Pamela Geller Is Not "Morally Responsible" for the Terrorist Attack in Texas

The defense of free expression should become stronger in the face of violent threats, not weaker.

Pamela Geller, president of the American Freedom Defense Initiative, is a nasty-hearted Islamophobe. But should she be blamed for the recent armed attack on her cartoon exhibit in Garland, Texas, in which two gunmen were killed and a police officer was wounded? Writing for Bloomberg View, Harvard law professor Noah Feldman opined that she may be “morally culpable,” on the theory that she probably hoped to “provoke violence.” Feldman has erred badly here.

Although Feldman begins by condemning the terrorists, he quickly cautions his readers not to be “distracted” by either the crime or the First Amendment; the real question, he argues, is whether Geller was “morally right or wrong” to stage an event featuring offensive caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed. But it's Feldman who's been distracted, by Geller's long history of repulsive anti-Islam activism (for example, her despicable campaign to prohibit the so-called “ground zero mosque”). Blaming her, even partially and conditionally, for an act of terror stretches moral reasoning beyond the breaking point.

Feldman’s premise is that the “provokers in Texas,” as he calls them, “almost certainly… wanted to get a reaction from Muslims.” Thus, Geller could be held “morally responsible for the foreseeable consequences of her provocation,” by which he means the armed attack. The implication here is staggering. In the wake of threats of murder for the exercise of free expression—and lately, they have been much more than threats—Feldman claims that the correct moral response is to shut up. In this contest, the bullies always win, so long as their violent reaction is sufficiently predictable—which, as Feldman does not acknowledge, gives the bullies a strong incentive to strike early and often (thus making their threats more credible).

There comes a point, however, when defiance is the only feasible response to censorship. In a better world, we would all respect the religious sensitivities of others, and no one would have cause for offense. Alas, we live in a world where atheist bloggers are hacked to death in the streets of Bangladesh, and Seattle cartoonist Molly Norris has been forced into hiding for four years after being placed on an Al Qaeda hit list. Self-silencing—at the point of a machete—is not the answer to this problem.

Applied in other circumstances, Feldman’s metric leads to untenable results. Was John Lewis responsible for the foreseeable consequences of the Selma to Montgomery march? Was Ayaan Hirsi Ali responsible for the murder of her filmmaking colleague Theo von Gogh? Was Salman Rushdie responsible for the murder of his Japanese translator? Indeed, were the cartoonists at the Charlie Hebdo office responsible for the related massacre at Hyper Cacher supermarket? Of course not. All of those people—some of whose aims were more noble than others'—defied the threat of violence at great personal cost. John Lewis is a civil-rights hero and Salman Rushdie a gifted novelist, while Pamela Geller is a religious bigot—but so what? The application of moral principles to extremist violence should not depend upon the acceptability of the victim's views.

Feldman attempts to draw a fine line between risking violence (which is apparently okay) and seeking it (which is morally blameworthy). He asserts that Geller falls into the latter category because “she paid for an armed security guard outside the event, suggesting she considered violence at least possible” and because “cartoons perceived as insulting the prophet have been met with violence” in the past. By that measure, we would also have to blame the victims at Charlie Hebdo, as well as those who were murdered the following month at a “blasphemy debate” in Copenhagen. After all, they too had armed guards.

I stand second to no one in my contempt for Pamela Geller and everything she represents. Her derision of Islam and Muslims is morally wrong, but that does not make her morally responsible for the attack in Texas. And it is absurd to claim, as does a New York Times editorial, that her two-hour cartoon display at a suburban conference center stood any chance of “inflicting deliberate anguish on millions of devout Muslims.” Please, let’s not grant her more power than she possesses.

It is a bedrock principle of pluralist democracy that followers of one religion do not get to veto the expression of non-believers, even when it causes offense. In the words of Thomas Jefferson, “It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” The same goes for insulting God, he might have added. Robert Mapplethorpe and Andre Serrano understood that, and so did Lenny Bruce. The defense of free expression should become stronger in the face of violent threats, not weaker.

It is to the shame of American liberalism that the assertion of such an essential ideal has defaulted to reactionary hatemongers such as Pamela Geller.

Professor Lubet was quite eloquent in talking out of both sides of his mouth. He minced no words in disqualifying Pamela Geller from the human race:
“Nasty hearted Islamophobe,”
“Despicable campaign to prohibit Ground Zero Mosque,”
“Pamela Geller is a religious bigot.”

I beg to differ with the professor’s moronic evaluations of the woman who is sounding the alarms while the “media” and “academia” as well as far too many politicians are cringing in their boots and shaking with fear, determined to “pacify” and placate the murderous instincts of the followers of a tyrant who was a pedophile among other things. In today’s world he would be behind bars, not the leader of a cult. I know of no “religion” that demands the annihilation of all non believers. Only Muslims build Mosques over the site of their conquered enemies, witness the Mosques in Jerusalem, in Constantinople,and ALMOST the World Trade Center.
Civilized societies should have learned a long time ago that APPEASEMENT DOES NOT WORK.

. . . was [it] “morally right or wrong” to stage an event featuring offensive caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed [perhaps yes given] Geller's long history of repulsive anti-Islam activism . . . But [b]laming her, even partially and conditionally, for an act of terror stretches moral reasoning beyond the breaking point.

Could it be that the Barbary pirates were provoked by our Founding Fathers' repulsive anti-Islam, disrespectful, impertinent activism defining justice? Only Allah can do that; to wit,

". . . there has been no social justice or anything like it in any society or civilization before the advent of Islam."

"A human being cannot establish absolute justice because he is just a mere human . . . the divine social justice advocated by Islam is an integrated system for justice enjoined by the Creator of man and all other creatures . . . Justice is Allah’s attribute"

See excerpts below and links.

We must submit lest we provoke them even more by our heritage of inalienable rights and justice..

But wait.. the name callers would scream "Bigots! Islamophobes! There is nothing in Islam's teachings about taking over the law of the land. Let us teach you about Islam. The Quran instructs that absolute justice -- not religion -- must be the ruling government's guiding principle."

OK fine. What is Quran justice?

From Part 1. "In Islam, justice is significant as it is one of the 99 Divine Attributes of Allah . . . Islam laid down foundations to regulate relationships among all individuals of the society and foremost among these bases is social justice . . . there has been no social justice or anything like it in any society or civilization before the advent of Islam."

Islam and Social Justice Part 2 A human being cannot establish absolute justice because he is just a mere human . . . the divine social justice advocated by Islam is an integrated system for justice enjoined by the Creator of man and all other creatures . . . Justice is Allah’s attribute, and to stand firm for justice is to be a witness to Allah, even if it is detrimental to our own interests (as we conceive them) or the interests of those who are near and dear to us . . . The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) has given . . . the moral of justice which [is to be] observed with all people without any sort of discrimination. The story of the noble woman who stole and the reaction of the Prophet to Usama’s intercession [teaches us that Allah's Prescribed Punishments command the same punishment for all regardless of social status : cut off the noble woman's hand]. It goes beyond the scope of this paper to relate the countless examples that show the Prophet’s absolute justice and fair dealing with all human beings, and even with animals.

Being a dumb Islamophobe and all -- I will ask:

How can one be a true Muslim without accepting that only their god can define justice? Screw the islamophobe Founding Fathers.

Name calling not appreciated but contumely welcomed. I have quite a collection over the years. :)

A well worn and effective device used here. If one wishes to publish a view that may well draw some fire and indeed some contumely, use it. Thus one deflects some of the vituperation that might come one's way. While I do not disagree what was written in this biography, I would like to give an example.

Robert Payne wrote "The Life and Death of Adolf Hitler". A masterful work. In the introduction he savaged Hitler and his gang with a burst of invective. He poured it on. Why not? He had to guard against the usual reactionaries, who might think he tried to show a human side of a young Hitler. This in the early days of that man's life.

It is the safest way to get one's point across and deflect the vitriolic naysayers. It works!

I call the professor a bigot. I call the man an ungallant cad. Then our world is full of these would be censors. If they want YOUR opinion they will give it you.

The liberal mindset that somehow there is not only a moral equivalence between the adovocates of free speech critics of radical Islam and the Islamists but moral culpability on the pat of the people who were attacked is a very dangerous concept.

What provoked the Garland episode was not the cartoon contest but the Islamic convention that was held there before in which various speakers used hate speech against Christians and Jews accompanied by threats of violence. Geller’s group was protesting in a way to say “Never Again.” You can’t let the bully get away with intimidation in speech or he will be back with his club.

Most people are familiar with the concept of ‘grooming’ as practiced by pedophiles to gain acceptance of their particular sexual preferences by their targets. In much the same way, the bullying tactics of radical Islamists toward the rest of the world that doesn’t accept their religion is a form of psychological ‘grooming’ of the West.

Once you begin to accept the premise that they have the right to use hate speech against people they consider to be inferior infidels, and follow up the threats with violence even unto death, you have begun to lose your freedom of action.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.