Pamela_Geller_2011An effort by Islamic State supporters to stop Americans from depicting Muhammad is finding a measure of political support from Democrats, polls show.

A Sept. 2014 YouGov poll finds 51 percent of Democrats support “a law that would make it a crime for people to make public comments that advocate genocide or hatred against an identifiable group.”

The rest of the America disagrees, with only about 26 percent in support.

In the last few weeks Democrats and liberals in the media have openly stated conservative activist Pamela Geller should be legally responsible for an ISIS-inspired terrorist attempt to kill her and blow up a “draw Muhammad” art show.

The two terrorists were shot and killed by a Garland, Tex. police officer as they attempted to kill Geller and other innocents in a massive bomb attack.

The media reported the incident by expressing outrage not at the aspiring terrorists…but at the intended innocent victims.

A Houston Chronicle article claimed Geller was “looking for trouble,” borrowing a line once used against rape victims.

He then said the First Amendment does not protect speech that could have a violent reaction, which allows anyone to ban any speech anywhere by simply threatening to kill people.

The New York Times reacted to the terrorist attack with an editorial titled “Free Speech vs. Hate Speech,” which implies that words that hurt someone’s feelings are not legal. The editorial started with a statement that while courts have considered such displays free speech, insulting terrorists is “not really” free speech.

The Times accused Geller of intentionally planning the terrorist attack, sniping “she achieved her provocative goal.”

The article offered one sentence criticizing the attempted mass murder, then spent the remaining 12 sentences harshly attacking the intended victim.

Astonishingly, the Times stated that even though ISIS terrorists tried to murder and kill innocents, that “cannot justify” Geller’s words that hurt the feelings of ISIS terrorists.