VDH: “Geller’s critics…do not understand that radical Islam has already cut a huge swath out of American free speech through more than a decade of death threats”

26

The renowned historian Victor Davis Hanson understands the free speech issues that are at stake in the controversy over the Muhammad cartoon contest. He is one of the few.

Victor-Davis-Hanson

“The First — and a Half — Amendment,” by Victor Davis Hanson, National Review, May 12, 2015:

Story continues below advertisement

Free speech and artistic and intellectual expression have been controversial Western traditions since the rise of the classical-Greek city-state. When our Founding Fathers introduced guarantees of such freedoms to our new nation, they were never intended to protect thinkers whom we all admire or traditionalists who produce beloved movies like The Sound of Music.

The First Amendment to the Constitution instead was designed to protect the obnoxious, the provocative, the uncouth, and the creepy — on the principle that if the foulmouths can say or express what they wish and the public can put up with it, then everyone else is assured of free speech.

Every time the West has forgotten that fact — from putting on trial cranky Socrates or incendiary Jesus to routinely burning books in the Third Reich — we have come to regret what followed. Censorship, of course, is never branded as extreme and dangerous, but rather as a moderate and helpful means to curb the hate speech of a bald, barefooted crank philosopher who pollutes young minds and introduces wacky and dangerous cults, or a hatemonger who whips innocent people in front of a temple in between his faked and hokey miracles, or traitorous Jews who scribble and call their first-grade art the equivalent of Rembrandt or their perverted sexual fantasies the stuff of Hegel. Banning free expression is never presented as provocative, but always the final act of an aggrieved and understandably provoked society.

Lately, the West in general and America in particular seems to have forgotten the free-speech pillar of Western constitutional government. In 2012 an obscure Egyptian-born videomaker, Nakoula Nakoula, made an amateurish Internet video criticizing Islam. Innocence of Muslims went global and viral. Violent demonstrations in the Islamic world followed. In an effort to placate Muslims, the Obama administration falsely blamed Nakoula’s video for the storming of the American consulate in Benghazi. Leading the Obama pack was the opportunistic secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, who saw in Nakoula a convenient fall guy to explain away U.S. security lapses in Libya. In reality, the killing of Americans there was the preplanned work of an al-Qaeda terrorist affiliate that took advantage of absent-minded U.S. officials.

No matter. President Obama scapegoated Nakoula at the United Nations — a majority of whose members ban free speech as a rule — with pompous promises that the prophet would not be mocked with impunity in the United States of America. Nakoula was suddenly arrested on a minor parole violation and jailed for over a year.

No one seemed to care that the unsavory firebrand Egyptian had a constitutional right while legally resident in America to freely caricature any religion that he chose.

The IRS under career bureaucrats like Lois Lerner targeted non-profit groups on the basis of their perceived political expression. The best strategy now for stifling free speech is to arbitrarily substitute the word “hate” for “free” — and then suddenly we all must unite to curb “hate speech.” The effort is insidious and growing, from silly “trigger warnings” in university classes about time-honored classics that trendy and mostly poorly educated race/class/gender activists now think contain hurtful language and ideas, to the common tactic of shouting down campus speakers or declaring them to be dangerous “extremists” who traffic in “hate speech” if their politics are deemed insufficiently progressive.

Cartoons of Mohammed on display in Garland, Tex.

More recently, the anti–sharia law activist Pamela Geller organized a conference of cartoonists in Texas to draw caricatures of the prophet Mohammed — in the fashion of the Paris cartoonists who were killed at the offices of the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo.

As in the French case, jihadists showed up to murder the cartoonists. This time, however, two brave and skilled local Texas policemen stopped their attempts at mass murder.

What followed the botched assassination attempt, however, was almost as scary. Commentators — both left-wing multiculturalists and right-wing traditionalists, from talk radio and Fox News to MSNBC and Salon — blasted Geller for supposedly stirring up religious hatred.

Geller, and not the jihadists who sought to kill those with whom they disagreed, was supposedly at fault. Her critics could not figure out that radical Muslims object not just to caricatures and cartoons, but to any iconographic representation of Mohammed. Had Geller offered invitations to artists to compete for the most majestic statue of the Prophet, jihadists might still have tried to use violence to stop it. Had she held a beauty pageant for gay Muslims or a public wedding for gay Muslim couples, jihadists would certainly have shown up. Had she offered a contest for the bravest Islamic apostates, jihadists would have galvanized to kill the non-believers. Had she organized a support rally for Israel, jihadists might well have tried to kill the innocent, as they did in Paris when they murderously attacked a kosher market.

Geller’s critics also do not understand that radical Islam has already cut a huge swath out of American free speech through more than a decade of death threats. Ever since 9/11, they have largely succeeded by demanding special rules for public discourse about Islam in a way accorded no other religion. Disagree, and one is branded “Islamophobic,” as that now-ubiquitous buzzphrase “hate speech” magically pops up. Of course, when other so-called artists have desecrated Christian images, they operated on the belief not just that they would not be harmed, but that, as in “Piss Christ,” they would actually be subsidized by the U.S. government.

One wonders what the current apologists would have said about Nazi book burning. Did not Freudian writers and modern artists grasp that their work would offend traditional National Socialists who sought only to bring back balance to artistic and literary expression? Why then would they continue to produce abstract paintings or publish Jungian theories about sexual repression, when they must have known that such works would only provoke blood-and-soil Nazis? And had Jews just left Germany en masse by 1935 or gone into hiding, would not Hitler have cooled his anti-Semitic rhetoric? Why did some Jews insist on staying in a clearly Aryan nation, when they must have known that their ideas — indeed, their mere presence — could only provoke Nazis to violence?

Apparently there is no longer a First Amendment as our Founders wrote it, but instead something like an Orwellian Amendment 1.5.

Apparently there is no longer a First Amendment as our Founders wrote it, but instead something like an Orwellian Amendment 1.5, which reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press — except if someone finds some speech hurtful, controversial, or not helpful.

Cowardice abounds. When artists and writers mock Mormonism in a Broadway play like the Book of Mormon or use urine or excrement to deface Christian symbols, no Christian gang seeks to curb such distasteful expression — much less to kill anyone. Every religion but Islam knows that its iconography is fair game for caricature in the United States; none sanctions assassins. Jihadists seek to make this asymmetry quite clear to Western societies and thereby provide deterrence that gives Islam special exemption from Western satire and criticism in a way not accorded to other religions. And they are enabled by Westerners who prefer tranquility to freedom of expression.

Among those who attack free expression the most loudly are progressives who do not like politically incorrect speech that does not further their own agendas. The term “illegal alien,” an exact description of foreign nationals who entered and reside in the United States without legal sanction, is now nearly taboo. The effort to ban the phrase is not because it is hateful or inaccurate, but because it does not euphemistically advance the supposedly noble cause of amnesties and open borders. Of course, the politically correct restrictionists have no compunction about smearing their critics with slurs such as xenophobe, racist, or nativist.

If a Christian cake decorator does not wish to use his skills to celebrate gay marriage — an innovation that both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama opposed until very recently — on a wedding cake, then he is rendered a homophobe who must be punished for not using his artistic talents in the correct way.

Note that we are not talking about nondiscrimination concerning fundamental civil rights such as voting, finding housing, using public facilities, or purchasing standard merchandise. Meanwhile, are we really prepared to force gay bakers to decorate Christian wedding cakes with slogans that they find offensive or homophobic? Or to insist that an Orthodox Jewish baker must prepare a cake for a Palestinian wedding featuring a map of the Middle East without Israel? Or to require a black-owned catering company to cook ribs for a KKK group? Instead, radical gays demand the exclusive right to force an artist — and a cake decorator is an artist of sorts — to express himself in ways that they deem correct.

Without free speech, the United States becomes just another two-bit society of sycophants, opportunists, and toadies who warp expression for their own careerist and political agendas. How odd that we of the 21st century lack the vision and courage of our 18th-century Founders, who warned us of exactly what we are now becoming.

The Truth Must be Told

Your contribution supports independent journalism

Please take a moment to consider this. Now, more than ever, people are reading Geller Report for news they won't get anywhere else. But advertising revenues have all but disappeared. Google Adsense is the online advertising monopoly and they have banned us. Social media giants like Facebook and Twitter have blocked and shadow-banned our accounts. But we won't put up a paywall. Because never has the free world needed independent journalism more.

Everyone who reads our reporting knows the Geller Report covers the news the media won't. We cannot do our ground-breaking report without your support. We must continue to report on the global jihad and the left's war on freedom. Our readers’ contributions make that possible.

Geller Report's independent, investigative journalism takes a lot of time, money and hard work to produce. But we do it because we believe our work is critical in the fight for freedom and because it is your fight, too.

Please contribute here.

or

Make a monthly commitment to support The Geller Report – choose the option that suits you best.

Quick note: We cannot do this without your support. Fact. Our work is made possible by you and only you. We receive no grants, government handouts, or major funding. Tech giants are shutting us down. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense, Pinterest permanently banned us. Facebook, Google search et al have shadow-banned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here.

Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here— it’s free and it’s essential NOW when informed decision making and opinion is essential to America's survival. Share our posts on your social channels and with your email contacts. Fight the great fight.

Follow Pamela Geller on Gettr. I am there. click here.

Follow Pamela Geller on
Trump's social media platform, Truth Social. It's open and free.

Remember, YOU make the work possible. If you can, please contribute to Geller Report.

Join The Conversation. Leave a Comment.

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spammy or unhelpful, click the - symbol under the comment to let us know. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

If you would like to join the conversation, but don't have an account, you can sign up for one right here.

If you are having problems leaving a comment, it's likely because you are using an ad blocker, something that break ads, of course, but also breaks the comments section of our site. If you are using an ad blocker, and would like to share your thoughts, please disable your ad blocker. We look forward to seeing your comments below.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
26 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
IC_the_future
IC_the_future
8 years ago

I think more than free speech is at stake, the author hinted at it but did not say it outright, it is freedom itself. Ten years of death threats have started the sharia here, and their influence is only set to grow. They will impose more and more until we are dhimmis and they are supreme, for years they have penetrated the FBI and now the CIA on the highest levels, doesn’t that say something? Obama was a mistake in pluralism, an attempt to balance racial bigotry, but why did we choose a Marxist foreign exchange student from Indonesia with 2 years of public service over a 40 year veteran of politics? I would love a black president who was pro American, pro our values, this guy literally came out of nowhere. Was it because of his race that made him qualified? Did people not know of his ties to a radical preacher? We are stuck til 2016. Lets hope no more damage is done til then and the next candidate starts turning the tide of the leftist liberal media and the government starts taking the jihadi threat seriously by adjudicating laws outlawing jihadi preaching and shut down the mosques, and deport en masse those jihadi supporters. I have no tears for them and their families, they will destroy America unless the government deports them and stops their death cult.

Marlboro Man
Marlboro Man
8 years ago
Reply to  IC_the_future

Even libtards at Salon are starting to pull their heads out of their asses. Got this link from another post and IT’S GOOD:

http://www.salon.com/2015/05/10/the_left_has_islam_all_wrong_bill_maher_pamela_geller_and_the_reality_progressives_must_face/?source=newsletter

We need to stop ALL immigration for 10 years – both illegal and legal. Congress should do it NOW.

guest
guest
8 years ago
Reply to  Marlboro Man

That link should go viral. It’s a wake-up call to the Left.

Margie
Margie
8 years ago
Reply to  Marlboro Man

I found it shallow, even appeasing, in that the author can’t simply critique Islam, but must tie the arguments he makes to a deconstructionist aim toward all religion. I have trouble with that formula because one can measure outcomes of belief systems, by comparing in the real world. There are no equivalence between Islam and the others. But thevauthor puts everyone but atheists/secularists in the same boat.

faraway
faraway
8 years ago
Reply to  Margie

I agree that islam stands out in vileness but for an atheist all religious belief is based on hocus-pocus.

Gail Combs
Gail Combs
8 years ago
Reply to  faraway

At least the Judeo-Christian religions give a decent moral code upon which to base our civilization and they do not force their beliefs on non-believer at the point of a gun.

albeit
albeit
8 years ago
Reply to  faraway

Hocus pocus??? Was Jesus the living Word or just a very smart man?

4True
4True
8 years ago
Reply to  faraway

Regardless Christians are the victims across the Muslim world and truly need sanctuary. Part of fighting terrorism (if we were) would be helping them (which we are not).

hurricanepaul
hurricanepaul
8 years ago

When is it “okay” to yell “FIRE!” in a crowded theater?
When the theater is on fire.
Pam Geller is yelling “ISLAMISTS!” in a crowded planet.
But there are tons of idiots who don’t know the fire (Jihad) has already started.
Fools like Bill O’Reilly slam Pam Geller for trying to warn the people to “take action”, before it’s too late.
Bill O’Reilly would rather you sit quietly in your seat while the flames (Islam) spreads throughout the “crowed planet”.
“We don’t want to offend the flames”, says Bill O’Reilly

BonnieRJasso
BonnieRJasso
8 years ago
Reply to  hurricanepaul

♋♪♪♪♪♋Freelance with Google@nw5:::

➨➨➨http://FullKaboom-work-Cloud.com/millionaire/0ssub

Derrick
Derrick
8 years ago
Reply to  hurricanepaul

Could you come up with a cartoon illustrating those interesting concepts? Oh, wait–uhm, never mind…

Gail Combs
Gail Combs
8 years ago
Reply to  Derrick

comment image

(And yes I stole it from the last article)

Betty4440
Betty4440
8 years ago
Reply to  Gail Combs

I ran a copy of it off and named it Pam,Robert and the jihadist

sandra schmidt
sandra schmidt
8 years ago
Reply to  hurricanepaul

O’Reilly is simply jealous that Pamela Geller is a journalist while he is only a talking head shilling his latest vapid titles. By the way, I love Pamela’s insertions of music and videos on this site. It just gets better and better. Foxnews had better watch out – they may lose substantial market share to Pamela.

nacazo
nacazo
8 years ago

More Victor Davis Hansons!!!! Less O’Reillys and Jeb Bushes!!!!

Honest Citizen
Honest Citizen
8 years ago

Well said!

pdxnag
pdxnag
8 years ago

We must dispel any notion that criticism of Islam is in any way gratuitous evilness. Muslims, moderate and non-moderate, subscribe to an ideology that mandates that they smother out all non-sharia compliant government. That is, they are all contending for political power, and most notably total political power by Muslims exclusively over everybody on all issues. The freedom to criticize Islam and Muslims is at least as great as drawing Bush/Ape cartoons, certainly not less. Indeed, it is greater precisely because they go all Islam, in “defense” of Islam.

Gordon Miller
Gordon Miller
8 years ago

Excellent article. But we must not neglect the fundamental transgression that the devout Muslims perceived in the exhibition; It was a clear violation of Sharia law—blasphemy—punishable by death to those responsible.
Unlike any other ethnic or religious group you can name who live in America, devout Muslims want America and Americans to mold itself and themselves to the system of Sharia law rather than the other way around as other immigrant groups throughout history have done. In essence, they want to revise America’s system of laws and justice back to that extant in the Mideast of the seventh century.
We must resist this pressure by all means available.

bushmisfite
bushmisfite
8 years ago
Reply to  Gordon Miller

A way to very Easy with pamelageller < my classmate's step-aunt makes $72 hourly on the laptop . She has been fired for 7 months but last month her payment was $17104 just working on the laptop for a few hours..

pop over here SEE MORE DETAIL

Theodorick C
Theodorick C
8 years ago

The vile “Prophet” Muhammad’s Shariamonster, also known as “Islam,” wants to decapitate our freedom of speech.

Say “NO” To Muhammad’s Shariamonster, and say “NO” to Islam!
comment image

https://drawthevileprophet.wordpress.com/2015/05/11/say-no-to-muhammad-s-shariamonster/

Leclem
Leclem
8 years ago

By the way, doesn’t anyone realize that if islam forbids to portray muhamad, it is to prevent idolatry and the possible worship of an image?…
In this sense, someone making a caricature of muhamad is more in line with muslim teachings (since he is stating that his image is not sacred) than the idiot who gets upset about it… Oh the irony….

Leclem
Leclem
8 years ago

Great article by the way, here in France almost everybody claimed to be in support of Charlie Hebdo and freedom of speech.

Number of caricatures about he who must not be drawn since then?: 0

Well played terrorists…
Freedom of speech only deteriorates if you don’t use it.

ToastedHam
ToastedHam
8 years ago

Supreme Court Building displays cartoon!!:
Chief Justice William Rehnquist rejected the request to sandblast Muhammad.

Sculpture figures prominently in the Corinthian architecture of the Supreme Court Building. One chamber features a frieze decorated with a bas-relief sculpture by Adolph A. Weinman of eighteen influential law-givers. The south wall depicts Menes, Hammurabi, Moses, Solomon, Lycurgus, Solon, Draco, Confucius and Octavian, while the north wall depicts Napoleon Bonaparte, John Marshall, William Blackstone, Hugo Grotius, Louis IX, King John, Charlemagne, Justinian and, you guessed it, Mohammad.

Things were all well and good for a few decades, with no documented controversies over the sculpture. But then, in 1997, the fledgling Council on American-Islamic Relations brought their wrath to the Court, petitioning then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist to remove the sculpture. CAIR outlined their objections as thus:

1. Islam discourages its followers from portraying any prophet in artistic
representations, lest the seed of idol worship be planted.

2. Depicting Mohammad carrying a sword “reinforced long-held stereotypes of Muslims as intolerant conquerors.”

3. Building documents and tourist pamphlets referred to Mohammad as “the founder of Islam,” when he is, more accurately, the “last in a line of prophets
that includes Abraham, Moses and Jesus.”

Rehnquist dismissed CAIR’s objections, the request to sandblast Muhammad saying that the depiction was “intended only to recognize him [Mohammad] … as an important figure in the history of law; it was not intended as a form of idol worship.” He also reminded CAIR that “swords are used throughout the Court’s architecture as a symbol of justice and nearly a dozen swords appear in the courtroom friezes alone.”

Lacouray Too
Lacouray Too
8 years ago
Reply to  ToastedHam

Islam discourages its followers from portraying any prophet in artistic representations, lest the seed of idol worship be planted.
Is the SCOTUS a follower of islam?

Depicting Mohammad carrying a sword “reinforced long-held stereotypes of Muslims as intolerant conquerors.”
A historical fact is not a stereotype. He lived a life of murder, piracy and conquest. That is how his “religion” was spread.

Building documents and tourist pamphlets referred to Mohammad as “the founder of Islam,” when he is, more accurately, the “last in a line of prophets that includes Abraham, Moses and Jesus.”
The founder of ISLAM is the ONLY factual designation of moohamhead and he founded islam for the profit.
The ‘line of prophets’ into which he and cair are attempting to install him are all Jews and moohamhead was an arab.
Remember the good old Sesame Street days; one of these things is not like the others.
When moohamhead attempted to sell himself to his contemporary Jews they laughed at him. This is one of the main reasons that moohamhead hated Jews.
The moohamheadans know that they can only ‘sell’ this silly, murderous, devilish doctrine by force and will still kill you for mocking and laughing at them. cair is being disrespectful and provocative and offensive here.

Michael Copeland
Michael Copeland
8 years ago

Excellent article.
If permitted, two small refinements can be proffered.

The video “Innocence of Muslims” was not “criticizing” Mohammed: it was just
depicting him (not permitted by Sharia). The film is a faithful representation – without mocking – of incidents in his life as recorded in Islam’s source texts. It is its low-budget quality that Americans, accustomed to Hollywood’s grand productions, find a little bit insulting.

At the time of the Benghazi attack, according to Robert Spencer, the video had attracted 37 views: it had not at that stage gone viral, and did not precipitate the attack. As Professor Hanson says, it was dishonestly blamed by the White House, who wanted to cover up their own shortcomings.

4True
4True
8 years ago

Excellent analysis

Sponsored
Geller Report
Thanks for sharing!