The unsuccessful attack on an exhibition of Mohammed cartoons in Garland, Texas, near Dallas, is the most recent attempted mass murder on American soil endeavoring to silence expression bothersome to radical Islamists; it is unlikely to be the last. Some thoughts assembled from Twitter:
Elton Simpson's long trail: Volokh, 2011, covered court decision re: his talk of going to Somalia http://t.co/3Bvuf57Z8P #garlandshooting
— Walter Olson (@walterolson) May 4, 2015
The would-be terrorists in Garland fell for one of the classic blunders: Never assume that you’ve outgunned an art show in Texas.
— Daniel Foster (@DanFosterType) May 4, 2015
One early, ill-considered reaction from the legacy media:
Oh, "draws fire." ISWYDT. RT @NBCLatino Anti-Islamic group draws fire in Garland, Texas.
http://t.co/6djaLLNrMV https://t.co/gn1O14y2NF
— Walter Olson (@walterolson) May 4, 2015
Screenshot of now-deleted @NBCLatino "draws fire" post. pic.twitter.com/Wnsl7R45ro
— Walter Olson (@walterolson) May 4, 2015
But the legacy media coverage didn’t necessarily improve after a day for reporting and reflection:
An obscene question. RT @McClatchyDC: After Texas shooting: If free speech is provocative, should there be limits? http://t.co/P1LV4srewr
— Walter Olson (@walterolson) May 4, 2015
@walterolson @McClatchyDC As always: Non-"provocative" speech never needs protection. This is the entire ballgame.
— Tom Garrett (@TheAxisOfEgo) May 4, 2015
As commentators have pointed out, the narrow “fighting words” exception in today’s First Amendment law is generally reserved for (at most) face-to-face insults likely to provoke an on-the-spot brawl, not to derogatory speech more generally:
Calling controversial speech "fighting words" means any speech may be banned if people threaten violence. See http://t.co/7Hs3nT8GXP
— Ari Armstrong (@ariarmstrong) May 4, 2015
not hecklers veto, but murderer's veto. is this how hard-won rights over the enlightenment end? https://t.co/5RiRyDJTM6
— Razib Khan (@razibkhan) May 4, 2015
Old: "I'm all for property rights, but…"
New: "I'm all for free speech rights, but.."
Next: "I'm all for no soldiers in your home, but…"
— Kevin W. Glass (@KevinWGlass) May 4, 2015
Echoes of the PEN awards controversy going on at the same time:
If we can't honor #CharlieHebdo's courage, "we might as well go home." Good on you, @neilhimself. http://t.co/KfNZ3zVsNA
— David Loy (@DavidLoySD) May 4, 2015
On which memorably, also, Nick Cohen in the Spectator.
Daring #CharlieHebdo, wretched Pamela Geller both deserve free speech: @jkirchick on a roll http://t.co/zetCzxZcs3 http://t.co/lvRjzHA71p
— Walter Olson (@walterolson) May 5, 2015
Earlier on the Charlie Hebdo and Copenhagen attacks.
More: Ken White skewers that awful McClatchy piece with its misunderstandings about “fighting words.” And don’t miss Michael Moynihan on those who would “make a bold stand against the nonexistent racism of 12 dead journalists by refusing to clap for the one who got away,” or related and very good Caleb Crain.
2 Comments
The local D Magazine blog (Frontburner) ran a post with the title “Who Can We Blame for This Garland Shooting?” Umm, perhaps the would-be mass murderers?
[…] can and will be said about the attack in Texas and its aftermath, but here is what came to mind for me. On current trends, many outspoken […]