Posted on 05/09/2015 3:06:30 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
The defense of free expression should become stronger in the face of violent threats, not weaker.
Pamela Geller, president of the American Freedom Defense Initiative, is a nasty-hearted Islamophobe. But should she be blamed for the recent armed attack on her cartoon exhibit in Garland, Texas, in which two gunmen were killed and a police officer was wounded? Writing for Bloomberg View, Harvard law professor Noah Feldman opined that she may be “morally culpable,” on the theory that she probably hoped to “provoke violence.” Feldman has erred badly here.
Although Feldman begins by condemning the terrorists, he quickly cautions his readers not to be “distracted” by either the crime or the First Amendment; the real question, he argues, is whether Geller was “morally right or wrong” to stage an event featuring offensive caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed. But it's Feldman who's been distracted, by Geller's long history of repulsive anti-Islam activism (for example, her despicable campaign to prohibit the so-called “ground zero mosque”). Blaming her, even partially and conditionally, for an act of terror stretches moral reasoning beyond the breaking point.
Feldman’s premise is that the “provokers in Texas,” as he calls them, “almost certainly… wanted to get a reaction from Muslims.” Thus, Geller could be held “morally responsible for the foreseeable consequences of her provocation,” by which he means the armed attack. The implication here is staggering. In the wake of threats of murder for the exercise of free expression—and lately, they have been much more than threats—Feldman claims that the correct moral response is to shut up. In this contest, the bullies always win, so long as their violent reaction is sufficiently predictable—which, as Feldman does not acknowledge, gives the bullies a strong incentive to strike early and often (thus making their threats more credible).
There comes a point, however, when defiance is the only feasible response to censorship. In a better world, we would all respect the religious sensitivities of others, and no one would have cause for offense. Alas, we live in a world where atheist bloggers are hacked to death in the streets of Bangladesh, and Seattle cartoonist Molly Norris has been forced into hiding for four years after being placed on an Al Qaeda hit list. Self-silencing—at the point of a machete—is not the answer to this problem.
(VIDEO-AT-LINK)
Applied in other circumstances, Feldman’s metric leads to untenable results. Was John Lewis responsible for the foreseeable consequences of the Selma to Montgomery march? Was Ayaan Hirsi Ali responsible for the murder of her filmmaking colleague Theo von Gogh? Was Salman Rushdie responsible for the murder of his Japanese translator? Indeed, were the cartoonists at the Charlie Hebdo office responsible for the related massacre at Hyper Cacher supermarket? Of course not. All of those people—some of whose aims were more noble than others'—defied the threat of violence at great personal cost. John Lewis is a civil-rights hero and Salman Rushdie a gifted novelist, while Pamela Geller is a religious bigot—but so what? The application of moral principles to extremist violence should not depend upon the acceptability of the victim's views.
Feldman attempts to draw a fine line between risking violence (which is apparently okay) and seeking it (which is morally blameworthy). He asserts that Geller falls into the latter category because “she paid for an armed security guard outside the event, suggesting she considered violence at least possible” and because “cartoons perceived as insulting the prophet have been met with violence” in the past. By that measure, we would also have to blame the victims at Charlie Hebdo, as well as those who were murdered the following month at a “blasphemy debate” in Copenhagen. After all, they too had armed guards.
I stand second to no one in my contempt for Pamela Geller and everything she represents. Her derision of Islam and Muslims is morally wrong, but that does not make her morally responsible for the attack in Texas. And it is absurd to claim, as does a New York Times editorial, that her two-hour cartoon display at a suburban conference center stood any chance of “inflicting deliberate anguish on millions of devout Muslims.” Please, let’s not grant her more power than she possesses.
It is a bedrock principle of pluralist democracy that followers of one religion do not get to veto the expression of non-believers, even when it causes offense. In the words of Thomas Jefferson, “It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” The same goes for insulting God, he might have added. Robert Mapplethorpe and Andre Serrano understood that, and so did Lenny Bruce. The defense of free expression should become stronger in the face of violent threats, not weaker.
It is to the shame of American liberalism that the assertion of such an essential ideal has defaulted to reactionary hatemongers such as Pamela Geller.
Pamela Geller IS however responsible (directly or indirectly), for the death of two stinking Muslim terrorists and for that we need to give her our thanks.
I stand with Pam as well. I honestly hope these idiots get their way and then they will see what Pam was really up to. Dumb ahats.
Have people forgotten the time when “She was asking for it by wearing a mini-skirt” was used as a defense against sexual assault accusations?
Why do you post this crap from TNR?
Harvard law professor Noah Feldman...
PLEASE cant these people just do some quiet research and leave ys sane people alone
hmm some unintended research....doing an Image search of feldman.....and findr the site his photo was posted on
leads me to believe that he may be a active militant homosexual.
A) Did you actually read it? (B) Are you the new owner?
its sorta like going to a Horror Movie..
ya know its aint real but its fun being scared sometimes??
My stock answer. ( Been reusing it a lot):
Criticizing the murder cult by exposing the murderous pedophilia of the prophet is tantamount to Rosa Parks siting in the front of the bus. Yup it might bring out the slime of the planet, but then you’ve identified the enemy and quite possibly be able to eliminate them,one scumbag at a time
Pam Geller was issuing a call to arms, and rallying the team that has chosen to resist the imposition of Shari’ah law.
It is significant that only the most fleeting of glimpses of the supposedly mocking cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed Ali have been made public, as the general media seems to be paralyzed with fear of possible retaliation from the Perpetually Offended. As far as I am concerned, ALL of America, and I include Dearborn, Michigan, should have these depictions of Mohammed posted everywhere, on the telephone poles, on every board fence, in every form of public transportation that permits carrying placards, and on the front windows of every publisher of a newspaper or periodical in the US. Let the Islamists know we are ready to vent hostility in their direction.
Shari’ah law, and the ordinance within that code, which prohibits ANY display or depiction of the Prophet, and for that matter, Allah, are absolutely not compatible with the US or most state codes of law.
My wife left a note on the fridge, “ It’s not working.I can’t take it anymore.I am going to my mom’s place.’’
I opened the fridge.The light came on.The beer was cold... What the hell is she talking about ?
I too stand with Pamela!! She is a patriot. There is no place for Sharia Law in the USA!!
Yes, no, why did post cr@p?
(c) How are we going to respond to the Left if we don’t know what they’re saying?
I also stand with Pam Gellar.
I too stand with Pamela!! She is a patriot. There is no place for Sharia Law in the USA!!
Lets buy Pam a 357 magnum so she can kill the next group of Muzzies who kill for cartoons and 72 vigins and Viagra.
Sharia Law and in your face “We dare you to do it, and we will kill you if you do” complicit savage muslim automatons are morally responsible for the Garland exhibit and the resulting chalk outlines in front of the building.
Sometimes we have to study what the enemy is thinking & what they are being taught.
Near as I can tell from a quick google search, Steven Lubet is a screaming 1960’s liberal with tenure at Northwestern University law school.
That said, why are liberals, so disdainful of Christians and Christianity for all these many decades, so solicitous, thoughtful, and caring about the feelings of murderous Muslims? Could it be they share the same mindset and ultimately the same goals, i.e., despotic rule over those who disagree with them?
His sneering absolution of brave Pamela Geller is proof yet again of the Left’s stupidity & arrogance, the dividing line between the two being extremely thin.
Thoughts and prayers for Ms. Geller, Robert Spencer, and Geert Wilders!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.