From CNN Article said:
There are other American values, too, which deserve mentioning: Exercising your freedoms with responsibility. Yes, we have the right to say things, even offensive things. But should we? Should we act with no consideration of the consequences? Should Geller have hosted an event she knew would draw a violent reaction? Should she put up advertisements in New York with the beneath-contempt claim that killing Jews is obligatory for Muslims?
This to me is the more salient point. Most likely everyone is familiar with the free-speech test regarding shouting "FIRE!" in a movie theater. People like the author seem to think that it is analogous with anti islam events. If you shout fire in a movie theater, there is a high probability someone is going to get hurt. The author is all but admitting that if you hold an anti-islam event (severity of anti-islamic rhetoric was never quantified), there is a high probability someone is going to get hurt. So since it is a possibility that there will be injury, you should exhibit restraint. Is this really a good comparison to draw? Granted I know that he never mentions the fire example, yet he is expecting people to exhibit restraint because of the deeply held religious beliefs of a subset of people in a fairly large religion.
This is a dangerous precedent, and has become more and more prevalent. My main issue is that this expectation of restraint is not extended universally to other sincerely held beliefs in our society. Some on the board have already mentioned westboro, flag burners and other examples. If I were these groups, I would look to this and realize that the only way to gain legitimacy is to become radical and start becoming enough of a threat so that I can drown out the dissent through the expectation of self-censorship.
The whole sincerely held belief basis for which people can rely upon to be pretty horrible human beings is one of the most dangerous things that our courts have allowed to stand in quite some time. There is no barrier to entry nor is there any true means of measurement for such a belief. It is a way to introduce bias and excuses for one's actions into a court of law through a means that cannot be challenged or verified, except through their own actions. The ramifications are now spilling out into our cultural norms as a result.
I don't understand why islam is getting a pass on the whole "don't kill people, no matter what the other guy did
to offend you" rule and its now on nutjobs like Geller to moderate their actions and speech. If I were a muslim I would be fairly upset that some guy has just branded his own religion the one who's adherents have poor impulse control. Granted the magic sky monster of that religion just happens to pretty explicitly lay out in his instruction manual, that what these guys did was exactly what was required of them to gain access to heaven.
EDIT: Note when I stated the rule about "don't kill people, no matter what the other guy did" I was actually meaning "don't kill people, no matter what the other guy did to offend you." Obviously these guys are exceptional proof that there are actions you can take, namely immediate threat to harm others, that will get you shot and justifiably so. I am going to modify the original statement so that it reads clearer but for those who are responding or whatever, I don't want that to be a sticking point in the argument.
Having free speach and stirring the pot are not mutually exclusive.
I think you are completely wrong. Free speech has always been about allowing people to stir the pot, more often to turn it over and completely shake up whatever used to be in said pot.
Take this scenario.
Guy gets on TV and says "Christianity is ridiculous, here is a picture of jesus." He then goes on the next hour and says "Islam is ridiculous, here is a picture of mohammed." Two words have changed, but the fact that since the believers in the latter are willing to kill over that statement, he should be required to self censor is patently ridiculous. That is the mentioned groups ability to cause people pause through violent actions effectively censoring their ability to express their opinions. As I mentioned above, it sets a dangerous precedent, and only incentivizes groups who are still the target of negative speech to radicalize themselves to get the same pass that the islamic world has apparently carved out in our society.
