Posted on 05/06/2015 7:22:18 PM PDT by Steelfish
Fox News’s Greta Van Susteren Scolds Pamela Geller
By Erik Wemple May 6 Before embarking on a television career, Fox News host Greta Van Susteren worked as a highly successful trial attorney. She graduated from Georgetown Law, represented clients in federal and state venues and picked up her share of accolades along the way.
And last night she ditched her legal-eagle sophistication in a monologue criticizing activist Pamela Geller for putting the lives of police officers on the line at an event Sunday in Garland, Texas. “Everyone knew this event would unglue some who might become violent,” said Van Susteren.
In a story that has resurrected a fierce debate on the First Amendment, two gunmen on Sunday were killed by police after they descended on the Geller-organized event showcasing cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad. The Islamic State terror group has claimed responsibility for the attack and U.S. officials are investigating any possible link. Geller is president of the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), a group that bills itself as a protector of U.S. constitutional freedoms but that the Southern Poverty Law Center calls an “active anti-Muslim group.” Muslims consider depictions of the prophet offensive. In January, terrorists carried out a massacre at the Paris offices of Charlie Hebdo magazine, which had repeatedly satirized Muhammad.
So Van Susteren scolded Geller for holding the cartoon contest. “My message is simple — protect our police. Do not recklessly lure them into danger and that is what happened in Garland, Texas at the Mohammed cartoon contest,” she said. “Yes, of course, there’s a First Amendment right and it’s very important, but the exercise of that right includes using good judgment.”
In other words, watch what you say, or draw.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
We need to have these Mohammed cartoon contests in every city, town, and precinct.
How true; my list is the same as yours, and getting longer every day.
FU, Greta. And your Muslim pals, too.
Troll
She also wears highly visible crosses.
If this was about black thugs protesting, the left would be in support. Since it is a conservative Jewish woman who is upsetting muslim savages, most people support the savages. Is it is called Stockholm Syndrome?
“Most people” do NOT support the savages. Journalturds support the savages.
Note how the sub-human vermin never attack the presstitutes——err, I mean Mainstream Media.
She’s a cheese head. What do you expect.
So Greta, did the police shoot the wrong people? Should they have killed the unarmed artists instead of the armed and violent Islamic jihadists?
Agree.
Facebook is a good tool even though I hate the tool.
I got a great highway front running in front of my property.... bumper stickers...
Time to bring out the roaches so that we can stomp them.
Greta as “Clutch Cargo mouth”....
Heh, heh, that is so funny! Of course, you have to be a certain age to remember that cheesy semi-cartoon which was the ultimate in skimping on animation expense.
The fixed face with the barely moving mouth - that’s Greta!
;^)
Too bad Greta couldn’t have watched Kelly first. Greta really stepped in it, Kelly nailed it.
Scientology is another cult which reacts badly to being mocked, which is likely why Greta took the position she did. If it's OK to mock Islam, and Muslims are supposed to just accept it, then the precedent also applies to Scientologists.
And yet after the Charlie Hebdo shootings van Susteren was saying the media should run the cartoons. So are First Amendment protections only good for French satire rags and not for American catoon showings?
And what is that problem, really? Search "Neil Postman Amusing Ourselves to Death" for a clue.
Preview: When trying to be most serious,responsible and vital, the mass media is most dangerous. Television relies on holding viewers interest over a period of time. And it is known what works to accomplish that.
The agendas and ideologies are much less important than what they do to to garner eyeballs.
And what they do is not a deep and complete examination of ANYTHING. It is pretty much titillation - in various forms.
One thing that Postman did not foresee (IIRC) was the rise of the Internet. While, it has some of the same faults as television, at least there is the availability of deeper and more complete discussions of solid information. (So far.)
-------------------------------
Here is a snip from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amusing_Ourselves_to_Death
The essential premise of the book, which Postman extends to the rest of his argument(s), is that "form excludes the content," that is, a particular medium can only sustain a particular level of ideas. Thus rational argument, integral to print typography, is militated against by the medium of television for the aforesaid reason. Owing to this shortcoming, politics and religion are diluted, and "news of the day" becomes a packaged commodity. Television de-emphasises the quality of information in favour of satisfying the far-reaching needs of entertainment, by which information is encumbered and to which it is subordinate.
No, as far as the number being limited, the Tenth Amendment puts the lie to that.
Otherwise, I find your post well reasoned and well written. Thanks.
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.