Wednesday, September 19, 2012

L.A. Times dhimmi on the Murderers' Veto

From a Los Angeles Times Op-Ed (quoted on Hot Air):

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.”

Have no illusion: the Left gives not a shit for your Constitutional right to freedom of speech. Nada. It is difficult to imagine a more open-and-shut exercise of Constitutionally-protected freedom of speech. A guy makes a video that satirizes Mohammed in order to express his opinion about the "prophet". People who don't like the video are free to 1) Not watch it 2) Make a video presenting their own view. Freedom of speech, 101.

Now this L.A. Times dhimmi (the author is a former assistant to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) actually tries to make the case that the video mocking Mohammed is not Constitutionally-protected free speech.

:O

There is no debate here. The Islamofellating Left can wrap 'Brandenburg vs. Ohio' in a tight wad and shove it. To advocate giving Islamic murderers a veto over the free speech of Americans is so low that it shocks even me-- and there is little the Left can do that shocks me.

Laws censoring criticism of Islam are always and everywhere a denial of basic human rights, and, in America, government censorship of criticism of Islam is obviously unconstitutional.

The proper response to murder committed by Islamic monsters isn't ordinance, but ordnance.




19 comments:

  1. You "forgot" to copy this from the article:

    lately the strongest pressure on private citizens to limit their criticism of Islam has come from the top of the Pentagon.

    That bastion of the Left, the Pentagon.

    Over here in the Netherlands, the Left has been trying to get the blasphemy laws stricken for decades, but the right-wing Christians has successfully blocked those attempts.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Expecting Egnor to give the full story? Ha ha ha ha ha. He lies the way other people breathe.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Troy,

    The Pentagon may not be a bastion of the Left, but nor is it a bastion of the right. I was in the military no that long ago. Not in the Pentagon, but in a line unit. The military has gotten so PC it's ridiculous, and senior officers know that promotion depends on adhering to this line with great enthusiasm. Couple that with the fact that the commander in chief is a left-wing nutjob, and you begin to understand.

    There are blasphemy laws in the Netherlands? And right-wing Christians? Do tell.

    And Egnor, I am not the least bit shocked by this. At all.

    Joey

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, there are blasphemy laws in the Netherlands

      And yes, there are right-wing Christian political parties here. The SGP and the ChristianUnion for example. The latter was part of the governing coalition in 2009 and managed to block repeal of the blasphemy laws by threatening to withdraw from the coalition and thus robbing it of its parliamentary majority.

      Delete
    2. Let's have some facts in this discussion, not the egnorance of Joey.

      According to a 2004 poll in the Military Times, "57 percent of those surveyed consider themselves Republican, while 13 percent identified with the Democrats". See here. "Among the officer corps the numbers were different. Nearly 66 percent of officers considered themselves Republican compared with 9 percent Democratic."

      Claiming that the Pentagon is not a bastion of the Right is a lie. But what else would you expect from an Egnor fan?

      Delete
    3. Okay Anonymous. What do I know? I wasn't in the military or anything.

      Those ratios, by the way, are less skewed than the ratios you will find on university faculties and newsrooms. Skewed the other way, of course. But we're supposed to believe that journalism and academia are fair and balanced.

      Also, I might add, that poll is eight years old. Things change. Want to get some new stats?

      I think you're assuming that the makeup of the military really matters. Here's where you're wrong. Soldiers have to follow orders, even if they don't like them. The vast majority of soldiers don't make policy. So it doesn't really matter if a soldier is conservative or liberal, he won't be able to do a damned thing about the suffocatingly PC environment.

      I also think that you're extrapolating way too far. You've take poll numbers that concern officers and apply them to the Pentagon generally. First of all, the Pentagon is heavily civilian. But how can you be sure that the numbers apply to these officers specifically? High ranking officers tend to get where they are by embracing the culture of political correctness. Not doing so can be hazardous to your career.

      Claiming that the Pentagon is not a bastion of the right is a difference of opinion. You aren't used to encountering those and it makes you react like a rabid dog to discover that people are allowed to disagree with you. The fact that you call it a "lie" shows me that you can't tolerate other opinions. It's your totalitarian impulse coming through.

      I'm intrigued by one thing. Most of my liberal friends like to convince themselves that the military is filled with liberals because anyone who's seen the military from the inside can see that they're self evidently correct. It's odd to hear you admit that it's not true.

      Joey

      Delete
    4. And Troy,

      The Christian Union and other parties are wrong for supporting the blasphemy laws. That doesn't negate the fact that liberals over here are tripping over themselves to condemn the filmmaker, and even to call for him to be prosecuted for murder.

      The implication is that the film maker should have known that Muslims would act this way. Isn't that Islamophobic? We're just going to assume that Muslims respond with waves of global violence whenever anyone offends them?

      Well, no. It's only Islamophobia when I suggest it. Repeat after me: Muslims are not violent. And if you say they are, they'll kill you.

      It kind of makes me wonder--this site is filled with anti-Christian bigots. If one of them makes a remark that puts me into a murderous rage, should we charge the commenter with murder?

      Joey

      Delete
    5. Note to Anonymous: Republican is a party designation. There are plenty of Republicans who are moderate and even liberal, like the current presidential nominee, for example. You've drawn a conclusion from eight year old data about party designation. Lame.

      Little John

      Delete
    6. @Joey: Good response to Anoymous. His first reaction to disagreement is to call you a liar. You'll know you've reduced him to a state of sputtering, incoherent rage when when he stoops to calling you a "lying sack of shit."

      That's when you know you've won.

      TRISH

      Delete
    7. Joey wrote

      The Christian Union and other parties are wrong for supporting the blasphemy laws.

      Good - we agree. Over here we had general elections this week, and it seems we'll have a Christian-free government this time, probably a coalition of social democrats and conservatives, each party good for about 27% of the votes. So it seems we might just get rid of those blasphemy laws pretty soon.

      That doesn't negate the fact that liberals over here are tripping over themselves to condemn the filmmaker, and even to call for him to be prosecuted for murder.

      Well, I think it should be perfectly legal to take the piss out of Mohamed (piss be upon his name) in whatever way. Still, I do condemn the irresponsible filmmakers because they must have known that their actions would cause bloodshed.



      Delete
    8. What do I know? I wasn't in the military or anything.

      Fallacy of extrapolation from personal experience.

      Those ratios, by the way, are less skewed than the ratios you will find on university faculties and newsrooms.

      Fallacy of arguing by introducing irrelevant observations.

      Things change. Want to get some new stats?

      Fallacy of reversing the burden of proof.

      So far, Joey, you're arguing like a third-grader.

      Delete
  4. "A guy makes a video that satirizes Mohammed in order to express his opinion about the "prophet"."

    Moreover, that 'satire' was nothing more than an acting-out of the very things Moslems themselves have been saying with pride about the Prophet (pees be upon him) for the past 1400 years.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. “Moreover, that 'satire' was nothing more than an acting-out of the very things Moslems themselves have been saying with pride”

      Bullshit, perhaps you should watch the clip before you defend it. It includes a scene that shows two women chasing Mohamed around the bedroom hitting him with shoes.

      During its one and only showing in LA, the promotional material in the theater was printed in Arabic, and called the film "The Innocence of bin Laden” and promised a pro-jihad, anti-American film. They where trying to do a bait and switch with the people who would be most offended. I can’t see how their goal was anything other than inciting hatred and violence.

      -KW

      Delete
    2. @KW:

      And the "oro-jihad anti-American film" wasn't inciting hatred and violence?

      Should pro-jihad anti-American films be illegal?

      If I threaten to commit violence because of your comments on this blog, should your comments on this blog be illegal?

      Delete
    3. Perhaps you misunderstand me. When “The Innocence of Mohamed” was screened in LA it was billed as “The Innocence of Bin Laden” by some Robert Spencer / Pam Geller type islamophobes to incite the anti-American Muslims they imagined would flock to this movie.

      If there was a pro-jihad anti-American movie it may very well be illegal because we have laws on the books against inciting terrorism.

      I think it’s important to note that Christians protested both “The Life of Brian” and “The Last Temptation of Christ”, and both protested and vandalized “Piss Christ” and the Virgin Mary with cow dung.

      -KW

      Delete
  5. Next time Piss Christ is on display, I'm going to just start shooting people and I want to charge Andres Serrano with the crime. It's his fault. Also, anyone in the federal government who approved the funding.

    Does anyone really believe that the NEA would fund Piss Mohammed?

    The Torch

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Piss Christ was vandalized and Anders Serrano has received numerous death threats. The difference in the reaction of Muslims and Christians to religious insult is one of degree.

      Delete
    2. The difference between our pseudo-capitalist system and pure Marxism is one of degree. The point is: it a VERY IMPORTANT difference.

      Your inability to recognize the difference in response between Muslims and Christians demonstrates an intentional obfuscation to support an otherwise untenable worldview. You're feeling, not thinking.

      Delete