Megyn Kelly Defends Free Speech: Fox News Channel Anchor Kelly Hits Guest On Free Speech Limits (Video)

May 7, 2015 | By TheSpreadit More

Megyn Kelly backs free speech in a powerful way, and the video goes viral. The Fox News Channel anchor battled her guest, Richard Fowler, on Tuesday over the limits of Freedom of Speech in the aftermath of the shooting that took place during the “Draw Muhammad” contest in Texas.

megyn kelly free speach

Does free speech come with limits? Some people like Bill O’Reilly say yes, others believe that is not the case and “hate speech” should not be censored. Megyn Kelly, the host of The Kelly File on FNC, opposes O’Reilly in this debate.

On Sunday, two gunmen were killed in Texas at the end of a “Draw Muhammad” contest. The event took place in a school arena in Garland and was promoted as a celebration of free speech by the American Freedom Defense Initiative, an organization that has been dubbed anti-Muslim by some. ISIS claimed responsibility for the terror attack and vowed to go after Pamela Geller, president of the AFDI.

In light of those developments, voices on different sides of the political spectrum have said that the “Draw Muhammad” contest was a mistake and an unnecessary form of provocation. For example, O’Reilly stated that the event crossed a line and “spurred a violent attack.” However, Geller is not backing down. The controversial political activist wrote in the Time:

“Islamic law as it’s interpreted by extremists forbids criticism of Islam, the Quran, and Muhammad. If they cannot be criticized in the United States, we are in effect accepting Islamic law as overriding the freedom of speech.”

Richard Fowler, who was a guest on The Kelly File last night, says that free speech comes with limits. The 28-year-old radio host explained:

“Freedom of speech comes with limits, and this is a clear limit. It’s just like going into a movie theater and yelling out ‘fire.’”

Kelly hit back with:

“No it isn’t. You’re totally wrong.”

Fowler claims that his position on the subject is just common sense, but the host using a ruling of the US Supreme Court said that “hate speech” is protected by the Constitution.

The Megyn Kelly’s defense of free speech has sparked an intense conversation online. On one side, some commentators say that America should never cave due to the behavior of violent extremists. On the other aisle, few have pointed out that if it was a “Draw a Jew” contest, free speech defenders would have been a bit more quiet.

What do you think of the debate? Should free speech be censored?


Category: TV

Comments (6)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Lee says:

    When people in The USA start to be afraid to of our own Freedom of Speech, instead of murdering extremist’s actions, then we have a problem. Terrorists want to spread terror and fear..when we respond with fear and by shutting up, and curtailing our rights– then terrorists have “Done their job”, and we have lost our Nation against them.

  2. Bruce says:

    What if eery city in America held the same contest on July 4th?

    • pth says:

      Good. We took down two terrorists in Garland. This would be opportunity to draw more of them out of hiding and eliminate the threat. Problem solved.

  3. Patrick says:

    I strongly disagree with all hate speech. I also strongly defend anyone’s right to use it. This is America we are more advanced than those backwards hell holes. Yup I meant it and we can’t let people turn us into them either. We have better ways of dealing with this stuff. The KKK is a joke but it has not always been that way. We America made them into a joke because we do not agree with them. The way to fight people drawing cartoons of the prophet is not to kill them. More will just rise up. It’s to educate the population as to why you oppose it so strongly. Many Christians would donate to a fund that runs ads against those hate groups. America is a dynamic for ever changing nation. We will not give up our free speech because some idea came to our shores and wishes to force us to. America is the land of the free. If someone comes here and can’t except that they need to leave. I don’t like the Westboro Baptist Church, I don’t like Fox, and I don’t like that group that put on that event. I will however defend their freedom of speech. Hey we all need a good laugh and Westboro gives us that.

    • pth says:

      So basically you are saying that all these home grown terrorists have not been sufficiently educated to be tolerant of others? And we are not really living in the land of the free when we tell other’s that can’t draw a cartoon. Where was the outrage when artists were having exhibits that mocked Christianity by placing a cross in a jar of urine? Where was the outrage against “hate” when Madonnna did a music video of herself hanging on a cross? I will tell you. There was none. The media called it artistic license. So where is the tolerance now for artistic license? People are only trying to stop these cartoons because they are afraid of retaliation from Muslim extremists. They don’t worry about Christians coming out of hiding to kill them if they mock Christian beliefs.

  4. Gilbert Siegel Black says:

    The banner said, “Defends Muhammad art” over a photo of Megyn Kelly, a misleading and untrue statement. The article clears it up by stating her true position–she defends the 1st Amendment and our right to say offensive things. What good would the 1st Amendment be if it prohibited “hate speech.” Who would be the definer of what constitutes hate speech? Wouldn’t, “kill the cracker” or “kill the cops” be hate speech. Wouldn’t “nigger” be hate speech? In my opinion all of these, as well as the cartoon contest, would be hate speech, to others it wouldn’t. The “free speech” portion of the 1st Amendment was written to protect what some might consider “hate speech.” There wouldn’t be a need for this constitutional protection if it only protected what all would consider “safe speech”.
    As offensive as the cartoon contest may be, in America we can be offensive. In America those who espouse what some may consider hate speech should be protected by whatever means necessary from any who would try to prohibit that right. We see this in action when the Aryan Nation or the neo-Nazi’s, or the KKK, or the Black Panther Party, etc. hold marches (usually at a time that makes them the most offensive, such as at events held by those with opposing viewpoints) and the police protect them.
    Killing people for exercising their free speech rights is illegal. If you want to counter what you consider hate speech do it with words. That is the American way of dealing with controversial issues; speech against speech. The alternative can be seen in the Middle-East; bullets and bombs against bullets and bombs. Words may wound the soul, but bullets and bombs kill it. Words can lead to resolution, bullets and bombs lead to destruction.
    Don’t get me wrong, there is a time and place for bullets and bombs, but not here and not for the reason we are even discussing this topic. It is interesting to note that the founders put freedom of speech together with freedom of religion (not “freedom from religion” as some would have you believe). They really had some foresight! The power of prayer!

About · Contact · Contributors · Privacy Policy · Sitemap · Terms of Service ·

%d bloggers like this: