Civil rights expert on Texas shooting: Pam Geller’s hate group got ‘the response they were seeking’

[DonViejo]

Source: RawStory

Mark Potok, a senior fellow at the Southern Poverty Law Center SPLC, said on Monday that he was not surprised that Pam Geller’s anti-Muslim group had been targeted by gunmen in Texas because she seemed to be trying to provoke that response.

-snip-

Potok told CNN on Monday that the shooting would “give a little boost to Geller and her friends.”

“Absolutely nothing justifies this attack,” he pointed out. “That said, Pam Geller, to describe her as anti-Islam and her groups as anti-Islam barely covers it.” Potok noted that he and the SPLC were both defenders of the First Amendment, “but Pam Geller and her organization is a hate group today just as they were day before yesterday.”

Geller’s stunt in Texas was similar to Florida Pastor Terry Jones burning Korans, according to Potok.

“Certainly that was protected activity under the First Amendment, but it also led fairly directly to the killing of 10 or 15 people abroad,” he recalled. “These are provocations that are aimed at stirring the pot, and it doesn’t seem terribly surprising that, in fact, that they get the response that they — in a sense — they are seeking.”

-snip-

Read more: http://www.rawstory.com/2015/05/civil-rights-expert-on-texas-shooting-pam-gellers-hate-group-got-the-response-they-were-seeking/

[Comrade Grumpy]

1. Yep. n/t

[turbinetree]

2. What a shame

how can Geller sleep at night knowing this could and did happen------I mean, let's really think about what has happened here.
No matter what you think, people are dead, and she, Geller incites people in my opinion uses people lives as tool for an agenda.
And then she is going to be given another moment and spot on Fix Noise to do what, spread more hate and fear with possibility of more blood being spilled----- amazing---
Does she not have any morals or social conscience at all for ones actions
And she is making money off this stuff----------amazing

[Bettie]

4. She probably sleeps pretty well

since she got what she wanted. She wanted death and she got it.

Evil people sleep well because they lack the empathy to even care about anything but their own agendas.

[totodeinhere]

5. Oh I'm sure she can sleep at night just fine. She got what she wanted and she is happy about it.

And it's not just Fix News. She got a long interview on CNN this morning as well. She was also on CBS.

[Enthusiast]

12. Right. Wing. Media.

[mountain grammy]

9. She only wouldn't sleep well if NOTHING happened.

[Siwsan]

3. That's pretty much what I've been thinking

Geller is despicable.

[Sunlei]

6. She & whoever advised, funded her 'Event', placed that crowd of her followers at a terrible risk.

Doubt she paid everything out of her own pocket.

[brewens]

7. Not the right way to go about it but one thing is, it may appear that

they smoked out a couple of crazies that were prone to pulling something violent at some time. Maybe something that could have gotten a lot of innocent people killed.

[Jackpine Radical]

8. I've been really thinking about some of this stuff,

and the whole issue of free speech.

The classic limits to free speech are exemplified by the "shouting 'Fire!' in a crowded theater" business, and fomenting insurrection.

The Geller crap seems to me to edge pretty close to that line. Is deliberately doing something that provokes a crazy person into killing others protected? Should it be? If it is not protected, where do you draw the new line? Can you make a law that would suppress what Geller did, but could not be used to suppress legitimate dissent?

Personally, I think we better leave that line where it is, and pay the price that the Gellers, the lunatics they provoked, and the Skokie Nazis have exacted from us. It is the price of freedom.

[Ms. Toad]

11. There doesn't have to be a law,

for people of good will to condemn it.

The debates on DU today, and those following Charlie Hebdo, create a false dichotomy: That one must choose between upholding the sanctity of free speech and condemning hate-mongering and deliberate provocation.

Individuals are not (for the most part) government actors. We don't have to choose - and I won't choose.

Geller's actions were hateful, vile, and inexcusable, and I condemn them. If they were to take place anywhere near me, I would seek out other like-minded individuals to engage in creative disruption of the message she is seeking to communicate (like these folks do with the Fred Phelps's crew).

And - if I worked for the ACLU - I would also defend her legal right to be a complete ass.

[Jackpine Radical]

14. I agree entirely with your sentiments.

Qnd I would add that we really need to turn our attention to becoming a more tolerant, compassionate and humane society.

[Ms. Toad]

28. Definitely. n/t

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

30. I would add, that goes for the police as well.

Just saying.

[Jackpine Radical]

36. Absolutely.

[KittyWampus]

23. Ms. Toad, would you post this as an OP. Thank you for your comment.

Conscise, reasonable.

Posts like yours are a big part of the reason why DU is still worth visiting.

[Ms. Toad]

27. Thanks.

I'll take a look later and see what threads are up and running - I'm just taking a 2 minute break from grading papers!

[Chan790]

72. Exactly. +1 n/t

[7962]

10. The best reaction would have been to ignore her and the event.

Instead, they simply helped her prove her point

[Jackpine Radical]

15. Yes, but of course that perfectly effective and rational (non-)response

is quite beyond the grasp of the nutcases on either side of this issue.

[frylock]

17. there is an estimated 1.6 billion Muslims on this planet..

of those 1.6 billion, all of 2 took the bait.

[CrawlingChaos]

38. Prove her point???

This hateful, bloodthirsty piece of shit does not have a "point". She has a murderous agenda.

[KittyWampus]

66. The best reaction would have been a peaceful group protest with various

congregations and civic groups rejecting the hate speech.

[7962]

74. But you'd still be giving her attention, which is what she wants.

Its like the Klan; if they have a big march and NOBODY shows up, what do they accomplish? Nothing.

[DefenseLawyer]

13. I'm on the other side of this one, in a way.

She's anti Islam and had "bad" motives designed to provoke. So what? Shooting people over cartoons is psychotic. It's irrational religious fanatasism. So as long as your "religious belief" is crazy enough it should be respected and not "provoked"? That's not a first amendment exception I can support. The Christians wanted to ban and arrest Maplethorpe. That was meant to provoke as well. Someone firebombed a theatre playing "The Last Temptation of Christ" back in 88. No rational person blamed Scorsese for "provoking" that insane response.
When Geller says we should hate all Muslims or ban Islam or other such nonsense I condemn her for that. I can't condemn free speech based on the response just because the response is loony.

[NanceGreggs]

22. I understand your points.

However, there is a difference between doing something that others may find offensive, and doing something for the sole purpose of being offensive.

Scorsese did not make "Last Temptation" for the purpose of provoking an "insane response". Quite the opposite - it was his film homage to the suffering of Christ as a means of salvation, something many Christians found inspirational and in keeping with the tenets of their faith.

This current incident is not a matter of exercising nor protecting one's First Amendment right to free speech. It was a matter of disrespecting other people's religious beliefs for the sole purpose of saying, "I am allowed to do this, and therefore I will - despite the fact that there is no purpose in doing so, other than to be offensive."

It strikes me as incredibly childish to do something - anything - just because one can, and not because one feels they are advancing or protecting their rights, or the rights of others.

Yes, shooting people over cartoons is psychotic. And so is disrespecting someone else's religious beliefs when done for the sole purpose of saying, "I'm allowed to do this, and therefore I will," without any other purpose being served, or even considered.

[DefenseLawyer]

35. If your religious beliefs include shooting people

You lose the "respect my religion" privilege. That goes for any invisible man or statue or tree or whatever one chooses to justify shooting people.

[warrant46]

41. Unreal to see this argument here

I agree with you. If someone gets so upset with my speech, that they get an AK-47 and advertise that they are going to kill me because of what I have said.

That person needs to be locked up. But in this case there will be no need for a trial thanks to the effort of a brave policeman.

[NanceGreggs]

42. I don't disagree.

But saying "I will disrespect your religious beliefs simply because I CAN, and not because that disrespect serves any other purpose than to say, 'neener, neener, I'm doing this and you can't stop me'", is pointless.

When a citizen burns a flag to protest what they feel that flag is being mis-used to represent, they are making a statement that serves a purpose.

When a citizen draws a cartoon that is offensive to someone's religious beliefs for the sole purpose of offending those religious beliefs, it is not a matter of making a point about the right of free speech, or being offensive in the pursuit of making that point. It is a matter of being offensive for the sole purpose of being offensive. And therein lies a VERY big difference.

No one's First Right freedoms are advanced or protected by disrespecting what is sacred to Americans who adhere to a particular faith.

Free speech is a right - using it as something to hide behind in order to be disrespectful of the faith of others is no different than the Westboro Church's group claiming a "right" to disrespect the deceased at a funeral for a gay/lesbian soldier.

[RiverNoord]

24. Sorry, but you're dealing with false equivalencies.

First, those were actual works of art. (Whether you like them or not...) And neither Scorsese or Mapplethorpe gathered a bunch of supporters and displayed their works in wide open outdoors public explicitly in order to insult people.

What do you think would happen if a group of Muslims chose to gather in Texas and display images of a naked Jesus Christ having sex, while burning Bibles around a bonfire? That would be a genuine equivalency. There would be no point but to provoke others who find these things sacred to violence.

I'm an atheist, and I am careful about discussing others' religious beliefs. I see no reason to openly insult people who are religious in some fashion. It doesn't do anyone any good, including me.

I am 100% for free speech, and I agree that the government should not act in any way to prohibit such crap. However, provocation is fully recognized in the American legal system as a potential mitigating factor when imposing punishment for a violent act. Why, exactly, is that? Because we're all human and there is a point where insulting the things a person considers important will provoke that person to act against you. Just because certain hate speech can't be banned by government doesn't mean it is worthy of defense when it provokes one of the targets of the hate speech to violence.

Two young men are now dead because of what this group did. I have nothing but loathing for such crap.

[DefenseLawyer]

34. You may see some true distinction here

But I'm certainly not pursuaded. Your "that was art" argument is obviously too subjective to be a true distinction. If Robert Maplethorpe wasn't trying to insult Christians he was certainly trying to provoke them. And good for him.
Those "young men" were psychopaths. Religious fanatics who thought a rational response to an "insult" was to start shooting people. That can't be condoned in the name of religious tolerance any more than human sacrifice or genital mutilation or any other harm done in the name of "God". I'm also an atheist and I certainly don't care what anyone believes- until they start shooting people, then it becomes my business.
These people who put on this display were vile and they're hate doesn't help society. That doesn't mean we have to dance around absolute insanity because we don't want to offend or appear intolerant, or as seems to be the case here, we don't like the politics of the provacatuer.

[RiverNoord]

51. Your assumptions are much broader and less grounded in reality.

You allege:

1) The shooters were psychopaths. Do you have any psychiatric evidence to back this up? Psychopathy is an exceptionally unusual and severe mental illness. They had guns, were extremely offended by this gathering, the primary and explicit purpose of which was to insult and attack their religion, and got themselves killed trying to violently disrupt it. Not so much psychopaths, in all likelihood, but a couple of young guys looking for meaning in their lives and seeing it in violently defending their religion from a bunch of assholes. Unacceptable, yes. Criminal, yes. Just not likely psychopathy.

2) That 'we don't have to dance around absolute insanity because we don't want to offend or appear intolerant.' Seriously? It is well known that visual representations of the Islamic central holy figure, Mohammed, is basically banned by just about every variety of Islam. It's exceptionally easy not to hold gatherings at which the centerpiece is a bunch of cartoons of that very figure. I've never done it. I've never even thought about doing that. I think that it takes a considerable amount of effort to secure a location, gather together others who would be into that kind of thing, prepare the material, etc. Have you ever considered organizing a gathering at which a lot of people will openly insult over a billion adherents to a religious faith? I'm thinking... not. I know I've never considered, oh, hanging an bloody effigy of Jesus Christ on an upside down cross (y'know, it's hard work imagining insults to religions...) or burning Qurans. I've got better things to do and I don't see what the point would be.

I suspect that you are much younger than I am and have some steam to burn off. OK - I get that. However, you should at least be able to recognize the difference between 'dancing around absolute insanity because we don't want to offend or appear intolerant,' and deliberately organizing events (involving inviting people from across the world) at which people openly insult a religion and deliberately seek to severely offend adherents to it. It's a tremendous distinction, so far apart that there is really no similarity at all.

And, of course, it's funded by rich people who personally couldn't care less about the 'cause.' They do, however, like street-level violence and inter-religious conflict - things which make people feel insecure, and insecure people are willing to work longer, for less money and in poorer working conditions. That's what's behind the smokescreen.

[7962]

50. "Art" is in the eye of the beholder. Whether you like it or not.

A bunch of stupid cartoons of muhammed is art just as much as a jug of urine with a crucifix in it is art. To me, both are a bunch of crap, but thats not the way the law is here.
2 men are dead because they decided to try to shoot up a bunch of other people. they got what they deserved.

[RiverNoord]

53. Really?

Are you familiar with any Christian decree that explicitly forbids a cross being placed in a jug of urine? I'm pretty sure there isn't one, anywhere, coming from any Christian sect, ever. Sure it's offensive, I guess, to many, but it is a critical distinction between the idiots that put together the garbage today and the idiot that made that work of 'art.'

The people today acted with malice. They hate (or claim to hate) Islam, and set out to do something very public that they knew was extremely offensive to over a billion people, based on clear teachings within that religion that such a thing is wrong. They had no purpose other than malice. They certainly didn't establish anything like an art gallery in which they would display the examples of the 'art' (you claim) that they wanted to show off. The whole thing was explicitly malicious. 2 young men took the bait and ended up dead. They wouldn't be dead if these assholes hadn't set out to insult their religion. I call that callous and cold-hearted. There were others that deserved just as much as the two guys with the guns, but they came prepared and eager for violence and managed to get away without a scratch.

[7962]

59. There is no other purpose for putting a cross in a jug of piss,

than to inflame christians. There is no difference. And its hardly "art" to do something ANYONE could do. You want to put blame on Geller and her bunch for their intentions, fine. The same blame must be put on Maplethorpe for his intentions. They're both crap & insulting to the intended group. I guess you'd also blame someone walking on a US flag as a protest if someone came up and beat their ass. The "protest" is nothing more than an "in your face" attempt to piss off certain people. Ignore the instigator and they lose their power.
But hypocrisy does run rampant here from time to time.

[RiverNoord]

67. Um... you're all over the map and it's time to drop it.

You just said:

"A bunch of stupid cartoons of muhammed is art just as much as a jug of urine with a crucifix in it is art."

Now you're saying that the jar of piss isn't art after all, since 'ANYONE could do it.' So... since you're not actually making cogent arguments, but rather ranting, there isn't much point in trying to make a point using arguments. You're likely to just shift away from what you said previously, which means that responding to a point you made previously is worthless.

[7962]

73. As i said to start with, "art" is in the eye of the beholder.

Its MY opinion that the jar of piss isnt art, but someone else with obviously low expectations may think differently. So crazy lady in texas had just as much right to display her crap as Maplethorpe did to display HIS crap. And nobody had the right to shoot up either event.
Very simple.

[7962]

49. You said it well.

Funny how so many here want to blame HER on this, but would never blame the others you mentioned. How many DUers castigated Maplethorpe? I doubt there were every many. There are a lot of hypocrites here. And they DO NOT like it when you call them out on it

[YOHABLO]

18. Geller is responsible for the deaths of these people. We should respect other cultures and religions

[EX500rider]

32. "We should respect other cultures and religions" Really, all of them?

Aztec human sacrifice?
New Guinea head hunters?
Taliban girls schools bombers?
Female Genital Mutilation?
Etc...

[GGJohn]

40. Geller is NOT responsible for the deaths of these 2 assholes,

those 2 are responsible for their deaths.
They choose to arm themselves and drive to Texas to murder people who were attending an anti islam event.
Why the fuck do I have to respect religions? Especially when religion is responsible for more deaths than any thing else?

[warrant46]

43. Agreed

They unfortunately had a bad stoke of luck in defending their beliefs against the cartoonists.

I also guess those capitalists in the world trade center also provoked, the same kind of reaction from similar nutjobs.

[marshall]

46. Christians have done the exact same thinG

It's been a while since the Salem Witch Trials, but Christians have come from a sometimes violent past.

[warrant46]

47. The Catlick Inquisition and Killing by numeorous Popes comes to mind

John Huss, a critic of papal infallibility and indulgences, was burned at the stake in 1415.

University professor B.Hubmaier burned at the stake 1538 in Vienna.

Giordano Bruno, Dominican monk, after having been incarcerated for seven years, was burned at the stake for heresy on the Campo dei Fiori (Rome) on 2/17/1600.

However none recently but there are lots of afflicted nut jobs burning and bombing abortion clinics and killing doctors with pistols.

[99th_Monkey]

19. Now wait just a minute

I thought ALL hate-groups were anti-Semitic, or maybe anti-African American.

[redstatebluegirl]

20. Katrina pierson was interviewed on the news as an attendee imagine that!

Tea Party politician at this type of event.

[Purrfessor]

21. But when an African-American walks on the U.S. flag..

right-wing fundies go apoplectic and demand the person be beaten, or worse.

[warrant46]

44. They are just provoking the same way

Do that outside a military base, where a few buddies have been killed fighting for the flag and see what happens

[Purrfessor]

52. I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of those who cry free speech

Until another form of free speech occurs that they don't agree with.

[warrant46]

60. Noted

The whole problem with violence, and the anger that comes from perceived values that are threatened, is summed up in my favorite quote.

"One person's art is another person's pornography"

[jalan48]

25. Is she part of the KKK?

[EX500rider]

33. Since she is Jewish I doubt it.

[jalan48]

39. Jewish? This is too weird.

[Tom Ripley]

54. Not that weird. See: JDL

[Fritz Walter]

26. Deport the Dutch dude

Whose name I will not utter here.

He poses a threat to our homeland's security and therefore his name belongs on a do-not-allow list.

[Dont call me Shirley]

29. What a nasty witch Pam is. If karma exists, she should be quaking in her racist boots.

[MaggieD]

31. Pam Geller is a long time RWNJ

And I'm sure she is absolutely thrilled with the results of her well planned provocation. No doubt in my mind.

[LiberalElite]

37. I can't find the link now but, she wants to do it again nt

[Tommy_Carcetti]

45. Why are they blaming women for being raped?

[Skittles]

55. that is one of more sickening memes I have seen on DU

comparing this hateful rightwing trash to rape victims ....... utterly vile

[MellowDem]

56. It's perfect...

Because it points out the utter hypocrisy of many on DU. Every single post that has blamed Geller uses the exact same logic as those that blame rape victims. Every single one.

It's not about comparing Geller to hypothetical rape victims, it's about comparing the people who blame victims for acts of violence. DU is a community that (mostly) understands you don't blame rape victims, so it's an obvious analogy to help some of the ones who don't see their own hypocrisy, mostly because of religious privilege.

It's quite possible to think Geller has terrible views and yet still understand she's not to blame if people try to murder her because they're offended by what she says.

[Skittles]

57. done here

http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/04/opinions/moghul-texas-shooting-gellar/

[MellowDem]

64. More excuses...

Again, you don't have to support Geller or her message to understand she's not to blame.

And the author's creepy insinuation that if you are being threatened with violence you should shut up is disgusting. His appeal to "responsibility" sounds so Orwellian. People should not feel responsible for the violence others commit simply because their views are offensive. That's some stupid shit right there.

And finally, I get the author wants to say that the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful etc., but he's ignoring their "responsibility" of identifying with religious beliefs and texts which are explicitly hateful and misogynistic. This is the double standard of religion. People can identify with explicitly hateful belief systems, and then expect the benefit of the doubt that they don't believe all the bad parts, AND demand respect for their views, the privilege and hypocrisy in this piece are amazing to behold.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

69. The very definition of rape precludes the victim from wanting it to happen to her.

If a woman wears a sexy outfit, it's not that she wants to be raped. It's because she thinks she looks good in it.

No one asks to be raped. Otherwise it wouldn't be rape. It would be consensual sex.

Geller--who's painted herself as the "victim" even though she's not one--has made her career on painting Muslims as violent reactionaries. She organized an event with full knowledge that it might provoke a violent reaction, and if it did, she would use it as a talking point to further her self-serving agenda.

And guess what? It did provoke a violent reaction (inexcusable no doubt), and now she's on TV 24-7 talking about how the US is at war with Islam, and how she's Rosa Parks, and how she's all about the First Amendment (even though she's on record as despising the First Amendment).

Meanwhile, she wasn't shot. She wasn't killed. She wasn't injured. I don't even know if she was present at the time of the shooting. She's not the victim. The only victim was the security guard who was injured.

Please explain to me how she's the victim here, because I don't see it at all.

[MellowDem]

70. In the hypothetical...

The person doesn't want to be raped. Let's say she's hired bodyguards to follow her to stop it, she just wants the attempt made, so what? She's still a victim, makes no difference That she was hoping to provoke a response.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

71. Um......no?

You are getting weirder and weirder with the hypotheticals here.

But if someone intentionally provokes someone in order to get a specific response from them, no, they aren't the victim. Perhaps they may be performing a public service in their mind or in the minds of others. But they aren't actually a victim.

I'm sure the security guard who was injured didn't want to be shot. Hence, he is a bonafide victim. Pam Gellar is not.

[MellowDem]

75. If violence is never an excuse...

then she's a victim. Hypotheticals are meant to illustrate points, they're going to be weird often enough. Doesn't matter if the person wanted to provoke a violent response, it doesn't justify it.

[mainer]

62. Geller is not the victim. The poor security guard she hired is the victim

She set the fire, and then some poor guy she hired got hurt.

[JoePhilly]

65. You'll notice Geller did not attend the event, right?

But you can be sure she had an idea of the kind of response it might generate.

She got a bunch of dopes to put themselves in what could be a dangerous situation and most of them probably hd no idea.

She used them. Her free speech wasn't putting her in any danger at all. She left that for others.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

48. It's a symbiotic relationship

One group trolling, the other too stupid to resist.

[Little Tich]

58. While I wish Pamela Geller would spontaneously self combust

from all the hatred she's got inside her, I don't think she and her racist buddies were trying to elicit a violent response. They were just trying to offend.

[Gothmog]

61. Geller is a hate monger

She planned this event to generate this sort of response

[mainer]

63. Let's talk about the millions of US Muslims who didn't hurt anyone

Geller poked them all in the eye with a stick. Millions of US Muslims ignored her or tolerated her hate speech or quietly seethed. But only two radical wackos, known terrorists, actually responded with violence. Suddenly we're condemning everyone because of two wackos? Every race has its crazies. Every political group has its crazies.

When Lee Harvey Oswald shot Kennedy, did we go off on all Russian immigrants?

Do we condemn all African Americans when one cop-hating wacko decides to go to NYC and randomly kill a cop?

[Beauregard]

68. OK, but...

Lee Oswald was not a Russian immigrant.

[marshall]

76. And the students at Kent State? Did they get what they were looking for?

Protestors want to provoke, and they don't always come from the left. It's a long standing american activity. If we start shutting them down, they'll turn around and shut us down.

[Quantess]

77. Fuck Islamist extremists!

Brainless, mindwashed dumbasses who have been programmed to kill anything that chafes their Precious Mohammed's FEEWINGS.
Women are worse than animals! Gays are doomed to death!