Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Does 'Innocence of Muslims' meet the free-speech test?
LA Times ^ | 9-18-12 | Sarah Chayes

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 ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 1stamendment; freedom; freespeech; latimes; muslims; speech
she should get a job at the UN.
1 posted on 09/20/2012 11:02:38 AM PDT by TurboZamboni
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 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.

Unfortunately, a simple statement such as "I think Islam is a false religion" is enough to incite violence among the muzzies.

2 posted on 09/20/2012 11:05:58 AM PDT by Sans-Culotte ( Pray for Obama- Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TurboZamboni

“Will bullies get upset?” is not a valid 1st Amendment litmus test.


3 posted on 09/20/2012 11:06:08 AM PDT by ctdonath2 ($1 meals: http://abuckaplate.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TurboZamboni

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.


4 posted on 09/20/2012 11:10:31 AM PDT by Hardraade (http://junipersec.wordpress.com (I will fear no muslim))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TurboZamboni

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!


5 posted on 09/20/2012 11:10:39 AM PDT by henkster (With Carter, the embassy staff was still alive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TurboZamboni

More proof - Progressivism = Tyranny


6 posted on 09/20/2012 11:10:53 AM PDT by zencycler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TurboZamboni

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!


7 posted on 09/20/2012 11:10:59 AM PDT by Cletus.D.Yokel (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Alterations - The acronym explains the science.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sans-Culotte

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.


8 posted on 09/20/2012 11:11:47 AM PDT by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: TurboZamboni

I don’t think the MSM meets that test


9 posted on 09/20/2012 11:14:27 AM PDT by GeronL (The Right to Life came before the Right to Pursue Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sans-Culotte

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!!)


10 posted on 09/20/2012 11:15:20 AM PDT by TurboZamboni (Looting the future to bribe the present)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: TurboZamboni

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?


11 posted on 09/20/2012 11:16:02 AM PDT by Tucsonican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TurboZamboni
Truly stupid, Sarah Chayes. Incitement would have to consist of the Harbi (non-Muslim) being goaded into attacking Muslims (presumed innocent victim class). But what happens is the Muslims attack the Harbi. In other words, the aggressors get to define what is and what is not an incitement. Using this criterion, anyone who wants to get aggressive has instant veto power over what anyone else is allowed to say.

Get it, Sarah? Not that you'd be at risk, ya dhimmi.

12 posted on 09/20/2012 11:16:55 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: henkster

LOLZ.... I second that.


13 posted on 09/20/2012 11:19:25 AM PDT by TheDon (The Democrat Party, the party of the KKK (tm))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: TurboZamboni

EVEN this article “meets the free speech test”.


14 posted on 09/20/2012 11:19:36 AM PDT by rockinqsranch (Dems, Libs, Socialists, call 'em what you will, they ALL have fairies livin' in their trees.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TurboZamboni

Does the L.A. Times meet the free-speech test?


15 posted on 09/20/2012 11:19:46 AM PDT by RichInOC (No! BAD Rich! (What'd I say?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

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 imam’s taxpayer-funded tour to Bahrain, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates.

But the arrangement calls into question whether the U.S. government’s funding of a book which promotes the Muslim religion is in violation of the 1st Amendment’s separation of church and state.

http://www.humanevents.com/2010/09/02/state-dept-pressed-for-imam-book-explanation/
I don’t recall the article’s author complaining about this


16 posted on 09/20/2012 11:19:57 AM PDT by TurboZamboni (Looting the future to bribe the present)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: TurboZamboni
OK, how's about a parallel question: "Does the video meet the 'truth test?'"

Aside from any and all objections to its patently obvious lack of cinematographic charm, does it portray any events in the life of that so-called "prophet" that are at odds with what can be found in their so-called "holy" texts?
17 posted on 09/20/2012 11:21:06 AM PDT by MarineDad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TurboZamboni

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.


18 posted on 09/20/2012 11:23:33 AM PDT by kreitzer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: TurboZamboni

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!


19 posted on 09/20/2012 11:24:52 AM PDT by vpintheak (Occupy your Brain!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kreitzer

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. We’ll be your enforcers. We’ll 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 can’t say anything about Islam, because my friend here gets a little excitable, and you really don’t 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.”

http://www.steynonline.com/content/view/3505/26/


20 posted on 09/20/2012 11:29:01 AM PDT by TurboZamboni (Looting the future to bribe the present)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Cletus.D.Yokel
Yelling “FIRE!” in a packed theater in Tehran, Iran is neither protected or infringed by the US Congress or the US Courts.

Different standards.

St. Yasser Arafat got his start lighting a fire in a crowded theater...

21 posted on 09/20/2012 11:35:47 AM PDT by null and void (Day 1339 of our ObamaVacation from reality - Obama, a queer and present danger)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: TurboZamboni
The society from which the Brandenburg ruling emanated was vastly more civilized than any in the Islamic world. To compare the two is pointless. And dangerous.
22 posted on 09/20/2012 11:36:04 AM PDT by BenLurkin (This is not a statement of fact. It is either opinion or satire; or both)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: henkster

keyboard spew alert


23 posted on 09/20/2012 11:36:06 AM PDT by SteveH (First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: TurboZamboni

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.


24 posted on 09/20/2012 11:36:58 AM PDT by radpolis (Liberals: You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TurboZamboni
The LA Times morons start twitching at the thought of a Koran burning.

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.

25 posted on 09/20/2012 11:39:01 AM PDT by texican01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: TurboZamboni
is in violation of the 1st Amendment’s separation of church and state.

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.

26 posted on 09/20/2012 11:58:17 AM PDT by Turbo Pig (...to close with and destroy the enemy...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: TurboZamboni
By her definition the Batman movies should be banned because a nutcase used them as pretext to shoot up a movie theater.

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.

27 posted on 09/20/2012 11:59:05 AM PDT by colorado tanker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TurboZamboni

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.


28 posted on 09/20/2012 12:02:49 PM PDT by Wurlitzer (Nothing says "ignorance" like Islam!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TurboZamboni

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.


29 posted on 09/20/2012 12:03:15 PM PDT by LucianOfSamasota (Tanstaafl - its not just for breakfast anymore...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: texican01
Photobucket
30 posted on 09/20/2012 12:16:55 PM PDT by artichokegrower
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Turbo Pig

thanks, long lost cousin, Pig.

yeah, I get it. that whole letter from TJ to the Danbury Baptists.


31 posted on 09/20/2012 12:30:13 PM PDT by TurboZamboni (Looting the future to bribe the present)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson