LA Times op-ed: Maybe this Mohammed movie isn’t free speech after all

posted at 7:21 pm on September 18, 2012 by Allahpundit

On a day when Egypt is appeasing its mob by issuing arrest warrants for the people responsible for the film (a capital offense there, do note), this is what’s running in the biggest paper in Los Angeles. Turns out the author, Sarah Chayes, is a former assistant to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, which is no surprise. As Matt Welch notes, lately the strongest pressure on private citizens to limit their criticism of Islam has come from the top of the Pentagon. Bob Gates called Terry Jones when he first threatened to burn a Koran to ask him to stand down, then Martin Dempsey called him again a few days ago when the Mohammed movie broke big. Not content with asking citizens not to make Islamists mad, Chayes wants to blow a hole through the First Amendment using Supreme Court precedent so that they can be compelled to shut up. This is all being done with a noble goal in mind, i.e. protecting U.S. troops in the field, but I’ve got to say: If the choice is between carving off pieces of free speech to sustain an already crumbling mission in Afghanistan and bringing American troops home so that they’re out of harm’s way while keeping free speech intact, I’m all for taking a close look at the latter.

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…

As for imminence, the timeline of similar events after recent burnings of religious materials indicates that reactions typically come within two weeks. Nakoula’s video was deliberately publicized just before the sensitive date of Sept. 11, and could be expected to spark violence on that anniversary.

While many 1st Amendment scholars defend the right of the filmmakers to produce this film, arguing that the ensuing violence was not sufficiently imminent, I spoke to several experts who said the trailer may well fall outside constitutional guarantees of free speech. “Based on my understanding of the events,” 1st Amendment authority Anthony Lewis said in an interview Thursday, “I think this meets the imminence standard.”

The Brandenburg case had to do with a Klan leader who was trying to rile up a mob of Klansmen. It’s been used ever since as a constitutional guideline on when government can criminalize speech that incites an audience to riot. The speaker has to intend for the audience to behave violently, it has to be likely that the audience will behave violently, and the possibility of them behaving violently has to be imminent. Essentially, in very narrow circumstances, Brandenburg says it’s okay to silence a speaker if he’s colluding with a violent mob by encouraging it. There are all sorts of problems with applying that ruling to the Mohammed case — who’s the “audience”? did the movie encourage “imminent” violence (or any violence at all) or did the 9/11-related publicity do so? do we really want to assume, as a matter of law, that criticism of Islam is always “likely” to result in violence? — but never mind that. Chayes’s trick is to try to extend Brandenburg’s logic to circumstances where the speaker and his audience are enemies. There’s no actual collusion in the case of the filmmaker and Islamists, but there’s kinda sorta de facto collusion in that an insane Islamist violent reaction bolsters the filmmaker’s criticism of the faith and therefore, per Chayes, we should infer that he “intended” it. Even though, as I write this, he’s in hiding in fear for his and his family’s lives.

What she’s really making here isn’t an argument under Brandenburg but an argument under the “fighting words” exception to the First Amendment, one of the most pernicious doctrines in Supreme Court jurisprudence. It’s been around since 1942, when someone in New Hampshire was prosecuted successfully for calling a cop a “goddamned racketeer” and a “damned fascist.” The Court upheld his arrest (unanimously!) on grounds that it’s perfectly fine to criminalize words which “by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.” In other words, if you say something to someone that’s so outrageously insulting that they’re apt to come after you physically, the state can step in and arrest you in order to prevent the altercation. It’s nothing less than a “heckler’s veto” loophole grafted onto the right to free speech. The Court hasn’t revisited the case much since, but as far as I know, it’s still good law — and as you can see from Chayes’ piece, there’s plenty of currency for it today as bien-pensants plot to find ways to criminalize criticism of Islam in the name of “security.” If/when blasphemy laws start making a comeback in the United States, it’s the “fighting words” doctrine — or Chayes’ bastardized version of Brandenburg — that’ll carry them. And if you think I’m being alarmist about this, I encourage you to read this post from 2010 about Stephen Breyer sounding surprisingly equivocal about whether the First Amendment protects the right to burn the Koran. Ready to take your chances with another Obama appointee or two if he wins a second term? The sooner the Supreme Court formally repudiates the “fighting words” doctrine, the better.

Exit quotation from Chayes, in deep, deep denial: “The point here is not to excuse the terrible acts perpetrated by committed extremists and others around the world in reaction to the video or to condone physical violence as a response to words — any kind of words.” If you’re giving them precisely what they want because they’re likely to commit “terrible acts,” how are you not excusing their actions?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Seriously, it is getting to the point that all of us need to rise up, with cameras, and film stupid movies about the Profit Mohammad and post them to YouTube for protest.

the new aesthetic on September 18, 2012 at 7:24 PM

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said many thing that inspired his opponents to violence. I suppose author believes that he should have been arrested.

29Victor on September 18, 2012 at 7:24 PM

Well, the Russians and the Saudi’s are now threatening to ban YouTube, so how long before they cave?

JPeterman on September 18, 2012 at 7:25 PM

I’m not Muslim, but that caption shot alone makes me want to burn something to the ground. /

No doubt Egypt will give the arrest warrants to the US in a huge animated display at the next UN General assembly.

portlandon on September 18, 2012 at 7:25 PM

Eh, why are we even messing around with this piddly crap? We should let TFGRP decide which speech should be silenced, preferably starting with that cancer guy Mitt Romney.

Bishop on September 18, 2012 at 7:25 PM

The media in North America is worse than that video. Should we arrest them all and shut them down?

MrX on September 18, 2012 at 7:25 PM

What is most disturbing is that the First Amendment was designed, intentionally, to protect speech with which we disagree, and with which government has the greatest issue.

For any newspaper to make the case that this “mohammed” video is beyond the pale of free speech shows how far we have descended to the realm of government deciding for us what speech we can accept, make or publish…and that, my friends, is something that should scare the bejezzus out of any rational thinking American.

coldwarrior on September 18, 2012 at 7:25 PM

Sarah go to Hell, be Fluked, not in a good way…you undeserving to be free stupid woman.

Schadenfreude on September 18, 2012 at 7:26 PM

This ME unrest could really be bad for Dear Leader…

d1carter on September 18, 2012 at 7:27 PM

This is quite possibly the most frustrating thing we’ve encountered politically- with a complicit media, how do we make the uninformed understand what is at stake here? How insane the stakes have become?

BettyRuth on September 18, 2012 at 7:27 PM

Goebbels can’t take any more.

Schadenfreude on September 18, 2012 at 7:27 PM

I shall laugh when the burka her ass.

SouthernGent on September 18, 2012 at 7:29 PM

THe marxist-controlled would-be ‘gatekeeper’ MSM has no business whatsoever holding forth on what is or isn’t legitimate ‘free speech’. Screw those statist clowns.

rayra on September 18, 2012 at 7:29 PM

If a stupid YouTube video causes you to be violent, you don’t need an apology. You need serious mental help.

drewwerd on September 18, 2012 at 7:29 PM

I think we need to inform those in government, the ones who swear to uphold the constitution, we will hold them to their sworn duty. We will not have our freedoms limited due to the protestations of a bunch of animals who put bombs on children. If they want religious war, they better check to see who has the best weapons.

Zelsdorf Ragshaft on September 18, 2012 at 7:30 PM

I meant to say this in my previous post. We could probably reduce the muslim population of the earth by 90% by noon tomorrow.

Zelsdorf Ragshaft on September 18, 2012 at 7:32 PM

As the Indonesians shoult “Death to America” and burn flags today, in honor or the ‘respected around the world’ president.

The irony is nearly unbearable.

Schadenfreude on September 18, 2012 at 7:32 PM

Hey Sarah, stuff it. Speech which offends heathens half a world away is not subject to U S law. These people just can’t stop trying to control every aspect of everything.

Rio Linda Refugee on September 18, 2012 at 7:32 PM

I still haven’t seen it…

Electrongod on September 18, 2012 at 7:32 PM

Seriously, it is getting to the point that all of us need to rise up, with cameras, and film stupid movies about the Profit Mohammad and post them to YouTube for protest.

the new aesthetic on September 18, 2012 at 7:24 PM

Have there been any copy-cat videos posted yet? It seems like someone would.

stefanite on September 18, 2012 at 7:32 PM

Maybe if liberals start being beheaded over their attempts at tyrany they will ban their attempts at tyrany?

Same ‘logic’.

GardenGnome on September 18, 2012 at 7:33 PM

Every time I see that picture I think that it’s a Crowder sketch.

Vera on September 18, 2012 at 7:34 PM

I hope this doesn’t get to the SCOTUS…John Roberts is still there..isn’t he?

d1carter on September 18, 2012 at 7:34 PM

I don’t think the Press realizes what’s going to happen as a result of them shouting at us that we can’t offend muslims. It’s going to drive people to offend muslims just for the sake of offending muslims. In fact the French may do just that. Yes those French:

A French satirical magazine is set to publish several cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed on Wednesday, a move that is likely to inflame the Islamic faithful and militants who have already rioted in more than 20 countries over a movie mocking the prophet.

I’m almost to the point of supporting any and all proclamations of defamations of any and all things holy to muslims, not because I want to piss off muslims, but because I want to piss off the speech police in this country. Rather than going that route, however, I really think ALL CHRISTIANS in America need to unite under the Apostles Creed for the sole purpose of standing against the rise of Sharia law here in America as exemplified by all those who are calling for de-facto blasphemy laws. The Apostles Creed has been believed and spoken by nearly every single Christian denomination for millennium, and is an easy and all inclusive ecumenical way to unite all believers, Catholic and Protestant. If the Progressives in this country want to use islam as a wedge against Freedom in this country then lets unite as Christians to defeat both.

Weight of Glory on September 18, 2012 at 7:34 PM

The moslems of the world take umbrage…

This is what happens when an apostate mohammedan is elected President of the United States?

Indonesians burning Obama in effigy…I thought Barry Sotero was their favorite son or something.

coldwarrior on September 18, 2012 at 7:34 PM

The sooner the Supreme Court formally repudiates the “fighting words” doctrine, the better.

I toss a Koran on the fire. Am I guilty because violence happens on the other side of the world?

Axe on September 18, 2012 at 7:36 PM

LA Times op-ed: Maybe this Mohammed movie isn’t free speech after all

The LA Slimes is just as bad as the NY Slimes, run by reprobates perverts and Marxists. They wouldn’t know what free speech was if it walked up to them, introduced itself, and then bit their ass right off.

The Obamanation Administration Lies while the Middle East Burns.

SWalker on September 18, 2012 at 7:36 PM

And after than, Martin Scorcese films.

ConservativeLA on September 18, 2012 at 7:36 PM

As the Indonesians shoult “Death to America” and burn flags today, in honor or the ‘respected around the world’ president.

The irony is nearly unbearable.

Schadenfreude on September 18, 2012 at 7:32 PM

Don’t get too close to those burning flags.

In an apparent case of red, white and blue revenge, a Pakistani protester died yesterday after inhaling smoke from a burning American flag during an anti-US rally.

JPeterman on September 18, 2012 at 7:36 PM

Would the same standard apply to a free press?

rw on September 18, 2012 at 7:38 PM

And how many other religions around the world typically riot, kill, destroy and otherwise behave like animals when their religions are “insulted?”

There is something about the pathology of Islam that truly needs to be addressed.

coldwarrior on September 18, 2012 at 7:39 PM

So why did Nidal Hassan kill 14 of our’s @ Ft Hood ?

burrata on September 18, 2012 at 7:39 PM

Yellow Journalists only understand their freedom of speech.

Dr. ZhivBlago on September 18, 2012 at 7:39 PM

So, if Christians start rioting every time they hear Jesus Christ’s name used in vain, is this Sarah Chayes person going to suggest that should be illegal speech as well? Or are we going to have double standard here (I ask rhetorically)?

tgharris on September 18, 2012 at 7:40 PM

Shhhh. You guys are going to make them mad.
Just keep your free speech to yourself!

HornetSting on September 18, 2012 at 7:40 PM

Cowardice.

squint on September 18, 2012 at 7:40 PM

I find her article so spectacularly ignorant it makes me want to punch her right in the mouth.

To that end, arrest her.

Sgt Steve on September 18, 2012 at 7:40 PM

Seriously, it is getting to the point that all of us need to rise up, with cameras, and film stupid movies about the Profit Mohammad and post them to YouTube for protest.

the new aesthetic on September 18, 2012 at 7:24 PM

There are no shortage of movies and pictures that insult Mohammed on the Internet. This one just got traction because the Obama Media Complex needed to deflect discussion about his abysmal foreign policy. The movie has been out for months. Nobody in the protests actually watched it.

All of this discussion in the press about “free-speech” is a smokescreen.

“Don’t look at our horrible President! Look here at this shiny controversy!”

happytobehere on September 18, 2012 at 7:41 PM

There is something about the pathology of Islam that truly needs to be addressed.

coldwarrior on September 18, 2012 at 7:39 PM

It is a Necrotizing fasciitis and requires the most radically aggressive treatment known to man. Pure 1 trillion candle watt White Light Therapy.

SWalker on September 18, 2012 at 7:42 PM

BTW, what happened to that video of Hussein praying like a muslim LAT ?

burrata on September 18, 2012 at 7:42 PM

Well, if the Piss-Christ “artwork” isn’t within the “fighting words” exception to the First Amendment, then wait to you see the YouTube I’m producing and directing wherein all sorts of people will be filmed pissing on a poster of Mohammed, to Queen’s “We are the Champions”.

TXUS on September 18, 2012 at 7:42 PM

The great works of Resist We Much

Schadenfreude on September 18, 2012 at 7:43 PM

‘Toon of the Day: Voltaire Voided

http://predicthistunpredictpast.blogspot.com/2012/09/toon-of-day-voltaire-voided.html

M2RB: Tokio Hotel

Resist We Much on September 18, 2012 at 7:43 PM

Hornet, don’t be a stranger.

Schadenfreude on September 18, 2012 at 7:43 PM

Heh, Sophie :) same exact time stamp

Schadenfreude on September 18, 2012 at 7:44 PM

Wait till the Islamists see the President-Gutsy-Call-Killed-bin- Laden movie.

I doubt if Ms. Chayes will be opining about free speech issues then.

Curtiss on September 18, 2012 at 7:44 PM

Every time I see that picture I think that it’s a Crowder sketch.

Vera on September 18, 2012 at 7:34 PM

Me too! On my phone, before I zoom in, the guy on the left looks a lot like Crowder.

29Victor on September 18, 2012 at 7:44 PM

To Sarah Chayes, I suspect what happened to CBS reporter Lara Logan wasn’t rape rape either. Nuance, folks, nuance.

TXUS on September 18, 2012 at 7:45 PM

If the military doesn’t believe they can protect American soldiers, diplomats and other assets in Islamic countries, that perhaps that should be a big fricken’ clue to us all we should get the hell out of those countries. The mere suggestion that we should abandon our core Western values to avoid offending Muslims is shameful and worrying.

mpthompson on September 18, 2012 at 7:46 PM

And how many other religions around the world typically riot, kill, destroy and otherwise behave like animals when their religions are “insulted?”

There is something about the pathology of Islam that truly needs to be addressed.

coldwarrior on September 18, 2012 at 7:39 PM

Our mistake is to think that Islam teaches the same things as other religions. It does not.

Islam teaches Muslims that they must kill those that insult Islam. This is literally the word of their god. It’s not some psychological problem that Muslims have. It’s not because they are “poor” or live under dictatorships.It’s not because they feel slighted or downtrodden or helpless. It’s not because they are lashing out with anger. It is simply what they are supposed to do as commanded by their holy texts.

It’s no different than a Catholic going to confession. It’s merely part of their religious duty. Don’t take it personally.

happytobehere on September 18, 2012 at 7:46 PM

If the choice is between carving off pieces of free speech to sustain an already crumbling mission in Afghanistan and bringing American troops home so that they’re out of harm’s way while keeping free speech intact, I’m all for taking a close look at the latter.

Our guys are supposedly over there to defend all of our rights — including free speech, our form of government, and our way of life. Free speech is fundamental to our way of life and to what America has been about for well over 200 years.

Nothing is worth giving it up.

“Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
– Benjamin Franklin

If we have reached the point in Afghanistan that our military leaders think we need to compromise on free speech to “save lives”, that is a clear signal we need to get everyone out of Afghanistan whose lives would be “saved” by stifling free speech. If that is everyone, then so be it.

farsighted on September 18, 2012 at 7:47 PM

TXUS on September 18, 2012 at 7:42 PM

Truly a capital idea…and considering that Freddy Mercury [Farrokh Bulsara] was a Parsi, there is indeed sweet revenge there as well.

:-)

coldwarrior on September 18, 2012 at 7:47 PM

Don’t give an inch to the Towelish swine!

Mason on September 18, 2012 at 7:47 PM

Awesome.

So in order to get flag burning made illegal, do people need to actually attack other people, or is destruction of property enough?

malclave on September 18, 2012 at 7:47 PM

Well, if the Piss-Christ “artwork” isn’t within the “fighting words” exception to the First Amendment, then wait to you see the YouTube I’m producing and directing wherein all sorts of people will be filmed pissing on a poster of Mohammed, to Queen’s “We are the Champions”.

TXUS on September 18, 2012 at 7:42 PM

You could alter the political balance in the Middle East by that one act alone, TXUS. Any American with a video camera can now influence US foreign policy according to the idiots in the White House.

Punchenko on September 18, 2012 at 7:49 PM

Well, if the Piss-Christ “artwork” isn’t within the “fighting words” exception to the First Amendment, then wait to you see the YouTube I’m producing and directing wherein all sorts of people will be filmed pissing on a poster of Mohammed, to Queen’s “We are the Champions”.

TXUS on September 18, 2012 at 7:42 PM

I am SO in.

Washington Nearsider on September 18, 2012 at 7:49 PM

Maybe now that a Pakistani died while burning an American flag the LA Slimes will call for the halting of flag burnings.

Pravda is proud, so proud.

Schadenfreude on September 18, 2012 at 7:50 PM

This isn’t just a slippery slope. It is a Slip-N-Slide off a cliff.

Darn it. I just dated myself didn’t I.

HoustonRight on September 18, 2012 at 7:50 PM

Robert Davi (actor, Profiler) wrote a letter to his “PC” pals in Hollywood that is pretty stinging. It’s on Breitbart, and gave me some faith.

My thoughts are, that the next time there is a “piss Jesus”, paid for by the taxpayers no less, I have the “right” to storm the art museum and murder anyone in there because it offends me, right?

waterytart on September 18, 2012 at 7:50 PM

Well, if the Piss-Christ “artwork” isn’t within the “fighting words” exception to the First Amendment, then wait to you see the YouTube I’m producing and directing wherein all sorts of people will be filmed pissing on a poster of Mohammed, to Queen’s “We are the Champions”.

TXUS on September 18, 2012 at 7:42 PM

Hahaha, that would be epic.

MobileVideoEngineer on September 18, 2012 at 7:51 PM

The great works of Resist We Much

Schadenfreude on September 18, 2012 at 7:43 PM

You’re diggin’ that Voltaire, reference, eh? :)

Axe on September 18, 2012 at 7:51 PM

So in order to get flag burning made illegal, do people need to actually attack other people, or is destruction of property enough?

malclave on September 18, 2012 at 7:47 PM

Since inhaling the smoke from a burning US flag has killed a person this may have to be visited in the near future. America is now killing people with it’s flags so the American flag should be banned.

Rio Linda Refugee on September 18, 2012 at 7:51 PM

TXUS on September 18, 2012 at 7:42 PM

Argh, you said it WAY better than I did, thanks!!

waterytart on September 18, 2012 at 7:51 PM

So, the words of Biden and Obama spiking the ball about killing Bin Laden would then be classified as not being within the bounds of free speech since it will inflame 7′th century savages living in our century?

/Oh, I’m sorry, did that offend some of the savages?

AZfederalist on September 18, 2012 at 7:52 PM

Hornet, don’t be a stranger.

Schadenfreude on September 18, 2012 at 7:43 PM

Don’t worry, I’m so mad at the L.A. Times, I might have to burn down a taco stand, a palm tree, and a Prius.
Oh, and set Clooney’s a*s on fire.
I’ll make sure to return after I get out of jail.

HornetSting on September 18, 2012 at 7:52 PM

Darn it. I just dated myself didn’t I.

HoustonRight on September 18, 2012 at 7:50 PM

Nah they still make ‘em. They are a little fancier than we remember though. He!! we were so poor we just got the grass real sloppy and had at it.

Rio Linda Refugee on September 18, 2012 at 7:54 PM

You’re diggin’ that Voltaire, reference, eh? :)

Axe on September 18, 2012 at 7:51 PM

I like your brain.

———–
TXUS on September 18, 2012 at 7:42 PM

Save the pi*s for the media. Throw old and dirty shoes at your swine.

p.s. sincere apologies to the clean pigs.

Schadenfreude on September 18, 2012 at 7:54 PM

I’ll make sure to return after I get out of jail.

HornetSting on September 18, 2012 at 7:52 PM

You won’t be in there long. We’d bail you out.

Schadenfreude on September 18, 2012 at 7:54 PM

No. This must stop here and now. If this is to be believed, freedom of speech should be limited when the “objects of ridicule” are violent scum bags, but when they aren’t, well, anything goes? Catholics won’t randomly murder, so crucifixes in beakers of urine are fine. Jews won’t use RPG in Skokie, so the Klan can march and muslim protestors at the UN can hold “death to the juice” signs without fear of prosecution?

This is appalling. So we will toss out the First Amendment and Equal Protection in one fell swoop?

Obama must be defeated!

clnurnberg on September 18, 2012 at 7:54 PM

If a Christian or Jew who doesn’t like Bill Maher should kill an atheist–any athiest–and claim they were angry about Religulous, I hope the LA Times would take the same principled stand on Mr. Maher, and his anti-religious “abuse of free speech.

/sarcasm

MidniteRambler on September 18, 2012 at 7:55 PM

My thoughts are, that the next time there is a “piss Jesus”, paid for by the taxpayers no less, I have the “right” to storm the art museum and murder anyone in there because it offends me, right?

waterytart on September 18, 2012 at 7:50 PM

So it appears. But I’d wager a guess that the DB artist’s rights would be upheld. This is an islam only rule, to be sure.

clnurnberg on September 18, 2012 at 7:56 PM

If you’re giving them precisely what they want because they’re likely to commit “terrible acts,” how are you not excusing their actions?

Actually, you’re promoting their actions by giving them positive reinforcement.

When Monty Python made The Life of Brian and The Meaning of Life (with Every Sperm is Sacred) did United States Catholics attack the British embassy and kill the ambassador? No. The problem isn’t the film or the context or the filmmaker. The problem is the intolerance of the Muslim religion as it is practiced today in the Middle East.

Romney is spot on. It is unlikely we will have peace in the Middle East because the Palestinians don’t want it. This movie was just an excuse. The LA Times is advocating a lower standard for Muslims. A standard so low that it cannot be met within the confines of a civilized society. Now a cartoon, a book or movie that insults Mohammed in the opinion of even one Muslim is a justification for murder of a third party, with the blame falling not on the murderer, but on the person who made the comment with no intention of inciting violence. Next will criticism of sharia law or honor killings be justification for murder? After all, criticising those practices is also insulting the Muslim religion. It’s a very slippery slope, with no bottom, because Muslim extremists want world domination and extermination of all infidels.

talkingpoints on September 18, 2012 at 7:57 PM

What is most disturbing is that the First Amendment was designed, intentionally, to protect speech with which we disagree, and with which government has the greatest issue.

For any newspaper to make the case that this “mohammed” video is beyond the pale of free speech shows how far we have descended to the realm of government deciding for us what speech we can accept, make or publish…and that, my friends, is something that should scare the bejezzus out of any rational thinking American.

coldwarrior on September 18, 2012 at 7:25 PM

That bears repeating.

Solaratov on September 18, 2012 at 7:57 PM

Let’s face it.
.
These embarrassing contortions by administration apparatchiks and the media to ‘blame the movie’ and justify first amendment violation are cynically propelled by the prime directive to protect the prancing prince of hope’n'change from any responsibility or visible association with the ME catastrophe.
.
Sacrifices have to be made for the cause of Obamunism.

Dr. Carlo Lombardi on September 18, 2012 at 7:57 PM

The LA Times Hollywood leftist Stormtrooper says:
This is the free speech we’re looking for.
Move along.

OTTO on September 18, 2012 at 7:57 PM

Actually, you’re promoting their actions by giving them positive reinforcement.

Or as we say in psych “rewarded behvaior is repeated behavior”.

clnurnberg on September 18, 2012 at 7:58 PM

oops
is = isn’t
Move along

OTTO on September 18, 2012 at 7:58 PM

So all it takes to change our Constitution is some foreigners doing violence in their country?

albill on September 18, 2012 at 7:59 PM

What is most disturbing is that the First Amendment was designed, intentionally, to protect speech with which we disagree, and with which government has the greatest issue.

coldwarrior on September 18, 2012 at 7:25 PM

What’s even more incomprehensible is that the old media don’t grasp what freedoms/powers they were granted by the 1st Amendment.

Look, these idiots deserve to have ther heads cut off. I’d watch.

Schadenfreude on September 18, 2012 at 8:00 PM

What do you think these same Muslims are going to do when Obama’s spiking the football with killing Bin Laden comes out and is the administration going to kill the release of it?

JeffinSac on September 18, 2012 at 8:00 PM

I thought the video was a low rent hoot… like The Life of Brian but with a lot more cheese.

The film-maker was kidding people who have a notoriously non-existent sense of humor.

The LA Times, however, sucks.

Because they’re not kidding.

profitsbeard on September 18, 2012 at 8:00 PM

Our mistake is to think that Islam teaches the same things as other religions. It does not.

Islam teaches Muslims that they must kill those that insult Islam. This is literally the word of their god. It’s not some psychological problem that Muslims have. It’s not because they are “poor” or live under dictatorships.It’s not because they feel slighted or downtrodden or helpless. It’s not because they are lashing out with anger. It is simply what they are supposed to do as commanded by their holy texts.

happytobehere on September 18, 2012 at 7:46 PM

Which raises the question, “Why does the civilized world tolerate and accommodate those who profess that religion to dictate the narrative and even live among us?” Would we tolerate and be accommodating of people from India who were practicing members of the Cult of Kali, the Thuggees? After all, that was a “religion” as well. How intolerant of the Brits to have suppressed it. In a rational world, the islamists would be isolated to the middle eastern countries in which they exist and fenced in to prevent this corrosive ideology from spreading.

AZfederalist on September 18, 2012 at 8:01 PM

I’ll make sure to return after I get out of jail.

HornetSting on September 18, 2012 at 7:52 PM

You won’t be in there long. We’d bail you out.

Schadenfreude on September 18, 2012 at 7:54 PM

Thank you. So, I hear there’s a whole new crop of trolls to play with. Any of them worth a damn?

HornetSting on September 18, 2012 at 8:03 PM

In a rational world, the islamists would be isolated to the middle eastern countries in which they exist and fenced in to prevent this corrosive ideology from spreading.

AZfederalist on September 18, 2012 at 8:01 PM

I like your idea, with the proviso that in an also logical world the morons from the LAT, and others, s/b sent there for a time…

Schadenfreude on September 18, 2012 at 8:03 PM

Turns out the author, Sarah Chayes, is a former assistant to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, which is no surprise.

The building formally known as the Pentagon has become a G-d damned mega mosque whore house of servicing Muslims. The Perfumed Pimps there masquerading as Generals have no regard for America and it’s Constitution or their own troops and they are all out sons-of-bitches, traitors, and chronic dhimmis!

VorDaj on September 18, 2012 at 8:03 PM

Any of them worth a damn?

HornetSting on September 18, 2012 at 8:03 PM

They’re all worth cholera.

Schadenfreude on September 18, 2012 at 8:04 PM

So all it takes to change our Constitution is some foreigners doing violence in their country?

albill on September 18, 2012 at 7:59 PM

Stunning, no?

clnurnberg on September 18, 2012 at 8:04 PM

Turns out the author, Sarah Chayes, is a former assistant to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, which is no surprise.

The building formally known as the Pentagon has become a G-d damned mega mosque whore house of servicing Muslims. The Perfumed Pimps there masquerading as Generals have no regard for America and it’s Constitution or their own troops and they are all out sons of #itches, traitors, and chronic dhimmis!

VorDaj on September 18, 2012 at 8:04 PM

So all it takes to change our Constitution is some foreigners doing violence in their country?

albill on September 18, 2012 at 7:59 PM

Call it the implied Appeasement Amendment, wherein any right may be abridged in necessary to appease angry outraged murderous foreigners.

I wonder what the Founding Fathers would have said if someone proposed it when drawing up the Bill of Rights.

farsighted on September 18, 2012 at 8:04 PM

Man, this is great!

All we need to do is have a riot and burn down the LA Times building… BOOM!! Sarah Chayes, Defendant. Incitement to riot.

Sarah Chayes, you really haven’t thought this through, have you?

JohnGalt23 on September 18, 2012 at 8:05 PM

Ms Chayes:

In Brandenburg, the Court held that the government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is directed to inciting, AND is likely to incite, imminent lawless action. The youtube video has been on the internet since July. Your argument doesn’t pass the Brandenburg test. Three elements must be satisfied:

1. MENS REA REQUIREMENT. The prosecution must prove that the filmmaker intended for the film to cause violence, not just offence. Causing the religious to be offended is protected speech. See Serrano, Mapplethorpe, etc.

2. LIKELY TO INCITE. I’ll grant you this one since you believe we should censor our speech so as to coddle the nutters, who belong to a misogynistic, homophobic, child-abusing, maniacal, homicidal, suicidal, totalitarian, 7th century death cult. Of course, you will need to begin wearing a hijab and confining yourself to “your room” or change your name. Might I suggest “Ms Purina Fancy Feast”? See the comments made by the Grand Mufti of Australia, Sheikh Taj Din al-Hilali, 26 October 2006.

3. IMMINENT LAWLESS ACTION. Imminent is not weeks or months and most courts don’t even consider it days. Generally, incitement of imminent lawless action would be found in a case such where a gang leader riled up other members and said something to the effect, “Go out and kill the motherfvckers!” and the members actually go murder the “motherfvckers.”

Brandenburg’s “likelihood to incite imminent lawless action” was further clarified in Hess v. Indiana, 414 U.S. 105 (1973) and held that the defendant’s statements “amounted to nothing more than advocacy of illegal action at some indefinite future time.” So, if advocacy of illegal action is legal because it is not specific as to time, how can a film that was posted two months ago without incident be considered to be unprotected speech since it was “intended to likely incite imminent lawless action,” as you allege?

Indeed, Justice Holmes’ original example, shouting “fire” in a theater, is not a call to arms.

FALSELY shouting fire, Ms Chayes, FALSELY.

This “fire in a crowded theatre” argument is a very dangerous and slippery slope in the context of Islam. In some countries in Europe, it is now a crime to yell “fire in a crowded theatre” a/k/a “radical Islam is mutilating the genitals of females, beating and calling for the executing of homosexuals, demanding the exclusion of Jewish children from public schools, etc.” In other words, YELLING “FIRE IN A CROWDED THEATRE” THAT IS ACTUALLY ON FIRE (a/k/a telling the truth about FGM, for example) IS NOW A CRIMINAL OFFENCE BECAUSE IT “OFFENDS” THE SENSIBILITIES OF SOME MUSLIMS.

Further, as the Heritage Foundation recently noted, “As recently as December 19, 2011, the U.S. voted for and was instrumental in passing ‘U.N. Resolution 16/18’ against ‘religious intolerance,’ ‘condemning the stereotyping, negative profiling and stigmatization of people based on their religion.’ While this may sound innocuous, it was the latest incarnation of a highly controversial ‘anti-blasphemy’ resolution that has been pushed by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) at the United Nations since 1999. This concept of global “blasphemy laws,” to which the Obama Administration is very obviously not hostile, is a long-cherished goal of Islamic supremacists. It is also Constitutional sacrilege.”

U.N. Resolution 16/18: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/un-adopts-religious-intolerance-resolution-championed-obama-administration

And, research Hillary’s “Istanbul Process.”

Finally — and most importantly — the youtube clip did NOT cause the attacks on the embassy or consulate. Behold:

Hey, Alice, What Does A Timeline Look Like At The Bottom Of A Rabbithole?

M2RB: Jefferson Airplane

Resist We Much on September 18, 2012 at 8:05 PM

Robert Spencer: “Finally: NATO scales back joint operations with Afghan forces. How many had to be murdered by their “trainees” and “partners” before this happened? General Allen and the rest of the high command should be put on trial for the deaths of every one of those troops. What war strategy? There is no plan for victory, no definition of victory, no clear goal, no clear means to get to any goal — nothing. Just more and more of our troops killed for a Sharia government that its people hates, battling Sharia forces that enjoy broad support.”

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/09/finally-nato-scales-back-joint-operations-with-afghan-forces.html

VorDaj on September 18, 2012 at 8:05 PM

So when the Democrats funded certain anti-Christian things like dung on the virgin mary and a cross in a jar of urine, it qualified as free speech because Christians weren’t likely to get violent?

Let that sink in. The Democrats were on the side of bullying every time. Free speech to bully and limit free speech to bully.

Buddahpundit on September 18, 2012 at 8:06 PM

What do you think these same Muslims are going to do when Obama’s spiking the football with killing Bin Laden comes out
……
JeffinSac on September 18, 2012 at 8:00 PM

They will do the same thing they always do–kill kafirs, burn things down and riot on streets. They follow the teachings of the koran, no exceptions

burrata on September 18, 2012 at 8:06 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3