The argument over Pamela Geller and the Garland shooting has sparked a weirdly intense amount of infighting amongst defenders of free speech. To catch up, just read this post by Drew over at Ace of Spades and take in this rebuttal by Popehat:
Given that Mr. Hat, TV's Andy Levy, Ace, and Drew are all basically on the same side here—I think they'd all agree it's a travesty some, such as the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times and CNN anchors, are, at best, lackadaisically defending Geller's right to say what she wants without being shot for her trouble—it may seem like it's weird that they're getting bogged down in such minutiae. But given the intensity on each side, it's something worth briefly digging into.
No one hates rhetorical throat clearing as much as I do. If a piece of writing is good, there's no need to qualify it with an "I normally hate [ideologically opposed outlet x], but this piece is interesting." Similarly, if a position such as free speech is good, there should be no need to say, "Well, this woman is a lunatic, but she probably has the right not to be murdered for her speech." So I would typically side with Ace and Drew in this debate.
However, if the last week or so has revealed anything, it's that our commitment to freedom of speech is remarkably wobbly. For instance, I had no idea that so many Democrats are in favor of criminalizing speech they don't like:
https://t.co/eq8JWmujKW pic.twitter.com/HhmfKTp1Xx
— Allahpundit (@allahpundit) May 6, 2015
The First Amendment is now, it seems, a partisan issue. If you believe in freedom of expression, this is terrifying stuff. But it's not terribly surprising. It's a natural extension of hate crime laws. It's a natural result of training a generation of college kids that speech is violence, that safe spaces are needed to keep bad thoughts away from your ears. It's a natural belief for those who think the European model is superior to the American model.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" used to be a truism, a cliche. So much so that it wasn't really necessary to utter every time we defended the First Amendment. But I'm not sure a large swathe of the public actually believes this any longer. And I'm pretty much convinced at this point that a large portion of intellectuals who should know better don't believe this. Oh, sure, they'll defend the right to show the Piss Christ or the "Book of Mormon." When your speech violates the norms of political correctness, however—when a man with a pen is judged guilty of "punching down" against a man with an automatic rifle—they hightail it, victim-blame, and equivocate about our most fundamental freedom.
And this is why I don't really have a problem with the rhetorical throat clearing regarding Geller. Indeed, I think it might even be helpful. Sadly, we seem to need a reminder that the distinction between "hate speech" and free speech is a false one, that freedom of expression explicitly means defending the right to say something you personally find distasteful. If that means clearing your throat ahead of time, well, so be it.