Robert Spencer

|

Pamela Geller

|

Bat Ye'or

|

Brigitte Gabriel

|

Daniel Pipes

|

Debbie Schlussel

|

Walid Shoebat

|

Joe Kaufman

|

Wafa Sultan

|

Geert Wilders

|

The Nuclear Card

Temple University, Philadelphia: Protestors Condemn Geller and Spencer’s ‘Irrational Hatred’

Posted on 25 April 2012 by Amago

Protesters at Temple University condemned Geller and Spencer’s irrational hatred of Muslims.

Temple University, Philadelphia: protestors condemn Geller and Spencer’s ‘irrational hatred’

PROTESTERS who had filled the auditorium seats at an anti-Muslim event on Temple University’s campus Monday night left the room quite empty when they marched out in opposition after the discussion began.

The organization hosting the “Islamic Apartheid Conference,” Temple University Students for Intellectual Freedom, says its mission is to introduce controversial issues often left out of mainstream debates and defends its right to political incorrectness. Panelists at the conference included Robert Spencer, contributor to the blog Jihad Watch, and Pamela Geller, famous for her hostility to the proposed construction of an Islamic community center near the site of the World Trade Center.

After walking out, more than 50 demonstrators, consisting of North Philadelphia residents, campus groups and Occupy Philly protesters, remained outside in the rain, holding signs and confronting attendees as they left the event in Ritter Hall, on Cecil B. Moore Avenue near 13th Street.

Walter Smolarek, a freshman education major at Temple University, said that the content of the conference is “based solely on irrational hatred toward people, in this case, because of their religious faith, and we don’t feel like it falls under the umbrella of free speech, or should be part of political debate.

“An attack against Muslim communities is an attack against all working people,” said Smolarek.

Though Temple University approved the conference for its calendar, it did not promote the event in the daily campus-events email distributed to the student body.

Note from Amago: To be perfectly clear: hate speech must be protected in order to have freedom of speech, that is not in question here.  The initial wording of the article was unclear and in response to several inquiries the article was amended. 

  • Ilisha

    @Believing Atheist

    “Based on those standards I conduct legitimate criticism right?”

    Yes, I think so.

  • Believing Atheist

    @llisha,

    Based on those standards I conduct legitimate criticism right? If not tell me so that I can correct my criticisms and make it more fair and proportionate.

  • Ilisha

    @David Jones

    We’ve discussed what constitutes legitimate criticism in past articles, including this one:

    A Lavish Feast: Hatemongers, Hypocrites, and the Hate Du Jour
    http://www.loonwatch.com/2012/01/a-lavish-feast-hatemongers-hypocrites-and-the-hate-du-jour/

  • David Jones

    How does Loonwatch define Islamophobia? Does Loonwatch tolerate any criticism of Islam? If so, how far has the criticism go to be labeled as Islamophobia?

  • Sir David : Man on a phone with a french spell check

    hums (” not what you do its , the way that you do it” ) in the background

  • Believing Atheist

    @Nur,

    “What about my right to express my opinion about a speech? Do I have to agree that ‘hate speech’ is freedom of speech, rather than have an opinion of my own…even though I am not advocating to make my opinion the law?”

    One more and this is the last time I am going to say it to you understand? You have a right to be wrong, I have a right correct you. We both are protected by the law. DO NOT ASK ME AGAIN!

  • Sir David : Man on a phone with a french spell check

    NurAlia
    This is very Common i am afraid. Divert the topic from what people think or want to say or why they are saying it, instead talk about how they say it.
    Bit like the song ” its not what you do , its the way that you do it ”
    I think the message that these young people are saying about hâte speech is very important , they are the 99% not the likes of the hatemongers.

  • NurAlia

    I am tryng to figure out where the protestors in this article actually prohibited, or restricted someone to speak, and to say what they wanted to say.

    What I am seeing here…lead by ‘believing athiest’ to divert from the topic of the content of the speech, and the right of people NOT to listen to hate speech by walking out, and saying that it is hate speech, and rendering an opinion that this kind of speech is should be banned.

    In other words ‘beliving athiest’…would ‘freedom of speech’ force someone to listen to hate speech, restrict or deny someone the right to walk out, turn the channel, ignore, or otherwise not be exposed to such filth by that person’s own choice?

    What about my right to express my opinion about a speech? Do I have to agree that ‘hate speech’ is freedom of speech, rather than have an opinion of my own…even though I am not advocating to make my opinion the law?

  • HGG

    “Will LoonWatch come to the defense of Egyptian comedian Adel Imam in the name of free speech in the Muslim world?”

    I see this kind of posts all the time and I don’t get them. This blog has a specific purpose, and news items like that fall outside of its scope. It’s not evidence of double-standards or inconsistency on their part, it’s just not what this site is for.

    I’m a big fan of Apple products. I visit a few sites about them and I understand their purpose. I don’t go around asking “Why don’t you cover the latest Sony Blu-Ray player?”

  • Danios

    @ Dan15:

    We strongly condemn the conviction of Adel Imam and staunchly support free speech in the Muslim world. However, it should be noted that the focus of our website is Islamophobia, which is why we do not have a separate article on the case of Adel Imam.

  • Zakariya Ali Sher

    I’m all for freedom of speech, but I’m also something of a hypocrite. I feel that MY views are correct because, more often than not, they ARE correct. But then, I’m also not a neo-Nazi or Klansman. So yes, I DON’T really give equal air time to all ideas because we aren’t talking about different political views, or religions, or even tastes in music. We are talking about people with an irrational hatred of others, gleefully abusing our rights to spread their propaganda. They most certainly would not return the favor to you or I were the shoe on the other foot.

    So yeah, people may have their right to freedom of expression, but its also my right not to listen, or better yet, to offer a rebuttal. Or, perhaps it might be more accurate to say a mockery. That’s MY form of freedom of expression. Besides, American Muslims have been prosecuted, imprisoned, even deported and tortured for expressing their opinions. Some of which were stupid and wrong, yes, and just as many of which were fairly innocuous criticisms of US foreign policy that many other Americans have made. If we are going to use drone strikes to make extrajudicial killings of American citizens, not even giving a shit about ‘collateral damage,’ then why should I care if I hurt Geller’s feelings? She’s already making far more money than any of us will for essentially being a blogger.

    And speaking of Fred Phelps, I would recommend reading ‘Addicted to Hate’ and some of the other material about him on the web. Yes, the Supreme Court has upheld his right to ‘freedom of speech.’ The thing is, the accommodation given to Phelps goes above and beyond the consideration that other people would get. He is essentially a bully who has intimidated and harassed people. The Topeka police used to talk people out of pressing charges against him because he would bury the city in paperwork, and he has essentially gotten off the hook for assault charges without ever serving time. I’m not exactly sure he is an example of freedom of speech as much as he is a minor celebrity who makes money off travelling around protesting everything and anything.

  • Believing Atheist

    @Nur,

    I would sincerely appreciate it if you do not put words in my mouth. I didn’t say your position wasn’t valid under the 1st Amendment. Quote me! I said it was a falsehood, and falsehood when for the most part is protected by the 1st Amendment, as long as that falsehood does not do damage to life and property.

    So just as you have a right to spew falsehood, I have a right to correct you. So it’s a win/win situation.

  • NurAlia

    @believing Athiest

    You posted this…

    “….When you say that hate speech is not freedom of speech, it is not an opinion. It is a blatant falsehood, because most hate speech is protected by the 1st Amendment…”

    Why is my OPINION nor valid under this 1st Amendment, and yours is? Dont I have the right to have an opinion that you disagree with without you citing the law against me?

    I, nor the anti loons who say that ‘hate speech’ is not freedom of speech are not advocating to legalize thier posistion. We are not imposing ourselves on you is my point.

    So…please dont over analyise my question and answer it. Why is my opinion not valid under the 1st Amendment, and yours is…according to you?

  • anon

    Perhaps in a society that has already reached a high level of “civilization”, hate speech can be understood correctly as an abuse of the right of freedom of speech and a neglect of the responsibilities associated with the right for freedom of speech.—that of civilized discourse based on knowledge and reason…..

    However, in a society that still has high levels of ignorance and uncivility—it is unwise to restrain hate speech. This is because ignorance can only be repelled by knowledge and hate speech that is hidden/undergound will not have an opportunity to be discouraged through knowledgeable and reasoned arguments…..it is better to have it in the open where counter-arguments can demolish the fantasies that most hate speech is based on….wether it is anti-Jew, anti-Catholic, anti-blacks or whatever….

  • dan15

    Will LoonWatch come to the defense of Egyptian comedian Adel Imam in the name of free speech in the Muslim world?

    http://www.albawaba.com/entertainment/adel-imam-convicted-second-time-422344

  • Believing Atheist

    @Nur,

    When you say that hate speech is not freedom of speech, it is not an opinion. It is a blatant falsehood, because most hate speech is protected by the 1st Amendment.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#United_States

    If you would like another source other than Wikipedia just let me know.

    And who did I claim was against me? No one, that is purely your assumption.

  • http://www.youtube.com/user/GargamelGold?feature=mhee CriticalDragon1177

    @Amago

    While I do appreciate them standing up to anti Muslim bigots, we can’t just ban speech either, even if it is morally repulsive.

    The ACLU fought for the right of Neo Nazis to march in Skokie, despite of how upsetting and offensive, it would be, especially given the large Jewish population in the area, many of which were Holocaust survivors.
    http://www.skokiehistory.info/chrono/nazis.html

    Just because what someone is saying is morally repulsive doesn’t mean they don’t have the right to say it.

    I think it can’t be stressed enough, the best way to fight hate speech is with more speech, and that’s exactly what these protestors are doing. Good for them!

  • NurAlia

    @believing athiest.

    Why are you making a big deal when someone espresses thier opinion that hate speech is not ‘freedom of speech’.

    They anit loons have just as much right to express thier opinion, than the haters do to thiers.

    Not everyone is ‘against’ you that doesnt agree with you.

  • Reynardine

    I’d add that if the university were to allow or encourage a course of conduct that became oppressive/intimidating to students from an “immutable group” (race, religion, gender, ethnicity, inter alia), we’d have some additional legal issues here. So far, I don’t think we’ve gotten there.

  • Just Stopping By

    I agree with Believing Atheist and Reynardine: Temple had the right to provide the speakers with a forum. The protesters had the right to protest in a manner that not disrupt the speakers. Both are examples of free speech. I personally side with the protesters, but that does not mean that either group was not engaged in a legitimate exercise of free speech.

  • Believing Atheist

    I never accused the protesters of trying to silence Spencer and Geller. I disagreed with Amago’s statement that Spencer and Geller’s irrational hatred does not exemplify freedom of speech. By law it does.

  • Reynardine

    Under Beauharnais v. Illinois, what tips the balance is if a jurisdiction that bans group libel is doing so in response to specific violence against/involving a specific group. In that case, it was a recent history of race riots and a reasonable fear of more that empowered the state of Illinois to pass the law under which Beauharnais was convicted.

    Temple University is not a jurisdiction, in that sense, and the protesters are not using the force of any public law to suppress the speech of Spencer and Geller. They are objecting to the fact that the (I believe private) university to which they have paid tuition is granting a forum to speakers who will inevitably create an inimical environment for some of them. If Temple had chosen not to grant the forum, it would have been within its rights; it has granted that forum, and no legal action has been proffered against it for doing so. At present, the students are exercising their own right to speak freely about what they think of Temple’s providing (or actually, allowing the provision of) a forum for what approaches group libel, and the university has not sought to silence them, so no First Amendment issues have been raised as yet.

  • mindy1

    Yay for peaceful protesting :D and making fun of geller

  • Ali
  • Believing Atheist

    I disagree with this statement: These protesters support freedom of speech, and they realize that Geller and Spencer’s irrational hatred in no way exemplifies freedom of speech.

    Yes it indeed exemplifies freedom of speech because most hate speech is protected under the First Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2003 that the state of Virginia could prohibit cross burning — often considered a form of hate speech — if it threatens a specific individual, but not if it is intended as a symbolic statement at a rally that targets no one in particular.

    Hence, Hate speech can only be prohibited if it threatens a specific individual. (I think this can also be stretched to include groups of people).

    I have never heard Geller or Spencer ever threaten to kill Muslims. That’s John Jay’s job.

    Also consider the fact that the WBC have said much worse of gays and other supposedly Christians, yet their speech was protected by the U.S. Supreme Court. They also picket the funerals of dead military-men shouting stuff like the death was well deserved and a punishment from God. They also say stuff like God Hates F**s

    In 2011, the Supreme Court’s announced its decision in Snyder v Phelps. Writing for an 8 to 1 Court, Chief Justice Roberts noted that the Westboro group’s speech generally related to a matter of public concern, that the group complied with all city ordinances and police department requests, and that the funeral itself was not disrupted. Given these facts, Roberts wrote, “We cannot react to [Snyder's] pain by punishing the speaker. As a nation we have chosen a different course–to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate.”

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/03/AR2011030304124.html

    Reply from Amago: I haven’t had an opportunity to comment on this in the thread yet. I should have earlier on as it would have saved some of the ensuing discussion, which while enlightening was probably needless.

    What I meant by it does not “exemplify the best of free speech” was it is not the best manifestation of ‘free speech,’ its kind of like how I feel when I see those Fred Phelps freaks, when they protest the funerals of soldiers or gays or what have you.

    Spencer and Geller have an unquestionable right to speak, totally, but I don’t think it exemplifies the best of the right of free speech. Granted, as I note, my comment was a bit ambiguous and so I apologize for that.

Advertise Here
Advertise Here