After the aborted terrorist attack at a Prophet Mohammad cartoon event in Texas, there was much criticism of the event’s sponsor Pamela Geller along with defenses of the event on free speech grounds. Writing in Time, May 6, 2015, Qasim Rashid downplays the free speech issue, saying that laws protecting hate speech were developed during the civil rights movement to protect racial and religious minorities. Demonizing Muslims will not serve our interests in fighting extremism, says Rashid. We must instead practice tolerance and compassion.
Some think that the events in Texas qualified as “fighting words” or “incitement,” with a likelihood of provoking a violent reaction. Others felt that in these instances, the best response would be for public officials and others to step up to voice their opposition to hate messages. (McClatchyDC, May 4, 2015, by Lindsay Wise and Jonathan S. Landay)
The editorial board of the Los Angeles Times, May 7, 2015, discounted the fighting words argument in the instance of the Geller events. There was no face-to-face provocations and no statements directly inciting violence. The U.S. Supreme Court decision in the case of the Westboro Baptist Church indicates that there must be a lot more going on for the government to legitimately curtail speech.