal provocation. If someone believes in strict regulation of firearms, or the outright repeal of the 2nd Amendment, do they have a responsibility to keep their mouth shut, lest they āinciteā someone into shooting them? It is outrageous how many people are spending their energy to defend their decision not to be outraged by the attempted murder of Pamela Geller.
Geraldo better quit trying to stir up Gellerās fans before they open fire on him, reckless bastard!
I agree. Be that as it mayā¦ there is a fine line that has been crossed. Free speech is not screaming āfireā in the theater. Perhaps Iāve missed something here, Purposely inciting violence does not equate with Free Speech. It is, in fact, a Felony.Further, it is beyond vile, it is malicious and against the Constitutional rights of Americans of a different faith than Ms. Gellerās. Religious intolerance is, at best, ignorant.
2 Likes
Free speech was never intended to be a cover for doing stupid things. The concept comes with some assumptions that speakers will remain rational. You are, indeed, free to say pretty much whatever you like. That doesnāt mean itās a good idea to walk up to a 250 pound stereotypical ābikerā and call him a sissy to his face. He might laugh, or he might just flatten you with one punch. His punch may not be legally justified, but the pain you feel will be completely justified. If you run around yelling ācome and get meā just yards away from an angry bear, donāt be surprised if he does exactly that. And donāt yell āfree speechā as he decides you make a great meal.
It is a poor analogy to compare insult to incitement. Pamela Geller never incited anyone to commit violence against Muslims; she insulted Muslims, which is definitely not at all the same as inciting violence unless you think it is normal and acceptable to respond to insults with violence.
No, nor does it mean that biker can murder you and the media will spend the next week focusing on how despicable/stupid you were instead of how completely despicable the bikerās actions were.
Where does this logic go next? If someone thinks the 2nd Amendment should be repealed, are they stupid and irresponsible for saying so out loud, knowing full well that some nut might put a bullet in them? Should gun control advocates all begin censoring themselves, lest they become guilty of āincitingā some fringe advocate of the 2nd Amendment, who thinks his right to own a gun can be justly applied to murder in defense of that right?
This argument was raised, discussed and answered many times on TPM this past week. āSpeechā is Constitutionally protected regarding its content, but how it is presented might not be. Google hate speech and read up on the history of relevant SCOTUS decisions.
What does hate speech have to do with anything? If someone were to deny the holocaust while simultaneously yelling fire in a crowded theater, does it then become acceptable, or even inevitable, that someone may murder them? This is nonsensical.
Hereās some SCOTUS history: āFire in a crowded theaterā was an analogy SCOTUS used in order to suppress the free speech of immigrants who were protesting US involvement in WWI. Regulating āhate speechā is a horrendous idea for this very reason. Give the government an excuse to suppress āhateā speech and you will quickly find people who are silenced for expressing opinions that qualify as no such thing in your mind, but does to the court.