Pamela Geller: Free speech advocate, or 'hate speech' antagonist?

  • Thread starter Viligant_Warrior
  • Start date
  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
V

Viligant_Warrior

Guest
#1
The debate over free speech in the U.S. is focusing on Pamela Geller this week.

Cartoon contest organizer says 9/11 inspired her campaign against Muslim extremism

NEW YORK – Does Pamela Geller regret organizing the Prophet Muhammad cartoon contest that ended in gunfire?

No, she says confidently. In fact, she plans to host more events just like it, with only one difference: Next time, she'll be wearing a bulletproof vest.

"I will continue to speak in defense of freedom until the day I die," Geller said Thursday in an interview with The Associated Press, as a grim-looking personal security guard hovered nearby. "It's just that simple. It's not even a choice. It's a calling."
The founder of "Stop the Islamization of America" says she has the right to say whatever she needs to say to achieve the goals the name of the organization implies. She was the coiner of the phrase "ground zero mosque" in beginning the successful effort to to force New York City mullahs to rethink their plan to build near the World Trade Center and 9/11 memorial.

But in her zeal, she's obviously attracted some detractors. A number of anti-Geller articles have been published over the years.

What Pamela Geller advocates is not free speech

Tea Party event [featuring Geller] booted from Sugar Land Hotel

[url="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/07/opinion/free-speech-vs-hate-speech.html']Free Speech vs. Hate Speech[/url], this being a New York Times editorial published two days ago that claims terror victims "bring it upon themselves." So the Times would vehemently attack a defense attorney who made such a claim about a rape victim, but thinks it's OK to dismiss terror as "your fault" when you're a victim of it?

I don't like everything Geller says. Sometimes she makes me cringe. But two things:

1. She's right, most of the time, even when it's harsh.
2. She has, by the First Amendment, the right to say whatever she wants.

Our freedom of speech is slipping away to attacks from the politically correct left and from "Goebbels-like propagandists" (to borrow a Geller phrase from one of her blogs) who would silence their opposition. Many on the center and right are beginning to buy into the garbage from these two anti-American fronts, and all have Geller and those like her -- those who would demand the right to say whatever they want, even if it is ugly, biased, or just plain wrong -- in their crosshairs, because bringing Geller et al down brings down the First Amendment, which is their goal.

The First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech wasn't meant to be limited to "freedom to speak what I like" or " ... what does not offend me." Freedom of speech is for all speech. If you don't like it, don't listen.
 

crossnote

Senior Member
Nov 24, 2012
26,015
413
83
#2
This is an important discussion. It's hard to believe it sat here 15 hours stagnant.

On the issue, it seems a divide is being created between "staying quiet" and thus keeping the peace or freely speaking with the possibility of endangering/enciting violence.

If you antagonize a bully, expect a bloody nose...but whose fault? Yours or the bully?

I hope to hear some discussion on this topic.
 

Desdichado

Senior Member
Feb 9, 2014
7,506
177
63
#3
Well, if our goal is not to offend the radicals of the Muslim world, I guess we'll have to stop marrying gay couples, exporting junk movies, and trying to be "open and inclusive."
 

Desdichado

Senior Member
Feb 9, 2014
7,506
177
63
#4
She's 1st Amendment covered here in the good ol' US of A. But radical muslims do not like the 1st Amendment, the men who wrote the 1st Amendment, the Christians who actually support it in the meaningful, original sense, etc.

See my point here?
 
Dec 26, 2014
3,757
19
0
#5
This is an important discussion. It's hard to believe it sat here 15 hours stagnant.

On the issue, it seems a divide is being created between "staying quiet" and thus keeping the peace or freely speaking with the possibility of endangering/enciting violence.

If you antagonize a bully, expect a bloody nose...but whose fault? Yours or the bully?

I hope to hear some discussion on this topic.
when jesus or we who follow jesus speak the truth, he and we are attacked. whose fault?
notice on this forum, it is not (apparently) muslims mostly, but rcc advocates and others who have been deceived who attack yahweh's WORD, jesus, and us.


Well, if our goal is not to offend the radicals of the Muslim world, I guess we'll have to stop marrying gay couples, exporting junk movies, and trying to be "open and inclusive."
... "our goal".... ?

remember jesus did not advocate free speech anything like goes on in the untied states/ world. (nor as is practiced quite freely on this forum --- but there's no foreseeable way to regulate it and it's not likely to happen. those opposed to GOD'S WORD and opposed to JESUS and opposed to we who follow JESUS will keep posting with little restraint. )
 

notuptome

Senior Member
May 17, 2013
11,327
368
83
#6
The difference between hate speech and free speech is that free speech does not take an AK-47 and endeavor to silence the voice of its opponent.

For the cause of Christ
Roger
 
V

Viligant_Warrior

Guest
#7
There is no such thing as "hate speech." I'm sure that will bruise the liberal left's sensibilities, but it happens to be the truth.

The U.S. Constitution does not recognize "hate speech" as a separate, unprotected category of speech. The term "hate speech" is a created category, a mere buzz word, the left uses to pigeonhole speech that its membership finds offensive. To be fair, some conservatives also would practice selective censorship, attempting to cancel out speech they don't want to hear.

Very troubling is when people begin to treat “hate speech” as unprotected speech. For example, Penn State University was taken to court in 2003 by some of its own student body over what the plaintiffs claimed was its "unconstitutionally vague and overbroad speech codes." At the height of the controversy, one of those students made the following comment to PSU's daily newspaper, The Daily Collegian:

"We support any and all university policies that prohibit intolerant actions against any student on this campus,” said [Jerri] Watson, adding that hate speech was not protected by the constitution. [Emphasis added]
That is one of the first publicly recorded comments makes that claim. It isn't true, as the plaintiffs found out when they couldn't even get their case to trial, but saw it thrown out by a federal judge. But this belief has become pervasive, especially on college campuses, making it high time to put this fundamentally false and dangerous belief to rest.

There is no constitutional exception for so-called "hate speech." The First Amendment fully protects speech that some may find offensive, unpopular, or even racist. The First Amendment allows you to wear a jacket that says "[Expletive] the Draft" in a public building (see Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15), yell "We’ll take the [expletive]ing street later!" during a protest (see Hess v. Indiana, 414 U.S. 105), burn the American flag in protest (Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 and United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310), and even give a racially charged speech to a restless crowd (see Terminello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1). You can even, consistent with the First Amendment, call for the overthrow of the United States government (see Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444).

These cases do not represent a recent development in constitutional law -- these are SCOTUS decisions dating back to 1949. In addition, efforts by both public and private universities to limit free speech have never been left standing. Check out Doe v. University of Michigan, 721 F. Supp. 852, UWM Post, Inc., v. Board of Regents of University of Wisc., 774 F. Supp. 1163, and Bair v. Shippensburg Univ., 280 F. Supp. 2d 357 to confirm that statement.

It's unanimous. it is unconstitutional to limit or suppress, even if its vulgar, ethnically biased, obscene, and especially if it's unpopular. Liberals need to get it through their thick anti-democratic skulls, if they don't like certain speech, don't listen!

 
Last edited:

crossnote

Senior Member
Nov 24, 2012
26,015
413
83
#8
Objection: But isn't Geller's position like yelling fire in a crowded theatre?

Answer: That's only unlawful if there is no fire, in Geller's case the fire is real.
 

PennEd

Senior Member
Apr 22, 2013
4,877
403
83
#9
Objection: But isn't Geller's position like yelling fire in a crowded theatre?

Answer: That's only unlawful if there is no fire, in Geller's case the fire is real.

Aside from that the analogy only works if she had a draw muhammad contest INSIDE A MOSQUE with muslims inside!
 

crossnote

Senior Member
Nov 24, 2012
26,015
413
83
#11
Aside from that the analogy only works if she had a draw muhammad contest INSIDE A MOSQUE with muslims inside!
Sometimes I think the Muslims see the whole world as their Mosque.
 

Nautilus

Senior Member
Jun 29, 2012
6,485
45
0
#12
For some reaosn anytime I see someone mention the first amendment I feel like they dont fully grasp it. Sure you DO have you freedom of speech to say what you want. Literally you can say anything. What the first amendent DOES NOT do is protect you from the consequences of what you said. Hate speech? You can say it all day. You might become a target but thats a risk you take.
 

crossnote

Senior Member
Nov 24, 2012
26,015
413
83
#13
For some reaosn anytime I see someone mention the first amendment I feel like they dont fully grasp it. Sure you DO have you freedom of speech to say what you want. Literally you can say anything. What the first amendent DOES NOT do is protect you from the consequences of what you said. Hate speech? You can say it all day. You might become a target but thats a risk you take.
So when there's consequences, should the blame go to the one who exercises the free speech or to the one who metes out the consequences?
 

Miri

Senior Member
Jul 22, 2012
7,766
520
113
#14
I can only speak of this from the perspective of the UK and my experiences, as I don't know
the current atmosphere in the US on this.

There is a fine line between free speech and deliberately going out of you way to
antagonise another person or group of people. If someone targets a group of people
under the disguise of free speech, then it's not right.

While a different matter (but not entirely), I am hearing a lot about Christians being
forced to bake cakes for gay marriages under discrimination laws. Obviously that
is one example of the discrimination laws being used by a group of people for their
own agenda. It feels as though the free speech laws are being used here in a similar
fashion.

Just on a separate issue the Muslim population are still sinners needing to be saved.
i have found there is a real hunger among individuals to know the truth, they have
got a bit of truth mixed with loads of lies and are trapped by satan in bondage.

Groups won't admit it, but get people on their own and speak to them as individuals
and there is the hunger beneath the surface.

i often get taxis especially to church. Most taxi drivers are Asian men. As soon as
I say I am going to church, most want to know if I go regulaly, what do I believe,
many start debating and asking questions.

i have had many astounding conversations while on my way to church.
i have prayed with several on the way and prayed Gods blessing in the name of
Jesus over them, they have openly received this and have agreed beforehand to
me praying for them.

There was one man who knew the Koran inside and out and was some sort of
leader at his local mosk. But he was so full of questions you could see the
hunger he had, he knew deep down that his faith was not providing the
answers to life. We ended up parked outside my church for 20 mins discusing
the gospel message! Then he asked me to pray for him!

As Christians we have to be very careful to be seen to be different from the
world, otherwise we can lose that right to speak about the gospel to
other religions, deliberately antagonising them under the disguise of
free speech definitely would not help.

There is nothing wrong with explaining what you believe, it's necessary to
do so to spread the gospel. Free speech is a blessing to the christian to
promote the gospel, it shouldn't be used as a weapon of war with ulterior motives.

Thats my thoughts anyway. :)
 

PennEd

Senior Member
Apr 22, 2013
4,877
403
83
#15
I can only speak of this from the perspective of the UK and my experiences, as I don't know
the current atmosphere in the US on this.

There is a fine line between free speech and deliberately going out of you way to
antagonise another person or group of people. If someone targets a group of people
under the disguise of free speech, then it's not right.

While a different matter (but not entirely), I am hearing a lot about Christians being
forced to bake cakes for gay marriages under discrimination laws. Obviously that
is one example of the discrimination laws being used by a group of people for their
own agenda. It feels as though the free speech laws are being used here in a similar
fashion.

Just on a separate issue the Muslim population are still sinners needing to be saved.
i have found there is a real hunger among individuals to know the truth, they have
got a bit of truth mixed with loads of lies and are trapped by satan in bondage.

Groups won't admit it, but get people on their own and speak to them as individuals
and there is the hunger beneath the surface.

i often get taxis especially to church. Most taxi drivers are Asian men. As soon as
I say I am going to church, most want to know if I go regulaly, what do I believe,
many start debating and asking questions.

i have had many astounding conversations while on my way to church.
i have prayed with several on the way and prayed Gods blessing in the name of
Jesus over them, they have openly received this and have agreed beforehand to
me praying for them.

There was one man who knew the Koran inside and out and was some sort of
leader at his local mosk. But he was so full of questions you could see the
hunger he had, he knew deep down that his faith was not providing the
answers to life. We ended up parked outside my church for 20 mins discusing
the gospel message! Then he asked me to pray for him!

As Christians we have to be very careful to be seen to be different from the
world, otherwise we can lose that right to speak about the gospel to
other religions, deliberately antagonising them under the disguise of
free speech definitely would not help.

There is nothing wrong with explaining what you believe, it's necessary to
do so to spread the gospel. Free speech is a blessing to the christian to
promote the gospel, it shouldn't be used as a weapon of war with ulterior motives.

Thats my thoughts anyway. :)
And who exactly get's to be the decider of what that "thin line" between "hate speech" and free speech?

The ENTIRE point of free speech is to protect that which might be offense to a particular person. If everyone agreed on what everyone else said then thee wouldn't be a need for free speech.
 

Nautilus

Senior Member
Jun 29, 2012
6,485
45
0
#16
So when there's consequences, should the blame go to the one who exercises the free speech or to the one who metes out the consequences?
Why would it go to the one who metes out the consequences? If you are smart enough to know their might be ramifications then you should be smart enough to decide if it is worth it or not.
 
Dec 18, 2013
6,733
43
0
#18
The First Amendment and indeed all the Constitution merely serves to highlight the role of the government. The Constitution does not gurantee you any innate rights, but only gurantees the government may not penalize you. So in this instance, the First Amendment does not give you the right to draw anything, but merely it means the government does not have a right to penalize you for whatever you draw. Issues such as this are beyond the Constitution and government of America.

With that understood; what profit does drawing Mahomet render to anyone?
 

crossnote

Senior Member
Nov 24, 2012
26,015
413
83
#19
Why would it go to the one who metes out the consequences? If you are smart enough to know their might be ramifications then you should be smart enough to decide if it is worth it or not.
If there was no deterrent to the one who violently acted then the concept of 'free speech' would only be a paper tiger.
 

Nautilus

Senior Member
Jun 29, 2012
6,485
45
0
#20
If they react violently then they will pay their own consequnces. I don;t know why people think the first amendment is some carte-clanc to say whatever nonsense they want and get away with it. I like if I insulted your mother, thats free speech, but you might hit me, which i probably deserve. Though you may also at that point be charged with assault.

Its all cause and effect. Like this woman organized an event she knew would be offensive to a group of people and they retaliated...oh boy look how that works. I guess neither of them are that smart after all.