So the satire magazine Charlie Hebdo, whose cartoonists were brutally murdered by Islamic extremists, is given the Freedom of Expression Courage Award by the PEN American Center, and then some 200 writers, self-proclaimed liberals all, concluded that the magazine’s caricatures of the Prophet Mohammad “must be seen as being intended to cause further humiliation and suffering [to Muslims],” and therefore free-speech protections need not apply.
So, more recently, the activist-pundit Pamela Geller, who has long campaigned against Islamic extremism, organized a “draw Mohammad” contest in Garland, Texas, which resulted in two more Islamic extremists trying to murder everyone associated with the event. Fortunately, they were killed in the attempt.
As with Charlie Hebdos’ PEN award, Ms. Geller and her compatriots were seen by some as bravely exercising their First Amendment “free speech” right to express their outrage at the fatal violence that often accompanies religious extremism, Islamic or otherwise (although religious-based acts of terrorism committed over the past several years have been overwhelmingly committed by Islamic extremists).
But, just as with Charlie Hebdo, many others thought Ms. Geller and her compatriots were, as The New York Times put it, engaging in “an exercise in bigotry and hatred,” that was a “blatantly Islamophobic provocation.”
A provocation it may have been, but since when is being provocative a violation of free speech? On the contrary, the First Amendment was created to protect provocative speech in all its forms, as well as hate speech, ugly speech, and any speech that is unpopular, including deliberately unpopular speech. Few things are more unpopular to the average American than desecrating an American flag, but in 1989 the Supreme Court ruled that Gregory Johnson, who had burned an American flag in front of the Republican National Convention in Dallas, Texas, was making a political statement in burning the flag, meaning he was exercising his right to free speech. If burning an American Flag is protected under the First Amendment, so is drawing a cartoon caricature of a religious figure, regardless of how offensive — how provocative — it may be. Take away our right to offensive, provocative speech and you threaten our liberty.
Just ask The New York Times. In 1978, when neo-Nazis applied for a permit to march through a Jewish neighborhood in Skokie, Illinois — a crystal clear “exercise of bigotry and hatred” that was a “blatantly [Jewish] provocation” — they were granted that permit because it was also a crystal clear exercise of their right to free expression.
And back then The New York Times supported that argument, editorializing, “Free speech must be demanded for all … If the rights of those whom civil libertarians have most cause to despise are slighted, then everyone’s rights are placed in jeopardy.”
