Even the title is wrong.
Free Speech vs. Hate Speech
And so is the punch line.
Whether fighting against a planned mosque near ground zero, posting to her venomous blog Atlas Shrugs or organizing the event in Garland, Ms. Geller revels in assailing Islam in terms reminiscent of virulent racism or anti-Semitism.
She achieved her provocative goal in Garland — the event was attacked by two Muslims who were shot to death by a traffic officer before they killed anyone.
Those two men were would-be murderers.
But their thwarted attack, or the murderous rampage of the Charlie Hebdo killers, or even the greater threat posed by the barbaric killers of the Islamic State or Al Qaeda, cannot justify blatantly Islamophobic provocations like the Garland event.
These can serve only to exacerbate tensions and to give extremists more fuel.
Their sincere fury at the victims when Islamists are the perpetrators of violence is an absolute disgrace.
As is their fury at the targets of failed attempts.
It's identical to the White House view of the matter, except that the White House actually bullied that silly pastor who wanted to burn Korans out of doing it while talking up America's dedication to freedom of speech.
It's the view of all orthodox liberals.
Pamela Geller’s abuse of free speech
What these people really want is European hate speech laws so they can really do the terrorists' dirty work for them.
Breitbart does not resist the entirely justified easy shot.
What the Times is really saying is that Geller was asking for it.
If the topic were rape, domestic violence, or even the intentionally provocative “slutwalks” that were popular a few years ago, no one at the Times would countenance this logic.
Anyone suggesting slutwalk attendees had achieved their goal when a pair of men tried to rape them would, at best, be seen as intentionally obtuse.
The concept of slutwalking was premised on the idea that victims were being blamed for their own sexual abuse.
Incredibly, the Times says there is nothing — not 9/11 and not even ISIS’ violence — that can justify Geller making her point.
. . . . .
The Times editorial board should be deeply ashamed of embracing the twisted logic of Geller’s would be killers.
She was not asking to be murdered any more than women dressing provocatively to march in a “slutwalk” are asking to be raped.
In fact, they are pointedly demanding the very opposite by saying the one can never justify the other.
The NY Times doesn’t have to help convey that message it if it doesn’t want to do so, but it should stop blaming the people who are conveying it of provoking their own would-be assassins.
The personal attacks are all over the web.
She's a hater, she's a bigot, she's doing it all for the money, blah, blah, blah.
Pamela Geller’s Critics Are Proving Her Point
Why Won’t Pamela Geller Shut Up?
No comments:
Post a Comment