Among the sadder things that happened when Rupert Murdoch made Fox News a thing was his taking Greta Van Susteren from us.  Once a highly-regarded criminal defense lawyer, she was replaced by a woman with a lovely nose who toed the company line.  So sad.

When Eric Wemple wrote of Greta’s views on Pamela Geller’s Garland fiasco, it came as no surprise that they would be shrouded in the “yes but” formula that has become de rigueur.  But what was not quite so anticipated was what Greta found to be the greater concern.

So Van Susteren scolded Geller for holding the cartoon contest. “My message is simple — protect our police. Do not recklessly lure them into danger and that is what happened in Garland, Texas at the Muhammad cartoon contest,” she said. “Yes, of course, there’s a First Amendment right and it’s very important, but the exercise of that right includes using good judgment.”

Many have fairly asked whether Geller’s decision to court disaster was needless stupid and provocative.  And that being a question directed at personal choices, it’s hard to argue that this was either wise or necessary.  What it was, however, was her choice, so the rest of us may well hold an opinion on whether we would have done the same thing, but we don’t get a vote. Geller gets to make her own decision, and we don’t have to like it.

And as is almost invariably the case, Greta, the one-time respected lawyer, heads straight down the First Amendment but path, adding to the myriad newfound exceptions the “good judgment” one.  It’s no more to be found in the Constitution or caselaw than hate speech, but so what? Since everybody is making up the law they like these days, why not Greta?

Yet, this isn’t just the banal “yes but” argument. It’s an homage to the brave police who were “lured into danger.”  The tradeoff is the exercise of constitutional rights, even if the exercise doesn’t strike anyone as a particularly good use of them, versus police safety.

Some might blame the gunmen who came to kill for any inchoate risk to police, who responded to the gunmen.  After all, provocative as Geller’s scheme might have been, it didn’t necessarily require violent reaction.

“Everyone knew this event would unglue some who might become violent,” said Van Susteren.

Was violence possible? Sure. Definite? Hardly. Are there people out there who become “unglued,” who might become violent? Well, yeah, Greta excluded. But one never knows that provocative expression will result in violence. Maybe it will result in nothing. Maybe somewhere in between. Everyone doesn’t know. Everyone who cares may make a guess, but no one “knows.”

As Wemple makes clear, the police weren’t “lured” into danger by Geller, but did the job they exist to do.  He puts it as protecting the Constitution. That may be overstating their virtues, as it was unlikely they gave the Constitution a second’s thought. They came because there were guys with guns.

Van Susteren went further astray with this comment: “But was it fair to the police to knowingly put them at risk by this unnecessary provocation? I say no,” she said. 

This moves the opinion in a different direction, away from the question of constitutional right, and more toward the relative tradeoff of life and limb versus the value of the gambit.

It’s here that we give thanks that Van Susteren is merely a television host and not a government official, because we wouldn’t want anyone at the levers of power deciding what provocations are “unnecessary” and “necessary.” Perhaps Van Susteren can furnish a two-tiered list on her next show.

Expression is protected by the First Amendment whether it’s necessary or not. But there is a fair question, without equivocation on whether there is a right to do something, whether it’s something you really want to do?  Geller obviously thought the choice was sufficiently important to do so. Greta is allowed to think it a foolish gambit, an “unnecessary provocation” as in a really stupid thing to do.  A lot of people agree that it was unnecessary in that sense.

But if Geller felt it necessary, and had a right to do so, then again, neither Greta nor anyone else gets a vote in Geller’s exercise of her constitutional right, foolish or otherwise.  And then Greta brought in an expert on foolishness to express distaste for Geller and her choice.

To bolster this brief segment, Van Susteren turned to Donald Trump, who had said earlier on Fox News of Geller: “She’s a provocateur. All she is doing is provoking and taunting people and this country has enough problems right now.”

That’s not all she is doing, though she is provoking and taunting people.  She is exercising her right to free speech.  There is a long list of arguments to be made about why Geller’s choice wasn’t a good one, a wise one, and people are absolutely entitled to think Geller made a really poor decision.  That too is free speech, where we challenge the merits of another person’s freedom of expression because we disagree or think it was just pretty damn stupid.

But the connection of the exercise of constitutional rights to police safety is inexplicable and unjustifiable.  Greta, of all people, ought to know better than to make this hookup.

“My message is simple — protect our police. Do not recklessly lure them into danger.” 

It’s not our job to “protect our police” by declining to exercise constitutional rights for fear that they may be put at risk.  And to the credit of the police, they came and did their job, defending people from harm and, whether they realized it or not, defending the Constitution. This is important, no matter how wrong you think Geller was.  It would be one thing had Greta, in order to curry favor with her Fox News overlords, praised the police for their defense of a looney’s constitutional rights, but instead she blamed Geller for not putting police safety first. Sad. So sad, Greta.