Search This Blog

Tuesday, May 12, 2015

The Garland Experiment II: The Notorious JJP

I know I focus on Dana in this blog, but I would like today to focus on someone else. Her name is Judge Jeanine Pirro (JJP).  And she says some pretty fascinating things:

Well, you get the idea, right?  Opening her latest show, she touched on what I am calling the Garland Experiment. Since the most violent fringe of Muslims hate the drawing of Mohammed so much that they may be incited to kill, let's offend all Muslims to get our point across.  Here it is in all it's glory:

That first line is totally right.  The first amendment is not negotiable.  And not because it was so important that that founding fathers made it the first one.  No, because it is an important one.  It allows me to write the words you are reading on this screen.  It allows JJP to have a TV show on Fox, or Dana to have a radio show and TV show.  Rachel Maddow, Ed Schultz, Al Sharpton and others are also included in that.  And they can say what they want, true or not, because the first amendment says so.

That amendment is not all encompassing, however.  Say "fuck" on broadcast TV or Radio, and the government will fine you.  Falsely yell fire in a crowded theater, and expect the ghost of Oliver Wendel Holmes to come to your house with cuffs in hand.  Say something libelous or slanderous, and expect your wallet to take a hit.  Not all speech is allowed under the first amendment.

This case, the Garland Experiment, is not one that is restricted.  As I have said in my previous post, it is their right to draw Mohammed cartoons, just foolish.  And in this case, no government entity is coming after them to tell them to stop.  Most from the moderate and left are not saying they need to stop either, just be more reasonable.

This is not a first amendment issue.  Anyone on either fringe trying to make it so is wrong, simply because the government is not going to limit this speech.  But I think a majority of the people out there know this.  I would like to focus on JJP for a second, though.  Remember what she said... the First Amendment is non-negotiable.  Then come with me in a time machine to 2011, and let us explore how strongly we should not negotiate with the first amendment:

The money line comes at about 1:35: Should we revisit the First Amendment?  Why are we revisiting it here?  Because a Muslim said something JJP didn't like? Forget the fact that it is not only a case of freedom of speech, but also freedom of religion; but if it is speech that is a crime, the first amendment already covers that. JJP just wishes to silence those who think differently.

Of course, this is the woman who said "bomb them" in that first video.  Why would we expect any less than hypocrisy from her on the subject of people of the Muslim faith.

Edit: I just wanted to give a call out to the David Pakman Show for running this story. 

Thanks, Dave! I couldn't have said it better myself.


  1. So are you claiming that Anwar Al-Awlaki has a right to incite violence?

    1. As I said, if that speech is a crime, it's not covered by free speech. Why we would have to revisit it, then, is the issue here.

    2. Incitement to violence? Hate speech intended to demonize Americans on the basis of ethnicity, religion, etc, and to promote fear? Surely those are not covered by the First Amendment? Either way, the pejorative phrase 'political correctness'is intended as an attack on those who find racist and other such speech offensive. Many a bigot hides behind the First Amendment, and even weaponises it for political purposes. I doubt that is what the founding fathers intended.