In the case of Charlie Hebdo, the facts were clear: Charlie was irreverent in its treatment of all that is allegedly holy. If some of its critics thought that its editors and cartoonists were motivated by hate and that they have singled out Islam, a close examination of Charlie’s coverage over the years unequivocally fails to bear out this claim.
Things are different in the case of Pamela Geller. Hers was hate speech pure and simple, and her actions were intended as incitement, even as she cleverly and cynically hid them under the protections of the first amendment. The attacks on her event should be condemned and in the strongest terms, but, and from an ethical point of view, so should her hate mongering.