Last January, two Islamic terrorists attacked the Paris offices of the magazine Charlie Hebdo, murdering 12 people and wounding 11 others. The terrorists targeted the publication because of what they believed was its blasphemous depiction of the prophet Mohammad.
Charlie Hebdo is a satirical magazine that didn’t just go after Muslims. It has always been an equal opportunity offender, particularly of organized religion. Jews and Christians, including the Pope, are frequent targets of its crude sarcasm.
After the attack, much of the world expressed its support for the magazine and the importance of the freedom of expression. Remember the rallying cry, “Je Suis Charlie” (I am Charlie)?
Sunday, police in Garland, Texas, shot and killed two gunmen who attacked a venue where the American Freedom Defense Initiative was holding a contest that would award $10,000 for the best cartoon depicting the Prophet Mohammad. The AFDI is led by Pam Geller, an outspoken and controversial critic of Islam and Muslims.
I don’t think we’re going to see any “I am Pam Geller” posters. In fact, Geller is often described as anti-Muslim and occasionally dismissed as a bigot. Daily Beast columnist Dean Obeidallah said on CNN Monday morning that he defends free speech rights, but adds that there are limits when that speech is designed to “incite hatred.”
If one truly believes in the sanctity of the First Amendment, then what one thinks of Geller or what a person believes constitutes “hate speech,” (whatever that is), are largely irrelevant. In the 1974 landmark U.S. Supreme Court case of Gertz v. Robert Welch, the court said “Under the First Amendment there is no such thing as a false idea. However pernicious an opinion may seem, we depend for its correction not on the conscience of judges and juries, but on the competition of ideas.”
CNN anchor Carol Costello weighed in while interviewing Obeidallah saying she also supports the First Amendment, but she also questioned, “Should this event have taken place?” That raises the question of whether there could be an exception to the First Amendment protection because of the inflammatory content of the message.
The answer in this case is no. Courts have narrowly defined what constitutes incitement. In the 1969 Brandenburg v. Ohio case, the Justices said speech is not protected if it is intended to incite imminent lawless action that is likely to produce violence. The Justices determined that even speech that advocates lawbreaking may be protected.
No doubt Geller and her group were being provocative, even confrontational, but the answer to such speech, if one objects, is more speech in the marketplace of ideas.
If the issue is truly the value of the freedom of expression, I’m not sure why Charlie Hebdo was lionized while Geller is being ridiculed. Perhaps it’s because 12 people died in the Hebdo attack, drawing more sympathy, while in Texas only the attackers were killed. Had it not been for the extra security at the event we might now be watching 24/7 coverage of the latest devastating terror attack on American soil.
In the ongoing fight against radical Islam, the battlefield is the same whether it’s the events of Garland, Texas, or Paris, France; free expression must be valued, nourished and protected.