Posted on 05/06/2015 7:22:18 PM PDT by Steelfish
Fox News’s Greta Van Susteren Scolds Pamela Geller
By Erik Wemple May 6 Before embarking on a television career, Fox News host Greta Van Susteren worked as a highly successful trial attorney. She graduated from Georgetown Law, represented clients in federal and state venues and picked up her share of accolades along the way.
And last night she ditched her legal-eagle sophistication in a monologue criticizing activist Pamela Geller for putting the lives of police officers on the line at an event Sunday in Garland, Texas. “Everyone knew this event would unglue some who might become violent,” said Van Susteren.
In a story that has resurrected a fierce debate on the First Amendment, two gunmen on Sunday were killed by police after they descended on the Geller-organized event showcasing cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad. The Islamic State terror group has claimed responsibility for the attack and U.S. officials are investigating any possible link. Geller is president of the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), a group that bills itself as a protector of U.S. constitutional freedoms but that the Southern Poverty Law Center calls an “active anti-Muslim group.” Muslims consider depictions of the prophet offensive. In January, terrorists carried out a massacre at the Paris offices of Charlie Hebdo magazine, which had repeatedly satirized Muhammad.
So Van Susteren scolded Geller for holding the cartoon contest. “My message is simple — protect our police. Do not recklessly lure them into danger and that is what happened in Garland, Texas at the Mohammed cartoon contest,” she said. “Yes, of course, there’s a First Amendment right and it’s very important, but the exercise of that right includes using good judgment.”
In other words, watch what you say, or draw.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Not only Greta, the WaPo even put on their Big Boy pamts just this past January
Charlie Hebdo stands solidly for free expression. The West must do no less.
Thanks for taking time to read and comment. I would like to discuss the “limited in number” aspect of this in order to understand the gist of your correction. When I say “limited in number” with respect to “rights,” I am understanding “rights” as strictly defined rather than as generally used.
For example, Ted Cruz said in his speech at Liberty University - when he announced his candidacy - and I am paraphrasing: “Every child has a right to a good education.” IMO, strictly speaking, even though the aim is highly laudable, this is not true. We are endowed from Above with the capacity to receive a good education, but to the extent we receive it and use it, it is a privilege.
So, how does the Tenth Amendment declare the number of “rights” strictly speaking, to be unlimited or without number? Put another way, the “certain unalienable Rights” expressed in our founding documents, while they are not enumerated to three (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness), seem to be otherwise circumscribed and not without limit.
Political philosopher I ain’t, but I do hope at least to garner a clearer understanding about these things than I have heretofore enjoyed. Your help is appreciated.
Pamela Geller is a hero for drawing the terrorists out!
The arguments the Pam Geller blamers have been making up til now haven’t really taken, because people understand that The First Amendment and free speech trump the “you provoked this” arguments.
So they changed it up to “you put cops lives in danger!” And they’re hoping that can stand up to the first amendment/free speech arguments.
Uh, then maybe we ought to do something about the VIOLENT PEOPLE, Greta. Leave the cartoonists alone.
VanSusteren, O’Reilly and Laura Ingram.
I say you are dead to me now. I will never listen to anything you have to say. I will never again tune into Ingram’s radio or O’Reilly’s/Van Susteren’s TV shows. (At least I’m not advocating killing because your speech offends me.)
But, in truth you can have no complaint against me or others that follow me in my boycott of your programs and appearances. After all you knew your position (speech) would offend some of us. You see, it’s your fault for inciting me to boycott
You are right. We need real conservative representation in the media and, other than talk radio and some internet sources, we don’t have it.
It does make sense that Fox planned on Romney losing the first time, regardless of their shocked response when he didn’t, and that would explain the ripples of excitement when the talk started up about him running again. The same proven loser horse + the same voters that already said no more than once = the same results. It sure looks to me like they want to throw the game to the opponent. What other conclusion can we draw? And all that noise about Romney being the “most electable candidate” was either all for show or demonstrates how extremely out of touch they are with us in fly-over country.
Ditto with the RINO majority stake in Congress. They want the liberal agenda to succeed as badly as the liberals do and no amount of camouflage and lies is going to disguise that. We the People are not stupid.
You’d be surprised how many people are asleep in this nation.
I have family members who were hard working reealists, and recognized Conservatism’s good values. Now they seem almost as if in a trance as much of the treachery passes them by.
Trying to awaken them is frustrating.
I’m sure you have experienced this too.
I know exactly what you mean. Rush said a while back that it is not our words that will wake people up, it will be events. Those events are going to have to impact some people personally for them to take notice.
Momentum is a powerful thing. We have been a free country for generations. It is hard for people to break loose from that static thinking and realize that we aren’t free anymore and haven’t been for a long time. We are instead frogs and the water is getting uncomfortably hot.
The realization must come soon that we are being attacked from within and any evidence to the contrary is just lies told to keep us docile. The man in the White House is an enemy of our nation.
For saying something like that, I am labeled an extremist, even by my conservative friends. I call them the “it’ll never happen” crowd. They don’t believe in monumental change. Ideas that suggest unprecedented change get mocked.
I told a close friend the other day that I think Ted Cruz is what we really need and she flung out that tired argument that no one whose only been a senator can be a successful president. Aside from the fact that Obama has been very successful at tearing down the greatest nation on earth, what a thing to come back with. Liberals love people like her because all they have to do to the defeat the most conservative candidate to run in a long time is to whisper lame arguments about how it’s never been done before and she’ll turn on that candidate and talk him down. She’s doing their work for them.
And this is the United States of America. We practically wrote the book on doing what’s never been done before.
Yep, this country is going to have to feel pain for things to turn around.
Think 9/11 times 100....(That’s 91,100!)
I agree with your comments. Thanks for the response.
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.