The fact that it took almost the whole hearing for the man whose supposed to protect civil rights to decide whether….

Should be “who’s”, Ed. (Or, really, “who is”.)

The real problem with these blasphemy laws is they address the wrong side of the equation. The problem is not people criticizing other religions, but harming those who are of other religions.

I don’t know why Perez struggled with it. The simple and correct answer to Franks’ question is “no.”

His twitter feed from the WH/DoJ monitors was delayed?

consistent with the Constitution

WHO’S CONSTITUTION??

lawyers, left wingers, doublespeak, triplespeak, newspeak, outright lies, manipulation, redirection, deflection…you choose.

Maybe I’m being paranoid, but given the general posture of this administration on this issue, I feel like they need to be forced to make more definitive statements on these kinds of things, rather than just giving these one word replies to sentences that involved some crosstalk.

Criticism of a religion (or anything else) is a very different thing from a death threat or an incitement to murder and violence.

Not to Muslims when the criticized religion is Islam.

We either accept the Muslim view (becoming dhimmis and tossing our Constitution and natural rights in the trash forever) or we have to reject it. If we reject their view, then who said what to irritate the Muslims could not be more completely irrelevant. For instance, the government had no damned business hunting down and questioning a citizen about what he said about Islam. It was completely irrelevant to the ongoing violence in Benghazi and elsewhere.

If we reject their view, then they are no more than murderous savages killing for no other reason than that they are savages being thwarted in their will to dominate and oppress us.

This is not complicated. It is as simple and direct a choice as any choice any of us will ever have to make.

Perez clearly wishes for us to submit, but he wants to say it in a way in which he can deceive us into thinking he’s not saying what he is clearly saying. Totten fell for it.

I have come to believe that God is calling out to mankind to rise up against the false religion of Islam and it’s encroachment on countries all over the world, including the U.S.  I am not making references to the Crusades, but I do believe God is wanting non-Muslims of all religious denominations to stand up for Him, as the very core tenets of His word is under attack from Islam and, yes, the U.S. government as well as other Western governments in the world. I see the recent unrest in the Middle East as a warning from God that we are "losing our religion", or faith as I would call it, to the manacles of Islam.

Muslim unrest has been occurring for years in many areas of the world, particularly in the Middle East, so the current events taking place are nothing new.  What is different is the beginning of Western governments to appease Muslims in unprecedented ways that will eventually lead to an end of any
organized religion other than Islam.  Jews, Christians, atheists, and others will all be forced to submit to Islam someday or face severe punishment and possible death.  The Crusades for the Christians ended centuries ago, but never ended for the Muslims.

As for the Catholic Church and it’s followers, it seems as if they have gone into hiding.  Yes, there are a few bishops who are currently in litigation with the U.S. government over Obamacare, but not much is made of it.  I think most people, including Catholics, feel the outcome is a foregone
conclusion.  Obamacare will win again in the courts, and Catholics and other Christians will be forced to pay for abortions and contraception, against their religious principles.  But little is coming out of the Vatican on either Obamacare or the problem of Islam.  It’s almost as if the Catholic leaders are saying "turn the other cheek" as their followers are being slapped in the face over their beliefs or the Coptic Christians are being slaughtered in Egypt.  The "others" or infidels can’t seem to organize and present their case.  I’m beginning to believe most Catholics in this country don’t care to raise their voices.  It’s too inconvenient to do so.

Where are the Christians in this country who are outraged over the treatment of Christians in other parts of the world? Where are the Christians, Jews and others who would rather not be forced to pay for abortions and contraception? Where are the Christians, Jews and others who abide by the U.S. Constitution and are willing to stand up for the 1st amendment, regardless of how offensive free speech can be at times? Where will the Christians, Jews and others be will when the U.S. government declares any speech of any kind against Islam as a "hate" crime, punishable by incarceration and monetary fines? That is going on behind the scenes at this very moment, and no one seems to care.  Hollywood liberals will still make offensive movies such as "The Last Temptation of Christ", "The Da Vinci Code", "Religulous" and others while films against Islam will be a crime.

When Jews, Christians and others are ready to organize against the attacks on their religions and beliefs by marching on Washington, I will be ready to join in to make my voice heard.  As for remaining a Catholic, that is not going
to happen and I am at peace with that decision.

I’m less than impressed with Perez’ belated recognition of First Amendment and free speech issues than Michael

Ditto.

The concepts of a global caliphate work hand in glove with a global new world order under the U.N., and the U.S. Constitution is irrelevant in that construct.

The words treason and sedition spring to mind.

If this administration is not voted out, we are facing the unimaginable and unthinkable: the demise of our nation.

I pray we make it to an actual election on November 6th.

- hate speech has already been criminalized in the application of sentencing; can you prosecute someone explicitly for “hate speech”? No, but it can be a sentencing enhancement.

- The United States Supreme Court has defined hate speech as any communication that disparages a person or a group on the basis of some characteristic such as race, color, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, nationality, religion, or other characteristic. In the United States, most forms of hate speech are protected by the U.S. Constitution, and laws prohibiting such speech have been deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, with the exception of hate speech deemed to fall into various categories such as obscenity, defamation, incitement to riot, and fighting words. Using principles set forth by the Supreme Court, even in cases where speech would arguably encourage violence, the speech is rendered unlawful only if the threat of violence is imminent and the speech is likely to produce such violence. http://parsequalitycenter.org/newsroom/is_hate_speech_constitutionally_protected1

We have seen repeatedly that when it comes to Muslims disparaging remarks, cartoons, videos, etc. are adequate to incite immediate and deadly violence against Americans and others. Is this the gateway for DOJ to prosecute protected speech in the US?

- or will it be through the gateway that liberals have created saying that US courts of law should take international law and rulings of foreign courts and tribunals into account when issuing rulings on domestic cases?

- we can trust absolutely that politicians won’t redefine derogatory comments about religion to constitute a prosecutable offense – or maybe there will be an Executive Order, or guidance memorandum from the DOJ doing the same. (Last week it was revealed that under Obamacare a new 18 page description of “full-time” employment states that an employee is considered to be full-time if he/she works 30+ hours per week. That will come as a surprise to a whole bunch of employers! Welcome to Newspeak.)

- You can see why Perez was unclear how to respond. On the one hand you have the US Constitution [signed hundreds of years ago by decrepit, hate filled old white men] and on the other you have Obama’s Cairo speech where he explicitly said “And I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.” http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-cairo-university-6-04-09

I am completely confident that Mr. Perez and his colleagues in this administration will stalwartly defend the Constitution of the United States. /sarc

Rather Perez agreed that DOJ won’t “offer a proposal” to criminalize criticism of religion. But his statement leaves open the possibility that DOJ would enforce such a proposal made by someone else – the UN for example.

What line or lines must be crossed before the term “anti-American” becomes unavoidable in describing the actions of Perez and those behind him in this matter?

I assume the department would make a commitment that you’re not going to offer a proposal to criminalize protected speech, to criminalize criticism of religion or of anybody else, other than in the context of a direct threat.

After reviewing the update the initial question still remains.

Notice how Nadler added the word ‘protected’ to his question. Without any actual definition for this word in this context, Perez can agree.

Why Perez could not agree earlier still makes no sense.

That posture is not only telling of this administration’s view on the matter, but in concert with other similar issues should give every single American pause.

As noted in the post, official U.S. policy has favored “taking action against anything meeting the description of negative racial and religious stereotyping’ since 2009. The U.S. co-sponsored the resolution with Egypt, so there should be little wonder that Egypt now calls on the U.S. to enforce it in its law courts.

Upon adopting the resolution on October 1, 2009, ranking U.S. diplomat to the U.N., Chargé d’Affaires Douglas Griffiths said:

“The United States is very pleased to present this joint project with Egypt. This initiative is a manifestation of the Obama administration’s commitment to multilateral engagement throughout the United Nations and of our genuine desire to seek and build cooperation based upon mutual interest and mutual respect in pursuit of our shared common principles of tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.”
Including denying U.S. citizens their First Amendment rights.

de rigueur on September 18, 2012 at 11:33 AM

Worth repeating in toto.
There has been an open-door policy to the Muslim Brotherhood from the inception of the Obama administration

It has already started for blacks even before the Zimmerman case. “Hate Facts” are being censored, like black crime rates or smash and grabs or “Beat Whitey Night” or roving mobs of blacks as the news media already do. (See: http://spectator.org/archives/2012/05/15/a-censored-race-war ) by Thomas Sowell. Talk about them, you lose your job.

Any criticism of race/Islam will be a Thought crime, unless the person is White (or White-Hispanic), then you can demean and smear all you want. Whites have let themselves be convinced that it is racist merely to object to dispossession, much less to work for their own interests. Never before has a people been fooled into thinking that there was virtue or nobility in surrendering its heritage, and giving away to others its place in history; only whites have been tricked into thinking that love for their own people is somehow “hatred” of others. The purging of the 1st Amendment is critical, done of course in the name of National Security.

We have a contract with the Federal Government to act civilly as long as they abide by the Constitution. It is rapidly getting to the point where the people are holding to the contract and the Government is not.

It will be equally offensive and stigmatizing of a religion to say, “The world still awaits the Messiah, God’s name is YHWH, and Mohammed was not a prophet of God.”

It will be offensive and stigmatizing of a religion to say, “There is no God at all, and I refuse to acknowledge or worship one.”

It will be offensive and stigmatizing of a religion to say, “Our custom, based on our deeply-held beliefs, is to let young men and women choose whom they will marry; to be tolerant of homosexuality, even if we don’t enshrine it in a civil religion; to regard it as modest for a woman or man to go about in public without a head covering; to accord men and women equal civil rights, including work, expression, voting, ownership of property, choice of living conditions, access to transportation, and public representation and testimony of all kinds; and to allow dissenting opinions and ideas full expression in public, even if we don’t condone or subsidize all of them.”

There is no moderation in seeking to repress speech. There is only a slippery slope with an abyss of despair at the bottom.