Charlie Hebdo Massacre

Matt Welch: 'We have a sickness in this country with our culture of free speech'

|

Last night I appeared on Kennedy to talk about the foiled Islamist assassination attempt at a draw-Mohammed exhibition in Texas, the unreliable free speech record of the targets of that attack, the irrelevance of that unreliability when talking about whether this was or wasn't a "free speech event," plus the ongoing and mind-boggling anti-Charlie Hebdo agitation from now more than 200 writers. Watch below:

NEXT: Poor Hedge Fund Managers

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Did anyone else see Chris Matthews outright state that Pamela Geller wanted to be shot at?

    http://therightscoop.com/chris…..-to-nazis/

    He also compared Geller to the Nazis.

    “I remember the old days when the Nazi Party and the Communist Party would sort of team up in a weird, sick, symbiotic way. One would have an event, and the other would attack it, you know? Well, I think she caused this trouble, and whether this trouble came yesterday, or it came two weeks from now, it’s going to be in the air as long as you taunt.”

    The press has been disgusting in the aftermath of this shooting.

    1. It has been so absurd that I feel like I’m being reduced to babbling tweenspeak. “Uh-muh-Guh, I can’t even…whut?”

    2. Did anyone else see Chris Matthews outright state that Pamela Geller wanted to be shot at?

      He’d been flirting with sanity recently. Sounds like the “tingle” is coming back!

    3. At every opportunity, their masks slip a little more and reveal what they actually care about. And that certainly isn’t integrity, truth, freedom of speech, or anything else besides self-aggrandizement, TEAM politics, and sucking up to the powerful.

      1. Chris Matthews is the biggest jock sniffer in the business. I’ll bet after he has Obama on, he snuffles the guest chair and touched himself.

        1. Oh sure, this coming from the guy who had a Japanese schoolgirl panties vending machine installed in his garage.

          1. +1 Babymetal

          2. the machine is Japanese, the panties come from the highest quality co-eds from SEC schools.

            1. Hey, mine too! Oh shit, did I just say that out loud?

            2. Why have a vending machine at all? If you’re having boxes of used panties shipped to your house, it seems like it would be easier to just put them in bowls in every room of the house, kind of like potpourri.

              1. What kind of monster are you? Do you just leave candy and soda sitting out too?

        2. Shit, he probably has a cum soaked Shepard Fairey “Hope” poster still hanging on his wall at home.

    4. Like we always say here, it’s principals over principles with the progs. They don’t like Geller, so they’re perfectly fine shitting all over free speech when they don’t like the message. Kind of makes you wonder about the prog’s defense of Illinois nazis back in the 70’s. E.g. we’re they really defending them on principles or did they secretly approve of the message?

      1. Oh they definitely approved of the message.

      2. In all fairness I think there was a difference between a lot of the old left and the new left. The old left actually had principles and understood what tolerance meant. Much of the new left does not actually have any appreciation for tolerance, they just want to ensure that society conforms with their vision of what it should be.

      3. In all fairness I think there was a difference between a lot of the old left and the new left. The old left actually had principles and understood what tolerance meant. Much of the new left does not actually have any appreciation for tolerance, they just want to ensure that society conforms with their vision of what it should be.

    5. I make up to $90 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $40h to $86h? Someone was good to me by sharing this link with me, so now i am hoping i could help someone else out there by sharing this link… Try it, you won’t regret it!……
      http://www.work-cash.com

  2. I cannot tell you how many comments I see on the intertubes at all the mainstream sites (CNN etc) openly declaring, “speech that is icky isn’t free speech”.

  3. “Last night I appeared on Kennedy”

    Um… phrasing?

    1. Hey if I “appeared” on Kennedy I’d crow about it too!

    2. Hey, he didn’t say “in”.

    3. Just the tip.

  4. Also, Jamie Kirchick in that Daily Beast column also engages in a ludicrous assertion:

    “For those of us who genuinely want to combat extremism and promote liberalism in the Muslim world, Geller is a uniquely toxic presence in the public discourse. She makes it easy for Islamist apologists to avoid debate, as they can always point to Geller and her outrageous behavior for ready examples of how pervasive “Islamophobia” has become in American society.”

    Yeah, okay idiot. If it weren’t for mean old Pamela Geller the apologists for terrorism would have come to the table long ago and we could have hashed out our differences!

    I’m sick of people feeling the need to socially signal by talking about how much they hate Geller before belatedly saying ‘Sure she’s barely distinguishable from Lucifer, but Satan has speech rights too!’ There’s no point in doing this other than to insure everyone that you’re ‘not like her’ while giving mealy mouthed, vague defenses of her free speech rights. It’s about as pure an example of cowardice as I’ve seen in a long time.

    1. Kirchick’s argument is particularly absurd because there was an instance about a year ago where Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Douglas Murray were set to debate some fundamentalist Muslims and they pulled out of the debate because Ali is a woman. I’m sure they’d love to debate Pamela Geller rationally if she’d just tone down the rhetoric a bit, though.

      1. Catholic apologist, Scott Hahn agreed to a debate on Catholicism/Christianity vs Islam with a Saudi scholar several years ago. He met with the guy for coffee several weeks before the scheduled debate, and the guy threw a tantrum because Hahn referred to Jesus as the Son of God. Even hearing that there is another side made the guy so angry that he was unwilling to go through with the debate.

    2. She makes it easy for Islamist apologists to avoid debate

      You don’t need much help avoiding debate when you’re on a shooting a spree or blowing yourself up.

    3. It’s one thing to say “I think Geller sucks but she has free speech rights too”. It’s another to do what they’re doing, which is “Geller sucks and really doesn’t deserve free speech because X and Y, *and* she makes it really hard for us truly noble believers in moderated free speech to do our thing”. Mealy-mouthed doesn’t even cut it. It’s pure finding a way to explain why she doesn’t deserve free speech even though they supposedly believe in free speech. But.

      1. To his credit, in Kirchick’s case he pretty unequivocally said Geller has free speech rights that must be respected, but this occurs after about 500 words of ‘GELLER IS A DEMON MONSTER WHO IS GETTING IN THE WAY OF PEACE.’

        The problem I have with him is that he does what a lot of reporters do which is he desperately tries to assure everyone that he ‘isn’t like’ the person he’s defending. You see this not only with Geller, but you see it whenever media personalities decide to sully themselves by defending some hick in flyover country.

        1. Yeah, but even if they end up defending the person’s rights eventually, they preface it with so much vitriol that many people are going to stop reading and never get to the defending rights part. Which basically undercuts the defending rights part, quite badly.

          They care much more about the distancing than they do the rights, and that shows. To everyone.

          1. They care much more about the distancing than they do the rights, and that shows. To everyone.

            This is exactly right. The prominence in the writing always gives it away. Nobody ever writes with the idea that they’ll save the most important point for the end of the paragraph.

            1. You can also tell by the number of words expended. The typical Garland, Texas article has approximately 3 times as much volume devoted to attacking Geller as they have to condemning her attackers or defending her speech rights.

      2. Toadies gonna toady. Who ever the strong man is, they’ll be licking his boots rather than be exposed to conflict and personal danger.

    4. For those of us who genuinely want to combat extremism

      I don’t really care all that much about extremism, it’s the killing I’d like to combat. I don’t really much care what justification the killers use for their killing.

      Take two extremists: one that draws bad cartoons and another that waves a gun and shouts “I’m gonna kill everyone in here.” Which one are you going to watch?

      In other words, as long as Geller isn’t actually killing anyone, I’d rather turn my attention to actual killers like the Baltimore PD.

      1. “I don’t really care all that much about extremism, it’s the killing I’d like to combat. I don’t really much care what justification the killers use for their killing.”

        These two statements echo what I was thinking earlier, albeit with regards to another topic.
        Well put, IF.

        Similarly, I don’t care so much why anyone wants to prevent me from speaking or writing, it’s the fact that they are trying to prevent me that’s my problem.

    5. I’m wondering where people like Gellar even got the idea that being provocative to Muslims would invite such violence?

      1. I blame John.

        1. I’m also wondering why Chris Matthews would think that this particular ‘provocative’ speech is more likely to incite violence?

          1. I blame Tony.

        2. I think John is dead. He hasn’t posted all day.

          1. Its his one day a year to work.

            1. WTF? Those evil taskmasters in the fed govt make you work all 8 hours in one day?!??!!!!

              Isn’t there a union steward you could report these monsters to?

          2. No, it’s Paul that’s dead.

    6. So now they are trying to say that the extremists are only attacking us because of some perceived “Islamophobia”.

      Well it didn’t take long for them to paint the jihadis as some sort of noble, freedom fighter, valiantly resisting the evil American cis-hetero, patriarchal, imperialistic, shit heads.

      Same as those noble communists, all they ever wanted was peace and equality.

  5. Free speech, like guns, should only be allowed to those who can prove they will use it responsibly. And by allowed I mean subject to be taken away at any time for any reason.

    1. Hey, what did you think Free Speech Zones were for?

      1. Mocking?

        1. Make-work for civil liberties attorneys?

      2. Hitler?

    2. This pretty much sums up the fascist asshole’s feelings on the entire BoR.

  6. I said it before: In a nation where Free Speech is a right, the only speech that ever needs defending is the speech of assholes. Everyone else self-censors enough to fit in. So we are always going to be on the barricades defending assholes, whether we believe them right or wrong, if we are going to defend free speech from government interference. People should get okay with that. Yes, Larry Flint and Pam Gellar and The Illinois Nazi Party are all assholes. So what? If we let the government censor the assholes, then what? You think that agency is going to go away? Of course not.

    1. What you said

    2. I had to explain this to my 19 year old daughter the other night. I think she started to actually get it by the time we finished talking.

    3. Why did the Reasonable plugin make this post yellow? I have never had a yellow background on a post before.

      1. Ooo – highlighting! Neat feature!

        1. Really? You think it’s highlighted it because Reasonable think’s it’s a particularly nice post?

          1. Reasonable highlights your posts in yellow, I think. And new posts are pink.

    4. We’ll just find new assholes to censor help learn to think properly. If they can’t be made to think properly, it will likely go bad for them.

      We’re the government, and we’re here to help.

  7. I have to admit to being blithely ignorant of Ms. Geller and whatever she’s saying. Consequently, I don’t give TWO FUCKS, and whatever it is. STICKS AND MOTHERFUCKING STONES MAY BREAK MY BONES BUT WORDS DON’T ALLOW FUCKING TERRORISTS OR ANYONE ELSE TO START SHOOTING PEOPLE.

    1. That’s Mx Geller to you Mx.

      1. Let’s Mx it up a little, mmkay?

  8. I have to admit to being blithely ignorant of Ms. Geller and whatever she’s saying. Consequently, I don’t give TWO FUCKS, and whatever it is. STICKS AND MOTHERFUCKING STONES MAY BREAK MY BONES BUT WORDS DON’T ALLOW FUCKING TERRORISTS OR ANYONE ELSE TO START SHOOTING PEOPLE.

  9. I don’t even know how I did that – something with the key and….MAGICK!

    1. Are you the keymaster?

  10. There should be events like that all over the country. We might be able to take out dozens of these lone wolves, who can be difficult to detect until it’s too late. Just set the bait, put the snipers in place, and flush.

    1. all over the country

      I think it was pretty sharp of Pam Geller to run this event in Texas. I’m not sure how this would have gone down in many other states.

    2. That’s like spot-lighting a deer if the two in Garland are any indication. They rolled up like they thought action movies are real life and got shot immediately. What a pair of goobers.

    3. Normally I think hunting over bait is unsportsmanlike, but really, this is more like trying to rid yourself of a rabid groundhog problem. So, hell yes. Go for it.

  11. Looked up Pam Geller – nope, not EVEN ringing a bell. Also, she looks like she’d bring the cray….

    With all that – I DON’T CARE WHAT SHE SAYS – NOTHING SHE SAYS MAKES IT OK TO KILL OTHERS. Dumbasses…

    1. You learned your lesson about ringing the bell did you?

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-aRP1OVix7Y

  12. And of course CNN continues to blur any image of the cartoons or drawings.

    1. Mohammed = dick.

      1. No murders though.

    1. And yet that article managed to say nothing at all.

  13. Kennedy’s voice makes my head hurt. I’d watch the show on mute if she took off her clothes, but that’s about it.

    1. Maybe if she put a bog over her head.

      Not really, I don’t think she is horrible looking, but I never got the thing that a lot of people seem to have for her.

      1. You Scots are weird people. Why you feel like you have to fuck around a bog is beyond me.

        1. Sheep run too fast?

      2. Yeah, she isn’t ugly but she doesn’t do anything for me personally. However, that might be because I prefer black women, so as pale as she is about the only way she could be even further from being a black woman would be if she had blonde hair.

  14. In my fantasy world, the response of artists and writers would be to hold hundreds of Draw Mohammed events all around the country to show that they will not allow violent assholes to censor free expression.
    Holy fuck, what is wrong with these people?

    There is an appropriate time to discuss how wrong and bigoted someone like Gellar might or might not be. But right after some violent piece of shit tries to murder her for a peaceful if provocative activity is not the time.

    1. I think I dislike her so much because she is so calculatedly someone I am supposed to like.

      1. Pamela Geller is calculatedly someone you’re supposed to like? She doesn’t really seem to give much of a shit if people like her, based on my experience.

        1. That was supposed to be under the Kennedy comment. Oops.

      2. NutraSweet, always the contrarian. Just like Tulpa. Yeah, I said it. What are you gonna do about it?

        1. Text STEVE SMITH your current location?

          1. (undisclosed location)

          2. STEVE isn’t interested in Epi because STEVE knows he has an open invitation, so it’s just not rapey enough.

      3. Her focus group knew you’d say that.

    2. Yeah, that was tried some years ago. Organizer had to change her name and disappear:

      From Wikipedia

    3. Yeah, that was tried some years ago. Organizer had to change her name and disappear:

      From Wikipedia

      1. Yes We Can: A Bullet A Day Keeps the Infidel Away.

        This is just ripe for a Derpetologist “spot the not” post.

        1. This is just ripe for a Derpetologist “spot the not” post.

          Isn’t it?

          And following Wiki links, I found an article with the picture of it!

      2. So, the terrorists have won?

      3. Good that Wikipedia has some of the images.

  15. More regulation of free speech coming your way thanks to net neutrality…

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-g…..on-drudge/

    1. Surprise?

  16. “We have a sickness in this country with our culture of free speech'”

    Was this really the best quote to highlight?

    I initially read it (as many of the more proggy variety would) as suggesting that the problem is that we are *too blas?* about Free Speech, and that ‘Free Speech Absolutists’ are the real problem…. and what the 1st amendment actually needs is ‘Fixing‘ (think what people do to housepets)….

    To wit =
    “this country has gone too far in allowing people to say whatever they want, and should curtail speech that is obviously harmful to society, such as hate speech….Our country should not legally sanction hate speech, through which those in positions of social power can disparage others without legal repercussions. Many other countries limit this kind of speech, particularly speech that could cause undue harm (physical or emotional) to a targeted group of people…. How does America benefit from allowing speech that many other developed and democratic countries have wisely deemed to be against their modern values?*

    I find it odd that any student, presumably roughly familiar with 20th century history, would say, “But *Europeans* & *South Africans* have these policies?!? And when have THEY ever used State Power to oppress anyone??”

    1. Your mistake is in assuming that dipshit was familiar with 20th century history.

      That’s like, old and shit. Anything that happened before twitter was invented is irrelevant. If you weren’t an old fart you’d understand that. /millenial

    2. If the proggies at Huffington Post picked this up, their headline would be “Even Libertarians Agree That Free Speech Should Be Regulated”.

      1. My point exactly

  17. Until Cinco de Mayo brought a slew of navel-gazing op-eds about what it’s like to be a Mexican-American, the front page of CNN was running 3 op-eds, simultaneously, about how terrible of a person Geller is.

    I blame the Zionist control of the media.

    1. Fuck yeah! Mexican St. Patrick’s Day! I’m going yo an Irish Bar

    2. I’m still unclear why it matters who the people with guns were trying to kill, rather than Why

      Is the argument that, “Hey, these terrorists kind of had a point!?”

  18. Once again we turn to Mencken:

    “The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one’s time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.”

    H. L. Mencken

    1. You mean the fan of that great Free Speech advocate Otto von Bismarck?

    2. What gets me is that criticizing a completely batshit insane, repressive, and yes, downright evil philosophy makes you a “scoundrel”.

      Seriously, being a slave of a god and forcibly converting the rest of the world to either similar be slaves of that god, or literally slaves for the people who who submit to god is somehow not seen as monstrous, but good?

      And it’s not because it’s a religion. Lots of crazy religions get called out for being crazy.

    3. Mencken is being too cute.

      You can defend the rights of scoundrels without defending scoundrels.

  19. Matt Welch is one few really intelligent media commentators around. Actually several of Reason’s staff are very good. Be careful you may someday be visited by a government drone or some government sanctioned Islamist. The truth is a beautiful thing until it interfers with government lies. I really wish all of you the very best. You have a great staff.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.