-Submitted by David Drumm (Nal), Guest Blogger
A press statement issued in the name of Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, condemns the attacks on the mission in Benghazi. Also include in the statement is:
The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.
What is deplorable is that nowhere in the statement is a commitment to free speech that goes back to the very beginning of our nation.
Our embassy in Cairo issued a statement saying that it “condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims.” The Constitution is clear, the First Amendment guarantees the right to religious “free exercise.” There is no right protecting religious feelings from getting hurt. There is no right protecting religious beliefs from denigration.
The freedom of speech in this case involves a movie that ridiculed the prophet Mohammed. While it would be reasonable to condemn the movie based on its fallacious arguments, criticizing the movie because it “hurt the feelings” of Muslims is pandering. Don’t hold your breath waiting for Romney to criticize the State Department for pandering to religious sensibilities.
Others have called the movie an “abuse” of the freedom of speech. The movie is an exercise of the freedom of speech and would only rise to an “abuse” if the rights of others have been violated. Since there is no right protecting your feelings from getting hurt, free speech, that only hurts feelings, is protected.
Debate in the marketplace of ideas leads inevitably to the denigration of ideas. If this denigration is valid, it should not be condemned but exalted. As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. wrote in his dissent in Abrams v. United States:
… the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out. That, at any rate, is the theory of our Constitution.
Those who oppose free speech do so because they fear their own beliefs are incoherent. After a millennia of arguments from the greatest minds, religion is no more coherent today than when it was invented.
H/T: Eugene Volokh, William Saletan.
“She has Neville Chamberlain as her boss and she’s just giving the Administration’s spin.”
Nick,
Neville Chamberlain…….really? Shall we attack Libya again? Did getting rid of Gaddafi really make things better for the Libyan people or for us. Haven’t we had enough fighting and death?
The problem is that that video didn’t stay in the US, it spread to places where the content is not protected by free speech. Like FRANCE, for example. Seriously, what they did WAS deplorable. It was deliberately provoking and injurious and the film makers (if you could call them that) are probably disappointed it didn’t cause more problems than it already has.
poking dogs with sticks does not demonstrate or teach tolerance.
it is also not an expression of religion or free speech.
this was nothing more than a hate crime …..with possible politico-economic undertones.
“So Hillary Clinton’s free speech rights shall now be curtailed by you? Has she called for any state action to curtail free speech? No. Yet she should be compelled to abandon the doctrines of utilitarianism and pragmatism, in any attempts to alleviate the aggression outside U.S. Embassies abroad”
I have to agree with Bob on this. Diplomatic statements are carefully crafted to
defuse, or infuse situations. To criticize the statement because of what is left out of it, is a stretch and in this tumultuous situation the idea is to defuse these demonstrations as much as is possible.
Does not someone out there have a video of the Ayatolla having sex with a donkey? There were cartoons of this floating around when the Studens held hour Embassy people hostage in 1980. We need all religions to be ridiculed. Religion is just another way to steal your money without a gun. Although the Muslims are known to use the gun. We need some Priest Pedophiles up on Utube, doing what they like to do best.
No more tolerance for the intolerant.
Sorry, Bob. I’ve got to go with principle on this one. It is well established that a corollary of the right to free speech is the the right to be offended. The Constitution does not guarantee you the right to not be offended. You are guaranteed the right to free exercise and the right to be free from establishment of governmental religious restrictions that amount to 1) having the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion or 2) result in an “excessive government entanglement” with religion.. . . including anti-blasphemy laws catering to the insane among the Muslim population. Lemon still applies to the 1st Amendment. That being said, Clinton’s words are in the language of diplomacy and have no binding effect upon citizens whatsoever. While David is correct to point out there is nothing in the American tradition that backs up her words and that, in fact, the exact opposite is guaranteed by the right to free speech, it is important to note the context of her words and that they are not laws restricting the free speech (or religious practice) of Americans, but rather a pragmatic and utilitarian exercise of diplomacy at its most superficial level.
Get back to me when she endorses laws prohibiting criticizing religion.
Then I’ll be outraged.
Until then? As much as I dislike her, I’m going to defend what she said just as I defended what David said. Which what he didn’t say was she shouldn’t have said what she said. What he said was that what Hillary said was wrong as a matter of legal and historical fact. And it is.
Dung, it is El Rushbo’s trademark slur which he employed against Hilllary Clinton. Surprised you don’t know that……
The term feminazi is not politically correct, one would think that that is a term degrading and demeaning to the female class. It is sad when one had to use derogatory terms to express oneself, sad.
Hillary bashing is still a sport that many find attractive and engage in with great enthusiasm.
Thank you, SwM, for providing all the text.
Frankly,
So free speech is a two-way street; creating a marketplace of ideas, etc., etc.?
That Hillary Clinton was free to make diplomatic statements aimed at quelling violence aimed at our embassies abroad?
Who knew?
Apparently not Nal.
Waldo,
Don’t ya love the “free speech means you say what I think you should say” argument?
Excellent rebuttal; wish I had your passion.
Bob, you hit it right on the head. The propaganda shit piece is deplorable & Sec Clinton is very right to deplore it, Free speech or no it is deplorable. She did not call for the arrest or persecution of the filth that produced it nor did she prevent it from being available.
What she did was to make a very diplomatic statement – and thanks to mom for the additional text – explaining that this sad sludge does not represent the spirit of America or the beliefs of the majority of Americans but that because we have the great nation we have this can sometimes happen.
Darren, That is a very old picture of Hillary.
I think Hillary is saying this stuff as her duty as Sec. of State. She has Neville Chamberlain as her boss and she’s just giving the Administration’s spin. This may come back to haunt her in 2016. However, she’s been a capable Sec. of State and that means bending over sometimes..just ask Colin Powell.
Google/You Tube to their credit, has told the Administration to go sh@t in their hat..@ least for now. Standing up to China would have cost them money, this probably won’t. To see the FBI hunting down some loser filmmaker should have EVERYONE concerned..left and right on the spectrum.
Darren, Are you sure she isn’t a feminazi?
“While it would be reasonable to condemn the movie based on its fallacious arguments”
Drumm are you sure that the argument is fallacious? Thats really a genuine question. I read that Mohammad did marry his son’s wife, he did marry a 9 year old child and he did have a lot of wives and maybe mistresses too..?
Secretary Clinton strikes a Benito Mussolini like pose.
What a totally craptastic post.
“What is deplorable is that nowhere in the statement is a commitment to free speech that goes back to the very beginning of our nation.”
I hate this particular rhetorical tactic. Condemn what’s not in a statement rather than what is actually said. It’s also lacking any common sense or context considering this particular statement is a diplomatic statement trying to calm possible violence. This criticism is what I’d expect from neocons who seem want every statement to be blunt, in-your-face, American excectionalism.
“Our embassy in Cairo issued a statement saying that it “condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims.” The Constitution is clear, the First Amendment guarantees the right to religious “free exercise.” There is no right protecting religious feelings from getting hurt. There is no right protecting religious beliefs from denigration.”
Such an obvious strawman. The statement never says there’s no “right” to not have religious feelings denigrated, but rather condemns the statement. Only simpletons confuse the First Amendment right of free speech with a right to have your speech be free from condemnation.
“While it would be reasonable to condemn the movie based on its fallacious arguments, criticizing the movie because it “hurt the feelings” of Muslims is pandering.”
Bullshit! It’s entirely appropriate to condemn intentionally inflammatory statements calculated to inflame religious intolerance. Would the author call a statement condemning some bigoted, racist caricature of blacks pandering?
“Others have called the movie an “abuse” of the freedom of speech. The movie is an exercise of the freedom of speech and would only rise to an “abuse” if the rights of others have been violated. Since there is no right protecting your feelings from getting hurt, free speech, that only hurts feelings, is protected.”
More strawman arguments (the choice of the feeble minded). Abuse /= Unprotected. Of course the speech is legally protected. The statement never says otherwise.
“Debate in the marketplace of ideas leads inevitably to the denigration of ideas. This denigration should not be condemned but exalted. As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. wrote in his dissent in Abrams v. United States:
… the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out. That, at any rate, is the theory of our Constitution.”
Let’s not pretend, like the author does here, that this speech was part of some sort of “debate” about ideas. The right of free speech should be exalted, not every particular instance of the exercise of free speech. The speech at issue here was obviously calculated to inflame and injure. It should rightfully be condemned (NOT prohibited however). Hard to believe anyone can not understand the difference between the right of free speech (yes) and a particular instance of it (depends on what was said). Does the author really believe the film here should be exalted? Perhaps, there certainly are many anti-religious and/or anti-Muslims out there.
“Those who oppose free speech do so because they fear their own beliefs are incoherent.”
Well, actually I doubt that’s a factually correct statement of why people oppose free speech, but it’s rather beside point because there’s no opposition to free speech in the US statement (unless we’re back to the possibility that the author foolishly misunderstand the First Amendment and thinks it protects speech from condemnation).
“After a millennia of arguments from the greatest minds, religion is no more coherent today than when it was invented.”
Where did this non sequiter come from? Looks like the author is prejudiced against religion (or maybe he just hates Muslims?). It certainly suggests a motive for the authors defense of the bigoted, hateful crap shown in the film.
Hillary Clinton last Thursday:
“Now I know it is hard for some people to understand why the United States cannot or does not just prevent these kinds of reprehensible videos from ever seeing the light of day. I would note that in today’s world, with today’s technologies, that is impossible.
“But even if it were possible, our country does have a long tradition of free expression, which is enshrined in our Constitution and in our law. And we do not stop individual citizens from expressing their views, no matter how distasteful they may be.”
– – – – –
I would just add that there are limits on freedom of speech: one can be sued for slander and/or libel.
Can’t blame Bush, Can’t take responsibilty, aha lets blame Utube