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. Continue reading

