Michelle Malkin:

The silence of so-called progressives and American free speech advocates as this administration steamrolls over free speech to save its own hide is deafening.

d1carter on September 13, 2012 at 1:42 PM

Says the woman who wrote a book called, “In Defense of Internment”

Michelle Malkin:

The silence of so-called progressives and American free speech advocates as this administration steamrolls over free speech to save its own hide is deafening.

d1carter on September 13, 2012 at 1:42 PM

In the name of security the progressives have made sexual assault on children and women young and old a function of government. Do you think they will hesitate when the time comes to do away with a little bit of our free speech so as not to offend the muzzies?

Our embassies (as is true of other nations’ embassies) are a means of gathering intel covertly. Wake up and grow up.

onlineanalyst on September 13, 2012 at 10:33 AM

So?

Like most Planet Moron readers, you probably kept switching channels yesterday evening trying desperately to keep up with all the latest developments. Why they would show the X-Factor and The Voice at the same time we’ll never know. As a……

We haven’t lost the Middle East yet

I say seize the oil fields and assist Israel with whatever military ops they need to carry out.

The silence of so-called progressives and American free speech advocates as this administration steamrolls over free speech to save its own hide is deafening.

We are in uncharted waters as first as the First-Amendment issue about the movie trailer.

No. We aren’t. This is no different from OTA TV, radio, or satellite TV broadcasts that cross borders.

If ME regimes want to censor the internet at their borders, so to speak, they can try do it. That’s their problem, not ours.

I extracted this image from a the website diepartment directory page for the Muscogee Creek Nation tribal site (im a Creek) that had been hacked by some islamic vandal this morning. This was from the webpage preview on Google for it, different from the hacked page I saw that had embedded video and the whole nine yards.

Probably not a great hacker to have their work undone as quickly as the tribe did, but I bet there will be more vandalismfrom people able to do so.

Creeks were not a scalping tribe, but I am also Blackfoot, which were…

Three guesses what I would do to that joker if I got ahold of him?

>:)

So did Dante, but at least he bugged out pretty fast. Cowardice does that to a person.

Trafalgar on September 13, 2012 at 11:41 AM

He made a complete fool of himself in the Cheney thread.

Muslims are the ONLY group to whom we offer apologies for whatever reason they give for violence.

I believe your argument doesn’t address books. It’s not so hard to send an idea, although your argument seems to require the author to read their own works in the public square. Repressive regimes have always feared the power of the pen, thus banning books. Argument failure, unfortunately. Egypt needs to shut off YouTube, the same way they ban books. The choice is theirs, I believe.

DublOh7 on September 13, 2012 at 11:58 AM

I don’t see how my argument failed at all.

I was speaking of the speech as is heard in the foreign country. I was not addressing the making of the speech on America. I think everyone put their assumptions on my comment without reading it closely. Don’t just throw me in one camp or the other. I was discussing the unique issues that YouTube raises.

I agree that Egypt’s choice is whether to shut off YouTube. That was the exact point of my comment that was just repeated back to me.

Youtube can and has restricted the video in Egypt and Libya.

Your statement isn’t middle ground simply because you contradict yourself.

If the repressive governments don’t grant the right to free speech, then they can shut it down within their borders. Doing this does not restrict any American from exercising their right to free speech within our borders. It is our position that we will always protect our citizen’s right to free expression. If foreign governments want to restrict their citizens’ rights, then we use our right to free speech to condemn it. Note that our citizens have not stormed the Egyptian or Libyan embassies in the US, even after Libya allowed the murder of 4 US citizens.

weaselyone on September 13, 2012 at 11:49 AM

No. You misunderstand. I’m contradicting myself at all. I never said that the American’s speech in American should be censored. Read my comment again. You just interpreted it from your established battle position.

An American standing on a soapbox in Libya does NOT have 1st-Amendment protection.

The playing of a movie trailer through computer speakers situated in Libya, Egypt, Yemen or Tunisia, when the sounds are being heard in those countries, is speech in those countries.

If those countries ban it, it is illegal, if those countries’ government is recognized by the U.S., no matter if the words were being spoken in America.

That was my major point – YouTube WRT the 1st Amendment is a dilemma.

The speech was legal in the U.S. but not in Libya, if Libya so chose.

Like it or not, if Libya has sovereignty, Libya has the right to ban it.

Now… what I am NOT saying, is that the speech should be banned in America! Important distinction.

Then we get to the grey area of shouting “FIRE” in a crowded theater/world stage, which is the separate but corollary issue.

There is a case to be made that those who unequivocally support the right of the movie maker to make his trailer should also unequivocally support Julian Assange.

Gee, did I just stir up a hornet’s nest?

Ed and Allah can thank me for the page views – ;-)

I’m going to stake out a middle ground here amid the bloodshed on the thread: We are in uncharted waters as first as the First-Amendment issue about the movie trailer.
YouTube crosses national boundaries. The Founding Fathers did not foresee that. It creates an interesting problem because in the past, there was no way for an American to stand on a soapbox in the Middle East without actually traveling there and taking the risk incurred by this exhibition of free speech…
cane_loader on September 13, 2012 at 11:40 AM

I believe your argument doesn’t address books. It’s not so hard to send an idea, although your argument seems to require the author to read their own works in the public square. Repressive regimes have always feared the power of the pen, thus banning books. Argument failure, unfortunately. Egypt needs to shut off YouTube, the same way they ban books. The choice is theirs, I believe.

*to be clearly defined as a completely foreign entity to sacred/beautiful Islam and everyday noble Muslims….