-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.
Gene,
I don’t know why you’re apologizing to me since you didn’t contradict anything I wrote.
Let me explain to you why Hillary Clinton is far more fit to be president than Mitt Romney.
In her statement, Hillary Clinton demonstrated the prime directive of the Executive branch that can be expressed in three words: “FEED THE DOGS.”
Let me explain. The United States Military and the State Department are our dogs that we sent abroad. Just as it is the job of the military and members of the State Department to love our country unconditionally, it is the job of Executive to love and care for our dogs unconditionally. Accordingly, when our dogs are getting kicked while serving us abroad it is the duty of the Executive branch to protect our dogs as quickly and efficiently as possible.
As Waldo astutely noted, Hillary was not issuing a restatement of American Constitutional law; she was saying what needed to be said to look after our dogs. Anyone reluctant to say anything less is simply not fit for the Executive branch.
Is it any wonder that a man who roof-racked his dog for a road trip would make statements aimed toward his own political aspirations rather than toward protecting our dogs?
Nal,
See above.
W=^..^
I don’t know about you, but I question the Constitutional validity of many of our own domestic laws. I certainly feel no compulsion or duty to follow the laws of a retrograde theocratic dungheap like Saudi Arabia. I spent a good portion of my legal studies on comparative international law. I’m very big on jurisdictional claims. An American acting in America even when on an international forum such as the WWW is subject to domestic law. An extra-territorial claims of jurisdiction against citizens can be made in court but absent some substantive nexus of action in the foreign jurisdiction (and exercising your right to free speech within your own country is not a substantive nexus), I also expect any efforts at extradition to fail. Say you defamed a foreign national on the Web by the standards of their country, but not this country? Do you think you should be held accountable to their laws or ours? Everything you did was done here and in accordance to our laws. You should not be accountable for breaking the law of a country you are not in nor are a citizen thereof. There are rare circumstances where suit has been brought in domestic courts and foreign law applies, but it is just that – rare and entirely based on exigent circumstances. And absent extradition (or kidnapping – which would open a whole other can of worms), the only option a foreign national would have against you is to file in American courts. American courts that would apply American law 99.9% of the time. If people in other countries are offended by our right to free speech? Too bad. Free speech is a crucial right including in the 1st Amendment for a reason: the Founders thought no one, not even government and religion, should be above criticism by the citizenry. They had been (in many cases personally) persecuted for daring to speak out against King George or the Anglican Church. Such oppression – but especially on the weak grounds of “I was offended” – are an anathema to the freedoms the Founders sought. A person should be free to think what they like and express it within the reasonable exceptions of defamation and incitement. That others would use “religious offense” as an excuse for violence? Is simply not acceptable nor compatible with our Constitutional rights or the sensibilities of the modern civilized world. If another country has a problem with that? They are welcome to attempt to invade any time they like, but I don’t have any duty not to offend them. Their offense if their reaction and entirely in their control. If they cannot control themselves in a civilized manner? That is their failing as rational beings. Not ours.
Waldo:
When the Obama Administration is threatening free speech, what’s not said is critical.
If the statement condemned bigoted, racist caricature of blacks because it “hurt the feelings” of blacks, yes. How about condemning a bigoted, racist caricature of blacks because it’s inaccurate?
I never said otherwise. Note the first word is “Others.” This is not in regards to the statements of governmental employees. Check the links for who the “Others” are.
Debate is a presentation of opposing viewpoints. This movie may not live up to your standards of what constitutes a debate, but it is presenting a viewpoint.
It is a paraphrase of a sentence in the dissent of Justice Holmes, before the quote. The right to free speech is threatened by the Obama Administration as it supports an international blasphemy standard. The omission of support for free speech is indicative of this threat.
It’s not prejudice if it based on reason.
We here in America have had more than 200 years of experience with the right to speak, write, worship (or not) and associate freely.
The vast majority of people in those countries where mobs are now rioting against America have had no such experience with those freedoms, don’t understand them, and don’t really understand how it is that our government “allowed” such a film to be made and/or distributed.
Most of the people in those mobs probably just assume our government not only “allowed” that movie to be made but approved it as well.
It takes time — sometimes centuries — to get the hang of freedom.
“Most of the people in those mobs probably just assume our government not only “allowed” that movie to be made but approved it as well.”
firefly,
This was a point that needed to be made since it is central to what is going on.
Bob, Esq.:
In the words of JT: “As I have mentioned before, the efforts of the Obama Administration to work with these countries on an international blasphemy standard is a threat to free speech around the world.”
Gene H.
1, September 15, 2012 at 2:47 pm
———————————————-
do we have no responsibility then to be aware of the ‘forums’ in which we post?
the world is not getting any larger you know….
Mike S, You’re making an inference that isn’t correct. The appeasement of which I speak is trying to appease people who are crazy and hate us by walking on eggsshells. You remember the Nazis marching in Skokie. That was much more hateful than this D grade movie IMO. They murdered our ambasssador and 3 other diplomats. That is unacceptable. Why the hell are we mumbling about some stupid movie and talking to people who are hateful and crazy like they’re kind and rational?
“The appeasement of which I speak is trying to appease people who are crazy and hate us by walking on eggshells.”
Nick,
I understood what your meaning was, but you were in truth equating Obama with Neville Chamberlain and I don’t that it was an apt, or fair comparison. Chamberlain sold out a Democratic Country, Czechoslovakia, when he signed the Munich accords with Hitler, his other option was to go to war with Germany. Yes he should have done that instead of selling out the Czechs, since war was inevitable. My point is that we are not in a comparable situation and thus your comparison was unfair.
W=^..^
This would be so because of both subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction as applied to the original speaker – the filmmaker. He’s an American citizen taking action(s) in America. As such, our laws apply to him for his actions. If someone cares to try to have him extradited for exercising his Constitutional rights (no matter how poorly he chooses to do so), they are welcome to try, but they have better enjoy frustration. Had he done this in a jurisdiction where such speech is considered criminal (like Iran or Saudi Arabia)? That would be a different story as he as a visiting foreign national would have run afoul of the laws of the host country.
Gene H.
1, September 15, 2012 at 1:07 pm
w=^..^
It may have been hateful and stupid, but it wasn’t a crime. It was precisely an exercise in free speech. If simply being hateful and stupid were against the law, the Teabaggers wouldn’t have a single candidate to back.
——————————————
part of me agrees with you.
part of me wonders why this would be so when i was posted on an international venue?
Waldo,
I never said she said it was, ergo, it is not a straw man. You are far too sensitive to perceived and unreal slights against Hillary. You need to learn to read better. I defended what she said in context of her position.
As to synonyms? I never said challenge and denigration were synonyms if you want to talk about straw men. However, denigration is to attack the reputation of or to deny the importance or validity of an idea or statement. Challenge (in this context) means to dispute especially as being unjust, invalid, or outmoded or to question formally the legality of an action or statement. They are kissing cousins if not proper synonyms. As long as denigration does not cross into the exception of defamation (and you cannot defame an idea like a religion, only a person), then it is acceptable and protected.
As to the film? I have not watched it and my knowledge of its contents are second hand, but I’d say it is hateful and stupid based upon what I’ve read. And while I disagree with the speaker (the filmmaker), I do defend his right to say as he pleases no matter how hateful and stupid or who he offends. If it isn’t defamation proper as a legal matter? I really don’t care what the film says. I think organized religion is ridiculous no matter what flavor you are trying to sell. And to kill someone because they don’t worship the same invisible sky daddy as you? This action is a sign of mental illness on behalf of the actor. If you don’t like criticism of your pet god or religion of choice, the reasonable response is rebuttal, not forced conversion or “killing the infidel”. I operate under the principle of believe what you like but if your god can’t take criticism or a joke, then they aren’t much of a god to begin with and I don’t want them to be in charge of important things like gravity and atomic forces. As Mahatma Gandhi said, “I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” This can be said of every religion when dealing with the most fanatical of their lot.
The formation of specifically secular government by our Founders was one of the smartest decisions ever made. Although I think Hillary was saying the correct words in the context of diplomacy, what she said is not correct as a matter of historical and legal fact. The right to free speech guarantees the right to be critical – and even denigrate – any religion you would care to address. If any of that presents a problem for you? I really don’t care. Feel free to be as offended as you like.
Interesting article David. It is a great way to get the discussion moving!
I have to agree that Sec. Clinton did not do anything wrong. While I have problems with any government agent or official bringing religion into any speech or discussion, they have the absolute right to do so, as long as there is no government action as outlined in Gene’s earlier post.
I am interested in all of this talk about our right to Free Speech. The film makers have that right, but we can’t force that right on other countries. Some of the Middle East countries in play here don’t afford their citizens the same right of free speech. While I don ‘t like it, haven’t we gotten outselves into enough trouble trying to push our culture and corporate aims on other countries?
Freedom of speech is exactly that: freedom to say what you will EVEN if it is hateful, deplorable, antithetical to the prevalent view, makes you or yours uncomfortable, is considered heretical, or just plain silly. Justice Holmes DID say one couldn’t yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre, but even that is a moot point providing one is willing to suffer the consequences for that action.
Natalie, in what was was the film ‘injurious’ (I am assuming you have seen it-I have not)? I seem to remember a lot of protest over ‘The Last Temptation of Christ’ by our version of the Taliban (the religious Right). Did Mel Gibson NOT have the right to make that film?
The attacks on our embassies and the deaths as a result are deplorable, but if anyone thinks it happened because of an alleged grade d film, you are sadly mistaken. The FILM was the excuse. The REASON was the hatred that we have engendered by our policies in that region of the world.
“You seem to assume that I think criticism of ideas is wrong or unproductive.”
Not at all. Not sure what would give you that idea.
“Critical thinking by its very nature is an exercise in criticism and like David I think the challenge (or denigration if you will) of ideas is crucial to their evaluation on the merits.”
Challenge is not a synonym for denigration. Some speech is laudable. Some is deplorable. It’s all protected by the First Amendment, but that doesn’t mean it’s exalted. I would describe the speech Clinton is condemning deplorable. Drumm seems to say it’s exalted. I’m curious what you think about the film at issue.
“What Hillary said is simply not so as a matter of Constitutional law. There is no tradition or wording in the Constitution that gives someone a right to not be offended on religious grounds. ”
Of course what she said is not a matter of Constitutional law and SHE NEVER SAID IT WAS. You’re arguing against a straw man. Hillary never said that there’s a tradition or wording in the Constitution that gives someone a right to not be offended on religious grounds. You cannot be wrong about something you didn’t aver.
“David Drumm seems to disagree with you since he says ‘this denigration should not be condemned but exalted.'”
So what? David and I don’t always agree. However, you reach, Waldo. You seem to assume that I think criticism of ideas is wrong or unproductive. Critical thinking by its very nature is an exercise in criticism and like David I think the challenge (or denigration if you will) of ideas is crucial to their evaluation on the merits.
“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.”
David Drumm seems to disagree with you since he says “this denigration should not be condemned but exalted.”
“How can Hillary be wrong as a matter of legal fact when she is not asserting any legal fact? You acknowledge in your post that she’s not advocating making anything illegal. ”
Quite simple, Waldo. What Hillary said is simply not so as a matter of Constitutional law. There is no tradition or wording in the Constitution that gives someone a right to not be offended on religious grounds. Free speech is nearly absolute as a right. The exceptions are few and narrowly tailored. However, any attempt at anti-blasphemy laws or any other such restrictions on religiously critical language will run headlong into the Lemon test for measuring permissible governmental actions regarding religion:
1. The government’s action must have a secular legislative purpose;
2. The government’s action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;
3. The government’s action must not result in an “excessive government entanglement” with religion.
As a legal fact, she is wrong even though what she said was not framed that way. As an ethical statement of intent? I have no issue, but the reason I brought up legality is to point out that what she said is not binding to citizens and is in fact contrary to the free speech and free exercise rights citizens are guaranteed.
Dung Ho know a lotta crap but, Dung Ho don’t know all crap.
w=^..^
It may have been hateful and stupid, but it wasn’t a crime. It was precisely an exercise in free speech. If simply being hateful and stupid were against the law, the Teabaggers wouldn’t have a single candidate to back.
“What he said was that what Hillary said was wrong as a matter of legal and historical fact. And it is.”
How can Hillary be wrong as a matter of legal fact when she is not asserting any legal fact? You acknowledge in your post that she’s not advocating making anything illegal. Thus, it’s nonsense to state she’s wrong legally since she’s made no legal assertion.
As to historical fact, I suppose we can argue whether or not the US has been and currently is relatively tolerant toward the religious sensitivities of others and has deplored those who attempt to inflame religious hatred and bigotry. I’d like to think that, relative to the rest of the world, the US has been and is a shining example of religious tolerance and rightfully condemning those who spew religious hatred. Certainly, that’s a value I would wish upon my country and have no problem with our government advocating. Your opinion may vary.