As most everyone knows by now, Pamela Geller, the head of an organization called American Freedom Defense Initiative, isn’t fond of traditional Islam. In fact, she regards those who promote sharia, or Islamic law, as a mortal threat to America and to liberal values generally. Many Muslims do in fact interpret sharia as justifying the use of deadly force against those who dare to depict the Prophet. In response, she recently sponsored a “draw Muhammad contest” in Garland, Texas, which resulted in the timely death of two terrorists who attempted a Charlie Hebdo style massacre (welcome to Texas).
As a result on staging this event, Geller has been accused of a wide variety of things: hate speech, bigotry, provocation, incitement, the “abuse” of free speech, and so forth. The nationally syndicated columnist Kathleen Parker’s comments are representative. In an opinion piece titled “Pamela Geller’s Abuse of Free Speech,” she describes the contest as “provocative” and “incendiary,” and then writes:
And Geller’s contribution to these [First Amendment] protections and our unwavering dedication to its preservation is, exactly, what? A taunt. Shouldn’t one at least aspire to some originality? It’s been done. And each time, the result is the same. You haul out a picture of Muhammad; “they” haul out a fatwa. Cat puts out cheese; mouse gets eaten. What does one expect?
As argued below, whatever one thinks of Geller’s underlying thesis, not only was she completely within her rights to stage her “contest,” but her tactics are unobjectionable, if not laudable.
For promoting this event, Geller has been repeatedly accused of engaging in hate speech. Like “social justice,” hate speech is a term that perhaps is impossible to imbue with any useful content. It is commonly defined as speech that “attacks, threatens, or insults a person or group on the basis of national origin, ethnicity, color, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability.”[1] However, this is simply another way of describing bigoted speech, and is thus redundant.
Moreover, constitutionally, hate speech is protected to the same extent as any other form of speech. Therefore, this term does not call out any practical or legal distinction. Of course, to incite violence against designated persons is not protected speech, but since hate speech refers simply to “attacks” (including verbal ones) and “insults” (which are not typically intended to incite), it is quite clear that “hate speech” is not synonymous with the instigation of violence.
As just seen, hate speech takes the form “all Xs are Y [derogatory description],” where “X” is an immutable natural characteristic. Hate speech (or bigotry) is a bad thing, and while Geller is frequently accused of it, I have yet to see a single example produced where she actually said the equivalent of, “All Muslims are [derogatory term].”[2] Instead, what she appears to be doing is harshly criticizing Islam. This is, of course, a belief-system that people choose to hold, and not a race, ethnicity, etc.
So, how is Geller “abusing” free speech? At least since the Enlightenment, intellectuals have publicly disparaged organized religion in scathing terms. For example, Voltaire said that “Every sensible man, every honorable man, must hold the Christian sect in horror” (he had nothing better to say about Islam and Judaism). Expressing contempt for religion falls squarely within the marketplace of ideas, now being profitably exploited by the “new atheists.” So, while Geller is certainly no Voltaire, I fail to see how her ideas are different in principle than his.
Was she culpable for being unnecessarily “provocative” in staging her “contest”? The answer is clearly “no” because, contrary to Ms. Parker, Islamic extremists are not mere vermin unable to resist the lure of cheese (tell me again, who is the racist here?) Rather, they are moral agents, and thus solely responsible for their crimes. We can no more blame Ms. Geller for their actions than we can blame a vulnerable old man walking the streets for “provoking” his mugger.
In fact, it may be praiseworthy to resist, even with violence, encroachment on our moral rights. Consider the following imaginary case. I have a neighbor who hates rap music. Beyond this, he believes it profoundly evil, and that anyone who plays or listens to it is equally so. Worse still, he has let it be known that he reserves the right to kill anyone who listens to rap, even if he can’t actually hear it.
Suppose I don’t even like rap music, but I am so outraged by the arrogance of someone attempting to dictate to me what I can listen to in my own home, that I arm myself and then play the forbidden music. The music cannot be heard outside my walls, but I make no secret of my intention to play it. My neighbor then breaks into my home with murderous intent, and I kill him. I have done nothing unethical, because it can’t be wrong to exercise a moral right that “harms” no one else in any defensible sense of this term.[2] The fact that the mere knowledge that I might be enjoying rap music sets off a homicidal rage in my neighbor is hardly my fault or responsibility. This hypothetical describes what Geller was doing, except that she was not attacked for her selection of music, but for drawing Muhammad.
With respect to expression, our freedom (what Nozick calls our moral space) is determined not by what we wish to say at any moment, but by what we are permitted to say.[3] Every inch of this space should be precious to all self-respecting autonomous agents. When any party seeks to shrink it, we should push back, hard. Geller did nothing wrong; she stood up for her rights; if anything, we should applaud her.
* * *
[1] Ms. Geller is a public figure, and there are no doubt thousands of her quotes floating around the internet. I have not sifted through them to determine that all her comments are morally innocent. If she has said bigoted things, then shame on her. But this would in no way affect my judgment regarding her “draw Mohammad” contest. Even bigots are entitled to defend their right of free speech against those who would violate it.
[2] There are no doubt cases where standing on one’s rights is culpable, such as withholding a trivial amount of resources necessary to save the lives of many innocent human beings. However, Geller is not doing anything comparably blameworthy, since, as explained above, drawing a cartoon only “harms” those who hold irrational beliefs that justify violence, and thus these persons are not “innocent.”
[3] As the philosopher Thomas Nagel expresses it: “The autonomy we value is defined not just by how we are treated, but by how we may be treated. To admit the right of the community to restrict expressions of convictions or attitudes on the basis of their content alone is to rob everyone of authority over his own mental life. It makes us all, equally, less free.” Thomas Nagel, “Personal Rights and Public Space,” Philosophy and Public Affairs 24, no. 2 (Spring 1995), 98.
