Pamela Geller used her free-speech right to stamp firmly on the line between provocative and offensive and scrub it into the dust.
Pamela Geller used her free-speech right to stamp firmly on the line between provocative and offensive and scrub it into the dust.
An angry response was the purpose, not a byproduct, of her American Freedom Defense Initiative conclave this weekend in suburban Garland, Texas.
A $10,000 “cartoon contest” was a thumb in the eye to Muslims who believe depictions of the prophet Muhammad are blasphemous.
As incitement goes, this was intentional.
Too bad, say Geller and her followers. Free speech, that bedrock American value, gives them the right.
Don’t like it?
Turn the page.
And they’re right, within the bounds of lawful behavior.
Geller, who has made a career from stridently anti-Islamic views, is fortunate the law does not demand like-mindedness to validate her right. You might wish she’d treat it with more respect, but that’s her choice.
She also benefited Sunday night from the quick reaction of a Garland school district security guard and Garland police, who fended off the two men who tried to crash the event.
Had those gunmen gotten inside the Curtis Culwell Center with their assault rifles and body armor, who knows what carnage they might have wrought. The police saved lives, without worrying about politics or points of view.
Bruce Joiner, 58, the wounded Garland ISD officer, thankfully was treated and released after being shot in the ankle. The two gunmen were killed trying to make their own ruinous statement.
Garland police pledged safety for even this controversial event and delivered.
Interestingly, mainstream Muslims placed the Geller conference in proper perspective.
Instead of rising to the bait, they chose to ignore the hate.
We can’t speak for the two gunmen, but as we noted just four months ago in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo massacre in Paris, Islam’s true believers should be steadfast enough in their faith that a mere cartoon doesn’t push them toward bloodshed. Muslims who read their own holy book would find repeated references admonishing the faithful to restrain themselves in the face of insults.
If the Charlie Hebdo debate felt abstract and distant, gunfire in a Dallas suburb is neither.
Still, acknowledging the rights of Geller’s followers might grate on the sensibilities of Americans who see no virtue in going out of their way to cause distress.
Why exercise a right to say ignorant and hurtful things?
Here, we are reminded of followers of the Westboro Baptist Church, whose sole claim to infamy is offensive, anti-gay protests outside the funerals of members of the U.S. military.
Who could agree with such a thing?
Except this is precisely the kind of free speech the Constitution intended to protect.
It’s easy enough to defend to the death expression with which you agree. As long as they obey the law, Geller’s followers, like Westboro’s, deserve the same protections.
— The Dallas Morning News