Posted on 05/06/2015 12:03:54 PM PDT by PoliticallyShort
It's quite astonishing to watch what is unfolding in America today as our media engages in self-censorship while acting as apologists for the actions of Islamic terrorism. By doing this, the media not only sacrifices the freedom of speech that is essential to our pluralistic society, but it also promotes the fear that jihadists seek to instill by dictating what is and isn't "off limits" to debate. This is already happening with news reporters such as Ayman Mohyeldin of NBC now calling for special speech protections for Islam in the wake of Sunday's terrorist attack in Garland, Texas.
Pamela Geller 's American Freedom Defense Initiative had been hosting a "controversial" contest in Garland over cartoons that depicted the Prophet Muhammad. Towards the end of the event, Muslim convert Elton Simpson and his roommate, Nadir Soofi, armed with semi-automatic weapons and body armor, drove their vehicle into the parking lot and began shooting at nearby police. One officer was wounded before returning fire and killing both terrorists. The attack, which the Islamic State (ISIS) has officially claimed responsibility for, was carried out by "two soldiers of the caliphate on an art exhibit that was portraying negative pictures of the Prophet Muhammad." ISIS then vowed more attacks to come warning, "We tell America that what is coming is more bitter and harder and you will see from the soldiers of the Caliphate what harms you."
The media has responded collectively to this threat and the terrorist attack itself by faulting Geller for practicing her First Amendment right. It is now only a matter of time before the government gets involved in a manner similar to how the Canadian government sought to chill Ezra Levant. For instance, in 2006, Ezra Levant was the only publisher in Canada to allow his readers to see the so-called controversial "Mohammed cartoons" originally published in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten. "As a result he was investigated by the Government of Alberta and subjected to three long years of judicial harassment", notes Mark Steyn. "Halfway through his ordeal, Mr. Levant observed that one day the Danish cartoons crisis would be seen as a more critical event than the attacks of September 11, 2001. Not, obviously, in terms of the comparative death tolls, but in what each revealed about the state of western civilization in the twenty-first century", notes Steyn.
Nine years later, Levant's statement sounds prophetic as we look at how our own society has responded in calls to curtail our freedom of speech and condemn those who dare engage in "provocations". This is precisely what Congressmen Keith Ellison and Andre Carson attempted to do in their joint letter addressed to Secretary of State John Kerry and Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson regarding the "visit of Mr. Geert Wilders ", a Dutch lawmaker invited by Geller to speak at events like the one held in Garland, Texas.
Ellison and Carson write that Wilders is "known for perpetuating 'Islamaphobia' [and] request that the U.S. government deny Mr. Wilders entry due to his participation in inciting anti-Muslim aggression and violence." Furthermore they write that "In the U.S., freedom of speech is a bedrock principle that distinguishes free societies from ones living under oppressive regimes. Freedom of speech, however, is not absolute. It is limited by the legal and moral understanding that speech that causes the incitement of violence or prejudicial action against protected groups is wrong."
In a pattern that is becoming all to familiar throughout the media, Ellison and Carson cite freedom of speech as being a bedrock principle to our society, then in the very next sentence, contradict what they previously said by claiming "however, it is not absolute." It is this "however" that is antithetical to freedom of speech.
As Afshin Ellian of Time Magazine writes, "Today, some intellectuals and politicians are saying: 'Freedom of speech is good, but…' that but is a huge problem", for it allows terrorists to determine the limits of free speech out of fear of provocation. If the drawing of a cartoon depicting Islam's "prophet" is not protected under the First Amendment then neither is the elephant dung covered Virgin Mary painting by Chris Ofili or Andres Serrano's which depicted a photograph of a 13-inch crucifix in a jar of urine. Essentially what the media and Congressmen like Ellison and Carson are attempting to say is that while the photograph Piss Christ and the feces covered painting Virgin Mary is considered art, a cartoon of Muhammad is considered a provocation. Slander Jesus Christ and its accepted, slander Muhammad and you deserve to be attacked, killed, and slaughtered.
This was illustrated on Monday during an exchange between Pamela Geller and CNN's Alisyn Camerota as Geller highlighted "the fact that we have to spend upwards of $50,000 in security speaks to how dangerous and how in trouble freedom of speech is in this country. And then we have to get on these news shows and somehow we are -- those that are targeted, those that were going to be slaughtered are -- the ones who get attacked speaks to how morally inverted this conversation is."
Yet, that's where we are in today's society with a media apparatus that is far more concerned with upholding the fictitious narrative that deems those like Pamela Geller Islamaphobic. This has created an implicit assumption on behalf of the media to portray Geller as much, if not more than, the problem as the jihadists themselves.
Rich Lowry of National Review writes, "In today’s circumstances, criticism of Islam is at the vanguard of the fight for free speech, since it is susceptible to attack and intimidation by jihadists and calls for self-censorship by the politically correct."
This is no understatement either, if we apply self-censorship to ourselves out of fear for terrorism, freedom of speech will become a hollow phrase. And this is only the beginning.
What would the liberal media say if the muslims reacted violently to the media’s pro-gay agenda?
we will find out soon enough
That reminds me of the old SNL skit. They Chicago fans were on Jeopardy and the answer was "Da Bullssss vs Da Bearsss."
(Indeed, even while people encourage tasteless attacks on Islamic targets, it has become almost taboo for people who look to the Bible for spiritual truth & inspiration, to even express a Biblically based opinion on the subject of marriage, or the rights of religious Americans to decide not to associate with those who mock their religious beliefs. There are a whole host of organizations that make it a point to stifle free inquiry into problems arising from all sorts of causes, where race, ethnicity, class or religion is involved.)
Personally, I agree with Thomas Jefferson, that all tyranny over the mind of man should be resisted.
You posit an interesting question.
There is an online site that has shown photographs of homosexuals being executed in the Near East. The men are thrown off buildings there, and the photos have not elicited any response so far as I can tell.
The site is: www.shoebat.com
That, in and of itself is the problem.
Government has no authority to discriminate by 'protecting' groups of people.
Those demanding that Americans self-silence on the subject of Muslims, Mohammed, & Islam.....I call them “SHARIAPPEASERS”.
El Rushbo said today that following 9-11-2001 everyone was saying if you fear doing this thing or that thing, “then the terrorists have won!”
Why don’t we hear that expression lately?
One reason Government should never “protect” groups of people is because of what happens to those people once that “protection” is lifted. History can demonstrate this many many times.
moreover, why is that no one has called out these two muslim congressmen for writing a letter labeling “Muslims a protected group”. They’re putting their own religion above the constitution...in the name of Sharia
I also want to make it clear, that while I oppose large scale immigration from non-Western nations; I agree with the Pope that denigrating other people's Faiths should be deplored. That does not mean people cannot express their theological differences in vigorous discussions; but tasteless insults are deplorable.
Funny how this event, however you feel about it was obviously designed to pizz a few types of people off, exercising their First Amendment right to free speech, as billed...
Yet organizers, and security there told the lowly participants that the Second Amendment was not here???
No Bueno...
Absolutely. The very root of "activist" government is "special rules for special people", another means of redistribution involving rights instead of property.
The reason for the hypocrisy is simple: the Left considers Muslims an oppressed class and Christians as their oppressors, and more importantly, themselves transcending the whole thing and dispensing justice by reversing the oppression. Do that in a stable society and you have the sort of mini-fascism that typifies the Left at the moment. Do it in an unstable society and you have violence and revolution, which is equally fine to ideologues for whom violence and revolution are good things.
Because of this, they won't stop. A truly neutral government (including the media who are their line of communication to the citizen) will cause a brake on this activity by insisting that the social contract apply equally to all. We do not have, and have not had for some time, a remotely neutral government or media.
Either we have freedoms guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, or we have Shariah. Just because muzzies belong to the only world religion which commands adherents to kill their critics still doesn’t make them special.
BTW, innocuous speech that offends no one doesn’t really require First Amendment protection.
Those who counsel “Don’t anger the Muslims, they will come and kill you if you do!” are engaging in “Shariappeasment” in my opinion.
Winston Churchill said, “Where there is a great deal of free speech there is a certain amount of foolish speech.” People can complain that Geller shouldn’t have done what she did but it is her Constitutional right to do it. And if people complain that it was offensive, well, there is no Constitutional protection against that.
Ayman Mohyeldin of NBC is a jihadist and should be treated as such.
Who is allowed to define “tasteless”?
Yepperz!!!
Spot on!
For the past 2,000 years it has been a virtual cliche' that almost anyone can do so, without challenge. I will not type out the Latin expression, because my Latin--never great--has become very rusty over the decades.
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.