After Texas shooting: If free speech is provocative, should there be limits?

boozeman

28 Years And Counting...
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
122,809
After Texas shooting: If free speech is provocative, should there be limits?


Lindsay Wise and Jonathan S. Landay

1 hr ago

WASHINGTON — Organizers of the Muhammad Art Exhibit in Garland, Texas, knew violence was a possibility.

They shelled out $10,000 for extra security to patrol the controversial event, which featured a speech by a Dutch politician who is on al-Qaida's "hit list" and a contest for the best cartoon of the Prophet Muhammad. Local law enforcement was on the alert. A SWAT team and a bomb squad patrolled.

The two gunmen who opened fire with assault weapons outside the exhibit on Sunday were killed by a police officer. They have been identified by law enforcement as Elton Simpson and Nadir Soofi, both of Phoenix. They appear, from social media posts, to have been motivated by a desire to become mujahedeen, or holy warriors.

The attack highlights the tensions between protecting Americans' treasured right to freedom of expression and preserving public safety, and it raises questions about when — if ever — government should intervene.

There are two exceptions from the constitutional right to free speech — defamation and the doctrine of "fighting words" or "incitement," said John Szmer, an associate professor of political science and a constitutional law expert at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte.

"Fighting words is the idea that you are saying something that is so offensive that it will lead to an immediate breach of the peace," Szmer explained. "In other words, you are saying something and you should expect a violent reaction by other people."

The exhibit of cartoons in Texas might have crossed the line, Szmer said.

"I don't think it is unreasonable to expect what they were doing would incite a violent reaction," he said.

Organizers knew, he said, that caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad, which many Muslims consider insulting, have sparked violence before. In a recent case that drew worldwide attention, gunmen claiming allegiance with the self-described Islamic State group killed 12 people in an attack on the Paris offices of the French magazine Charlie Hebdo, which was known for satirical depictions of the Prophet Muhammad.

On the other hand, "fighting words can contradict the basic values that underlie freedom of speech," Szmer said. "The views being expressed at the conference could be seen as social commentary. Political and social speech should be protected. You are arguably talking about social commentary."

It's unlikely that the issue will be tested in the Garland case, however, because prosecutors in Texas almost certainly won't press charges against the conference organizers, he said.

The anti-Islam group that organized the art exhibit and contest in Garland is the American Freedom Defense Initiative, whose mission is the preservation "of freedom of speech, freedom of religion and equal rights for all," according to its Facebook page.

The organization is categorized as an anti-Muslim hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, which monitors racist and sectarian organizations in the United States.

The group's executive director, Pamela Geller, has attracted controversy with outrageous statements, such as that President Barack Obama is the "love child" of Malcolm X.

Geller wrote in her blog Sunday that the shooting proved how much the event was needed.

"The freedom of speech is under violent assault here in our nation," she wrote. "The question now before (us) is — will we stand and defend it, or bow to violence, thuggery, and savagery?"

She added, "This is war."

A White House spokesman said Monday that no act of expression, even if it's offensive, justifies an act of violence.

"We have seen extremists try to use expressions that they considered to be offensive as a way to justify violence not only in this country but around the world, and in the mind of the president there is no form of expression that would justify an act of violence," White House press secretary Josh Earnest told reporters.

Heidi Beirich, director of the Southern Poverty Law Center's Intelligence Project, said that while the anti-Islam pronouncements by Geller and her allies are hateful, she was within her free speech rights to organize the exhibition in Texas.

"The violence that happened is unacceptable, and as ugly as the things that Geller was saying ... the fact of the matter is that she should have had the right to exercise her First Amendment rights," said Beirich. "People may hate what she's doing in terms of her Muslim-bashing, but that doesn't justify the violence."

Beirich reserved her harshest criticism for public officials who not only fail to condemn hateful viewpoints, but associate with those who promote them.

She pointed out that the exhibit's keynote speaker, Geert Wilders, a far-right Dutch politician who denounces Islam as a fascist religion, was welcomed last week in Washington by conservative Republican Reps. Louie Gohmert of Texas and Steve King of Iowa.

"It's just despicable to be meeting people like that," she said. "Public officials should be exercising their First Amendment rights by saying that all Muslims are not bad."

The gunmen's violent actions will end up drawing undeserved attention to the hateful message spread by Geller's group, said David Schanzer, a professor at Duke University's Sanford School of Public Policy and director of the Triangle Center on Terrorism and Homeland Security.

"Any efforts to censor them or restrict their rights will just play into their agenda, which is to antagonize and spread a pretty vile message," Schanzer said.

The best way to fight against people you disagree with is to confront their ideas, he said.

"I think their ideas are both wrong and actually makes problems worse through their actions," Schanzer said. Echoing Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis' well-known sentiment from 1927, he added: "I say we go against them by fighting speech with more speech."

In Bradenton, Fla., anti-Islam activist Terry Jones said the Texas shooting made him more determined than ever to spread his message against Islam.

"Things like (the shooting in Texas) make us more determined to do it," Jones said. "They knew that there would be police there, and it shows how brash and determined these people are."

Jones, the pastor at Dove World Outreach Center, a fundamentalist church, gained worldwide notoriety for burning a Quran in public every year to mark the anniversary of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Obama and former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates even asked him not to do it because it could spark violent protests and provoke attacks against Americans overseas.

He put off one Quran burning event in 2010 and was arrested on unrelated charges on the way to another in 2013. Both Jones and Wilders, the anti-Islam Dutch politician who was featured as a speaker at the Texas exhibition, have been listed on an al-Qaida wanted list "for crimes against Islam."

Jones now owns a French fry stand in a local mall and plans to run for president.

He said in an interview that he's not any more concerned about his safety than he was before Sunday's shooting.

In fact, Jones said he plans to expand his "Fry Guy" business to a larger restaurant location in the University Mall in North Tampa. The first location is in DeSoto Square mall in Bradenton.

And he plans to hold another Quran-burning event on 9/11, possibly in the Bradenton area.
----------
 

Clay_Allison

Old Bastard
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
5,488
After Texas shooting: If free speech is provocative, should there be limits?
Stupid question. As soon as you start making excuses to limit speech, you might as well forget about it. We live in a country full of constantly offended crybabies. Let people suppress any speech they want with a few anonymous threats and our level of free speech will be right there with North Korea.

It makes as much sense as limiting religious freedom because it's always Muslims who rise to the occasion and try to kill people over every little thing that hurts their feelings.
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,700
Stupid question. As soon as you start making excuses to limit speech, you might as well forget about it. We live in a country full of constantly offended crybabies. Let people suppress any speech they want with a few anonymous threats and our level of free speech will be right there with North Korea.

It makes as much sense as limiting religious freedom because it's always Muslims who rise to the occasion and try to kill people over every little thing that hurts their feelings.
Hear, hear. There is almost nothing that someone will be offended about anymore. This is simply some people expressing themselves so if you don't want to be offended stay away. It's not like they were knocking on peoples doors and throwing it at them. It's time the national sentiment puts country first for a while.
 

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
I agree free speech should be defended at all cost but this was some high level trolling, was the point they were trying to make worth putting these security officers lives in danger.

And how would these people feel about an exhibit ridiculing Jesus.

Just a bad look all around.
 

boozeman

28 Years And Counting...
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
122,809
I agree free speech should be defended at all cost but this was some high level trolling, was the point they were trying to make worth putting these security officers lives in danger.

And how would these people feel about an exhibit ridiculing Jesus.

Just a bad look all around.
Big difference...I doubt anyone gets killed in your piss off scenario.
 

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
Big difference...I doubt anyone gets killed in your piss off scenario.
Not debating that just saying they would be upset as well.

I am as happy as anybody these guys got capped but lets not act like there was no fanning of flames here.
 

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
Either the most repugnant speech is free, or none of it is. No telling what a brutal group of idiots will determine is worth hurting people for, but letting them dictate makes the mob a defacto legislature.
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,700
I agree free speech should be defended at all cost but this was some high level trolling, was the point they were trying to make worth putting these security officers lives in danger.

And how would these people feel about an exhibit ridiculing Jesus.

Just a bad look all around.
Ridiculing Jezus is done all the time but to my knowledge terror retaliation hasn't been the response.
 

fortsbest

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
3,763
I agree free speech should be defended at all cost but this was some high level trolling, was the point they were trying to make worth putting these security officers lives in danger.

And how would these people feel about an exhibit ridiculing Jesus.

Just a bad look all around.
Plus they already do it all the time. Hell we have government sanctioned art that either mocks or ridicules Christianity. As an example:

Piss Christ is a 1987 photograph by the American artist and photographer Andres Serrano. It depicts a small plastic crucifix submerged in a glass of the artist's urine. The piece was a winner of the Southeastern Center for Contemporary Art's "Awards in the Visual Arts" competition,[1] which was sponsored in part by the National Endowment for the Arts, a United States Government agency that offers support and funding for artistic projects, without controlling content.

Think the Muslims would go nuts if it were a depiction of Allah in urine? Would our government through the NEA ever support that or give it an award? I think not.
 

BipolarFuk

Demoted
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
11,464
doctrine of "fighting words"?

That is fucking ridiculous.

Who judges what is outrageous enough to override free speech?
 

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
Plus they already do it all the time. Hell we have government sanctioned art that either mocks or ridicules Christianity. As an example:

Piss Christ is a 1987 photograph by the American artist and photographer Andres Serrano. It depicts a small plastic crucifix submerged in a glass of the artist's urine. The piece was a winner of the Southeastern Center for Contemporary Art's "Awards in the Visual Arts" competition,[1] which was sponsored in part by the National Endowment for the Arts, a United States Government agency that offers support and funding for artistic projects, without controlling content.

Think the Muslims would go nuts if it were a depiction of Allah in urine? Would our government through the NEA ever support that or give it an award? I think not.
What does that have to do with anything I said?

If a cop or security officer was killed was it worth it?
 

Smitty

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
22,556
Not debating that just saying they would be upset as well.

I am as happy as anybody these guys got capped but lets not act like there was no fanning of flames here.
No doubt people would be upset, but there would also be no remotely serious movement to prevent people from ridiculing Jesus in the future, either.
 

Smitty

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
22,556
doctrine of "fighting words"?

That is fucking ridiculous.

Who judges what is outrageous enough to override free speech?
The guy in the article incorrectly defines the doctrine anyway, IMO.

Incitement is not just when you say something you know will get a violent response. It is when you are urging or advocating others to commit violence.
 

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
“Should we get rid of all the Jews?”: Megyn Kelly accuses Bill O’Reilly of “catering to the jihadis”


On “The O’Reilly Factor” last night, Megyn Kelly shamed host Bill O’Reilly for daring to criticize Pam Geller’s absolutist version of free speech, saying that he was “catering to the jihadis.”

The pair were discussing the shooting of two Islamic extremists in Garland, Texas, on Sunday when O’Reilly echoed Donald Trump and claimed that Geller and the American Freedom Defense Initiative “provoked” the attempted attack.

Geller and the AFDI — an organization that has been labeled a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) — were “trying to make a point about the First Amendment and free speech,” Kelly said, by hosting their “Draw the Prophet” contest at the same facility that had hosted a seminar on Islamophobia in January.

“So they wanted to defy the fear the jihadists have imposed on the world?” O’Reilly asked.

“On the free speech principle — on the First Amendment principle — she’s 100 percent correct,” Kelly responded. She claimed that the First Amendment was designed to defend “the most outrageous, offensive, incendiary speech — speech at the fringes, debate at the edges, things that make people upset.”

“But there’s always cause and effect,” O’Reilly said, before joking that because Elton Simpson and Nadir Soofi attacked the event, they died and “a lot of people aren’t feeling sorry for them.” However, he said, “this is what happens when you light the fuse — you get violence.”

“You sound like you’re defending the — you sound like you’re attacking the event itself,” Kelly replied.

“I would do it another way,” O’Reilly said, adding that he agrees with her point in principle — but Kelly was incensed.
 

Kbrown

Not So New Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
2,155
Every citizen has the duty to exercise free speech responsibly, but the restraints shouldn't come from the government.

As an aside, props to the cop who fended off the attack. Taking down two guys with assault rifles and body armor using only a .45? That is beyond impressive shooting.
 

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
Every citizen has the duty to exercise free speech responsibly, but the restraints shouldn't come from the government.

As an aside, props to the cop who fended off the attack. Taking down two guys with assault rifles and body armor using only a .45? That is beyond impressive shooting.
Right? Talk about "Great police work". Kind of nice to have a Cop doing the right thing story to break up the Baltimore/Cleveland/Ferguson controversies.
 

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
Additionally once this cop gets out of rehab, I suspect he's going to start an investigation on Pollos Hermanos for meth distribution.
 
Top Bottom