For some at Fox News, free speech is great and all, but people really need to watch what they say.
A controversial “Draw Muhammad” contest this weekend in Garland, Texas, has divided media figures into two camps: In one corner are those who say unequivocally that all free speech is to be defended — regardless of content. Period. In the other are those who say the First Amendment should not be invoked to defend intentionally provocative acts — especially when such acts offend Muslim sensitivities.
The Sunday event, which was hosted by the American Freedom Defense Initiative, was almost the target of an Islamic State-linked terrorist attack.
Luckily for the nearly 200 people in attendance, a police officer shot and killed the two would-be attackers, Nadir Soofi, 34, and Elton Simpson, 30, before they could carry out their jihad-inspired act of mass murder.
Conservative publications, including National Review and TownHall.com, have focused mostly on the free speech rights of the group responsible for the Muhammad contest, while employees of legacy and left-leaning media groups, including the Washington Post and MSNBC, have chastised AFDI and its founder, Pamela Geller, for hosting an intentionally provocative event.
Along with characterizations that the contest was explicitly “anti-Islam,” critics of AFDI, which awarded $10,000 to the artist who best lampooned Muhammad, also alleged that the group intentionally incited violence.
Fox News has fallen somewhere in the middle, with several hosts and contributors stressing this week the importance of free speech — so long as it’s safe.
“The American Freedom Defense Initiative spurred a violent incident,” longtime host Bill O’Reilly alleged Tuesday. “Insulting the entire Muslim world is stupid…It does not advance the cause of liberty or get us any closer to defeating the savage jihad.”
He added that free speech is indeed important, but that those principles are “not in play” in the AFDI situation. Further, O’Reilly said, “Just because you can say it doesn’t mean you should say it…It is stupid. It accomplishes nothing.”
Conservative radio host and Fox contributor Laura Ingraham agreed, saying Tuesday that everyone should avoid being “unnecessarily” offensive.
“It is not beneficial to us as Americans to criticize an entire faith, and what was done at this convention doesn’t accomplish anything,” she said. “There are a lot of things that we can say, that we have a right to say, that we shouldn’t say.”
Referring to Chris Ofili’s infamous “The Holy Virgin Mary,” a likeness of Jesus’ mother fashioned out of dung, Ingraham said she supported the artist’s right to free expression — but she maintained it’s unnecessarily stupid and offensive.
“We shouldn’t unnecessarily insult people, personal attacks,” she said, adding of the AFDI event that, “It does not…accomplish anything [and] it could make things worse for us.”
O’Reilly concurred, saying that his position is “what is best for the country” and not “emotional.”
Fox News anchor Martha MacCallum expressed on both television and social media that she disapproved of AFDI and its Muhammad contest.
“Don’t stoop to [radical Islamists’] level,” she said on Twitter in reference to the controversial art exhibit, adding later, “Just because you have a right to do something, doesn’t mean it’s the right thing to do.”
Referring to Geller’s many critics, McCallum explained the arguments against AFDI, saying in an interview with the group’s founder that, “If you want to make a difference, you do it in a Christian way, you don’t do it in a crass way by insulting someone’s religion.”
Fox’s Greta Van Susteren also had choice words for Geller and her crew, saying in a monologue Tuesday evening that it’s not acceptable to host free speech events if they endanger the lives of law enforcement officials.
“My message is simple — protect our police. Do not recklessly lure them into danger and that is what happened in Garland, Texas, at the Mohammed cartoon contest,” she said. “Yes, of course, there’s a First Amendment right and it’s very important, but the exercise of that right includes using good judgment.”
Van Susteren continued: “It’s one thing for someone to stand up for the First Amendment and put his own you-know-what on the line, but here, those insisting they were defending the First Amendment were knowingly putting officers’ lives on the line — the police…[who] had no choice but to do their job.”
On Wednesday, Fox’s Geraldo Rivera added his thoughts, saying on social media, “Pamela Geller has the right to voice her hateful ideas, but don’t pretend its about free speech. Its about insulting, taunting and inciting.”
These Fox News personalities are not alone in positioning themselves against AFDI and Gellar: They are joined in their distaste for the group’s controversial exercise of its First Amendment rights by the likes of CNN’s Chris Cuomo, Garland Mayor Douglas Athas, Vox’s Max Fisher, MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, the New York Daily News’ Linda Stasi and Fox News regular Donald Trump.
Van Susteren and company do not, however, speak for everyone at the famously right-of-center news network.
Megyn Kelly broke with many of her Fox colleagues this week as she debated O’Reilly on the question of whether free speech should be restrained so as not to upset the sensitivities of specific groups.
“You know what else the jihadis don’t like? They hate Jews,” Kelly said Monday. “Should we get rid of all Jews? That’s the path we’re going to go down if we start catering to the jihadis. There’s no satisfying them. There’s no making them happy. You can’t not do things because the jihadis are going to be upset.”
