-Submitted by David Drumm (Nal), Guest Blogger
The film “Innocence of Muslims” and the violence in Libya, Egypt, and Yemen, are at the heart of a debate as to whether the film falls within the category of “freedom of speech.” In an Op-ed in the LA Times, Sarah Chayes writes that it’s not “free speech protected under the U.S. Constitution.” In USA Today, Anthea Butler calls for the arrest of the filmmaker and writes that the film denigrates religion and “is not about expressing a personal opinion about Islam.”
James Madison, no stranger to abuses of speech and press, wrote in the Report of 1800 that
it is better to leave a few of its noxious branches to their luxuriant growth, than, by pruning them away, to injure the vigour of those yielding the proper fruits. And can the wisdom of this policy be doubted by any who reflect that to the press alone, chequered as it is with abuses, the world is indebted for all the triumphs which have been gained by reason and humanity over error and oppression;
While many consider “Innocence of Muslims” a “noxious branch,” who determines what is noxious? Does not Sam Harris’ description of God as “imaginary” denigrate religion?
Khalid Amayreh, a prominent Islamist commentator and blogger, demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of American legal philosophy when he says “But you must also understand that the Prophet (for us) is a million times more sacred than the American Constitution.” It is not the Constitution that is sacred, but the human rights it protects that are sacred. These rights are inalienable, unaffected even by the dictates of religion.
Many like to appeal to the authority of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes’ “fire in a theater” argument, to determine if a certain example of speech is protected. In subsequent dissents, Holmes may have regretted letting that genie out of the bottle.
In Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the per curium opinion is that the State cannot forbid free speech
except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.
The film “Innocence of Muslims” is an “indirect” cause of the violence. The proximate cause is the cognitive dissonance of the participants in the violence. Also, the lawless action took place under other country’s laws. Are US citizens to be imprisoned because of an Egyptian law against “insulting religion?”
H/T: Ed Kilgore, Eugene Volokh, First Amendment Center, Ken (Popehat), Russell Blackford, Ken White.
@bedttykath, you say: “It may very well be a CIA covert action intended to further destabilize the governments of those countries.” Ah, you’ve solved the mystery, Sherlock. Now why didn’t I think of that? It’s not an organized terrorist team of Muslims attacking America, after all; it’s the CIA, through it’s clever covert groups, posing as Muslims! Afyter all, as you suggest, everyone knows that Muslims are decent, honorable, peace-loving and very tolerant people.
But back to reality.
Of course, the thought never occurred to you that the CIA’s coverty actions were very busy at work to help put in the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Libya. Now THAT would be consistent with the CIA of the golden age, as advanced by such noted CIA agents from the past as Philip Agee. But that kind of thing could never be going on today according to the Leftists. Because according to those brain-dead, the poor Muslim terrorists are only trying to protect the sanctity of their deeply held religious beliefs. And the CIA would never have a role in advancing the Leftist cause, especially a CIA under the Obama administration, which could not possibly be called as Leftist, as the Obama administration places Muslim terrorists such as Nidal Malik Hasan in sensitive military positions.
Test.
Ralph, “And anyone who says that the movie is not protected free speech is an Islampandering anti-American Leftist. Period.” You’re going to repeat for “leftist brain dead”? and ” there are so many Islamopandering Leftist fools spreading messages to apologize”
Great name-calling and stereotyping and blatantly false. Many of the folks who have been on this blog for awhile are definitely of the left and all have asserted that the movie is protected speech.
“The recent wave of Muslim attacks against civilization are not random acts, but are systematic acts FOMENTED BY THE MUSLIM CULT. ”
Maybe, but I’m not ready to accept that. It may very well be a CIA covert action intended to further destabilize the governments of those countries.
Idealist707,
You emit idiot easy, open you mouth. You know not what I know. You got kick to curb I read. You idiot acting youself, right!
Jill,
You emit violence in you speech. You call into question action and response to action. You try and hide behind Dung.
Dredd,
Let us not get us into the discussion of what is reasonable. Relativity will make for endless discussion.
Freedom of speech as generally accepted and defined by court cases is fine with me.
I AM disturbed where solely speech now undefined and capriciously and arbitrarily practiced under NDAA will put a citizen away for “material support” of undefined parties. Where is the freedom there?
Jill,
If you don’t get a savage kickback from the idiots, then you haven’t made your point. Good job.
So neatly organized. Even they can “think” they understand it all.
Dung,
You’ve chosen a great handle! You are reading Ms. Butler, not me. I’m the response. She’s the call, the one in quotes!
Jill,
Who fault when somebody say something that upset you? You justify killing because someone say something that upset you, right? You full of crap, and I know.
You think it is easy with a name like mine? Kill because you need to, not because you feeling upset. Dung.
Let’s not forget the “reasonable person” standard when considering whether or not a video incites violence, that is, is not protected speech or expression.
Some people are not reasonable, so, just because a video would incite unreasonable people to violence does not defeat free speech or expression.
The question to ask is would a video incite reasonable people to violence.
A better standard IMO.
We can’t pick or choose, regarding the freedom of speech because in this country, once we start picking away at it, well end up losing it completely.
Call: “The difference is that Bacile indirectly and inadvertently inflamed people half a world away, resulting in the deaths of U.S. Embassy personnel.”
Response: The invasion of Afghanistan then Iraq, latterly the regime changing of former USA BFF’s, the drone killing of civilians has adventively inflamed people a world away, resulting in the deaths of U.S. soldiers and coalition members all over the world.
Call: “Unfortunately, people like Bacile and Terry Jones, the Florida pastor who provoked international controversy by burning copies of the Quran, have a tremendous impact on religious tolerance and U.S. foreign policy.”
Response: US soldiers actual burning to the Quran has really f-cked things up. Pissing on dead bodies didn’t help much either.
Call: “Case in point: Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called Jones on Wednesday to ask him to stop promoting Bacile’s film. Clearly, the military considers the film a serious threat to national security. If the military takes it seriously, there should be consequences for putting American lives at risk.”
Response: Gen. Martin Dempsey appears unable to acknowledge that invading, regime changing, cluster bombing and drone bombing various Muslim countries is something he should consider asking a stop to.
If the military considers something a threat, then by god, what more is there to say? It’s not like they’ve ever lied about that shit before, right?
Call: “While the First Amendment right to free expression is important, it is also important to remember that other countries and cultures do not have to understand or respect our right.”
Response: While the right to be imprisoned without trial is an American law, Afghanistan objects to this happening to their own people. Therefore, America should….
Where do we get these people from?
The author of this article writes: “The film “Innocence of Muslims” is an “indirect” cause of the violence. The proximate cause is the cognitive dissonance of the participants in the violence.”
Nonsense. The movie is not an indirect cause of anything. And anyone who says that the movie is not protected free speech is an Islampandering anti-American Leftist. Period.
The recent wave of Muslim attacks against civilization are not random acts, but are systematic acts FOMENTED BY THE MUSLIM CULT.
Let me repeat that for the Leftist brain-dead (the latter, an oxymoron, but added for emphasis): The recent wave of Muslim attacks against civilization are not random acts, but are systematic acts fomented by the Muslim cult.
Note that I said CULT, and not a “religion.” That is because Islam is no more a religion that Naziism is a religion.
However, it is a sad sign of the times that there are so many Islamopandering Leftist fools spreading messages to apologize for the criminal acts of Muslim terrorists, that the notion that free speech should be denied to those who would tell the truth about Islam and its murderous cult is, unfortunately, gaining traction.
Perhaps the Muslims are right after all, and civilization is an outmoded concept, destined to be replaced by some Islamofascist form of government control. Some of us, if we are still around, will miss it, however. But not the Leftists.
Anthea and Sarah: it is interesting that after 225 years of debate over our (and yours) Bill of Rights that you-Sarah and Anthea, who were not specifically “covered” by the original ten amendments (and not forced to be “covered” with a burkha) are now choosing to opt out. As an attorney and a teacher, I find it amusing that increasingly those “covered” by our Constitution aver that denigration of an idea should lead to arrest. I believe your opinions are sophomoric, at best, yet I do not believe you should be denied the right to express your ignorance of civil liberties. Amazingly (and thanks to the 1st Amendment), you receive paychecks that “cover” your right to bray authoritarian verbiage causing persons, like me, to immediately hurl property (the morning newspaper) across the living room. Our republic is hurting, no thanks to you and yours. Yet, I have no problem with your right to show your constitutional ignorance. Salaam Alaikum. Over and out.
Perhaps the basic cause of offense is having that which you identify with questioned.
Why is the seven-point contact muslim prayer
position essential to our faith say those looking for a
smackdown.
Is not this “why”, the first we try to get rid of in a child. And that which is frowned upon in all societies, if it is a serious threat or not to a norm of any kind.
Norms are everywhere, not just in religions or politics. In pre-1960 Sweden, contact with a stranger without an introduction was strongly frowned upon.
Take a look at your life and your environment. And at yourself.
If they don’t want assistance in mastering their impediments (the muslims) then let them keep them.
The essential has been said. It is that we survive.
Bob, Esq.:
I don’t believe I said or implied otherwise.
I don’t believe I said or implied otherwise.
No, by negative implication every right would be unprotected not revoked.
It will be a difficult task to convince our brethren around the world that their cherished ideas should be betracted as not being essential parts of themselves.
The horror of apostasy does not kill by God’s hand the
apostate.
Reconsideration of what was acquired in the limited environment of your childhood does not mean treason against your God, your family, nor your society—even if you regard it a worldwide brotherhood.
Seeking education in a foreign culture helps.
Bringing a favorite hatred there to be disabused of your worth in a class society is less successful.
This basic task will be tough to achieve.
Let us not lose sight of the fact the deaths and damages were caused by the actual actors themselves not the person who wrote or those who acted in the movie.
This is not a case of free speech it is one of those who burned buildings and assaulted other persons directly.
It is not possible to placate every person’s riotous intentions. If people are so easily outraged that they let any small thing cause them to go into a rampage it is THEY who are the problem. They are the one’s who choose to act as they do. Are the rest of those in the world going to bow down to this type of stupidity and backwardness?
Would we allow these types to murder a woman because she wore a dress that was too short or because she said something they objected to? Was that the fault of the wearer of the dress or the person who had the gun?
I guess if the Muslim world actually wants to be part of the modern world they will need to accept that other people have different beliefs than they do. If some of them want to act like murderers and are hence isolated and scorned upon for their actions well then they get what they deserve in thjat respece.
I am personally not going to give up my freedoms guaranteed by the constitution because some “mad about everything” twit in another country is angry about my freedom or my mere existence. There is nothing I can do to not make him angry, and I surely am not going to bother trying.
@Gene: Not only is offense a reaction, but offense can be a pretense in order to exert control. Just think of all those murder mysteries in which the guilty party responds to the suggestion they are a suspect with, “How dare you…,” or some similar protestation of offense.
In fact I think the offense taken by Muslims is largely just a pretense of offense; they do not want their religion questioned because questions imply the permission to doubt, and eventually permission to demand a more rational justification of social norms. That weakens the power of patriarchs, priests and politicians to subjugate others by force of law.
So I think the first response is, “How dare you?” If that fails, their second response is to preserve their ill-gotten privilege with violence.
Our inalienable rights in the first amendment should not be cherry picked.