Pamela Geller in Brooklyn: Free Speech, Hate Speech, and the Futility of Arguing with a Bigot

Pamela Geller at Brooklyn College on April 22, 2015.

Author’s Note: I wrote this article before the tragic and unacceptable attack in Garland, Texas, last night, at an event associated with Pamela Geller. Given what happened, and the conversation around Islam and free speech, I asked the editors to go ahead and publish my original article—because it shows that I, a Muslim, went to her event, heard her out, and then came home. It should be noted that this was the exact approach taken by every mosque in the Garland, Texas, area: To not only respect Geller’s right to free speech, but to decline their own right to peacefully protest.


Wednesday, April 22, 2015

They’ve already started lining up, braving the rain. I take a good long look at the lot of them, drenched but energized, and know I can’t. I don’t even have an umbrella. I do however have an RSVP. I’ll wait it out at the closest Starbucks.


My Starbucks name is Dwayne.


There’s a long line here too, full of bored coeds fiddling with their phones. I debate ordering a classic coffee cake, still one week away from discovering that ‘coffee cake’ isn’t a kind of cake made with coffee, just cake you eat with coffee.

It doesn’t seem like anyone here (most of whom are Brooklyn College students) has any idea she’s speaking, or even I’d guess who she even is. Not to mention that the title of her event, ‘The First Amendment and Social Criticism,’ sounds like a snoozefest.


Dwayne orders a Grande English Breakfast. Sans cake.


I don’t head out until my tea has steeped; because then, and only then, will I know how much sweetener I need. But what kind? The great Islamic scholar, Ibn Taymiyyah, to whom Wahhabism is wrongly attributed, said the purpose of Shari’ah is to help us find the less bad of two bad options. Which is to say, should I overdo it with sugar, and get diabetes, or overdo it with Splenda, and get cancer?


Back outside the student center, there’s a crowd of doused and disappointed undergraduates, largely Arab, Muslim or sympathetic, who’ve been refused entrance by security. Many, but not all of them, are with Students for Justice in Palestine.

I, however, point to my name on a soaked printout, and am quickly let through. After a cursory check of my bag—I’m reading Åsne Seierstad’s brilliant One of Us: Anders Breivik and the Massacre in Norway—I’m on my way to the elevator.

There’s an older couple already inside. They’re white, and know I’m not, and look as if they haven’t had a bowel movement in several days. The gentleman asks if I’m a professor, inelegantly attempting to ascertain whose side I’m on. Neither, it’ll turn out.

Released to coincide with his attack, Anders Breivik’s manifesto, 2083: A European Declaration of Independence, frequently cites Geller; her buddy, Robert Spencer, gets in dozens of mentions. They’re the Anwar al-Awlakis of anti-Muslim terrorism.


Brooklyn College needed a new student center twenty-five years ago. Thank God they’re not wasting public funds on this.


The front few rows have been occupied by a largely greying audience, and will spend much of the event looking like jilted retirees. The rest of the room seethes with oppositional energy, buzzing, unable to stand let alone sit still. I get it, because fifteen years back, I was them. Which means I know how this’ll turn out. Badly.


On Tuesday, a judge sided with Geller against the MTA. Her latest ‘advertisements’, which declare not only that Muslims want to kill Jews, but that our religion instructs us to, are not incitement to violence. Or material support for terrorism. (Imagine if I said that—think I’d be treated the same?)

I can imagine all kinds of unsavory characters would be jubilant that messages encouraging the indiscriminate murder of Jews will be posted in the world’s biggest Jewish city. I’d imagine this would make Jewish New Yorkers, never mind Muslim New Yorkers, deeply unwelcome in their own city. Is that her purpose? Or Dr. Seidemann’s?


Dr. Seidemann, Deputy Chair of Earth and Environmental Sciences, has invited Pamela Geller—not, as he was careful to note in an email exchange with me, his department, or anyone else at Brooklyn College. In fact no student organization wanted anything to do with her either.

So why did Dr. Seidemann? He’s not an expert on the topic she’s not an expert on, so maybe the well-educated man isn’t that well-educated. Though I find that terrifically hard to swallow. The unhappier answer is that he thinks she has something worth saying, which means he’s sympathetic to bigotry.

But he has the right to encourage hate speech.


The man in front of me asks, ‘Do you have an iPhone charger?’

‘For a 5,’ I ask, though so presumptively it does not merit a question mark.




He’s a nice fellow, though he believes Palestinians would have a different view of Israel if only they ‘visited’ (not seeming to understand that they cannot, and many would not be visiting so much as returning to places they were expelled from).

They could come, he volunteers, and ‘wear a bikini, or go to the beach’—a position firstly ironic, since his family owns a kosher coffee shop in a conservative Jewish neighborhood, and secondly, well, seriously bro? That’s what you think this is all about?


We are treated to a long, condescending introduction to free speech as an American value. During which the moderator pronounces ‘academia’ as if it rhymes with ‘macadamia.’ (Hey, it’s a free country.) The patriotic force of the moment dissipates with a reminder of the dire penalties awaiting those who disobey school and state law.


Dwayne has finished his Starbucks beverage. Fortunately his name is Dwayne and not Muhammad or Haroon, so when he steps out to use the bathroom, it’ll just be because he had to go, not because he hates his/your/our freedom.


Seeing Pamela Geller after so many years is weirdly heartwarming. It’s like I’ve come across an old friend, one who once made my life difficult and still does, though I’m rather less frustrated by her now. Because she’s exactly the same—and I’m not.

I should ask Dr. Seidemann if she can be immune to change, immune to evolution or even erosion, or better yet, make up a theory myself, and demand we sacrifice our nation’s resources based upon it.

I’ll call it “The Process of Erosion and the Defense of Our Freedoms.” (‘I’m not a scientist, but some of my best friends are canyons.’) You’ll have to RSVP. Stupid’s the coffee, and First Amendment’s the cake.


Geller can’t get in more than a sentence or two before the students applaud her with deafening conviction. They’ve decided to mock her with faux enthusiasm. At least, it’ll start so. It’ll end just as I predict it will: With Geller running away.

15 years ago, that’s what I’d have done to Geller, too. Stooped to her level. (Stupid.) I’d feel very good about releasing all my anger with her at her, absent any concern for how this might make me (or more importantly my cause) look to those on the sidelines.

I had no larger vision, no strategy, no game plan. Just go jeer and holler. Shout her down. Game over. The better way is to respond unexpectedly, breaking the alliances upon which one’s adversary depends. Do not unite others in opposition to you.

Rather, break apart what support they have left. I wonder if the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences would be okay with one of their own inviting a speaker who claimed Baltimore and Ferguson reveal who all black people really are.

Or, indeed, who (all) white people really are.


She’s whining that students don’t invite her to speak anymore.  There’s an entire conspiracy at work, she assures us, an alliance between incendiary Islamists and leftie-liberals, to shut down free speech in America. Which explains why the last to invite her, Temple University, did so years ago.

Of course, there is a far simpler explanation. The reason Pamela’s not invited to speak on campuses is because people find her offensive or uninteresting. We may not trust peer review, but we can trust the market. Hence stunts like bus ‘advertisements’.


Geller says, ‘I was a freedom lover.’ So am I. As a freedom lover, I’m clutching an empty coffee cup that had had tea in it with one hand, and scribbling with the other. I’m mostly looking down, because I’m worried. Sporadic waves of applause have degenerated into a rawer and unrestrained anger.

People are jeering, mocking, chuckling, hooting. Did they really think they’d hold it together? To bring several dozen young students, champing at the bit, to hear a woman who is most notable, if at all notable, for her ability to aggravate and incite, is a bad idea. It’s a dangerous idea. It’s only unlikely to gain you anything—can’t we be a little more creative?— it can very easily become self-defeating.


The students want to rebut everything she says. They don’t even care what she says, except that they challenge it. This is why, when Geller says ‘ISIS is spreading,’ a young woman blurts out, ‘alhamdulillah.’ Arabic for ‘praise God.’ I turned to see who, but couldn’t twist in time.

That’s what happens when you argue with a bigot. You end up looking and sounding awfully like a bigot,
But you can be sure Geller heard it, and she was alarmed. I was, too. My own thinking is that this young woman, wanting so very badly to shut Geller up—and not understanding that Geller wants the negativity—simply fired back the opposite. ‘Whatever you say, I’m going to loudly disagree with.’ That’s the likelier explanation.

The unlikelier? She actually thinks this ISIS is a good thing, in which case she is foolish, naïve, or vile. (I heard, from students—without confirmation—that the FBI paid campus a visit thereafter.) Even if she was acting out of emotion, utterly unacceptable. That’s what happens when you argue with a bigot. You end up looking and sounding awfully like a bigot, and benefiting your opponent.

Can’t we be better than her? (It’s not that high a standard to rise to.)


The event has descended into farce. Or tragedy. When Geller tries to speak, she’s booed. During question and answer, students and supporters are practically yelling at each other, and at a few points, her supporters threaten her opponents. It’s impossible to get a real question in, not that I care to try in this environment.

This is not how we should respond to her. The best response I’ve yet seen is Dean Obeidallah and Negin Farsad’s humorous counter-advertisements (see them all here); more provocatively, you could do what Mona Eltahawy did: deface what is on any measure hate speech. Isn’t that free speech, too? Isn’t that what this is all about? And can we not elevate the conversation?

Geller compares the room, which has something of a free-for-all quality, to a Nazi rally. Really. Security is confused, because while the event has ceased to be the lecture it never got a chance to be, no clear red lines have been crossed. Or the College just doesn’t like Geller enough to intervene.


Geller retreats to a soundtrack of chanting students: ‘Don’t come back! Don’t come back!’ They’re beaming, exultant in their accomplishment, slapping each other’s backs, laughing and cheering. It appears the College let her get walked all over. Wednesday night, then, the bully got bullied.

If it’s not obvious, I don’t like Geller, and note the irony of her being treated in the way she treats Muslims—offensively and derisively. She wants to protect the right to offend: She can’t protest being offended. But she doesn’t appreciate her own medicine. She’s not us, and we’re not her.

The way many students responded was irresponsible, especially considering the consequences. But I don’t blame them: They’re still young, and wet behind the ears. I do blame Pamela Geller, and Professor Seidemann, the ostensible adults in the room, who think that picking on a vulnerable minority constitutes a brave stand for freedom.

Because it’s not like it’ll end here. For those kids still live here. They’ll get on buses and trains, and see ads accusing them of being vicious, murderous anti-Semites. Her intention in doing so is not to draw awareness to radical Islam—it’s to increase tension, distrust, and open up a space where people like her, who otherwise have nothing to offer, will be valued—and further increase tensions.

Hate is the only thing that earns her money. Because it’s the only talent she has. This isn’t free speech, it’s free-market. And to what end? If you link anti-Semitism to Islamophobia, or vice versa, you make it more likely each community will deny the other’s pain. Young Muslims who are expected to accept that anti-Semitism is real, at the cost of denying discrimination against them, are unlikely to.

This is not only the biggest Jewish city in the world, but the biggest Muslim city in the Western hemisphere, too. If her purpose was to increase anti-Muslim sentiment, she may succeed. But if her purpose was to increase anti-Semitism, then she may also succeed. Which is why I’m unsurprised the city stepped in, and banned political speech altogether. Just because you can say something, does it mean you should?

And if you don’t like it, why bother paying any attention to it?


  •' roccolore says:

    Muslims are making the shooters the victim.

  •' DKeane123 says:

    “The reason Pamela’s not invited to speak on campuses is because people find her offensive or uninteresting. ” – Bingo!

  •' Sam says:

    “That’s what happens when you argue with a bigot. You end up looking and sounding awfully like a bigot, and benefiting your opponent.

    “Can’t we be better than her?”

    True, brother.

  •' Sam says:

    “That’s what happens when you argue with a bigot. You end up looking and sounding awfully like a bigot, and benefiting your opponent.”

  •' Hussam Al-deen says:

    The girl who “supported isis” is a highschool student who does not know about the Islamic state in detail and thought she was saying “alhamdulilah” to the expansion of muslims, not isis.

    The students on campus were aggravated and wanted to do something, with great difficulty more disruptive ideas (loud protest, walk out one at a time while shouting, have phones go off continuously) were prevented but the effort was not perfect. The outcome that we had was after much education and rehearsal but It’s difficult to get 14-20 year olds (from Brooklyn) to the ideal level of discipline that would be acceptable to someone more tempered and experienced.

    Geller finished her talk with no major disruption until the ending QA segment. Things were not ideal but I am still proud of the Students who were able to sit through her hate. If in the future a better response or no response is more appropriate perhaps leadership and feedback from the more seasoned members of the muslim community in NYC could help make that a reality. What is the benefit otherwise of having people who have been through these types of events and learned the lessons from them.

  •' roccolore says:

    Muslims and SPLC= bigots

  •' Sam says:

    Peace be upon you. 🙂

  •' GregAbdul says:

    May Allah reward you Brother. Our modern Jihad is against Muslim haters. It is not a jihad of bombs or guns, but a Jihad of words and ideas. Hate Inc has been remarkably successful post 9/11. Geller and her ilk are a multi-million-dollar industry, spreading false information about Muslims. Whoever they shot in Garland shows the Muslims haters live off the exception and not the rule. To attack a heavily armed gathering at the end, after everyone had done their thing shows every Muslim is not a Ph.D like Haroon Mogul. Obviously we can overreact to the haters. We can under-react too and that is our usual reaction. Islam is the middle path. We need to meet the lies with the appropriate response and this is an unending mission. However, if the haters are having an official gathering for their fellow haters, the smartest thing to do is probably leave the five or ten of them in a room all to themselves and not give them the satisfaction of intelligent engagement.

  •' GregAbdul says:


  •' GregAbdul says:

    The people at the Southern Poverty Law Center are bigots? I guess that means all Jews and Muslims?Congrats. Looks like you will be the one to bring us together.

  •' roccolore says:

    The SPLC are the bigots who defended an attack against another organization they called a “hate group.” Read about the FRC shooting. The SPLC is anti-Jewish because they defend the Nation of Islam and attack Pamela Geller.

  •' roccolore says:

    You Muslim fascists are the jihadists who kill over cartoons.

  •' roccolore says:

    Or because Muslims and Democrats hate Jews and women.

  •' roccolore says:

    You Muslims are the hatemongers who defend ISIS.

  •' roccolore says:

    Muslims = bigots who hate women and Jews

  •' seashell says:

    If in the future a better response or no response is more appropriate perhaps leadership and feedback from the more seasoned members of the muslim community in NYC could help make that a reality.

    Great suggestion! Maybe it could be open to everyone. I’m an adult non-muslim and I’m not sure I could sit through a PG talk silently either, but I’d love to learn more effective ways to respond.

  •' GregAbdul says:

    hmmm…trying to follow my own and Brother Haroon’s advice…you did not actually reply to anything I wrote, so you sort of lost me. Am I now supposed to engage you in a name calling contest? How old are you? I am a little out of practice when it comes to spur of the moment insults. If you give me a list of your ethnic background, race and religion and give me a few days….and if you really want me to call you names too, in a few days I can get back to you.

  •' Paul Edward says:

    Democrats don’t hate Jews and women. Almost all the Jewish women that I know are Democrats. Good grief, at least give more than a nano-second of thought before you post a response.

  •' Craptacular says:

    “Or because Muslims and Democrats hate Jews and women.” – roccolore

    Keep saying it long enough and you might begin to believe it…oh wait, checked your post history and I stand corrected. You have said it long enough to believe it yourself.

    I am sorry if reality is not conforming to your expectations. Keep trying, though!

  •' phatkhat says:

    Religious fanatics are whackjobs, be they Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu… whatever. They do not represent the majority of people in those faiths. There have always been fanatics, probably always will. That should not preclude conversations between those of us who are not.

    BTW, disagreeing with a Jew does not make you “anti-Jewish”. Geller does NOT speak for all Jews.

  •' joeyj1220 says:

    Pam, quit writing under a pseudonym and go get a real job

  •' MarkS2002 says:

    Interesting that the audience was compared to a Nazi rally. She, in many ways, reminded me of the fascist in the room. Look, I have visited the Jewish Museum in Berlin and sat in shock at the sheer horror it represented. Seeing the displays in the bottom floor truly lifted the Slaughter out of the history books and laid it at my feet. BUT (and there is always a “but” to a liberal relativist) the horror against the Jewish people–and it was with world wide complicity–does not excuse the invasion of Palestine complete with the ejection of the Palestinians and the continual theft of their remaining lands to satisfy the needs of continuing immigration

  •' Burnt Orange says:

    Many psychotic, power hungry, political adventures or just malcontents use religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation or any other human trait as a pony to ride when spreading their venom and hatred. It appears Ms Gellar is using the First Amendment and “free speech” as a vehicle to advance her own agenda. While much of what she says is true the sub-text is aimed at attacking others based her idea of their religious practices.

    Extremists have used Islam as a vehicle to advance their hateful religious, political and military cause. Using the Constitution’s first amendment as a platform from which to attack ALL Muslims seems just another person wrapping their agenda in the flag. Since we can’t read Ms Gellar’s mind we are expected to give her the benefit of the doubt. Some do, but many others sincerely don’t view her as a “protector” of the first amendment.

    Whatever the reality of her motivation the results of her activities seem to be not very effective. The reaction though (like in Texas) might give her some credence. Her “war” with radical Islam militancy and ISIS like movements appears very sloppy and broad brushes ALL Muslims as potential terrorists because of HER point of view on the tenants of Islam.

    Free speech is under attack by radicals the world over but it does not need the Gellar’s of the world to defend it. Liberals would do well to stop equivocating in their defense of speech in their politically correct mentality of trying to not be considered Islamophobic.

    When political cowards appear people like Gellar take center stage and fill the void. NO actual Liberal/Progressive has ever invoked “hate speech” accusations when “artists” have defiled the religious beliefs of Christians or Jews in America. Why start now?

  •' seashell says:


  •' roccolore says:

    Ibrahim, stop defending terrorists. Oh wait, you’re CAIR.

  •' seashell says:

    When Geller accuses Muslims of practicing bestiality with goats, denies the Serbian genocide of Muslims, claims that Stalin did the right thing when he killed and removed Chechen Muslims, is quoted with approving footnotes a dozen times by mass killer Anders Breivik, hangs with hate groups not allowed in the US and claims the President of the US is the love child of Malcolm X and owned by Islamic overlords, do you wonder why her free speech comes under attack?

    CPAC, her own tribe, refused to invite her to speak in 2013. Paypal, owned by a conservative, called her blog a hate site. Sure, she has free speech rights. And so do the people she demonizes. Liberals aren’t responsible for Geller and more and more conservatives don’t want to be responsible for her either.

  •' gman213 says:

    When you have to shout down the speaker and interrupt others who are attempting to ask questions, you’ve shown that you are really the problem and you make the speakers point. And by the way, she was right! You sure did your school right! Very embarrassing and immature!

  •' Janfrans Zuidema says:

    I just saw it. These students of Brooklyn College and this Islamic Conformist Zombi writer should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves. What those Muslims in attendance showed is worse than Kindergarten conduct. My guess, you truly have no answers to the opinions of Pamela Geller about Islam. The only thing that is left for you is to scream… “Demon!”

  •' MainTour says:

    It is not hate speech to speak out against the violent and hateful persecution of Christian, Jewish, and Gay minorities in the parts of the world practicing Sharia Law.

  •' LorieSRobbins says:

    ✔start freelancing at Home with Google Tech@nq17:::



  •' kalsonmandela says:

    ☁☁☁☁it’s Easy Make With religiondispatches < i started working online, completing some basic jobs that only requires from you a computer and internet access and I am happier than ever… It's been 6 months since i started this and i got paid so far total of 36,000 bucks… Basicly i profit close to 80 bucks/h and work for 3-4 hrs most of the days.Best part to whole this thing is that you can decide when to work yourself and for how long and you get a paycheck
    at the end of each week.
    Here’s A More Detail

  •' Theodorick C says:

    “Prophet” Muhammad’s Shariamonster, also known as “Islam,” wants to decapitate our freedom of speech.

    Say “NO” To Muhammad’s Shariamonster, and say “NO” to Islam!

  • I have organized responses to several speakers who I think of as quite wrong, a couple as a speech professor. The secret is patience. Let them have their say, then people who actually have examined the speaker’s words and actions can stand up and disagree, explaining why, and asking for response. A legitimate presenter will try to defend themselves; others will look like idiots. In the long run, it’s much more persuasive, and far more civil. It demonstrates how rational people are supposed to respond to evil speech, and throws the speaker, who specializes in hate/hate interactions, into confusion and panic.

  • Or even the majority of American Jews. The growing disgust with Israel-the-state here is directly created by Israel’s actions, not a regret for being Jewish. We (Jews) have a strong history of promising not to oppress the stranger, so we have figured out those running Israel are the traitors to our values and customs.

  •' SoCalMike says:

    Pamela Geller is a hero.
    The fact that the event was attacked by Islamofascists armed with guns PROVES beyond a shadow of the doubt Free Speech in the West is under attack by people this clown author carries water for.
    Geller is a hero, Haroon.
    You really should thank her and kiss the ground she walks on.
    You would if you didn’t hate our Freedom of Speech so much.

  • take76 says:

    you and religiondispatches < Don't miss my roomate's step-aunt makes $61 an hour on the computer . She has been out of a job for 9 months but last month her payment was $13946 just working on the computer for a few hours.
    official website .. Find More Here

  •' GregAbdul says:

    what does it say about you that your hero is an internationally known bigot?

  •' RICHARDGRAY says:

    It’s Easy to make with r religiondispatches < my neighbor's mom makes $64 hourly on the computer . She has been without work for 6 months but last month her check was $14236 just working on the computer for a few hours.

    learn the facts here now SEE MORE INFO

  •' Ricardo Hotatio says:

    You could dispute about the means Geller uses to reach her goal, but if it concerns her judgement concerning Islam, she is 100% accurate.

    The writer should question himself, if God appoints a man who would at age 53 marry a 9-year old ‘woman’, there is either something disturbing wrong with ‘God’ or there is something disturbing wrong with the prophet and his religion. Both assumptions can be easily explained by accepting the only rational conclusion possible, Mohammed was not inspired by God at all but by the opponent of God, this makes Islam as an ideology into the killing-machine we are witnessing today, justified by the illusion that Muslims are serving God. (John 16:2)

    It is now your urgent responsibility to research your own falsehood:

    Islam’s ‘Reformation’ Is Already Here—and It’s Called ‘ISIS’ –

    Are Judaism and Christianity as Violent as Islam? –

    Violence and Context in Islamic Texts –

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *