-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.
Not clever enough to link to California Assembly bill, but it can be found on Mondoweiss.net. Since the introduction of the bill, CA Student Association has responded…Oh! and Greek not Italian.
idealist707 1, September 23, 2012 at 1:06 pm
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.
==================================================
The case cited by Nal in this post states:
(Brandenburg v Ohio). Some unreasonable folk, such as those in Ohio officialdom who prosecuted the case, convicting the person of a felony, did not reasonably interpret “likely to incite or produce” what is called “imminent lawless action” and is likely “likely to incite or produce such action”.
Thus, reasonableness is a critical factor, which gets us back to who is reasonable and who is not.
A standard that is determined every day in the courts of the U.S.eh?
I might add that it is different from jury to jury, court to court, and it also changes with time.
But consideration of it is unavoidable.
Soosty and others,
My vision I recounted? Some would call it a delusion or kindly an illusion. But I have seen as many have, words move a world. Inspire if not to great deeds by all, then changes of signíficance to us all now.
Just ask them who heard MLKjr say “I have a dream”,
or he say: “The unfree man in Vietnam is my brother too.”
Who has not heard JFK say: “Ask not….”, or “to put a man on the moon”.
While our words may not be as striking nor from so lofty a position or so humble a one as MLKjr’s, our voices could drown out, at least temporarily, the bilious garbage filling the world’s media. They might make a change.
Tunisia’s voice was heard. Why not ours, if we lift them in the service of peace, etc……! We have a lofty position because we are America. All power devolves from the people, I think it is.
We can speak for America. And people will hear us, hopefully we can not be mislabeled as OWS has been. Perhaps in the form of a peoples’ filibuster for justice.
Defining the goal is not mine to do. It is ours. And with an important election coming up, but one hopeless for an increase in democracy, I wonder what we can do to help us all.
Will not the people’s voice be heard? I think it could. The one from Philadelphia was in our collective names.
Aglaia, (greek or italian pronounciation?)
Got any link to the text? How far has it got? Thanks for the heads up.
Wootsy,
There are different types of call and response. Some people just say “Amen” and that’s the end of it. Thank you for pointing out that there are other forms of call and response. I am using one form, but there are others.
“The hostility was not in America”.~Bron
——————————–
Bron, a directed effort to humiliate, denigrate or belittle is pretty damn hostile.
Bron,
It was not on that level. Really. Simple as a guy down on his luck, no dreams left in America, someone eventually slips him a few C-notes, and he dubs up a “let’s you and them fight”-film, stolen from someplace.
No big deal. Just us getting anxious again when the mob attacks us and not their own ministries.
But yóu keep the heat up if you want to.
If free speech is sooooo protected, why has the California Assembly ruled that negative discriptions of Israeli practices are Anti Semitic and therefore not allowed. Again, it is all about whose ox is gored.
Woosty,
You scare me at times. Really. Your perception and depth óverwhelms.
I could hear yours, mine , all of our voices here reading in turn from the list which you started and we together could try to complete. Standing on the Lincoln Memorial steps, at the “Wall” from Vietnam, at MLKjr’ statue, at Arlington Cemetary, in front of our homes around this world. on RT, Al Jazeera, Swedish TV, where our demonstration would be picked up and cited in many stations around the world.
BTW, I don’t understand what you wrote to me, but never mind. I did not understand what I wrote to Barkin’Dog either. Never mind that too.
“right, so pass me some of that toilet paper id707….”
The Constitution doesnt protect human rights, it protects individual rights.
The hostility was not in America.
Take up Egyptian law with Ginsburg and some of the other more progressive jurists.
That was a stupid movie that no one would have even heard about had not some stupid Imam made people aware of it.
In some religions, it is a form of worship to use “call and response”. The leader tells people what to say (the call) and the audience “responds” by repeating whatever the leader said. ~Jill
——————————–
IN a worship service, call and response is less ‘repeat after me’ …it is more like a script in a play or a stanza from a hymn. A line is spoken…the ‘call’. A different, usually scripted response is given.
It is much scarier in other venues….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvV8KcsjiF4&feature=related
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvV8KcsjiF4&w=560&h=315%5D
i’m gonna remake “the last temptation of christ” in xxx and film it at the chicken ranch in nevada.
see how the mormans and the southern baptists like that one.
Bradley Manning
Julian Assange
-Wikileaks blockade
-infiltration and removal from public view…’Occuppy *’ movement participants
-‘free speech corrals’ courtesy of Bush (first) at WTO in Miami and everywhere since
-Government eavesdropping and surveillance (in collusion w/Corporate entities?)
-etc….
———–
right, so pass me some of that toilet paper id707….
Barkin’Dog,
Taste is like toilet paper. It disappears up the crack.
Oh, the USA Today is usually a good product for toilet paper but I have never understood why anyone would read that tract of crap.
Anthea Butler calls for the arrest of people involved in the dumb film. Arrest Anthea for traitorous statements against our Constittution.
A.Y.,
I took the USA Today article and responded to what the author wrote. When she wrote something, I put it in quotes. Then I responded. I used the terms, “call” and “response” because the writer is a teacher of religion. In some religions, it is a form of worship to use “call and response”. The leader tells people what to say (the call) and the audience “responds” by repeating whatever the leader said.
I thought it was only appropriate to turn “call and response” on its head as the author had turned the rule of law on its head in her writing! She gave the call and I responded, only instead of repeating what she said back to her, I responded in my own voice.
AY,
Here I am again, getting in others conversations.
Jill explained to another one (I was confused too), that Call was the other commenter, and response was her.
Does that help?
BettyKath,
I was always calling out the CIA as the guilty party.
So I was with you. We could always point to South and Central America.
And then I read Ishmael Jones’ exposé of CIA from his career.
Now I don’t believe the CIA is capable of any operation now or ever will be. The book is titled Human Factor.
It shows how bureaucracy defeats all except careerism at HQ and the eternal need for isolation from the risk attendant on making decisions, and its need for more funds and more bodies.
After 9/11 they took all the billions Congress offered CIA in their well-proven offer of what before had been a red-herring of beefing up the practically non-existent corps of non-Diplomat placed officers.
They listed all new trainees and all those in post training OJT domestic posts and called them as non-diplomat prospects. Practically all were sent out as diplomats. IE false categorizing.
Why? Because CIA did not have to support them, was isolated from any boo-boos, and knew that chances of any real contacts (and thus risks) with prospective agents are not made at embassy cocktail parties—which is about all the dips officers can do.
The dip CIA officers, however according to CIA norms, create great activity reports and contact claims which pleases Congress, when summarized and re-categorized at HQ. Listing casual conversations as prospective agent recruitment is great for stats. Just as a few tennis matchs get to be called a confirmed recruitment. Liars make stats.
The new dip CIA officers are quickly identified (ie blown) by the local foreign staff which keep the embassy going. And these locals are to a more or less 100% degree run by the country’s spy agency.
It is a great book. Showing internal workings and the turf and object owners opposition to risks which stop most operations, unless well disguised.
I’m now reading it for the second time after two years since. A second opinion would be welcome.
Jill,
Could you be a little more clear in your statements above….. I cannot figure out where you are coming from today….. It is confusing….