Skip to comments.Does 'Innocence of Muslims' meet the free-speech test?
Posted on 09/20/2012 11:02:33 AM PDT by TurboZamboni
The current standard for restricting speech or punishing it after it has in fact caused violence was laid out in the 1969 case Brandenburg vs. Ohio. Under the narrower guidelines, only speech that has the intent and the likelihood of inciting imminent violence or lawbreaking can be limited.
Likelihood is the easiest test. In Afghanistan, where I have lived for most of the past decade, frustrations at an abusive government and at the apparent role of international forces in propping it up have been growing for years. But those frustrations are often vented in religious, not political, terms, because religion is a more socially acceptable, and safer, rationale for public outcry.
In the summer of 2010, Jones announced his intent to publicly burn a copy of the Muslim holy scripture, the Koran, that Sept. 11. He was eventually dissuaded by a number of religious and government officials, including Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who called him to say his actions would put the lives of U.S. soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan at risk. On the Joint Chiefs of Staff, where I worked at the time, consensus was that the likelihood of violence was high.
When Jones did in fact stage a public Koran burning on March 20, 2011, riots broke out in Afghanistan, killing nearly a dozen people and injuring 90 in the beautiful, cosmopolitan northern city of Mazar-i-Sharif. Seven of the dead were United Nations employees; the rest were Afghans.
(Excerpt) Read more at articles.latimes.com ...
Unfortunately, a simple statement such as "I think Islam is a false religion" is enough to incite violence among the muzzies.
“Will bullies get upset?” is not a valid 1st Amendment litmus test.
Catering to psychotics, madmen and genocidal killers has nothing to do with a crowded theater.
Get the animals out of the theater. Or put them down.
I’m offended that she even asks the question. Yes, I am offended! The LA Slimes mocks my beliefs! Death to the LA Slimes! Their speech must be stopped or I will riot!
More proof - Progressivism = Tyranny
Here is what these “jour-o-list” idiots lose sight of...the 1st Amendment is protected IN THE US NOT THE REST OF THE WORLD!
Yelling “FIRE!” in a packed theater in Tehran, Iran is neither protected or infringed by the US Congress or the US Courts.
These folks are IDIOTS!
This is like the gun issue. Free speech doesn’t kill. Terrorists do. And the truth be told...the terrorists (with few exceptions) are Muslims acting in the name of their “false” religion.
I don’t think the MSM meets that test
just the sight of Michelle Bachmann or Sarah Palin has caused some of the mentally ill to resort to violence.numerous news stories prove this.
not sure how you legislate civility, but I’m sure our leftist overlords have it all figured out for us.
your name means ‘without pants’, right? (I’m deeply offended!!)
I actually like this argument. It presupposes that some segment of Muslims are prone to bursting into violence at the slightest provocation and so speech against Muslims should be restricted.
Of course that also means that speech against the Yankees or the Cowboys or Christians or Gays or guns or Mondays or whatever should also be restricted because, dog gone it, it just might incite someone to violence.
Where do morons like this get their education and does anyone check before they are given a pencil to write this garbage?
Get it, Sarah? Not that you'd be at risk, ya dhimmi.
LOLZ.... I second that.
EVEN this article “meets the free speech test”.
Does the L.A. Times meet the free-speech test?
The State Department spent $10,000 of taxpayer funds to buy 2,000 copies of the book written by Ground Zero mosque promoter Feisal Abdul Rauf. U.S. embassy employees are distributing the book during the imams taxpayer-funded tour to Bahrain, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates.
But the arrangement calls into question whether the U.S. governments funding of a book which promotes the Muslim religion is in violation of the 1st Amendments separation of church and state.
I don’t recall the article’s author complaining about this
The Leftist Fascists would like nothing more than to draw a line between free speech and ‘hate’ speech and enforce restrictions accordingly. Extraordinary in the piece was how she seemed to frame the 9/11 anniversary as a sensitive date to muslims? Methinks if Americans were to react violently to flag/bible burnings she would have a different take.
Once these muzzies start letting in another religion other than their devil and demon worshipping cult, then we can talk. Until then they can go pound sand! Childish mentality and throwing fits and murdering every time someone offends them is a bunch of CRAP!
As Mark Steyn wrote:
“...multiculturalism seems to operate to the same even-handedness as the old Cold War joke in which the American tells the Soviet guy that “in my country everyone is free to criticize the President”, and the Soviet guy replies, “Same here. In my country everyone is free to criticize your President.” Under one-way multiculturalism, the Muslim world is free to revere Islam and belittle the west’s inheritance, and, likewise, the western world is free to revere Islam and belittle the west’s inheritance. If one has to choose, on balance Islam’s loathing of other cultures seems psychologically less damaging than western liberals’ loathing of their own.”
“It is a basic rule of life that if you reward bad behavior, you get more of it. Every time Muslims either commit violence or threaten it, we reward them by capitulating. Indeed, President Obama, Justice Breyer, General Petraeus, and all the rest are now telling Islam, you don’t have to kill anyone, you don’t even have to threaten to kill anyone. Well be your enforcers. Well demand that the most footling and insignificant of our own citizens submit to the universal jurisdiction of Islam. So Obama and Breyer are now the “good cop” to the crazies’ “bad cop”. Ooh, no, you cant say anything about Islam, because my friend here gets a little excitable, and you really dont want to get him worked up. The same people who tell us “Islam is a religion of peace” then turn around and tell us you have to be quiet, you have to shut up because otherwise these guys will go bananas and kill a bunch of people.”
St. Yasser Arafat got his start lighting a fire in a crowded theater...
keyboard spew alert
Notice how the liberal thinks:
The First Amendment should be restricted because of unpopular speech, because that speech might hurt somebody’s feelings.
The whole entire fricking point of the First Amendment was to protect unpopular speech, to protect those with unpopular and offensive ideas.
Funny how liberals love the First Amendment when it comes to protecting liberals insulting Christianity, even when tax dollars are subsidizing anti-Christian and pornographic art, but a YouTube video should be banished and the people who make the videos should be arrested to prevent Muslims from rioting in a foreign country.
However the US Army buring 15,000 Bibles in Afghanistan a couple years ago is AOK.
I have faith that the lower pit of Hell, filled with superheated pig fat will be the final repose of subject libtards and other Whores of the Devil.
OK, I am going to pick this nit. The 1st Amendment says absolutely NOTHING about separation of church and state. All it says is that the US government can not elevate one religion over another; i.e. creation of a state sanctioned government.
It's been gone over and over on FR and elsewhere. "Separation of church and state" is a creation of liberals with the intent of removing God from the public forum. Just the fact that someone (you) who is arguing (rightly) that the US government IS promoting one religion over others uses the phrase shows exactly how far the liberals have suceeded in their attack on American mores and values.
As Conservatives, we must fight back, at the very root of the problem. Words have meanings, history can not be re-written, and liberals do not get ot make up the rules as we go along.
Now, I'll get down off my soap box, thank you for your time.
She forgets that the standard includes a reasonableness component. Shouting "fire" would send reasonable people rushing to the exits. This 12 minute amateur video would not incite any reasonable person to violence. Just muslim nutcases.
Only those who’s ultimate goal is the elimination of the restrictions the Constitution places on government are OK with ANY limits on free speech.
Now for those who pull out the old Fire in a theater if there is no fire, Free Speech does not mean freedom from responsibility for your actions. If you yell fire in a theater and people are hurt trying to leave, you should be held accountable for your action but not your speech.
We are guaranteed the right to free speech given to us by our creator and our government MUST NOT be allowed to restrict that freedom.
We also must be willing to accept the responsibility for OUR actions not the actions of a mentally unstable group of moon god believers.
Under this insidious president we could very well lose both the First and Second Amendments. We are well on that path.
Swallow a camel, but strain at a gnat.
A middle school girl is free to get an abortion without parental consent, but if she puts a lemonade stand on her lawn she’ll be fined.
thanks, long lost cousin, Pig.
yeah, I get it. that whole letter from TJ to the Danbury Baptists.