WhatFinger


Bigotry and anti-constitutionalism on full display

Liberals on radical Islam: You wouldn't get raped if you didn't dress so purdy



Muslims just can't control themselves. You should know that. If you run a cartoon featuring the prophet Mohammad, or organize a displeasing art exhibit, you should simply assume that an Islamist is going to get all wound up and kill you. It's your fault. You drew and displayed some doodle that they found offensive, and now you've paid the price.
Appeasement is the only way forward. The rest of us should rein in our First Amendment rights to conform to the killers' way of thinking. That's the argument that the left has been trying to make for the last few days. Ever since two terrorists attempted to murder the attendees of a Prophet Muhammad cartoon contest in Garland Texas, we've been told that our free speech is the problem. The claims usually feature the telltale phrase "we all love the 1st Amendment, but...." For example, here's a snippet of a piece that ran over at McClatchy DC. It suggests that the cartoons rose to the level of incitement or "fighting words" and asks "After Texas shooting: If free speech is provocative, should there be limits?"

Support Canada Free Press


“Fighting words is the idea that you are saying something that is so offensive that it will lead to an immediate breach of the peace,” Szmer explained. “In other words, you are saying something and you should expect a violent reaction by other people.” The exhibit of cartoons in Texas might have crossed the line, Szmer said. “I don’t think it is unreasonable to expect what they were doing would incite a violent reaction,” he said. Organizers knew, he said, that caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad, which many Muslims consider insulting, have sparked violence before. In a recent case that drew worldwide attention, gunmen claiming allegiance with the self-described Islamic State killed 12 people in an attack on the Paris offices of the French magazine Charlie Hebdo, which was known for satirical depictions of the Prophet Muhammad.
In other words, since you know Islamist killers get really peeved about this stuff, you should probably just put a lid on it. Silence yourself, because you know how "offensive" this material is. This is the exact argument that says "Hey, don't wear that # outfit if you don't want to get raped. You know people in this neighborhood can't control themselves." MSNBC's Chris Matthews was speaking with Evan Kohlmann when he distilled this concept perfectly - claiming that "An anti-Islamic event caused, well, it caused this probably." Kohlmann responded with the standard "we love free speech but" line, and then launched into this nugget:
....They are intentionally trying to provoke a response from the Muslim community and unfortunately, this was predictable. And you know that because the police told them in order to hold this event, they would have to have $10,000 worth of security on hand. They had a SWAT Team outfitted like it was Baghdad. So obviously someone knew that there was a likelihood that some some stupid person would do this. And again, I don't think it's any great revelation if you shout fire in a crowded theater and you incite people and you say nasty invective about people's ancestors and their religious symbols, that there are a couple of crazy nutcases that are going to come out of the woodwork and are going to try to take action over that.
There are a couple of problems here.

Why is the 1st Amendment the problem, but mass-murdering ISIS thugs aren't?

First, I could have sworn that - for decades - artists and the liberal left told us that art existed precisely to "provoke a response." The painter, sculptor, writer, or musician creates his message, and you respond to it as you will. Art that fails to create any response is ridiculed as banal and uninspired. Isn't that why we were all supposed to fawn over a crucifix submerged in urine or the Virgin Mary smeared with feces? We didn't hear a whole lot of "tone it down" in response to the Christian outrage those pieces generated. More importantly, the "fire in a crowded theater" argument doesn't apply here. Everyone at this event knew what it was. We aren't talking about a bunch of random folks who lined up for the midnight screening of The Avengers then trampled each other trying to escape a non-existent blaze. Unless we're now supposed to consider the entire globe "a crowded theater," the argument doesn't hold water. If we're are - if we're so surrounded by zealots who would kill us over nothing more than our words and our cartoons - then it's time we solve that problem rather than watching our language. There are hundreds of similar examples all over the web, and I won't bother listing them all here. We saw the same thing happen when Time magazine criticized the "Islamophobic" cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo, and we'll probably see it the next time a jihadist kills in the name of "The Prophet." ...But it's worth noting that these claims all have one thing in common. Not one of the people blaming free speech have managed to answer a very simple question: If these deeply-offended people are murderers, terrorists, radicals, extremists, and "crazy nutcases," why are we supposed to cater to them? Whether or not you find the cartoons offensive, shouldn't we be placing the rights of the non-violent above an effort to coddle the worst humanity has to offer? The left's desire to "blame the victim" is disgusting, and it's astonishing that they won't admit the inherent bigotry of their "Muslims can't control themselves" claim. Why is the 1st Amendment the problem, but mass-murdering ISIS thugs aren't?


View Comments

Robert Laurie -- Bio and Archives

Robert Laurie’s column is distributed by HermanCain.com, which can be found at HermanCain.com

Be sure to “like” Robert Laurie over on Facebook and follow him on Twitter. You’ll be glad you did.


Sponsored