The First Amendment Is Dead

by JASmius



Perhaps that was another alarming reality Pamela Geller was attempting to illustrate, of which several fresh manifestations abound today.

We begin with MSNBCCCP's Tingles Matthews, whose ignorant guest, Evan Kohlmann, deployed the "shouting fire in a crowded theater" canard:



So the problem isn't an attempted act of terrorist mass-murder, but that the intended victims had the audacity to exercise their free speech rights in a "provocative" way?  And that justified the home-grown jihadists' intended massacre?  Isn't that what used to be known as the "heckler's veto"?  And isn't that precisely what the First Amendment was promulgated to prevent?

Parenthetically, I have to quote Ed Morrissey's reiteration of the point I always make on this subject:

Perhaps Kohlmann can point us to the myriad examples of Christians and Jews massacring people for drawing cartoons and venting criticism and opposition to the dominant Judeo-Christian culture in the era where freedom of speech was effectively enforced. We’ve seen all sorts of examples of it from Islamists, despite Kohlmann’s declaration that it “has nothing to do with Islam.”

The bookend obligatory lying canard.  Wouldn't have been an MSNBCCCP interview without it.

This censorious sentiment became a drumroll, as Noah Rothman cataloged

CNN commentator Mark Lamont Hill: "I understand and respect free speech. But to organize hate speech events, purely because you're legally allowed to, is disgusting."  Which shows that he (1) doesn't understand the term "hate" and (2) neither understands nor respects free speech.

New York Times foreign correspondent Rukmini Callimachi: "Free speech aside, why would anyone do something as provocative as hosting a "Muhammad drawing contest"?"  Answer: As an exercise in NOT "putting free speech aside," because once you "put free speech aside," America ceases to be America.

Then there was the AP's stern distaste for Miss Geller's free speech exercise at January's "provocative" Stand With Mohammed event:

When a Chicago-based nonprofit held a January fundraiser in Garland designed to help Muslims combat negative depictions of their faith, Geller spearheaded about 1,000 picketers at the event.

One chanted: “Go back to your own countries! We don’t want you here!” Others held signs with messages such as, “Insult those who behead others,” an apparent reference to recent beheadings by the militant group Islamic State.

They disagree with what she said, in other words, and they will fight to the death her right to say it.  Even though this was countering speech with speech in the best First Amendment tradition, instead of, say, opening fire on the Islamic Fundamentalists and their dhimmi fellators with Uzis.

And lastly but not leastly, there was McClatchy's distortion of "fighting words" or "incitement":

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.

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 killed twelve 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. [emphasis added]

"....damn it".  I think they left off that suffix.  Press charges of what, one might ask?  Lampooning the false "prophet" of Islam?  Did Andres Serrano ever have "charges" pressed against him for dropping a crucifix in a jar of his own eel-squeezings?  Should he have?  Is "Professor" Szmer disappointed that he wasn't?  Somehow I doubt that.

It really does beg the question. Ken White at Popehat explains:

Moreover, “incitement” and “fighting words” are not the same thing. “Incitement” is urging others to break the law, and only falls outside the First Amendment when it is intended and likely to produce imminent lawless action. “Fighting words” are, in effect, a direct challenge to fight. …

That’s a bad paraphrase of the very narrow fighting words doctrine, which has been limited to face-to-face insults that would provoke an immediate violent reaction from a reasonable person. … The test for fighting words isn’t whether the words contain social commentary; it’s whether they are likely to provoke an average person to immediate face-to-face violence.

In other words, if I walk up to you and start screaming F-bombs and calling your mother a whore and questioning the circumstances of your conception - not expressing "provocative" ideas but deliberately trying to elicit violence - that is "incitement".  But if I legitimately exercise my First Amendment rights by publicly stating the facts that Mohammed was a murderer and a drug addict and a pedophile who unleashed fourteen centuries of untold violence and bloodshed upon the world in service to Satan himself - not two inches from the nearest jihadi-symp's nose, but in a general public setting that those who disagree with my words can choose not to listen to or counter with their own arguments to the contrary - and vice versa - that is the very heart of protected free speech, and those that respond with violence instead of words are the villains who should be rebuked and shamed and rejected.

But no, tribalism must be upheld, and so egregious a spokeswoman for the "Wrong Tribe" as Pamela Geller must be shouted - or gunned - down to silence her and crush her ideas.  Hence, White House Joseph Goebbels clone Josh Ernest provides the perfect closing example of the First Amendment's demise:



"[Y]ou know he’s itching to drop a “hell no” here. Didn’t his boss once say that “the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam”? Didn’t our own State Department, helmed by Hillary Clinton, drop $70 Gs in Pakistan a few years ago denouncing the “Innocence of Muslims” YouTube video? Hasn’t Obama’s Joint Chiefs chair been known to dial up critics of Islam and ask them to stand down for the good of the war effort? Didn’t Obama himself say in February that defending a blasphemer’s right to free speech also “obligates” us to condemn the blasphemer? Of course the White House thinks it’s inappropriate."

Looks like Charles Cooke is right.