Ken at Popehat is no Obama fan, but while I don't completely agree with all of his criticisms here, his review of Obama's speech to the UN today is a good one.
Embedded Link
President Obama's Speech To The United Nations And The Defense of Free Speech | Popehat
Today President Obama gave a speech to the United Nations in which he discussed the murder of Chris Stephens, the nature of America's defense of free speech,
Google+: View post on Google+
51 view(s)
The problem with the video is a problem most non-muslims can not get their head around. To insult in anyway Muhammed is the gravest crime that is possible – it outweighs killing civilians, be it by drone or flying airliners into tower blocks: think about that- in much of the Muslim world Bin Laden’s crimes (objectively seen, as it were), were not as bad as making this video. Imagine standing at Ground Zero with a PA system and saying how much this was deserved by the US and all those who died deserved it, ascribing various perversions to the victims – that still isn’t a patch on what this video does.
When the US extradites people for running websites that glorify violence, to many Muslims, especially extremists, they are doing exactly the same as what they are condemning- “We can’t call for the destruction of non-muslims, yet you can destroy Islam”, and from what I’ve read this video sends exactly that message.
This anger is then pumped by the extremists and politicians. Remember the extremists genuinely believe this (the politicians can be accused of oppotunism). These are the Muslim equivalent to those who kill doctors in the US who perform abortions: theer isn’t necessarily some cunning plan going on (there maybe, depending on how politically oppotune the man at the top is, but it’s not a given).
Then when it is defended as free-speech, those speaking are seen as defending the message- If you’re not with up then you are against us.
I would further say that the First Amendment has regularly been breached. The most obvious current example is ‘Free Speech Zones’ – limiting location is an abridgement, if the content is untouched but the when and where is regulated, then Government is controlling speech.
Exemptions I have also seen Columbines quote on the Web are ‘You can’t shout fire in a theatre’, and “Fightin’ talk” – there is no such part of the 1st Amendment that allows the authorities to proscribe expression – no clause that says ‘unless the freedom of expression would cause wide spread civil unrest’. As I understand it ‘Fightin’ talk’ is considered a reasonable defence for those who struck back. In Muslim eyes the US government has engaged in Fightin’ Talk, by allowing this video.
Reasons to be Atheist…
Not being a Muslim, it’s difficult for me to judge a blanket statement about Muslims. Given that we don’t have a billion Muslims worldwide rising up to destroy all things American makes me think that it’s not quite as clear-cut a “gravest crime possible” as you say.
Still, clearly, there are those, in the Muslim world and outside, who think that insult to religion and the associated deity, prophet, temporal leader, whatever, is not speech that is worth protecting.
You are correct that First Amendment is not sacrosanct and absolute (none of the rights in Bill of Rights are). In addition to the “[falsely] crying fire in a crowded theater” and some very limited laws on direct incitement to violence, and the use of the “fightin’ words” defense (which is by no means a guarantee, and has somewhat fallen out of favor), there are restrictions in libel and slander, on making a public nuisance or otherwise speaking out of turn, and some on revealing secret/confidential material. The most egregious breaches are, yes, that whole “Free Speech Zone” concept, and similar ostensible “security” measures.
That said, the principle of free expression has deep roots in the American law and psyche, and attempts to restrict it in new or obvious ways tend to be reflexively rejected (or fought back against) in American society
I would not automatically call this a “reason to be an Atheist.” People get irrationally upset and angry over any variety of things having nothing to do with religion but having to do with ideological tribalism of any sort.
When I typed the above it was 2 in the morning, so if there is any lack of coherence that could be the problem!
The bit about ‘gravest insult’ is just what I read, having no first hand experience – no doubt there are all shades within Islam; same way as you and Jerry Falwell are both Christians!
One of the annoying things about the US is the assumption that because European free speech guarentees are not the same as in the US, then there is no free speech, chief among these being the way Hate Speech is handled. What is considered oppressive is not an absolute, but a large grey area. Unlimited freedom of expression oppresses minorities- race equality laws being the most obvious. An employer who honestly believes that blacks are inferior is prohibited from expressing this in his hiring policy.
Additionlly, the first amendment, and the way it is argued, doesn’t protect free speech, it merely stops the Government restricting it. If you can be fired because of your political affiliation (see Les’ blog from the 2004 election), and that is considered something the Government can’t stop, then Free Speech is limited by monetary rather than political power.
@LH – I would call it social power rather than governmental power. Employment, in that fashion, is considered a social interaction. And, while, yes, that can sometimes suck, it does also sometimes provide an opportunity for a backlash, also freely protected.
Looked at another way, you’re free to tell people they’re idiots, and they’re free in turn to point and laugh and shun you.
The point of the 1st Amendment is to protect against the most intrusive power that 18th Century Englishmen could envision: the power of the Crown to dictate (through coersion and force) political and religious orthodoxy. It didn’t force universal tolerance between individuals because not only was that unworkable, but to try and do so would impose an even greater tyranny to enforce.
That said, even in some of the cases you mention there are other forces in play. Religion, for example, as well as race are considered protected classes in employment law. It is, perhaps, an infringement on personal freedom of association to prevent employers from discriminating against blacks, or of speech from prohibiting interviewers from saying, “Your kind isn’t welcome here,” but that’s considered an acceptable compromise.
And, in fact, the latter case *isn’t* illegal — it’s just liable to open you up to civil suits if you say that and, in fact, don’t hire black applicants. This might be considered the counterbalance in this case of “monetary power.”
As to someone being fired for their expressed political belief … as I said, it sucks. But it’s largely made possible through those states that have at-will employment laws, such that you can be fired without any reason being given. (You are still liable if folks can demonstrate the firing was due to someone being in a protected class.)
You can be fired for a political bumper sticker.
I can’t.
I have free speech.
You don’t.
If it helps, remember I argue more with people I like.
I’m well aware of that, @LH. 🙂
In that particular instance you cite, you are correct.