You should give a damn what she believes: Pamela Geller is flat out dangerous.

[cali]

She has a big megaphone courtesy of Fox. She has a following. She's done real damage. If you believe that white nationalists are dangerous, you better damn well believe Geller is. She spreads hate like poison. She praises the genocide of Muslims, implicitly endorsing genocide. She advocates banning Islam, forced conversions and destroying mosques. There's a reason the SPLC considers her a hate leader. This woman wants a war and she's doing her best to get one going. that is in no way an excuse for the dead shooters.

She's been at this shit for years. From The Southern Poverty Law Center:

Pamela Geller is the anti-Muslim movement's most visible and flamboyant figurehead. She's relentlessly shrill and coarse in her broad-brush denunciations of Islam and makes preposterous claims, such as that President Obama is the "love child" of Malcolm X. She makes no pretense of being learned in Islamic studies, leaving the argumentative heavy lifting to her Stop Islamization of America partner Robert Spencer. Geller has mingled comfortably with European racists and fascists, spoken favorably of South African racists, defended Serbian war criminal Radovan Karadzic and denied the existence of Serbian concentration camps. She has taken a strong pro-Israel stance to the point of being sharply critical of Jewish liberals.

<snip>

Geller began her evolution from blogger to public activist in 2007 when she joined Stop the Madrassa, a project of a group of intense anti-Muslim activists determined to block the opening of a secular public Arabic-English school, the Khalil Gibran International Academy, in Brooklyn, N.Y. The campaign was intended as an early stand in a planned nationwide movement to counteract the efforts of American Muslims to meld into American society, according to one of its leaders, prolific anti-radical Muslim polemicist Daniel Pipes. Though the school ultimately opened anyway, Stop the Madrassa's efforts to cast the school's widely admired founding principal, Dhabah "Debbie" Almontaser, as a radical extremist succeeded in pressuring her to resign.

<snip>
Through her website, Geller has promulgated some of the most bizarre conspiracy theories found on the extreme right, including claims that President Obama is the love child of Malcolm X, that Obama was once involved with a "crack whore," that his birth certificate is a forgery, that his late mother posed nude for pornographic photos, and that he was a Muslim in his youth who never renounced Islam. She has described Obama as beholden to his "Islamic overlords" and said that he wants jihad to be victorious in America. In April 2011, Geller accused Obama of withholding evidence in the then-upcoming trial of accused Fort Hood mass murderer Major Nidal Malik Hasan.

Geller uses her website to publish her most revolting insults of Muslims: She posted (and later removed) a video implying that Muslims practiced bestiality with goats and a cartoon depicting the Muslim prophet Mohammad with a pig's face (observant Muslims do not eat pork). Geller also has denied the genocide of Bosnian Muslims by Serbian forces in Srebrenica – calling it the "Srebrenica Genocide Myth," even though the Serbian government itself issued a state apology for the massacre. She wrote, "Westerners are admitting to their role in something that didn't happen, and digging their own graves."

<snip>

In February 2011, she spoke favorably of Soviet leader Josef Stalin's forced relocation and genocide of Chechen Muslims after World War II, arguing – wrongly – that they were allied with Adolf Hitler. Historians say Chechens were fighting to preserve their own freedom and culture.

Geller's incendiary rhetoric and readiness to deny civil freedoms and the presumption of innocence to Muslims hasn't prevented her from gaining a measure of mainstream acceptability. In late March 2011, she was even invited by the Alaska House of Representatives to testify on a proposed anti-Shariah bill.

<snip>

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/profiles/pamela-geller
http://www.islamophobiatoday.com/2013/02/06/pamela-geller-advocates-banning-islam-demolishing-mosques-deporting-and-killing-muslims/

[phil89]

1. The shooters were more dangerous.

she has free speech.

[nadinbrzezinski]

4. She has free speech to push her speech

right and to the point that she crosses certain legal lines. Like neo nazis she can call for genocide, but once she actually gets to the point of becoming a physical thread...

And there are actual limits to free speech. One of them is incitement. Mind you, in this particular case good luck proving that in a court of law, but rights are not absolute

And yes, she is just as dangerous as a few other big hate filled talkers in the past. I do not see her any differently than father Coughlin for example. And she was as much rights as Rush Limbaugh, who these days is learning some practical limits as well, mind you, not imposed by the state.

Oh and if I had a child in that school system, I would be thinking about keeping the wee one home for a couple days by the way...

[treestar]

9. As a demagogue though she can be dangerous too

Getting people riled up to do things.

[DhhD]

133. Does anybdy know yet if the peope inside the Garland public school center were armed? Texas

Legislature is promoting and passing Open Carry in Texas. I think that Extremist are hoping for a shoot out. Extremists may be planning to draw radicals to an event in Texas, and lawfully open fire.

Police Departments around the state are very upset about open carry laws coming to Texas.

[jeff47]

10. Nope. It's rarely the people actually with the guns who are the most dangerous

And just to Goodwin myself, Hitler didn't shoot anyone personally. Nor is there any record of Stalin personally killing someone.

Both killed more people than any gun-toting idiot can dream of ever hurting. Both were far more dangerous than their individual soldiers.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

126. George Bush and more than a million dead Iraqis.

The people who incite others or send them to kill rarely do their own killing directly in this day and age.

[sabrina 1]

38. She brought those shooters there. They would not have been there had it not been for this

despicable hate monger.

If she's going to claim her right to free speech, then she has to accept the risk she put innocent in.

Let her take her war against Muslims to the ME.

I love how these haters never put THEMSELVES in danger, but have no problem putting the lives of others in danger.

She inspired the Norwegian Mass Murderer of children, she has that on her conscience also.

I notice she disappeared for a while after that was revealed.

She may have the right to free HATE speech in this country, but other civilized nations have banned her.

[skepticscott]

134. They would not have been there

Last edited Tue May 5, 2015, 01:40 PM - Edit history (1)

(With guns, btw) if they had not made a conscious decision to go there, motivated by the dictates of Islam to murder blasphemers. Unless you're arguing that some Muslims are incapable of rational thought and self-restraint in the face of having their feelings hurt.

To repeat: Geller did not put guns in the hands of those people. She did not deprive them of the right to peacefully protest against her crap. THEY and they alone made the deliberate and conscious decision to employ violence and murder as a response to hurt feelings.

[frylock]

65. deeply insightful

[Ms. Toad]

73. It's not a competition.

You can condemn both.

[ncjustice80]

121. She is a poster child for why America needs European style hate speech laws.

She would be in jail in any civilized country.

[duhneece]

124. OUr worship of free speech CAN go too far

Here's more proof. Much of what she says is like shouting, "FIRE" in a crowded theatre.

[d_legendary1]

135. Not quite. Her speech is more like Westboro Baptist than yelling "Fire"

And we all know how the Supremes ruled on that type of speech.

[cbayer]

2. She wants war and doesn't give a shit about the first amendment.

This was an offensive attack that solicited exactly the response she hoped for. Extra added bonus, she gets support from the far right and the far left!

I have seen no one absolving the attackers of blame or responsibility, but I'm seeing lots of that regarding her despicable behavior.

[nadinbrzezinski]

7. Was the hippie punching necesary to make your point?

And yes that is free speech.

[cbayer]

12. Hippie punching? What hippie punching?

[nadinbrzezinski]

16. Here your post

Cbayer (144,016 posts)
2. She wants war and doesn't give a shit about the first amendment.

This was an offensive attack that solicited exactly the response she hoped for. Extra added bonus, she gets support from the far right and the far left!

I have seen no one absolving the attackers of blame or responsibility, but I'm seeing lots of that regarding her despicable behavior.

You realize that you would be more accurate by using the term libertarian... which spans all from the far right, to the center, to the far left.

On Edit: Of course you would have to explain to me what far left means in this country, because it does not mean what it does anywhere else in the world.

[cbayer]

17. Making an observation that someone is getting support from the far left is not hippie punching.

I'm not just referring to libertarians.

[nadinbrzezinski]

21. Those who tend to be absolutists on free speech

tend to have a certain libertarian bent... I am using the term in the political science definition of the term though, Far left among center right democrats, usually means hippies, it is code.

Sorry for bringing this up. But quite honestly it is rather cute, and one reason why traditional alliances in the democratic party are at the moment quite frayed.

With that, I have some to read on actual infrastructure policy, less painful actually than this.

[cbayer]

27. Well, that code for hippie is not familiar to me.

Since I have been a hippie since the age of about 12, it's unlikely that I am going to punch anyone, let alone other hippies.

OTOH, I take strong issue with those who are such purists that they would defend Ms. Geller.

[nadinbrzezinski]

28. Well, now you know that far left is what it is

as to the rest, I am not going to get baited into that conversation.

[KittyWampus]

71. cbayer was not hippie punching. That is an unfair accusation and comes across as a veiled attack.

[nadinbrzezinski]

76. Far left is a well known piece of code

and I will repeat what I told her. No wonder the traditional allies of the democratic party are having second thoughts these days.

[KittyWampus]

83. the "far left" is as accurate a term as "far right". It refers to extremists. Or do you want to try

and make the case that there are no extremists or ideologues on the left? In which case, you'd be almost laughably wrong.

And I reject your assertion far left is some "code".

[nadinbrzezinski]

84. Reject what you want

some of the folks referred here regularly as far left are having second thoughts about their support. No wonder they are...

And it will be quite funny to watch those birds coming home to roost.

Also, as you take me to task, are you going to take every other poster that challenged her in that ridiculous assertion or just me? I love the love, but still.

[KittyWampus]

85. actually, nadin, I voted NOT to hide your veiled attack.

[nadinbrzezinski]

88. What attack

there was none

I just pointed something that is there.

And I will ask again, are you going to take OTHER POSTERS to task?

Oh and as to the allies, labor and more than a few minorities are not happy with dems...so you know exactly what birds are coming home to roost

[Bluenorthwest]

25. I don't see much difference between her and many religious figures and politicians who attack

LGBT people all day, every day. If you do, please explain how they are different. Thanks.

[cbayer]

29. I agree. She is no different than any other hate group listed by the SPLC.

including all of those that spew hate against LGBT people.

Did I imply to you that I somehow thought she was different? Did I imply in some way that I thought religiously based hate groups should get a pass?

[Scootaloo]

40. Where do you get that she is getting support from the "Far left"?

Can you provide examples?

[cbayer]

45. Some of the "First amendment" support for her right here on DU.

That's where I am getting it.

I hope/believe that people will start to back up from that recognize exactly what is going on here.

This isn't about the 1st amendment. She didn't do this as a 1st amendment issue.

But she played 1st amendment advocates beautifully, imo.

There is an alarming amount of support for her here.

[Scootaloo]

49. DU is not "far left"

And i guarantee you, her avid supporters here are not only not "far left' but most are not ANY VARIETY of left. Even beyond this topic, they are consistently right-wingers.

[cbayer]

53. I didn't say DU was far left, but I would say that some that consider themselves far left

post on DU. And I didn't say they were "avid supporters", I just think some have fallen for her well orchestrated bullshit.

[Scootaloo]

70. Are you aware of the concept of "posing"?

That is, pretending to be something you are not, in order to "pass" in a selected group?

[cbayer]

75. Well, of course I am aware. Point taken.

[nadinbrzezinski]

52. Conflating support for the first amendment...

with support for Geller is far from cute.

But I will play... you think that people who believe that the first amendment has no limits are far leftists? I got news for you, this is lack of knowledge of the well trodden case law on actual limits is quite common all over, left, right and center, and it is a failure of the US Educational system. I have seen people I consider to be on all of those posting this absolute defense of the first amendment.

For the record, the show was protected, and getting any judge to agree to incitement will be a really tough road to hoe. But if anybody wants to file, I will follow that one... mostly for the entertainment value. It should be really amusing, given the long precedent.

Does that mean I agree with her views? That be conflating. But strictly from a first amendment perspective, LEGALLY she has not crossed any of those pesky things that would limit her right to free speech in the United States. She gets close regularly, but not over the line. And if you have a problem with this, and why we protect her speech, perhaps you should review why you support something, or not.

You should also become familiar with actual case law before you continue down this line The case in Skokie Ill, where NAZIS IN UNIFORM wanted to march through a neighborhood full of holocaust survivors got even closer to that line and a judge found that they had every right to do it.

I guess that judge was a far lefty.

The OP has a point, her speech is dangerous, but SO FAR... it is still protected. That does not mean she does not belong in a hate list from the SPLC... or a few other things. That is the social penalty that we all can give bigots.

[cbayer]

62. You have completely misstated and /or misunderstood my entire position, but

as you say, as to the rest, I am not going to get baited into that conversation.

Have a nice evening.

[nadinbrzezinski]

64. Have a nice evening

but that is what not just me, got from that post.

[beam me up scottie]

92. You're absolutely right, she conflates supporting 1st amendment with "cheering"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=196166

cbayer (144,047 posts)
76. There are many posts and threads right now championing her 1st amendment rights.

That is what I see as cheering. Many of them were written before some of the advocates really understood who she was and what she was doing.

It is my position that she doesn't give a shit about the 1st amendment and that this event was not about that at all.

So you may disagree with the words I am using, but I'm telling you why I see this as "cheering".

Hope you didn't have to wait too long.

[nadinbrzezinski]

96. apparently pointing out some of this

as not nice on my part.


And now I know why I should reduce my participation... time sink.

[beam me up scottie]

97. Nah, you're on fire here.

And you're far from alone.

[nadinbrzezinski]

99. I know, I know, but I really need to get back to the infrastructure reading

getting a couple books on the economics of it before I go into the policy aspects of it. That is some complicated shit. Recent police shootings have been taking all my reading time for some odd reason

[beam me up scottie]

102. Go, do some good.

Things aren't going to settle down here for days.

[Scootaloo]

106. In many cases, she's correct

I have no problem with saying there are a fucking lot of islamophobes on DU.

There's also a lot of people who are genuinely ignorant and, more to the point, don't really care. They're chasing headlines and trying to look fashionable. Being poor thinkers, their logic works like "well, these two guys who opened fire are obviously wrong, so this Gellar person must be right!"

They have the happy encouragement of the resident islamophobes.

Which results in the actual effect of cheering for Pamela Gellar. Out of ignorance, perhaps, and with the goading of people who honestly do support her, but still cheering.

[beam me up scottie]

109. cbayer conflated "championing her 1st amendment rights" with "cheering".

No doubt there are islamophobes on DU, but she's using a straw man argument to paint us all with the same broad brush.

[Scootaloo]

110. There's some problems there.

First and foremost, Gellar's 1st amendment rights are in no danger. They do not actually need an impassioned defense, for the same reason there does not need to be a "White Entertainment Television." Not only are her 1st amendment rights well-protected, but her outlook is actually a fairly popular one in this country, to boot.

Second, she's actually an opponent of the 1st amendment. she wants media censorship, cheers violence against the press and her opponents, and seeks anti-Islam legislation. To see purported advocates of free speech use Gellar as their cause celebré is rather disturbing.

Third and finally, very few of these people actually give a shit about the 1st amendment. Beyond the people who are simply arguing for the sake of being hip and topical, there really are people who simply use that argument as a cover - it's like Halloween for them, they can go out in their full bigot outfit and so long as they hold up a mask of "1st amendment!" they can pass among the general population. Over in Baltimore, the police have decided that the press be confined to "staging areas" and journalists have been assaulted and their recording devices confiscated if they are found outside those staging areas. I've seen maybe two threads on this violation of the 1st amendment, and none of the Pam Gellar Defense league posters seem to have noticed htem.



I think it says something, when the only time some people speak out about the 1st amendment, is in defense of a bigoted demagogue who is opposed to the 1st amendment, whose rights are actually in no danger.

[nadinbrzezinski]

119. I will agree with you on this

her rights are nowhere at risk. None would be successful in getting standing in any US Court, over incitement. And I mean NONE. Though it will be entertaining to watch

In fact, I would love to see some of the crap that was posted here, about stochastic terrorism in a court of law. That would be digging new legal territory, and if you get standing, I guarantee all the way to the SCOTUS. It might be worthy of pursuing, for a young, enterprising lawyer, with the intent of making legal history... but right now, there is like no case where that has come up. For the record, so we are clear, I believe the research on it is showing more than just promise.

That said, there is quite a bit of conflating going on. Some people are defending her rights becuase they believe in those rights in an absolute way.. that does not mean they are far left, more likely they are classic libertarians..yup, those stretch from the far fringes, to the center and then some, Why Libertarians will likely never see more than third party spoiler. But that is neither here or there. FAR LEFT is a dog whistle, and has been one for decades. People on a political site should be aware of it, but I am not surprised they are not.

Those folks who are absolutists are also wrong. there are actual real limits to speech, but she has yet to cross those lines... in the US. She has done that in places like the UK, but we are special in that respect.

Of course, what I find down right scary is that we have an actual honest to goodness in the courts, attacks on freedom of association and speech, I even posted the story in the morning, and that gets like zero attention. But the lady (who is hate filled) people are enthralled with her. I won't bother with either the internal or external link anymore, Just hint you, California Criminal Code 182.5, google up Tiny Doo. The case is far far from over even if Judge Hanoian threw those charges against Tiny Doo and Aaron Harvey.

I will save what that tells me... to myself. It is far from nice.

Edit, that was odd... with the bold code

And a final edit, I mean libertarians in the classic political science definition, not self political party identification

[Scootaloo]

123. But if one brings up actual violations of free speech, "you're excusing the terrorists"

Same shit I've been hearing for 12 years now.

[nadinbrzezinski]

132. In this case

It has none to do with terrorism. Al to do with zip codes and melanin content The excuse of the day, Gangs and gang documentation

Edit. I had misread your answer.

[AtheistCrusader]

103. That was a thinly veiled 'you win, I got nothing'.

Your point was beautifully stated, and that is what happens when that poster is proven wrong, a tactical 'this is your fault, and I'm leaving'.

She has consistently claimed that Gellar is getting "support" here without linking to any actual posts that "support" her in any manner other than what you just articulated; 'I disagree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it'. Her speech may be vile but it is so far, fully legal, and no excuse for anyone to use force in opposition to her speech.

Support for that principle in no way amounts to support for Gellar as a person or her message. You caught Cbayer, detailed the why and how, and even offered historical precedent. That 'I'm out, you misunderstood me' is actually 'you win'.

[nadinbrzezinski]

105. Ah

now back to infrastructure... been not doing my reading.

[mountain grammy]

55. I would like to see someone on the "far left" supporting Geller..

Please, specifically, who would that be?

[cbayer]

57. There are those giving her cover by seeing this just as a 1st amendment issue,

which is a big mistake. I consider that support. You can use whatever words suit you.

[mountain grammy]

66. I've beeb checking out some liberal sites and not seeing that..

am I not going "far left" enough.

[beam me up scottie]

95. NOBODY is doing that.

No one on DU agrees with what she's saying, they are just supporting her right to say it.

Stop building those straw men, cbayer, stop accusing us of supporting Gellar's message.

[Scootaloo]

107. Actually plenty of people here do agree with what she says

Seriously, divest yourself of the notion that DU is some sainted place of egalitarian purity.

[H2O Man]

3. Recommended.

Thank you for this.

It's interesting to read some of the OP/threads about this general topic. People who know very little about constitutional law are mighty certain that they have a firm grasp of what "free speech" may or may not mean, without being aware of several cases that have, over the years, loosely defined what is allowed, and when.

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. Yup

[cali]

19. you're most welcome. I've found it a bit dispiriting to read some of those posts.

[HappyMe]

5. Yeah but...but free speech!

Thanks for this.

[treestar]

8. I recall people posting that Palin was dangerous

with the things she said in the 2008 campaign. And that was far less than this.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

11. I put her in the same league as David Duke and Rush but less subtle in her bigotry.

[Enthusiast]

77. You nailed it again.

[pampango]

13. Agreed. Usually the far-right is so full of noise about hate and violence that we get used to it.

Often individual far-right hate mongers fade from the scene - either from acting as stupidly as they talk or something else. But other hate mongers do not fade away and grow into something to really fear. It is hard to tell the hate mongers apart while they are still a part of the overall background hate speech that goes on all the time.

History shows that every once in a while a right winger emerges from the pack - either through luck or skill or a combination both - and becomes a serious threat, sometimes much more. And then it may be too late.

Who knows how far Geller will go but she has carved out her own special section of Hell and is good at spewing hate speech at her group of choice - Muslims. We should keep our eyes on her, indeed.

[Maedhros]

14. We have two groups of posters that are talking past one another.

Both are defending the First Amendment.

One group is also saying that even though Gellar's actions are Constitutionally-protected, we should not celebrate her actions. As with the Charlie Hebdo incident, we need not celebrate free speech by doubling down on cultural insults.

If jihadists gun down cartoonists for insulting Islam, we should not make insulting Islam a heroic act.

Just as if deranged Zionists gun down Holocaust deniers, we should not make denying the Holocaust a heroic act.

[MellowDem]

24. I think the problem is...

People are equating the criticism of religion with racism. For many on the right, they often mix, but many on the left find Islam to be a very hateful, violent, bigoted religion, and given its an idea, it's quite possible to criticize Islam and not criticize all Muslims, but many on here can't see the difference.

I think Islam is a bigoted and hateful religion, deserving of contempt and mockery, just for different reasons Geller and her ilk do.

But religion is incredibly privileged, as are the religious, in our society, so criticizing religion is seen as taboo, and not for any good reason.

[The Green Manalishi]

35. Well said

I agree with very word you wrote.

[Arugula Latte]

69. Good post, MellowDem.

[Scootaloo]

81. Except it's not criticism of religion.

yes, the bigots will dredge up quotations from the Koran or Hadith in order to "justify" their arguments. But to imagine that their issues are theological is bizarre and disjointed from reality. They hate the people who practice the religion. Or people who they think might practice it. Or who might be related to people who do. or who happen to look like how they think Muslims look. Republicans do not howl and snarl about how Obama is "secret Muslim who is going to let al-qaeda take over" because they have criticisms of passages in the hadith. Sunando Sen was not shoved in front of a train because the woman behind him had a problem with something written in a surah. Mosques are not vandalized by people who want to have a comparative religion debate. People trying to ban halal aren't actually bothered by the notion of bland meat.

It has nothing to do with "criticism of Islam," it has to do with hatred of Muslims.

[MellowDem]

87. For many on the right, I agree...

But not all criticisms of Islam are like that, many are genuinely opposed to the religion, all the Abrahamic religions, because they're so opposed to progressive values. Yet they're often lumped in with Geller.

[Scootaloo]

89. No, it's not just the right

Don't try to sell me this meme that only right-wingers are able to be bigots, it's manifestly untrue.

No, not all criticism of Islam is bigoted. But boy, don't the bigots love to claim they're "just criticizing Islam"? And of course here you come, eager to eat that line out of their hands. No, mellowDem, someone who calls for obliteration of Muslims is not a critic of Islam. She's a muslim-hating bigot.

And you know what, feed me these lines after you make a couple posts of impassioned defense for those "critics of Judaism," Ernst Zundl and David Irving. Seriously, go to general Discussion and try to rally support for their right to free speech. Defend htem as 'critics of religion,' as you are doing for Gellar and her crew. Maybe throw in some David Duke too - he'll tell you he doesn't hate jews, just that he's very critical of Judaism. What a swell guy, nothing to argue with there.

One OP from you, for each of these men. Not only impassioned defense of Zundl and Irving's rights to free speech - as both men have been arrested multiple times for what they say, it's actually more of an issue for them than it will ever be for Gellar - but also a rally for their viewpoints as being nothing more than criticism of a bigoted, hateful, violent religion.

Post links to the threads you start here, and then we will continue. Sound good?

...of course you won't do it, because you fucking know these guys are anti-Jew bigots. Just as you know Gellar is an anti-Muslim bigot. You know their claims of "criticism of Judaism" is bullshit cover for their hate. You know their yarfing about the "bigoted, hateful, violent nature of Judaism" is meant not as legitimate criticism of the faith, but is an attempt to cast Jews themselves as being those things.

However it is fashionable on DU to rally for Gellar and other Islamophobe bigots, but it is highly unfashionable to rally for antisemites.

[MellowDem]

118. I didn't say Geller was merely a critic...

I do think she is a bigot, and it's no surprise to me, she's another believer in the Abrahamic God after all.

You're right that not everyone on the left is free of bigotry, there are many on the left that are bigoted, but it's usually acceptable as long as it's part of their religion. Pope Francis is an excellent example, a homophobic misogyinstic bigot with many fans on the left. And of course, he was among the first to blame the victim of the Hebdo massacres, saying that you have to expect violence if you criticize religion. Why? Because he's a privileged dickbag who thinks like many believers do, that religion deserves special protection other ideas don't get.

I know Geller is an anti-Muslim bigot, but considering all the Abrahamic faiths are deeply bigoted and hateful, that's not really saying much. If she really believes in that God, in that text, she'd have to be a bigot.

But all of this seems like a deflection from my point, which I guess was your intent. For some reason I now have to post about anti-Semites or some such to make you feel better? What the fuck?

[get the red out]

86. I absolutely agree

Thank you for putting that so well.

[oberliner]

100. Except jihadists actually do gun down cartoonists for insulting Islam

Deranged Zionists do not gun down Holocaust deniers.

In fact, many of the same jihadist folks who feel that drawing a cartoon of the prophet is worthy of death also attend and promote holocaust denial conferences.

We are talking about drawing a simple image of the prophet as being viewed as a crime punishable by death by some Muslims.

[PeaceNikki]

15. She is a hateful dangerous asshole, akin to Westboro assholes.

[cali]

22. she's far, far more dangerous. she has a real following.

You won't see the WBC assholes being invited to address a state legislature and afaik, they have no following. No one takes them seriously. lots of people take Geller seriously.

[Bluenorthwest]

31. But many who preach a more polished version of the same poison are in fact honored and lauded

Shall I post that interview with Rick Warren from days prior to the Inauguration in which he says gay people are like pedophiles and incestuous relationships and other criminals? Taken very seriously, defended on DU. Obama had a surrogate named Donnie McClurkin, who had gone on 700 Club and declared war on gay people 'they are trying to kill our children' and then he was Obama's surrogate Michelle gushed over the bigot. Following.
Then there's the Pope, leader of 43% of Uganda, who flits about the planet saying gay rights are Satan's idea and fighting them is God's war, that we disfigure God, that it is child abuse to allow gay people to have children.
Each year in the US there are around 1500 FBI documented bias crimes against LGBT people, 29 states allow discrimination against us in employment, new laws are proposed almost daily to further limit our equality in the name of religion. And yet people on DU find ways to excuse powerful figures ranting and raving against powerless individuals.

[G_j]

18. I heard her website links

to a site in the UK that advocates the 'cleansing' of Muslims in the UK. (heard on Thom Hartmann)

[totodeinhere]

20. The difference is that she has not been charged with a crime. However what the shooters did was

a crime and if they had been caught alive they would have been prosecuted. But Geller is not being prosecuted because she has committed no crime under our very liberal laws on that topic. If she were in Western Europe they might be able to prosecute her because their anti-hate laws are more strict..

[sabrina 1]

47. She is an accessary to that crime. SHE brought them there and she did it knowingly

That is what she is about. To rouse up the deranged which btw, anyone can do with any group since they exist in every group, to do just what they did.

Then she attempts to convince everyone that ALL Muslims are the same as two deranged individuals.

She inspired Norway's mass killer of children also. Another deranged individual who took her words, among others, as inspiration for the mass murder of innocent children.

So she's an accessory to that awful crime also.

[nadinbrzezinski]

59. Legally proving incitement will be next to impossible

since that requires an actual conspiracy with an actual crime.

So while we might consider that to be the case, I cannot see any DA even considering that.

[totodeinhere]

78. To be charged as an accessory to a crime requires a very strict legal standard. I have

been going over the extensive coverage of this issue and I have seen no indication whatsoever that the authorities are moving to indict her. But perhaps I have missed something. Have you seen any indication that an indictment is imminent?

[closeupready]

23. Agreed. K&R

[markpkessinger]

26. Geller is a FAR bigger threat to 'the American way of life' than any jihadist will ever be! n/t

[spanone]

30. k&r...

[theboss]

32. She's dangerous. More so, because she's chosen a group with members who will react violently to her

There is nothing you can propose that I will support in terms of limiting her speech. Mainly, because Christians, Jews, Scientologists, and whoever else should not be protected from criticism either.

I've been hoping for her to go away for years. This event has guaranteed that she is NEVER going away. All her years of bigotry have finally been validated in her view.

[Jackpine Radical]

33. Free speech is always dangerous.

The problem lies in the fact that the alternative is more dangerous.

[erronis]

41. Simple and correct analysis. Thanks.

[jeff47]

116. And false claims to free speech?

Geller has called for banning Al Jazeera from the US.

So, free speech for Geller. Not so much for anyone not-Geller.

[Jackpine Radical]

117. She disgusts me.

Nevertheless, she has the right to express her fucked-up mind.

[cali]

130. what does that have to do with my op? Nothing.

I am not advocating for abrogating free speech. I am pointing out that this person is dangerous. I'm using my right to speech to explain why.

[SoapBox]

34. White Nationalists...that is a title I've been needing.

So I wonder if she goes to church, each and every Sunday?

Does she pray? Does she ask for forgiveness? Does she participate in Bible study? Or church socials? Or "Ladies Auxillary"?

Just ask'n...I'm so over these so called "Christians".

[Rex]

36. Gee...a known hate group, led by an anti-Islamist purposly try and provoke violence

and them people FREAK OUT when they get their wish!?!

We live in an amazing stupid country.

[theboss]

37. Are the Muslims unable to control themselves?

You infantilizing them is the opposite side of Gellar's "savage" coin.

[Scootaloo]

68. No one is infantilizing Muslims

No, obviously Muslims are as good at self-control as anyone else. Maybe better, given the shit they catch in the US simply for existing.

However there are fuckwits in any community. Gellar actually counts on those fuckwits - they make money for her, by "proving her right." She's obviously not only aware of them, but has financial cause to want to promote them. She of course had to know that her trolling would eventually dredge up a fuckwit to make her job that much easier, in fact that was likely the entire plan (you don't really think that someone who wants to obliterate an entire religion is a defender of the 1st amendment, do you?)

[Rex]

113. Actually theboss did just that! Funny how he/she thought ALL of Islam when I mentioned

a KNOWN hate group...oh well, guess my post rubbed them the wrong way.

[Scootaloo]

114. Yeah, "The Muslims" is a pretty obvious tell, isn't it?

[Rex]

115. It is! Good eye there!

[frylock]

74. no, but individuals are sometimes unable to control themselves

[Rex]

112. Funny how you associated 'hate group' with ALL of Islam...just a slip of the tongue right?

Seriously, not even a good try.

[Jack Rabbit]

39. If I read the OP last week, I would have dismissed it without a second thought.

Today, I'm not so sure.

I knew about most of this information above credited to SPLC, but not about her vocal support for Serbian fascists or Stalin's maltreatment of Chechens. Nevertheless, her penchant for denial and historical revision is evident from her comments on Córdoba, the great city built by the Moors during their rule in Spain.

Today, I read about the incident in Texas where at least two radical Islamic gunmen shot up an Islamophobic demonstration organized by Ms. Geller. She may as well have put a target on the event. She certainly should have known that if she kept running her big mouth that something like this would happen sooner or later.

Pam Geller is a liar, a bigot and a provocateur. Personally, I can live with her being an liar and bigot. It's obnoxious, but I am an American, just like the late Richard Nixon. However, when he hatred passes to provocation, then Ms. Geller ceases to to be merely exercising her right to free speech and becomes a threat to public safety.

I'm sure she has a passive/aggressive "Who? Me? I didn't fire shot" response all ready for us.

[olddots]

42. I was under the assumption that she is right wing Jewish

Time to do some research before I go nutso but lets hope she doesn't get more fame &followers .

[Tommy_Carcetti]

43. She's Livia Soprano. nt

[bigtree]

44. she's going to dig her own hole

...and the rest of the republican field will jump right in.

Why do people give these cretins so much credit? These demagogues can be defended against. I expect they will be, handily.

[pnwmom]

46. I have seen quite a number of DU posters make comments about Christianity similar to what she makes

about the Muslim religion.

And they're routinely allowed here, unless posted in a safe "group."

[Scootaloo]

51. Really, you've seen DU'ers call for mass murder of Christians, and it's allowed to stay?

Do give some links.

[pnwmom]

93. I wasn't aware she had called for mass murder. nt

[Scootaloo]

101. Not only calls for it, but defends it when it happens.

You can read about her support and defense for Anders Breivik here.

[Bluenorthwest]

54. I see Christians regularly say gay people are criminals. Rick Warren, days before the inaugural

called us all pedophiles. The Pope says our rights are Satan's idea. I see Christians trying to pass laws to make sure they don't have to sell a pizza to a gay person.
I mean, cast your bread upon the waters. Do unto others as you would have others do unto you. Stop punching, you might stop getting punched. It's not rocket science.

[pnwmom]

98. I don't disagree with you about that. I'm just saying that Keller's speech against

Muslims is similar to anti-Christian speech that takes place here, and deserves the same 1st amendment protections.

[Arugula Latte]

72. We are allowed to criticize rightwing institutions on DU, no?

A lot -- A LOT -- of Christian sects/churches are rightwing, homophobic, misogynistic, and fighting to take rights away from gays and women.

So, yeah, we say a lot of stuff against religious institutions. Just because something is attached to no-evidence supernatural belief doesn't give it a protective bubble. If we're allowed to criticize the rape-and pillage RNC, we should be allowed to criticize the rape-and-pillage RCC.

[pnwmom]

94. Of course. I'm just saying that her free speech against Muslims has been similar

to some free speech against Christians that I've seen here.

[cali]

120. utter bullshit

And I have often spoken out against the anti Christian crap I've seen here, but I've seen nothing that is close to what geller spews

[Fred Sanders]

48. You are either with the Southern Poverty Law Center assessment of Gellar and company, or you

are with the provocateurs and racists and bigots who purposely incite and provoke and then pretend they had nothing do with it.

Running to Fox to lay down the well worn Victim Card was as predictable as Gellar's racism and bigotry and genocidal mania.

There is a reason "provocation" is legally recognized as mitigation for an offence.

Does not matter the context, race or religion, you beat the hornet's nest with a stick you shoulder some of the consequences and you can not absolve yourself of blame if some of the fringier hornets sting.

Isn't that what the violent bigots always want, a violent reaction, circa 2008 and Palin?

Gellar employs the same tactics as ISIS to provoke a response.

[Lobo27]

50. What she is doing is making people freak out.

Got a call today from a friend that is a contractor, and he told some of his guys were yelled at from cars. "No Muslims." Most of his workers are hispanics and wear sweat bandana. So a large portion of their head is covered. Ignorance is bliss...

They were working Garland.

[silvershadow]

56. Like Orly Taitz on steroids. nt

[orpupilofnature57]

58. She's the " FIRE!!! " in a crowded theater clause . n/t

[Enthusiast]

60. Pamela Geller is a loon!

[Tom Ripley]

61. She also has very lucrative ties to organized crime...

Geller’s Wealth from Corruption, Fraud; Dealership She Co-Owned Supplied Cop-Killer Getaway Car

Pam Geller’s N.Y. Times profile reveals her enormous wealth including a $4-million divorce settlement, a $5-million life insurance on the death of her ex-husband, Michael Oshry (her married name was Pamela G. Oshry), and a portion of the $2-million sale of the Hewlett Harbor home she jointly owned with Oshry. All of which allows her to live in luxury on an entire floor of upper Eastside condo.

What isn’t as well-known, and was whitewashed from her Times profile, is that the basis of her wealth is a criminal enterprise. Michael Oshry, her ex-husband who died of an alleged heart attack in 2008, owned a large Long Island car dealership which operated a scam allowing buyers to purchase cars using fraudulent identities. Such a scam is perfect for organized crime and others seeking to use cars in the commission of felonies. In fact, one such vehicle was used by a former car salesman to murder two New York City police officers. An employee who discovered the scam was murdered execution-style.

http://www.richardsilverstein.com/2010/10/13/gellers-wealth-from-corruption-fraud-mayve-facilitated-cop-killing/

[underpants]

90. Interesting

[mountain grammy]

63. It would not surprise me in the least

and I'm probably far out, but I wouldn't put it past Geller to have somehow set the whole thing up.

Call me crazy, but she is one hateful and mean person.

[nadinbrzezinski]

67. If an investigation reveals that

then you cross the threshold into honest and goodness conspiracy. I mean the legal definition of it.

[mountain grammy]

79. I wouldn't put it past her, because what good is her little stunt

without some good old Muslim violence and bloodshed. Think about it.. no national publicity, no hysteria. The event almost got to the end of the day with no incident, no demonstrations. Geller must have been frantic for some violence to get the media worked up and start screaming about free speech, blah, blah, blah. It's not like there's no historical precedent for this kind of action.

I smell a rat and she stinks to high heaven.

[nadinbrzezinski]

82. It is not me who has to think about it

it is the investigators and the prosecutors and by the way, if this (likely) hits the hate crime and terrorism wickets... they are still looking, those are hard roads to hoe, then we will see where the task force takes this.

I will wait to see what they uncover though. I am sure a few personal computing devices might make a trip to Quantico as well.

[blm]

80. Exactly!!! Not a single one of us has excused violent retaliation.

Not a single one of us BELIEVES violent retaliation is appropriate in this case or any other case.

However we will not willfully blind ourselves to the ENTIRE picture of what has been going on here and planned for some time.

Those headlines pushed around the last few months on RW propaganda sites were already setting up for the result they expected for this hate-filled event - ISIS Attacking Texas. Put it all together. Timelines rarely lie.

[WinkyDink]

104. In general, yes, she is hateful. So she insults Muslims. So? Are they somehow to be immune?

[locks]

108. Even more worrisome to me

is that we learned Geller had brought Geert Wilders (with bodyguards) from the Netherlands to speak at this "cartoon contest." Unlike Geller, Wilders is a powerful international figure. Netherlands is one of the most liberal countries of Europe but Wilders is the leader of the country's fourth largest party, the Party of Freedom. He was banned from entering the UK in 2009 but the ban was overturned in court. His following has grown immensely in Europe where most countries are straining under the the numbers of immigrants and refugees, mostly Muslim, entering their countries.
If you can stomach it, take time to read what Mr. Wilders has been preaching and writing the past decade all over the world including here. And be very afraid........

[Gothmog]

111. Geller is a sicko and sad hate monger

I really dislike this lady a great deal and the SPLC is being kind to her in their writeup

[brooklynite]

125. Congrats! You have Donald Trump in your corner...

Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump · 12h 12 hours ago
Nobody would fight harder for free speech than me but why taunt, over and over again, in order to provoke possible death to audience. DUMB!

[cali]

127. In case you haven't noticed, I also have the SPLC in my corner

not to mention scores of liberals, but hey, you want to defend her, go for it!. I can't say I'm terribly shocked. And the inference that I'm somehow allying myself in any way with trump, is not only rahther silly, my dear brooklynite, it's nasty.

[davidthegnome]

128. These assholes don't scare me.

Nor should they frighten any of us. They are the equivalent of hate filled children - minds and hearts full of venom and rage, but without the benefits of wisdom, humility and compassion. I would have far more fear of the anger of a gentle person, than I would ever have fear of Geller and those of her ilk. A whole person - a whole human being, consists of far more than those like Geller could conceive of.

She will undoubtedly appeal to a particular group of racist, angry, bible/chest thumping individuals. Whatever we remember about Stalin, Hitler, Mao - and those like them, it is also important to remember that, ultimately, they failed. The nobility, the beauty and the glory of the human will, of human compassion - ultimately left them to rot, to be remembered by history for the villains, for the ignorant assholes that they really were.

I was, at one point in my life, nearly consumed by hatred. So I know somewhat of what I speak. Yes, they are dangerous, they can harm you, they can kill you. The far greater danger though, is that which they pose to themselves, the certainty that, if they continue in this way, they will live a life of suffering and pain that is nearly incomprehensible to the rest of us. I would far rather die a thousand deaths, than ever let their philosophies, their hatred and their ignorance infect me.

In the end, humanity - and our nobility of spirit, our determination to make things better, our will to live, to thrive - to learn and to enlighten... these things will outlast and overpower any number of Gellers, Hitlers, or Stalins.

Don't be afraid of them. Pity them. On the inside, they are truly hideous - and already defeated.

[locks]

129. Thank you davidthegnome

I believe, with you, that love and respect, not hate, will change hearts and minds.