WaPo: Why Won't Potential Murder Victim Apologize to Thwarted Killers?
"Event organizer offers no apology after thwarted attack in Texas," the Washington Post has the gall to write after Pam Geller, her speakers and/or guests were nearly murdered on Sunday. Not surprisingly, in a post titled "JFK offers no apology after Lee Harvey Oswald shoots him in the head," Geller tells the leftwing paper to pound sand. "What apology exactly do I owe for almost being murdered?"
“Abraham Lincoln offers no apology after John Wilkes Booth lodges a bullet in his brain”
“Julius Caesar offers no apology after Cassius and Brutus stab him to death”
“Jews offer no apology after Nazis kill six million”
As Twitchy asks, "What exactly should she apologize for? What’s, next? Maybe, 'Pam Geller attacked by Islamic fanatics because her skirt is too short”?"
"Old: I object to your statement but will fight to the death for your right to say it,” The Draw and Strike blog tweets. "New: I object to your statement, and if some religious fanatic kills you over it, you totally deserved it.”
"I expected that in the wake of the attempted terrorist assault on a "draw Muhammad" event in Texas, people would write dumb things about speech," Ken White writes at the Popehat blog, "American journalists have not disappointed me:"
Responding to an equally egregious attack on Geller's First Amendment rights from two "journalists" at the McClatchey wire service, White notes:
You can talk to me all day about how Geller is a nasty, scary nutjob, and I'm unlikely to disagree much. But that has no bearing on whether her speech is, or should be, protected. We don't need a First Amendment to protect the soothing and the sensible.
Read the whole thing.