Friday, June 05, 2015

The timid defense of free speech

Some of our liberal friends, particularly the art lovers among them, are terrified of the hobgoblins that Ralph Waldo Emerson warned about. “A foolish consistency,” he famously said, “is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen, philosophers and divines.”

We see this writ large in the threat to public peace and the lives of the innocent by Islamic radicals. The radicals, who maim and kill in the name of the Prophet, are treated with respect (if not terror), and the Christians who have threatened no one, must be hectored, lectured and exiled to the fringes of the public square.

Pamela Geller, who organized the draw-the-Prophet cartoon contest in Texas that two homegrown ISIS wannabes tried to shut down with murder and lost their own lives trying, is a villain for some sunshine defenders of free speech. One pundit, writing in The Washington Post, is all for the First Amendment, err, uh, umm, “but.” She scolds Mzz Geller “for instigating this unnecessary clash.” As an “operating principle,” Kathleen Parker writes, “mightn’t we try less incendiary means of problem-solving? I don’t know, maybe something less likely to lead to violence?”

Some wizards on the left even accuse Mzz Geller of committing “hate speech,” the currently fashionable name for harsh opinions you may not agree with. He includes Mzz Geller’s drawing contest. Chris Cuomo of CNN, who says he’s a graduate of a law school, even says her “hate speech” does not rise to speech protected by the Constitution. This sounds like something he misremembers from a mail-order course of the Grinder’s Switch College of Law, Cosmetology, Dietary Science and Creative Writing.

The Constitution was not written by the sort of law-school weenies who would write it today, and it is not meant to protect nice, refined and respectable speech. It protects free speech, brash, unadorned and with the bark on. If you don’t like it, don’t listen. Respectable speech, the kind you might hear in nice, refined parlors, needs no protection.



Anonymous said...

Free speech was originally intended to protect those who wanted to criticize government functionaries.

Anonymous said...

You are free to say, write, draw or paint anything, except anything that might offend anyone for any reason whatever. (Orwellian-esque logic)

Anonymous said...

It is a myth that speech is "free", a lot of people died for our right to be able to speak freely.


Bird of Paradise said...

To liberal eletists Free Speech is for them only they think of themselves as surior when in reality their a bunch of innorent little spoiled snots

Glenn Bateman said...

Ya gotta love her...

Pamela Geller is the anti-Muslim movement's most visible and flamboyant figurehead. She's relentlessly shrill and coarse in her broad-brush denunciations of Islam and makes preposterous claims, such as that President Obama is the "love child" of Malcolm X. She makes no pretense of being learned in Islamic studies, leaving the argumentative heavy lifting to her Stop Islamization of America partner Robert Spencer. Geller has mingled comfortably with European racists and fascists, spoken favorably of South African racists, defended Serbian war criminal Radovan Karadzic and denied the existence of Serbian concentration camps. She has taken a strong pro-Israel stance to the point of being sharply critical of Jewish liberals.

Anonymous said...

Liberals seem to be oblivious to the fact that the radical muslims MURDER people when they don't like what the person says. When that person, such as Pamela Gellar, is criticizing Islam, the murderers are actually confirming what she says by their actions. She shouldn't incite them the liberals say. What is she supposed to do when these new Nevil Chamberlains only want to appease which only emboldens the muslims? What will it take for people to wake up?

Anonymous said...

8:09 AM

Talk about broad brush denunciations. Have you actually ever read anything she has written or do you rely on the MSM to tell you lies about her. Do you not understand that fascism is a socialist ideology like Nazism? Muslims are todays fascists as were Germany and Italy in the 1930's & 40's. All she is trying to do is wake up the idiots like you who are labouring under false representations.

Frannie Goldsmith said...

Hey 11:25, Why the name calling? Name calling is the last refuge of those who cannot logically disprove an opposing point of view. That said, what is factually incorrect with Glenn's statement?

Anonymous said...

Since when is calling a lefty an idiot name calling? It's the truth. What is factually incorrect with Glenn's statement? Those supposed facts are actually assertions, probably by released by the MSM widely known for their misrepresentation of conservatives and protection of liberals.

Anonymous said...

Frannie Goldsmith,

Okay, I'll play along with your ridiculous game.....

......most visible and flamboyant figurehead

That is an opinion and not a fact.

......relentlessly shrill and coarse

Once again, an opinion and not a fact.

...President Obama is the "love child" of Malcolm X.

This comes from a post that Geller did not write. Her statement on this is " I do not believe that Barack Obama is Malcolm X’s love child, and never did." Therefore the statement by Glenn Bateman is false.

She makes no pretense of being learned in Islamic studies,....

I am not sure why she has to have studied greatly in Islamic studies to denounce radical and violent Islam. Whether Bateman's statement is true or not has no bearing on what is being discussed.

Geller has mingled comfortably with European racists and fascists, spoken favorably of South African racists, defended Serbian war criminal Radovan Karadzic and denied the existence of Serbian concentration camps.

Each and every statement here is false. Let Geller respond to them:

She has taken a strong pro-Israel stance to the point of being sharply critical of Jewish liberals.

Is Bateman really trying to condemn Geller for supporting Israel? Is support of Israel somehow a crime?

So let's recap......

Bateman made several statement of opinions, many statements that are factually wrong (one could even call them lies) , and two statements that may be true, but have absolutely no bearing on anything being discussed here. Bateman's statements on Geller's beliefs are him highlighting what he disagrees with in order to shut Geller up, or to smear her because he disagrees with her.

Bateman's post was full of factual lies.

Anonymous said...

6:48 AM

Well said.

Anonymous said...


You've been had. You put a lot of effort into your post I am sure. Don't you know that Glen Bateman and Frannie Goldsmith are characters in Stephen King's "The Stand"? LOL.

Use the Name, Luke said...

2:43 comment is completely irrelevant troll logic. That was the pseudonym used when making the argument.

Well done, 6:48.

Anonymous said...


I have no idea who Glen Batemen or Fannie Goldsmith are and how they relate to Stephen King.

It doesn't matter. Both of them came here espousing ideas that were not factual and trying to defend each other.

Lies should not be allowed to stand no matter what the motivation is.

Have a good day.