You are missing my point. You are correct good judgment is not a pre-requisit of free speech nor is not offending people. There are lots of situations when conditions are imposed on free speech, not yelling fire in a theater being the most famous. Almost as famous are the restrictions that apply to inciting violence. In this case Geller held an event that could reasonably have been expected to incite nut cases to violence. Geller’s actions are sort of like waiving a cape in front of a bull. I have to wonder if first amendment protections are available to Geller if the security guard seeks damages.
I get and appreciate my point, I don’t want to repeat so please see my question a little above about my concern about “inciting.”
Criticizing the choice of what was said is not the same thing as contesting her right to say it.
So:
1)) Good judgement is not a prerequisite of free speech… but it may be a prerequisite of survival. We urge speakers not to put other people at risk.
-
Same as above with respect to offending people.
-
Yes, we should have some limits of free speech. The classic one is shouting FIRE in a crowded theater. Criticizing the content of free speech does not qualify the support for free speech. The statement is – I support your right to free speech but deplore the use you made of it.
Only comment on 3) again is my comment above that “shouting fire in a theater” is a direct provocation NOT defined by the one who hears it. But to say what they did is the same seems unfair to be. I’ll stick to the example of if you think my handing out kittens is a violent act it doesn’t make it an incitement to violence. By the same argument saying I am an atheist is an “incitement to violence” in the eyes of the highly religious.
You are conflating two ideas: Incitement – which is produces violence by urging people to do it and Fighting words – which produce violence by predictably provoking people into it. You might find this link to the fighting words article at WIKI helpful in thinking about it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words
As a whole as our society has found that the world does not end if free speech is allowed, we’ve moved from controlling speech to making listeners control their reactions.
Why are you fighting with me. We are pretty much saying the same thing.
Thank you, that is interesting indeed. And to my highly disturbing. Again I guess I am a free speech absolutist. I think you statement is perfect: listeners need to learn to control their reactions in a modern and pluralistic society.
The First Amendment protects the content of the speech, but not necessarily its presentation. SCOTUS historically holds “fighting words” to provoke an expectable (“imminent danger”) violent or destructive reaction as unprotected by the Constitution. Americans, regardless of inclination, can and should be expected to support this longstanding application of the First. Therefore, it is not “liberal” hypocrisy to condemn Geller and Spencer for the intent of their Muhamed Hassenfest.
But the prohibition concerning fighting words is still one of the best known limitations on free speech. Geller has a real problem if the security guard sues.
I am by no means a lawyer nor do I have any expertise on the details of the case history on this. I find this discussions highly illuminating (thank you all who are educating us) and at the same time disturbing only in what is accepted as limitations on free speech. I always hoped there would be much less actual limits than there appears to be.
I in no way support the intentions or motives of the event, but will still stand by the fact that what they did SHOULD be completely acceptable in a pluralistic free society. And whether we like it or not the shooters only strengthen the twisted version of the organizers reality. But it is fact: it happened.
One of the reasons Geller has a problem is she or somebody working for her anticipated there might be serious trouble otherwise they wouldn’t have spent $10,000 on extra security. Since nobody but a Muslim would care about a cartoon of the Prophet and since nutjob Muslims have a history of extreme violence, I don’t think anybody is going to say the rent-a-cops were there to stop fist fights or cross words. Thankfully one of the rent-a-cops they hired had the same skill set as Dirty Harry.
how come nobody mocks jesus in this country? i’d like to see that.