-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.
And you have just shouldn’t all over yourself.
You are one of many.
You are spot on Blouise. Clinton gave the campaign a huge boost.
FOUR INSULTS BY BLOUISE IN ONE COMMENT. RECORD? DOUBT IT.
=========================================================
“Blouise
1, September 15, 2012 at 8:27 pm
id707,
Just trying to forestall one of your “I’ll play dumb and see if I can get Blouise to bite” moods. I see it didn’t work. I really would have been interested in discussing the insight you exhibited in your comment but I guess you’re more comfortable with the who-can-be-more-clever game.
So … how’s the food in Sweden?”
—————————————
Insult 1: she said she is just trying to forestall a game by me, as though that is my usual form of answering.
If that were true, then why invite me to discuss with the back of your hand in the previous comment cited above?
Insult 2: “I see it did not work”
Ie, I am deficient or in other ways not capable of being steered into avoiding my game playing.
Insult 3. “I guess you are more comfortable with who-can-be-more-clever game.”
Accuses me of game playing, another one.
Insult 4. “So … how’s the food in Sweden?”
Says I am so dumb that food in Sweden is all I am qualified to discuss.
Four insults to me personally. And I give a parody of a kick below the belt used by all debaters to imply the other person is of low character.
Surely Blouise IS NOT SO STUPID to not understand the JOKE.
So in which case she is also dishonest, or as she accused me of being: “disingenous”.
I hsd to ask her what is was. Now I have learned to use an on-line dictionary and not be perturbed when she attacks. But I do dare answer, even those who claim to be my friend.
Guess her bunions are cranking her. Hee hee hee.
Intentional dig. Live with it.
I love you because of your good parts, not your bad.
After rereading some of the comments I modified one sentence to read:
I certainly don’t think that one shouldn’t condemn a denigrating idea that is fallacious. However, that condemnation should be because it’s fallacious.
Guess you have a point. I should have just walked off.
Couldn’t or wouldn’t, therein is the difference.
Puppet Master Wannabe 1, September 16, 2012 at 11:37 am
That’s the problem with what is your legal duty and moral obligation. Your legal duty is nothing, unless you are in a “Good Samaritan” State. Your moral obligation is to leave mankind better because of your actions. It is
your choice, grasshopper.
======================
My choice? What is your choice? I couldn’t save the grasshopper.
Blouise’s Kick nr one
=====================
“Blouise
1, September 15, 2012 at 5:54 pm
“Now I realize that the right choice was made by the DNC et al in the primaries.. The nation was half men, all opposed to a woman President.
Whereas, only a much smaller fraction are opposed to a nominally black president.” (id707)
Center shot on target. You are 100% correct! And that is the reason the DNC opened their arms to the man who just happened to be black. You will find those who stomp, scream, and shout that that is not at all the case … they are denying the reality of this, the actual American culture. Note Darren Smith’s response to Nal’s post as opposed to Gene’s response. Darren Smith’s response is in the majority, Gene’s is not. Now, if I have to explain the difference between the two responses to you, then we have nothing to talk about.”
BLOUISE PRAISES MY QUOTE: “Center shot on target.”
AND THEN KICKS ME: “Now, if I have to explain the difference between the two responses to you, then we have
nothing to talk about.”
“Blouise
1, September 16, 2012 at 9:50 am
“Have yor stopped beating your grandchild, not the one in Japan, or was that one someone elses?”
“Interested? If so, let us go on. Would you like to invite me again???” (id707)
Wow …
119 Swarthmore mom
1, September 16, 2012 at 10:01 am
Blouise, That was a disgusting false comment made by Idealist. It was even worse than what “Not as Insane” said about me and my family. What’s with these people?=====================================================
Did you ladies not get that it was an OBVIOUS JOKE?
So sad if not. So over the top as to not be other than a
parody of an underthebelt punch. Yee gods. Must I put up a sign every time. And all else I write goes uncommented. Oh well.
Just for the record, Blouise kicked me two times. Not in a jest. I did it once in a jest.
Never mind. You don’t seem to “mind”. And that was no jest.
That’s the problem with what is your legal duty and moral obligation. Your legal duty is nothing, unless you are in a “Good Samaritan” State. Your moral obligation is to leave mankind better because of your actions. It is your choice, grasshopper.
The grasshopper didn’t get pushed into the pond. It couldn’t keep flying.
Rather unfortunate. Poor grasshopper. I stood there and watched it fall into the water and drown.
Falling in pond is better than being pushed in pond.
raff,
Clinton’s counter attack, as noted in the article, worked.
Make sure you don’t fall into the pond.
Blouise,
You are right about the Medicare issue being an important one for the Obama campaign. People who will need and use Medicare just can’t wrap their head around a so-called voucher program.
We all like grass, hopper!
Puppet Master Wannabe 1, September 16, 2012 at 10:32 am
That is true Matt, that is true. You are wise for being.
==========================================
I am the grasshopper.
That is true Matt, that is true. You are wise for being.
Blouise, Yes, I did. Bill Clinton straightened that out for Obama. Have to run.