When Salman Rushdie had a death fatwa pronounced on him for a novel considered insulting to Islam, Margaret Thatcher immediately ordered a protective detail to be sent to Rushdie, who took him to an undisclosed secure location. They have been protecting him ever since. Bear in mind that Rushdie had been a severe and vocal critic and political opponent of Thatcher.And the UK doesn't have a First Amendment. It doesn't even have a written Constitution.
Regards — Cliff
-3 S2 M 0
16 comments:
I'm fairly sure that the tact America is taking, as of late, is intended to communicate with the followers of Islam that are true to it's teaching of tolerance and peace.
This is a tact set in motion by Bush 43.
Most know that radicals in Islam are the minority, that they don't represent Islam. In the next days, it may be of sound mind to make it clear that America has no quarter for those that would incite hate. That we will squash those that throw rocks from behind the skirt of our Constitution.
I am good up to the last paragraph. There it breaks down. If we won't defend the views of others there is no Constitution. What words does A Man For All Seasons put in Thomas More's mouth? Something like "Cut down all the laws of England to get to those who do wrong and then when a strong breeze comes along there will be nothing to protect you."
And, the Salafists of Islam are going to be with us for a long time. On the other hand, we could jail everyone who is disrespectful of others, but that would totally destroy the economy supporting the jails to house those who are disrespectful.
Regards — Cliff
There is a process, intended by the Founders. When a speaker offends our public sentiment, based on a mutually shared set of values, We The People can project authority against the minority.
Then, the Courts can determine whether or not the minority was wronged. In that determination, we can scrutinize the content of the speech alongside the rightful voicing of it.
What is folly is cowardly support for hate speech using the skirt of our Constitution. When speech is hateful and inflammatory, we should give the speaker a Constitutional "get out of jail free card" and a megaphone?
The tea party projection that engagement with the makers of "Innocence of Muslims" is tantamount to appeasement is cowardly support.
How anyone that can view POTUS, who has eradicated the top henchmen of AQ, as some sort of neo-Chamberlin is absurd.
Trying to win hearts and minds, while pouncing with drone borne missle, is tricky business. The hollow rantings of partisan drivel is deleterious to our seurity, foreign and domestic.
In court, we consider the concept of negligence and "malice & aforethought." If your speech is negligent, then I whole heartedly support your protection. If you wheel your speech with "malice & aforethought," while concurrently quivering behind the skirt of our Constitution, then I am much less sympathetic.
"Most know that radicals in Islam are the minority, that they don't represent Islam."
You're right, but with over a billion Muslims, even a minority that identifies as representing Islam can cause a lot of trouble.
It's a mob, you can't explain to a mob that when someone says something totally crappy about your faith you give them the space to verbally crap all over you.
I want my right to disagree, even strongly with an idea. It would bother me is someone accused me of 'hate speech' or I'm throwing rocks behind the Constitution, flagging me as inciting violence.
Well then. Renee, I look forward to your LTE condemning this ad by the MAGOP.
Here is what I wrote on a FB thread: "Did they message test this with a negative ad using Betsy Ross? Warren is talking about how the game is rigged. Occupy Wall Street was saying what? The game IS rigged. Warren needs to make clear, she is not about violent protest, but that she cherishes our Constitutional rights of assembly and speech. That she is taking OUR protest to the Senate."
Intellectual honesty and consistency in logic is sorely missing in the modern GOP. I'm not sure why the folks here, who I consider friends, would just help plod these empty talking points along.
You can't defend the makers of "Innocence of Muslims" while concurrently tying the Occupy movement, like an albatross, around Liz Warren's neck.
Well, you can. And, it's embarassing to watch.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ
So if Catholics rioted, we would blame the artist for incitement?
Back in April, when there was evidence she was not Native American, Warren and Harvard should of 'retracted' any reference to her being NA.
I accepted in good faith she was told of such ancestry, but to use it in a manner that a Harvard publication would state she was a woman of color was a misuse of fokelore and shame on Harvard for not following up.
Back in the 90s there was a big push for diversity in university hiring, yes it was a factor.
Sorry, but she needs to answer to the tribe. Otherwise she's a coward.
Maybe Native Americans should riot?
It's the only way anyone pays attention and responds.
Catholics did throw Molotov cocktails into an occupied movie theater showing "The Last Temptation of Christ".
AQ uses what is best about us, against us. I am not inclined to allow a domestic agent of hate to do the same. No Quarter.
Regarding Jack's comment re Professor Warren and the Occupy Movement, over at The New Civiil Rights Movement we have this lede:
QUOTE
Elizabeth Warren says she supports the Occupy Wall Street movement, and in fact, says she created the foundation that the movement is based upon — and she’s right.
UNQUOTE
As far as the video producer, I say feel free to wail on him. All I am saying is that the Government should not. The idea that the Federal Government, or some State or Local Government should harass this person, and attempt to bankrupt him through legal action is, to me, repugnant.
But, what is the standard? If I say that some Egyptian Muslims are out there murdering Coptic Christians, am I over the line? What if I say that Egypt today is like the United States in the 1920s, with Copts, like Blacks in the US in those days, fearing for their faith, lives and freedoms and fortunes? Where is the line?
Regards — Cliff
Regarding Chris' comment about the firebombing of a church, it is true, and it is a good analogy. The question is, under the Mitchell Doctrine on Free Speech, should we have tried Hollywood Director Martin Scorsese for the attack in Paris, France?
Here is the Wikipedia link.
Regards — Cliff
The "skirt" of the Constitution is a shield, and nowhere in these United States should anyone be "interviewed" over speech. (That's the "shall not be infringed" part). For any act or failure to act the government (or private citizens) can pursue charges (or civil litigation) if it's felt that some wrong was done, and proper filings are made with a suitable court with proper jurisdiction. But "interview"? That's what prompts some to talk about Brown Shirts, and it's not hard to see the logical connection.
If this were a Republican POTUS, there is no doubt that lefties, (and I would include you there, Jack), would be singing a different tune about the tactics.
The right response is NOT to imply there may be grounds for redress of foreign grievance over things expressed inside the United States by citizens thereof. There simply isn't. Foreigners should find some citizen here who can bring suit if they feel so strongly about it. But murdering diplomats should be met with one response only: It's an act of war, and the presiding governments where these acts of war occur must take responsibility for them.
If "Innocence of Muslims" was used by jihadists/terrorists to incite violence against Americans abroad, it is reasonable to conclude the potential that the maker of the content was in collusion.
This is not to say that Colt Insdustries should be questioned, if an AR-15 assisinates a diplomat. Though, I would expect that the "pedigree" of that specific weapon would be tracked all the way back to the gunsmith. An AR-15 is a tool with multiple uses, though all involve killing.
"Innocence of Muslims" was made for what purpose? Why was it translated into Arabic?
Let the FBI "interview" anyone who meets the appropriate threshold. That is why we pay them the big bucks.
Lastly, I think we should be clear what is "state sponsored" before we cowboy up.
Is there a difference between being interviewed and taken into custody?
People are interviewed all the time, by government agencies.
What purpose indeed? Mapplethorpe offends Catholics, and it's hard to deny crucifixes bathed in urine are unintentional toward that end. But what law is broken with such? The Catholic response to Sinead O'Connor was lawful, as has been, to my understanding, every US-soil response to "Innocence". So we have free speech and lawful response. No need for FBI anywhere.
It is extremely troubling that foreign offense to US free speech, even if that free speech was specifically targeted to offend, might cause the FBI to want to investigate. Why??? What US-soil interest (where the FBI has jurisdiction) has been harmed? What is the grounds for investigation?
We are Constitutionally protected in our speech and in our homes. I do not think these "interviews" pass any sort of sniff test. They are abrogations of Constitutional protections, (the "skirt" comment is offensively taken), and we are all become vulnerable to state excess to whatever degree they are allowed to take place.
Post a Comment