Bill O’Reilly says he would have done it “another way”.  But that’s not the worst of it.

Greta Van Susteren — also on Fox — editorialized against Geller:

Van Susteren said that while the group has the right to exercise free speech, they should not have knowingly endangered police officers by doing do.

“It is 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 others’ lives on the line,” she said. “Everyone knew this event would unglue some who might become violent and the police had no choice but to do their jobs and be there to protect against violence.”

“Was it fair to the police, to knowingly put them at risk by this unnecessary provocation?” Van Susteren asked. “I say no.”

The Mayor of Garland, Texas says Pam Geller’s anti-Islam event “invited” the attack:

Mayor Douglas Athas told the Dallas Morning News that he wished anti-Islam activist and conspiracy theorist Pam Geller had taken her business elsewhere.

“Certainly in hindsight, we as a community would be better off if she hadn’t [held it in Garland],” Athas told the newspaper.

“Her actions put my police officers, my citizens and others at risk. Her program invited an incendiary reaction,” he said, according to the paper.

Geller had a harsh response to this:

Geller — who previously compared what she called her defense of free speech to civil rights icon Rosa Parks going to the front of the bus — equated Athas’ remarks with rape victim-blaming.

“How ridiculous,” Geller told BBC Radio. “I mean, that’s like saying that the pretty girl was responsible for her own rape. The mayor is going after the defenders of free speech and clearly giving a free pass to the savages who came with guns to kill innocent people because of a cartoon.”

“It’s ridiculous in its face,” she added. “Shame on the mayor.”

The rape analogy initially has merit until you, like, think about it.

For one thing, a pretty girl — let’s even put her in a short skirt going about her own business — is doing just that: she’s going about her own business.  That is not a provocation to be raped.  By comparison, Geller was putting on a “draw Muhammad” exhibit specifically directed at Muslim extremists.

Geller knew she was risking the appearance of violence, and we know that because she hired extra security for the event.  By comparison, pretty girls in short skirts going about their business don’t routinely hire security to accompany them (nor should they) because they know they are not doing anything that should be consider provocative, dangerous, or risky.

I agree with Geller that she is not “responsible” for the shooting.  I agree that the fault lies with the shooters.  That goes without saying.  When it comes to legal culpability, the only guilty party is the terrorists.

But that should not be the end of the inquiry.  Very little in life can be reduced to such black-or-white thinking.

If the Westboro Baptist Church people storm a funeral with their “God Hates Fags” signs, and one of them gets punched out by a funeral-goer, the funeral-goer has committed assault.  But yes, the Westboro Baptist Church person was being provocative.  He/she was seeking the result that occurred, or at least daring a response.

Same with, say, a pro-choice doctor who decides to perform an abortion on the steps of the Vatican.  Free speech?  Sure.  Being a dick?  You bet.

Geller’s organization that put on the event, Stop Islamization of America, is recognized by the Southern Poverty Law Center has a hate group.,

And unlike some people on the right, I find it VERY easy to support free speech while simultaneously condemning the speech that is being said.  Geller bears some responsibility for her blatent, NON-INNOCENT provocation.

And not for nothing, but the event really wasn’t about free speech.  Geller, after all, wants to censure Al Jazeera in American.  Her guest speaker at the event, Geert Walders, wants to ban the Koran in his country.

But even if we concede that the exhibit in Texas was “free speech”, the more accurate phrase — the one used in First Amendment law — is “incitement”.  And just like yelling “fire” in a crowded movie theater, incitement is not protected as free speech.  It is a borderline call, but Geller’s exhibit is incitement, or very close to it.  It is incitement targeted to a specific group. And that is what distinguishes the Texas event from a pretty girl wearing a short skirt just going about her business in a short skirt.

Let me put it another way:  you don’t tug on Superman’s cape, you don’t spit into the wind, you don’t pull the mask off the ole Lone Ranger, and you don’t mess around with Jim.