Pamela Geller and the First Amendment

[NaturalHigh]

Think what you want about Pamela Geller, but her Muhammad cartoon event was absolutely protected by the First Amendment. In fact, the event was exactly what the First Amendment was written to protect. Nobody gets worked up when people organize popular events, but expression that offend people must also be protected. When people are offended by speech or expression, that's when the First Amendment protection is especially important.

If someone organized and event where the purpose was to insult Jesus, I would be offended and sickened. I would still defend the organizers' right to conduct the event, however.

For those who think that the Geller event somehow falls outside First Amendment protection, you're just wrong. It's understandable if you don't like what she did, but what she did was perfectly legal.

[Vattel]

1. You are absolutely correct. The first amendment even protects calls for violent jihad.

[Yorktown]

14. Don't think so. That would be incitement.

The limit is when one calls for physically harming people.

[Vattel]

16. That is incorrect.

The first amendment protects advocacy of violence, even criminal violence. A speech calling for violent jihad is protected, for example, but a speech where you say, for example, "go get guns and shoot the pastor of the Our Savior Baptist Church" is not protected. See Brandenburg SCOTUS case if you don't believe me.

[Yorktown]

20. I'll trust you, but I have a question

The two following propositions seem conflicting:

The first amendment protects advocacy of violence, even criminal violence.

a speech saying "go get guns and shoot the pastor of the Our Savior Baptist Church" is not protected.

Example: let's say I advocate criminal violence against pastors of Baptist Churches: protected?
But "go get guns and shoot Joe Smith, pastor of the Our Savior Baptist Church" is not protected?

[Vattel]

25. Sorry, that was pretty sloppy on my part. Let me be more precise:

In the Brandenburg decision, SCOTUS ruled that the government cannot restrict inflammatory speech unless that speech is directed to inciting, and is likely to incite, imminent lawless action. So if in general terms I simply call for violent jihad, my speech is protected; but if I say to someone who is likely to do my bidding that he ought to go get a gun right now and shoot so-and-so, then my speech is not protected.

[Yorktown]

29. Well then, please clarify the SCOTUS ruling for me, please

Please explain further (it's late, I'm not going to google the Brandenburg decision now)

If you say SCOTUS ruled the government can "restrict inflammatory speech (if) that speech is directed to inciting (..) imminent lawless action", then jihad qualifies.

(To be fair and exhaustive, I use jihad in its most common usage, not in its junior, and two other ultra kminor acceptions) Jihad as in: "let's wage jihad on the infidels and idolaters".

Because in that case, jihad is very clear = forcible submission (by means of armed struggle)
and "infidels and idolaters" is just a larger category that "pastors of Baptist Churches"

As for Joe Smith, pastor of the Baptist Church of our Savior, he deserves whatever comes to him, he's a regular bad apple

[Vattel]

42. Except that if I merely recommend violent jihad, that needn't create an imminent threat.

To change the example, if someone gives a speech to a crowd of armed Nazis next door to a synagogue and says: "Let the ethnic cleansing begin," that might be likely to incite imminent violence against the synagogue or people in it. Then the speech would not be protected. But it might well be protected if someone stood on a corner and distributed pamphlets that recommend ethnic cleansing to passersby. It all depends on whether one's words predictably create an imminent threat.

[Yorktown]

45. Gotcha. Then the amendment might need to be amended

Let's take your example:

if someone gives a speech to a crowd of armed Nazis next door to a synagogue and says: "Let the ethnic cleansing begin," that might be likely to incite imminent violence against the synagogue or people in it. Then the speech would not be protected. But it might well be protected if someone stood on a corner and distributed pamphlets that recommend ethnic cleansing to passersby. It all depends on whether one's words predictably create an imminent threat.

My name is Adolf Hitler, a more outspoken one than the one with the funny moustache. I distribute leaflets trying to convince voters to help me become POTUS, and my program is to build giant gas chambers to kill all the people I disagree with (Jews, gays, Roms and Joe Smith, the pastor or our Savior Baptist Church).

Technically, I do not "predictably create an imminent threat": I might not be elected, and if I ever was, it might be in an election later than 2016. And yet, if I gain a substantial support in the electorate (let's take 10%), I will hold giant rallies were I will radicalize huge numbers in the belief we must kill Jews, gays, Roms and Joe Smith, the pastor or our Savior Baptist Church.

In which case, would argue I represent a significant threat to the Constitution. Not to mention civil peace.

PS: disclaimer: The above text is for rhetorical purposes only. My name is not Adolf Hitler and I do not want to kill Jews, gays, Roms and Joe Smith, the pastor or our Savior Baptist Church.

[Vattel]

46. I like the amendment the way it is, erring on the side of freedom from govt. interference.

But reasonable people can disagree about where the line should be drawn.

[Yorktown]

47. Yup. Grey areas are interesting subjects.

But I would feel uncomfortable with free speech for a Hitler with 10% of the vote.

We take the immortality of democracies for granted.

[yeoman6987]

31. Not at all

What she did was put a cartoon project together. If it was anti Jesus, the outcome would have been vastly different.

[Yorktown]

36. Not sure Jesus groupies are incapable of murder threats

recently, an atheist cartoonist had to cancel his speech at an atheist conference due to death threats.

From a Christian. Calling himself God's little helper..

[yeoman6987]

38. Was it in the United States?

I find it hard to believe if it was.

[Luminous Animal]

44. Yes. In the US

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/08/09/bible-parody-book-author-skips-conference-after-receiving-death-threats-but-attendees-are-honoring-him-another-way/

And Sam Harris travels with a security detail because of the threats he receives.

[Warpy]

2. Oh, the government can't arrest her over this stunt

but I have to question the judgment of the local school district for allowing this sort of hateful grandstanding in their school system. What the hell were they thinking? Are the neo Nazis and KKK next on the list for using the local schools to springboard their hate?

Geller has a perfect right to be a hate filled, twisted caricature of a human being. I just have to question anyone who would give her quasi official backing by allowing her to organize an anti Muslim event in the schools.

The kiddies did learn a lesson about free speech: it isn't absolute. While the government will tolerate it in all its forms, individuals who are offended tend to hit back. This time it was a couple of yahoos who made themselves easy to spot with Kevlar and assault guns and now they are no more. The next time, the group taunted by a rhetorical stick in the eye might be a little more subtle and the carnage worse.

I have no use for Geller and her gang and I have no use for thin skinned Muslims with guns. I just wish they'd take each other on and leave the rest of us out of it.

[KittyWampus]

24. I was wondering… do you think the venue could be help liable in civil court

for hosting the exhibit containing hate speech but failing to secure it adequately?

I am just wondering.

Edit- I am an artist and used to do some low-level underground cartoons years and years ago. I might have wandered into that exhibit by accident or design.

[GGJohn]

33. How was this not secured adequately?

There was police SWAT team there, the 2 terrorists didn't even make it 20' from their car before being killed by police.
Seems pretty adequate to me.

[Warpy]

58. They did secure it adequately

The two wannabe Jihadists are dead.

[Yorktown]

30. Why do you call this "hateful grandstanding"?

Even if they are firebrands, the Garland show folks are expressing their angst at the risk Islam (as currently defined) poses to democracies. They do it with cartoons, they could do it with texts, they are just raising a valid question.

You just want to brush aside the question because they put it on display in an in-your-face way.

But it still isn't hateful.
Fearful, maybe.

[Warpy]

59. I would refer you to equivalent displays in this country

like gallery shows by Robert Mapplethorpe or a little item called "Piss Christ."

Free speech and freedom of expression mean the government doesn't interfere. However, it does open you to retaliation by people, especially religious people, who take exception to your "art."

It was hateful grandstanding, the kind Geller specializes in. The consequences were two guys who took exception to it shot dead outside it.

Some free speech is worth dying over. This wasn't.

[Yorktown]

60. Some free speech is not worth dying over???

Define the areas of free speech you are willing to surrender?

To the exception of incitement to violence, once you give one inch of free speech, it's dead.

After Charlie Hebdo, the Danish cartoons and Theo van Gogh, hateful as she is,
Geller was making a real point. As the shooters demonstrated.

The spirit of the Alamo is not to give in to cartoon dictators. IMHO.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

3. The question shouldn't be whether her little contest was 1st Amendment protected, because it was.

The question should be why anyone believes Pam Geller was being motivated by the 1st Amendment in pulling this stunt.

[NaturalHigh]

4. No, I don't think the First Amendment was her motivation.

MY OP is in response to a few posters who think for some reason that her actions are illegal and not covered by the Fist Amendment.

[PeaceNikki]

5. So, do you think that one should only be protected by it if they were motivated by it?

That's so WEIRD that you keep bringing that up. Her motivation is not relevant.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

7. No.

I'm saying that people who claim that they are motivated by the 1st Amendment but in fact are motivated for other self-serving reasons should be called out as hypocrites. It's pretty simple.

[PeaceNikki]

9. Oh, hooray!

[NCTraveler]

10. Then call them out.

Right now your obfuscation is clouding your argument. I don't think any duer has said her main or secondary motivation was the 1A.

[Bonx]

6. Doesn't matter what her motivations are

if her actions are legal.

[Lizzie Poppet]

12. Precisely.

I can (and do) despise what I'm pretty damned sure are nefarious motivations on Geller's part. But I have no problem whatsoever with sending clear, unequivocal messages (a la Charlie Hedbo) that the threat of violence from murderous fanatics will never, ever trump free speech.

[NaturalHigh]

13. "the threat of violence from murderous fanatics will never, ever trump free speech."

That's what I hope everybody learns; No matter what they do, they can never tear down our Constitution unless we let them.

[JaneyVee]

18. True, but her hypocrisy is hilarious.

[KittyWampus]

26. It does, morally.

[NCTraveler]

8. I have yet to see people on du claiming her motivations to be the 1 A.

Yet you repeatedly keep saying that is so. Can you provide a link where a duer is claiming her motivation was the 1A. If not, you are making a completely baseless argument over and over again.

"The question should be why anyone believes Pam Geller was being motivated by the 1st Amendment in pulling this stunt."

I cannot find any members of du who would give evidence to this sentence of yours being accurate in any way at all.

[X_Digger]

15. Did you stuff that straw man all by yourself, or was it pre-stuffed?

Somehow I don't recall Gellar (or someone here on DU) claiming that she was motivated by the 1st amendment.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

50. Are you freaking kidding me?

The woman has been practically dry humping a copy of the First Amendment non-stop for the past three days.

She expressly billed her little stunt as a "free speech event". Her organization is ironically called the "American Freedom Defense Initiative."

These are her exact words:

Geller took to her own website shortly after the incident, writing, "This is a war. This is war on free speech."

http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/03/us/mohammed-drawing-contest-shooting/

Of course she's painting herself as some sort of free speech martyr here.

Problem is, she doesn't actually care for the First Amendment.

[X_Digger]

54. "After the incident" .. did you forget that you were saying that the 1st was the motivation?

Remember your statement about 'end game' as though one has to have the right motivations to exercise a right?

*snort*

[Tommy_Carcetti]

56. Yeah. *snort*

Clearly you can't admit that you were wrong that Geller wasn't wrapping herself in the First Amendment over this entire sad incident.

For someone who is way too quick to call someone else's position a strawman (even when its not), you seem more than fine using that tactic yourself.

I never said one has to have an end game to justify First Amendment protection. I said the end game is important in determining whether one is actually exercising their First Amendment privileges for the sake of free expression, versus someone whose First Amendment protection of their expression may merely be incidental to whatever they were seeking to do.

The end game analysis is a valuable tool in order to determine whether one is a hero in the eyes of the First Amendment or merely using it as an excuse for other self-serving actions. And Pamela Geller would fall into the latter category, I hope you would agree.

[X_Digger]

61. I do agree, but it doesn't matter one damned bit.

A right is a right is a right, even when exercised by a piece of excrement like Gellar.

[WinkyDink]

21. I don't care what her motive was, as long as it was legal.

[sufrommich]

11. Yep. Everyone should have learned this from any

basic civics class.

[JaneyVee]

17. BUT GELLER DOESN'T STAND FOR THE 1st Amendment.

I agree her event is protected by 1A, but she does not care about free speech. She calls for bans on Islam, she tried to get a mosque not built, she calls for violence against muslims, etc.

[WinkyDink]

19. The First Amendment stands for us, not the other way around. She can say whatever the hell she wants

to, as you JUST DID. Should she be able to retaliate for your post, to sue you for defamation because you "offended" her?

[gollygee]

22. That's actually a limit to free speech

You can sue someone for slander or libel if they defame you, however what they say has to be completely false. So while I agree with your first point, that isn't a very good example. She couldn't sue for this specific point but she could sue someone for defamation if they said something completley false that defamed her.

[JaneyVee]

23. Sue me for telling the truth?

[Blue_Adept]

27. I'm sorry, but why?

"If someone organized and event where the purpose was to insult Jesus, I would be offended and sickened."

Why would you be offended? Why sickened? Think about the impulse that makes you feel that way and examine it to take it so personally that it would sicken you.

[NaturalHigh]

37. Because of my religious beliefs.

It's not unusual for people to be offended when their religious beliefs and the deities they worship are insulted. The difference is I wouldn't shoot anyone.

[Blue_Adept]

39. But why take offense?

Why take it to that level, so personally? Does what they do diminish your belief?

[NaturalHigh]

41. My religious beliefs ARE personal.

No, insults don't diminish my beliefs, but I do take offense to them. That's why I mostly stay out of the Religion Group on DU. II have no desire to read posts telling me how stupid I am for being a Christian.

[vi5]

28. It's the hypocricy

While I don't agree with everything Bill Maher says, he is at least across the board consistent in his goal to offend religious sensibilities. All of them. Christian as much as if not more than Muslim.

I can guarantee Ms. First Amendment Geller would absolutely not participate in and would probably be offended by some anti-Christianity event similar to the anti-Muslim one she herself arranged.

[Psephos]

49. The "hypocrisy" is your argument that 1A speech must be equal-opportunity.

1A exists solely to protect speech that others find offensive. There is no need for protection of unoffensive speech.

[vi5]

53. Never said it "must" be equal opportunity.

I was talking about my own take on all of this. I'm an atheist. I find all religion ridiculous, especially the idea of taking offense at certain depictions or statements or satire, etc.

The hypocrisy I was referring to, and what offends me is idiots like Geller and her wingnut republican ilk who hide behind the first amendment when it comes to them wanting to piss off one religion, when I would be everything I own that they would never support or defend art or protest or whatever that did the equivalent to Christianity or Judaism.

I'm an ACLU first amendment absolutist. I think it protects all of it. I have nothing but contempt for people who selectively stand behind it only when it comes to their own beliefs or prejudices.

[deathrind]

32. The 1st Protects Speech

From the government restricting it. But the SC has already defined what that speech is. You cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theater and claim a 1st amendment right from charges relating to the people who were trampled and hurt or killed in the rush to get out of the theater and that is exactly what this was. They anticipated violence which really makes this even worse than the theater scenario.

[NuclearDem]

40. This is not shouting fire in a theater.

The argument about fire in a theater is that doing so causes a panic and fear for people's lives. Someone who ends up trampling another another isn't held liable--the person who incited a false panic is.

Two jackasses drove all the way from Arizona to shoot up the event. There was no panic, there was no fear.

Geller's a troll, and these two jackasses fed the troll.

[deathrind]

52. I disagree.

Had this event been anything other than what it was, say a Stamp Collector / Scrap Booking / Star Trek event etc. then I would agree. But history provides more than enough evidence (both recently and long term) of the violence associated with this type of exact action (cartoons of a certain believed deity). The organizers cannot sit back and say gosh we had no idea this might happen. They incited the violence which makes them culpable for the outcome.

It is no different than how we hold the bar partly responsible for serving more alcohol to a person who is already drunk and then causes a fatal accident.

[chelsea0011]

34. These were all the same issues raised by people when the KKK marched in Skokie

We all knew the real reasons the KKK wanted to march just as we all know Geller's real reason. But both were protected. But both created powder kegs just waiting to happen.

[underahedgerow]

35. She did nothing illegal. Distasteful and provocative, attention seeking, 'terrorist baiting", HELL

yes. What she and her creeps do is disgusting. However, the choice to allegedly attack that gathering is more horrific and if lives were threatened, then self defense was necessary.

I don't see a big difference between Geller and her band of nuts and the nuts that attacked them. Is the world a worse-off place if they all choose to kill each other?

[oberliner]

43. Do you find images of Bush modified to make him look like a chimp to be distasteful and provocative?

I'm also curious if you seen any of the cartoons from this event.

[underahedgerow]

48. I did, yes. I found it childish and silly and failed to see the humor in making bush look like

anything other than the ass he is, since he does it well enough on his own.

While I find this sort of 'artistic expression' to be utter nonsense, I find it more nonsensical that people get themselves riled up over gods that exist purely in the imaginations of supposedly rational, thinking human beings, belying and in fact refuting that very premise upon which they exist.

I think both sides are utter morons and don't find the world to be worse off without them. Darwin rules.

Back in the days of the gang wars going on, that crips and bloods, the east coast/west coast rivalry crap, all I could conclude is that we were better off without those sorts of idiots. I figured it was better to let themselves kill each other off and do us all a favor.

I also think the same thing about the nuts in the middle east, the morons in ISIS and whatever other radical fanatical nutjobs are trotting around facing off against each other; let em kill each other and better yet, let them do it far away from the rest of civilization. The smart ones of the cultures hopefully will have found a way to leave the areas and save themselves while the idiots of the cultures kill themselves off, saving the planet from further reproduction and infestation.

Migration is fascinating to study and observe. I find that the more intelligent members of a species are the ones to move first; to go further, to explore, to find a better life, more food, safer climes, etc. It's the ones who stay behind who are the less evolved and less likely to advance as a species. It's no mystery to me that the members of the human race who have migrated furthest from the cradle of life in southern Africa to the US West Coast could be considered to have advanced the human race the most, at least in terms of technology.
And it's no further mystery that the humans who have ventured the least distance from their origins are still killing each other over imaginary gods and offenses that exist only in their limited imaginations.

And no, I haven't seen the cartoons from this exhibit... just not interested.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

51. And water is wet.

Of course it was legal, did you see any cops shutting it down? I didn't.

The First Amendment protects you against GOVERNMENT interference in your speech. It does squat to protect you from bullets fired by random nutcases.

[NaturalHigh]

57. My OP was directed to the few people...

who don't think the Geller event was protected by the First Amendment. That doesn't mean that I'm endorsing it.

[UTUSN]

55. "Think what you want about Pamela Geller" - and I will. n/t