There has been recent discussion surrounding Pamela Geller and her organization of a “draw the Prophet of Islam” contest. Her position is that this falls under freedom of speech, a right protected for all Americans. That said, it raises a fair question: does having the freedom of speech mean setting aside common sense in how we use it?

We know that extremists exist who may go to great lengths to defend their beliefs. It appears that Geller’s intent was, at least in part, to draw out that reality and bring it into public view. The concern is that most people are already aware these individuals exist. The deeper challenge lies in the fact that extremists often blend into the general population, making them difficult to identify and address through provocation alone.

The issue with this type of approach is the potential danger it creates for others. Exercising a legal right is one thing, but when that exercise puts bystanders at risk, it becomes a more complicated conversation. Offending a group and then pointing to free speech as a shield does not eliminate the real world consequences that can follow.

Whether her actions were right or wrong is a matter of personal perspective. Many would not choose this path, particularly when it involves deliberately targeting the beliefs of others in a way that could escalate tensions.

The broader question worth asking is this: what is the intended outcome? What does success look like? And is there a more constructive way to address concerns about extremism without creating unnecessary risk for the public in the process?