Skip to comments.Los Angeles Times Op-Ed: 'Innocence of Muslims' doesn't meet free-speech test
Posted on 09/18/2012 6:37:04 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
U.S. 1st Amendment rights distinguish between speech that is simply offensive and speech deliberately tailored to put lives and property at immediate risk.
In one of the most famous 1st Amendment cases in U.S. history, Schenck vs. United States, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. established that the right to free speech in the United States is not unlimited. "The most stringent protection," he wrote on behalf of a unanimous court, "would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic."
Holmes' test that words are not protected if their nature and circumstances create a "clear and present danger" of harm has since been tightened. But even under the more restrictive current standard, "Innocence of Muslims," the film whose video trailer indirectly led to the death of U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens among others, is not, arguably, free speech protected under the U.S. Constitution and the values it enshrines.
According to initial media investigations, the clip whose most egregious lines were apparently dubbed in after it was shot, was first posted to YouTube in July by someone with the user name "Sam Bacile." The Associated Press reported tracing a cellphone number given as Bacile's to the address of a Californian of Egyptian Coptic origin named Nakoula Basseley Nakoula. Nakoula has identified himself as coordinating logistics on the production but denies being Bacile.
According to the Wall Street Journal, when the video failed to attract much attention, another Coptic Christian, known for his anti-Islamic activism, sent a link to reporters in the U.S., Egypt and elsewhere on Sept. 6. His email message promoted a Sept. 11 event by anti-Islamic pastor Terry Jones and included a link to the trailer.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
About the author:
Sarah Chayes, former special assistant to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is a resident associate at the Carnegie Endowment and a contributing writer to Opinion.
CLICK ABOVE LINK FOR HER REASONING...
Book of Mormon?
Life of Brian?
Or does the First Amendment depend entirely on non violent listeners?
For a paper in a movie town to oppose free speech is disappointing.
I’m looking for the equivalent op-ed from the LA Slimes claiming that “Piss Christ” didn’t meet the First Amendment test either.I can’t seem to find it...can any fellow Freepers help me out with my search skills?
Her “reasoning” is crap.
Hey LA Times... Did PISS CHRIST meet the free speech test!?!?
yeah, that’s what I thought!
God I can’t stand these liberals
OMG google this libtards picture but be prepared with a wastebasket because you’re going to projectile vomit. This hideous thing looks like it’s from the planet Plutarius.
“Or does the First Amendment depend entirely on non violent listeners?” You got it! We are being blackmailed by terrorists into suppressing free speech. And it is much more than “disappointing” that this appeared in “a paper in a movie town”; it is terrifying.
Yep, here’s the test -
replace all the Muslim reference, icons, and characters with Christian entities,
then ask if it’s “free speech”.
So does this mean we can now censor the calls for violence in the Koran? Can we now silence Muslims in America and begin to close radical Mosques?
Selective and “progressive” restrictions on the Bill of Rights is absolutely necessary if Obama is to complete his agenda.
“Barack the Magic Negro” as a Paul Shanklin song does not meet the free speech test. “Barack the Magic Negro” as a LA Times article does. See?
“Or does the First Amendment depend entirely on non violent listeners?”
Yes, that’s the absolutely insane implication she’s making.
Yell louder at how offended you are and threaten violence over it, and be rewarded by foolish, stupid people who say you’re reaction justifies removing free-speech protection from the thing in question.
Completely barking mad. And dangerous.
So if someone threatens to kill people if they don’t like an LA Times editorial, then that editorial is no longer protected as free speach?
You don't really need to read beyond this point. The premise is so flawed it isn't even in the same universe as reality.
Whatever this guy's goals were, his efforts WERE NOT tailored to put lives and property at immediate risk.
They were tailored to spread what this guy thought was truth regarding Islam.
This idiot writer is doing nothing more than making the case that the First Amendment needs to be carved up nearly as badly as the Second Amendment already is.
Lets see, the Fourth Amendment means nothing anymore. The Second Amendment is under attack daily. The first Amendment is now fair game. Our President doesn't bother to defend the Constitution, and he refuses to do his duty under Article IV Section 4. This bitch is simply one more person who doesn't give a fig about our God given rights.
Unbelievable that a major mass-circulation daily would take this position. If this isn't protected under the 1st Amendment what is?
Holmes’ words are very often used in attempts to quash politically incorrect speech. The key word in his statement, the one that the facists like to omit, is “falsely”. It IS protected speech, for one to shout “FIRE!” in a crowded theater, so long as it is actually ablaze. The lie that this movie trailer, IN ANY WAY “led to the attacks” is a damned outrage. These Camel-humpers can blame their bad behavior on anything that anyone says if this is allowed to stand.
"You are free, Comrade, as long as you do what we allow you to do"