Guest AuthorTesting the First Amendment’s limits has always been an important act in ensuring democratic rule in this country.
Today, there are very few limits on free speech; the only justification for censorship is protecting national security or preventing violent or dangerous behavior.
As a result, we live in a society where almost any words or anti-social acts by Americans go uncensored, from the propagation of the filthiest porn to the most violent depictions of human depravity.
This encompassing protection of vile art, speech and anti-social actions defines our 21st century free society not only in terms of tolerance of extremism in the name of liberty, but also in how our country has devolved in terms of respect and decency for one another in our society.
This week’s killing of what now is claimed by ISIS to be two of their “Al Khilafa soldiers” who tried to attack a Prophet Muhammad Cartoon contest sponsored by Pamela Geller and the American Freedom Defense Initiative raises the question of whether such tolerance has gone too far.
On the surface, if the attack was indeed an attack of war, future shows debasing the Islamic deity, or even the publication of such derogatory Muhammad cartoons, should be banned immediately, strictly for national security.
Even if our government refuses to frame our fight against terrorism as such, we are at war with extreme Islam. Geller’s overtly and provocative dissing of the Islamic religion by holding such an event raises significant national security issues and he should not be protected in the future.
But let’s talk about decency and respect too.
As shown on many occasions in Europe such as the massacre at the Charlie Hebdo magazine, the depiction of the Muslim deity in vulgar ways provokes extreme and violent behavior and is indecent and offensive to a billion Muslims worldwide.
Geller – described in worst terms by the Southern Poverty Law Center as “the anti-Muslim movement’s most visible and flamboyant figurehead,” and who brands herself a “human rights activist” – has carried on a virulent war against Islamic extremism, often claiming First Amendment protections usually invoked by the uber-liberals and anti-Semites she eviscerates on her blog in her defense of the Jewish people and Israel.
For example, she won a recent First Amendment victory over the Metropolitan Transit Authority in New York City in federal court to run an ad on subways showing a man with a scarf across his face, next to the words: “Killing Jews is Worship that draws us close to Allah.”
So according to Geller and her ilk, worshipping Muhammad and the Quran means that every Muslim wants all Jews dead. That’s stupid. Those are dangerous words too.
Now, with the attack in Texas, Geller has achieved greater notoriety in pushing the indecent characterization of the Islamic religion solely in violent terms, which has now invited more attacks by ISIS, al-Qaeda and other radical Islamic forces on US soil.
Remember Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes’ words in the case Schenck v. United States:
“The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic … . The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger.”
Geller has made her brand as nothing more than an activist skank who pushes the bounds of offense and indecency. Her words and her actions are no better than the violent actions by our Islamic enemies and demean any coherent arguments against Islamic radicalism.
Drawing irreverent characterizations of Muhammad, at this point in our war, present a clear and present danger to American society. So does Pamela Geller.
Steven Kurlander blogs at Kurly’s Kommentary (stevenkurlander.com) and writes for Context Florida and The Huffington Post and can be found on Twitter @Kurlykomments. He lives in Monticello, N.Y. Column courtesy of Context Florida.
