Posted on 01/14/2015 2:59:08 AM PST by grundle
The White House Monday refused to back away from its pre-Paris-attack criticism of the magazine Charlie Hebdo’s exercise of free speech, claiming it was meant as some kind of defense of our troops.
The criticism came from former White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, who on September 19, 2014, accused Charlie Hebdo of lacking “judgment.”
That puts the White House among the many in the Je suis Charlie Hebdo crowd who failed to stand up for free speech until the magazine’s cartoonists died for it.
White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest Monday piously explained that Carney – who spoke in September 2012 after the attacks on U.S. embassies that were being blamed on an anti-Muslim video – was objecting to speech that could cause harm to American servicemen and women:
"It would not be the first time that there has been a discussion in this country about the kinds of responsibilities that go along with exercising the right to freedom of speech. And in the scenario — or in the circumstances in which my predecessor was talking about this issue, there was a genuine concern that the publication of some of those materials could put Americans abroad at risk, including American soldiers at risk."
"And that is something that the Commander-in-Chief takes very seriously. And the President and his spokesman was not then and will not now be shy about expressing a view or taking the steps that are necessary to try to advocate for the safety and security of our men and women in uniform."
Well, the problem is, Carney never mentioned American troops. Carney did say the cartoons could provoke “violence against Americans and our diplomatic missions overseas,” but if he were so concerned about the troops, why didn’t he mention them?
The other problem is, if Carney was really referencing the troops, why did he bash the magazine’s “judgment.” How could a French satirical magazine possibly be taking into account the possible effect of its cartoons on U.S. troops?
No, this was an attempt to squelch free speech out of fear people might be insulted, and that they might get riled up. Not an effort to protect the troops.
Even taking Earnest at his word, this is dangerous talk. I have as great a concern as anyone for the safety and well being of our troops and diplomats. But are we now to be careful about what we say because some lunatics might react and try to attack Americans? Would our brave troops even want that?
What if I decided that Islamists smell like pigs who haven’t been hosed down for a month? Am I to blame if that makes them angry. Should I politely suggest a deodorant so as not to upset anyone?
As has been said many times, the very speech that is meant to be protected by the First Amendment is that which provokes and upsets.
But what Carney was talking about, and what Earnest backed up, was an effort to undermine Freedom of the Press. And critics of the Je suis Charlie Hebdo movement are correct to judge the hypocrisy of some of the marchers, who weren’t there for Charlie Hebdo before the attack and will return to political correctness and appeasement once the memory of the killings fades.
Here are Carney’s remarks, complete with derrière-covering tributes to free speech, even as he seeks to limit it. Judge for yourself.
"Well, we are aware that a French magazine published cartoons featuring a figure resembling the Prophet Muhammad, and obviously, we have questions about the judgment of publishing something like this. We know that these images will be deeply offensive to many and have the potential to be inflammatory. But we’ve spoken repeatedly about the importance of upholding the freedom of expression that is enshrined in our Constitution."
"In other words, we don’t question the right of something like this to be published; we just question the judgment behind the decision to publish it. And I think that that’s our view about the video that was produced in this country and has caused so much offense in the Muslim world."
"Now, it has to be said, and I’ll say it again, that no matter how offensive something like this is, it is not in any way justification for violence — not in any way justification for violence. Now, we have been staying in close touch with the French government as well as other governments around the world, and we appreciate the statements of support by French government officials over the past week, denouncing the violence against Americans and our diplomatic missions overseas."
I’m under the expression and belief, although I’m working on the foundation information to prove this, that Europe is going through another pre-stage of gearing towards eradication of undesirables. Instead of using Jews, a most peaceful crowd, they are allowing jihadist to ramp up attacks forcing those citizens in the infected nations to rise up and call for immediate action. It looks like the partnerships of European countries are going to seize the momentum and do just that with a war they created and allowed to fester in order to weaken the M.E. nations and reinsert colonial dominance over that region once again...basically, they are using the jihadist in order to destroy the larger entity.
The march in Paris is telling of future plans Europe has for the region and is competing against both the US in the West and Russia in the East. Europe need to consolidate into a unity to halt either party from exercising control in their respective territory. With the dependence of oil/gas from Russia holding a hand around their throat, Europe has decided that re-visiting control of the M.E. is a viable alternative to buying oil/gas from either West or East.
just some thoughts...I’ll see how this will play out over the next 5 yrs while alot of innocent people die in the process...
Dhimmis one and all!
Most everyone seems to be conflating two issues. If Joe runs around saying that Fred’s mother works in a brothel down by the pier, then no one should be surprised if Fred at some point shoots Joe dead. It is wrong for Joe to say this about Fred and it is wrong for Fred to murder him.
Both are true and as a practical matter both are related. And yet we do not need to conflate them. I loathe those who gratuitously blaspheme Christianity. They are a very low life form. But this does not justify my becoming violent towards the perpetrators. Ever. I do not begrudge Muslims their own anger when they think their prophet has been sullied. But unconditionally ... NO to murder.
This is what Obama does not understand. It’s fine for him to say that what Charlie Hebdo printed is intrinsically offensive. This is simply not the moment to be saying it, or allowing any sense that their actions justified what the terrorists did.
What Bill Maher and his ilk do not appreciate is that just because Fred is wrong to murder Joe, we are not all obligated to run around repeating Fred’s lies.
In the ‘70’s liberal college professors told us this was “Blaming the Victim”.
And Obama sent no one because?? Run it by me again....
He don't play second fiddle to nothing.
If I go up to a random stranger on the street and call him an "@sshole!" I might get beaten to a pulp. Sure, that makes him a criminal ... but it doesn't change the fact that I was responsible for my own troubles.
Excellent analysis!
That's part of the ambassador's job. Nobody else was sent because the U.S. government typically doesn't send high-ranking leaders to political rallies in foreign countries.
It would seem our precious negros concept of free speech is to be able to be loud, vulgar and profane on public transportation, malls and restaurants.
Both are true and as a practical matter both are related. And yet we do not need to conflate them. I loathe those who gratuitously blaspheme Christianity. They are a very low life form. But this does not justify my becoming violent towards the perpetrators. Ever. I do not begrudge Muslims their own anger when they think their prophet has been sullied. But unconditionally ... NO to murder.
This is what Obama does not understand. It’s fine for him to say that what Charlie Hebdo printed is intrinsically offensive. This is simply not the moment to be saying it, or allowing any sense that their actions justified what the terrorists did.
What Bill Maher and his ilk do not appreciate is that just because Fred is wrong to murder Joe, we are not all obligated to run around repeating Fred’s lies.
It certainly is oddly inappropriate (though entirely predictable) for Obama to seem to be siding with the Islamist terrorists.
I think it's also curious as a point of irony that the left is mumbling about how Charlie Hebdo was essentially asking for it, when one of the tenets of feminism is that a woman can and should be able to walk around half-naked without fear of being raped.
The observation is that (again) the left is being hypocritical.
Oh ok... so what they are saying is scantily clad women want it?
The problem with muslims, though, is they will never be satisfied until we are dead or converted. First it is this, next it will be ham sold in stores, or women not covered up. This is not about cartoons. It is about people who use violence to force others to convert or die.
Your analogy doesn’t fit.
The fact is, certain groups of muslims (labeled as “extremists” by the multi-culturalists in the West) have been attacking innocent people in countries around the world for decades (talking about recent history only, putting aside things like 80 million murdered non-muslims in India).
The main body of muslims (labeled as “moderates” by the multi-culturalists in the West) have said absolutely nothing about the behavior of the “extremists”.
The main stream media in the US and Europe says absolutely nothing about the very obvious connection between what the “extremists” are doing and what the tenets of the muslim religion actually are (which promote and condone the so-called “extremism”).
A few brave souls in the West speak the truth about this connection and satirize the connection.
The “extremists” murder those few who speak up.
You come along with some lame analogy about two guys and a slandered wife.
There is no conflation of issues here. The issue is Free Speech vs a hostile totalitarian movement bent on world domination.
Would you have attacked the cartoonists who drew images of evil buck-toothed Japs in WWII?
“The main body of muslims (labeled as “moderates” by the multi-culturalists in the West) have said absolutely nothing about the behavior of the “extremists”.”
They breed and enable them; there is no country with a Muslim majority where the minorities don’t suffer.
It’s satire for crying out loud ...
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.