Selective first amendment

It’s so strange what some people will use the first amendment for, besides toilet tissue.

Just ask Pamella Geller, or her art exhibit in Texas. Well, let’s get something straight, there are no safety zones for the first amendment. So Geller knows this full well. Regardless, she had the exhibit/contest anyway. Now the post exhibit is being scripted, and it ain’t pretty.

Now that it’s over, and we all know the shooters who attacked it were stopped before carrying out their apparent mission, we have a new discussion. One on the first amendment. Sure, before the exhibit many complained about her holding something so controversial, if dangerous. No such controversy over the Muslims holding a “stand with the prophet convention” with all the characters it had — the one place guaranteed not to have a suicide bomber crash the party or a terrorist attack. Media wasn’t in a feeding frenzy over that.

Since the exhibit and the events are now history a new phenomena unfolds. That’s right, the fallout in the media and talking-head establishment over the exhibit. Sure they can gang up on Pamella Geller and actually blame her for what did happen. Let’s not misplace any of that venomous blame on exactly the right parties, Islamists. Instead let’s blame Geller for holding the event in the first place. Surely she knew something would happen. Surely she knew it would inflame radical Muslims. She was courting disaster. Surely she new the potential harm that it could attract. Right?

Check, check, check. She knew alright. And she went ahead and held it anyway, shrug. Why? What’s wrong with her? Is she just doing it for publicity? What a stunt, they say. Well, notice anything in all this criticism? Yes, it is the first amendment rearing its ugly head, once again,. I don’t mean that she had the event, I mean their criticism about it.

See article at Pamela Geller’s website.

After that came the denunciations. No, not against the Islamic fanatics. But against Geller.

From all across the Liberal dials, plus The New York Times, came blasts of outrage against Geller for being “provocative” and “asking for trouble.”

See, they can all come out safely to criticize her with their first amendment “rights”. Oh, that’s the thing to do now. But as to her taking a stand in defense of the first amendment? Not so much. Though they are right on board with calling her out or blaming her for the fallout from it. They’ll even claim it is the responsible thing to accept the criticism for it.

So let me understand the issue correctly. The guys with hoods and machetes get to define free speech. Then, as a course of action against would be assailants who don’t fall in line, hold them up to ridicule in the very-vocal and critical mainstream media. So the cries of outrage come against any cartoonists or a person who would hold such an event.

But Muslims and Islamists holding a “stand with Prophet Muhammad” and rally against “Islamophobia” that is perfectly acceptable and receives no criticism. Follow that with a cartoonist draw contest and the long knives come out. (pardon the pun)

Now class, we have our lesson on the first amendment. Thou shall not criticize the Prophet Muhammad, Islam, or any Muslims, Sharia Law, or whatever hateful genocidal deeds they do. Got that class? Oh there will be tests on it too. But it is alright to use Islam in any way to condemn, attack, promote bigotry and hatred, or otherwise assault anyone else or their freedoms. In fact, not to worry, media and lots of outraged mouthpieces will make excuses for their right to do it. And media will question the motives of anyone who would criticize Islam. This is very important class, so I hope you’re taking notes and getting all this.

In the event of misconduct, such as the cartoonists or others, the first amendment shall be used to condemn the offender for his wrongful, provocative misuse of the first amendment. So everyone can now apply their first amendment toward criticizing the organizer of an event, but not to defend or sympathize with the offenders. Isn’t it funny how they were absolutely chomping at the bit to apply their first amendment toward the offender, yet cannot muster any defense for the accused. Oh, and the accused shall just be pronounced guilty — as if it is even possible to prove his/her innocence.

See they weren’t willing to use their first amendment to support Geller’s first amendment. But they are happy to use their first amendment to attack and condemn her — something Islamists also wasted no time in doing.