Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Los Angeles Times Op-Ed: 'Innocence of Muslims' doesn't meet free-speech test
Los Angeles Times ^ | 09/18/2012 | Sarah Chayes

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 ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Front Page News; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: 911ii; christopherstevens; enemedia; firstamendment; freespeech; islam; latimes; muslims; ruling; schenck; wagthevideo
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-148 next last

1 posted on 09/18/2012 6:37:08 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

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...


2 posted on 09/18/2012 6:37:57 AM PDT by SeekAndFind (bOTRT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

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.


3 posted on 09/18/2012 6:39:23 AM PDT by TigerClaws
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

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?


4 posted on 09/18/2012 6:39:59 AM PDT by Gay State Conservative (If Obama's Reelected Imagine The Mess He'll Inherit!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Her “reasoning” is crap.

Fascist apologetics.


5 posted on 09/18/2012 6:40:26 AM PDT by Kingosaurus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Hey LA Times... Did PISS CHRIST meet the free speech test!?!?

yeah, that’s what I thought!


6 posted on 09/18/2012 6:40:26 AM PDT by TexasFreeper2009 (Obama lied .. the economy died.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

7 posted on 09/18/2012 6:42:20 AM PDT by ILS21R (The time is nigh.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

God I can’t stand these liberals


8 posted on 09/18/2012 6:42:58 AM PDT by corlorde (forWARD of the state)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

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.


9 posted on 09/18/2012 6:43:08 AM PDT by NoobRep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TigerClaws

“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.


10 posted on 09/18/2012 6:43:20 AM PDT by utahagen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: TigerClaws

Yep, here’s the test -

replace all the Muslim reference, icons, and characters with Christian entities,

then ask if it’s “free speech”.


11 posted on 09/18/2012 6:43:44 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working fors)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

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?


12 posted on 09/18/2012 6:43:55 AM PDT by hometoroost (Frodo lives!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Selective and “progressive” restrictions on the Bill of Rights is absolutely necessary if Obama is to complete his agenda.


13 posted on 09/18/2012 6:43:56 AM PDT by allendale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TexasFreeper2009

“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?


14 posted on 09/18/2012 6:44:00 AM PDT by massgopguy (I owe everything to George Bailey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

“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.


15 posted on 09/18/2012 6:44:11 AM PDT by Kingosaurus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

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?


16 posted on 09/18/2012 6:45:44 AM PDT by Hugin ("Most times a man'll tell you his bad intentions, if you listen and let yourself hear."---Open Range)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 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.

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.

17 posted on 09/18/2012 6:45:49 AM PDT by DoughtyOne (Obama, our first Mulligan Pres__ent Resident.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
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.

Unbelievable that a major mass-circulation daily would take this position. If this isn't protected under the 1st Amendment what is?

18 posted on 09/18/2012 6:46:44 AM PDT by Rummyfan (Iraq: it's not about Iraq anymore, it's about the USA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

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.


19 posted on 09/18/2012 6:47:27 AM PDT by Hugh the Scot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
The Communist totalitarians weigh in.

"You are free, Comrade, as long as you do what we allow you to do"

20 posted on 09/18/2012 6:48:10 AM PDT by Regulator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

If you’re in a crowded theater and notice a fire up in the projection booth, what do you do?


21 posted on 09/18/2012 6:48:36 AM PDT by FlingWingFlyer (The United States of America apologizing to knuckledragging, cavedwelling Neandethals. Whodda thunk!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: allendale

The first debate has to be the turning point.
Mittens must turn into an ultimate warrior.
Mitt needs to ignore the moderators’ questions and march to his own drummer.
Example:
Q: Are you concerned that your gaffe about criticizing the President of the United States of America’s Mid-East policies caused the rape and murder of US citizens abroad may make you an accessory to murder?”

A: The Mid East policy of the unknown person who has gained control of both the Presidency and the Media is to unite the moon worshiping inhabitants under the banner of the Muslim Brotherhood which was spawned seventy years ago by none other than Adolph Hitler.
Obama is a fraud and is the enemy of the Constitution and plans to make all Americans either subservient to his evil god or dead. Either way it does not matter to scum such as this impostor that now threatens all that is good and decent in the world.
The current regime has declared war on freedom, on free enterprise, and on freedom of thoughts and expression. The only thing that Obama and his evil minions, and I do not exclude the moderator, have accomplished in the last few years is proof that Freedom is fragile. WE THE PEOPLE must unite to stop this vile creature from dowsing the last lamp of freedom on the planet. This is the moment in history, that YOU decide the fate of your children and grandchildren.
America has two centuries of being an exceptional
role model of freedom and advancement of all that is good and decent, because when the time of defending our inalienable rights from attack, our ancestors have stood shoulder to shoulder to squash the enemy of good. The enemy of justice. The enemy of opportunity. The enemy of freedom.
My fellow Americans, now is the time to stand up and be counted. The time is NOW to throw out this regime and to right the wrongs of their demented plans.


22 posted on 09/18/2012 6:49:06 AM PDT by RavenLooneyToon (Tail gunner Joe was right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

There’s a difference between a false warning of danger vs. offending someone’s sensibilities knowing that someone may choose to get violent about it.

The closest legal concept she’s grasping for is “fighting words”, and insulting a dead guy to do so is quite a stretch.


23 posted on 09/18/2012 6:49:15 AM PDT by ctdonath2 ($1 meals: http://abuckaplate.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Excuse me? FREE SPEECH TEST?

Sorry, we don’t have to take into account the behavior of the sub-humans who follow a demon-possessed pedophile prophet. We just need to kill them in job lots when they threaten or annoy us. And we need a president who will this.


24 posted on 09/18/2012 6:49:38 AM PDT by Little Ray (AGAINST Obama in the General.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

If that’s the case both the editorial staff of the LA Slimes and the NEA should be tried and put to death.


25 posted on 09/18/2012 6:49:51 AM PDT by Doc Savage ("I've shot people I like a lot more,...for a lot less!" Raylan Givins)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Man..do they really want to go down that path?


26 posted on 09/18/2012 6:51:19 AM PDT by bkepley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
DEAR LAT....

WHERE WAS ALL OF YOUR ANGST, ANALYSIS, AND LOUD BRAYING WHEN JEWS AND CHRISTIANS...
....AND THE ONE TRUE HOLY GOD AND SAVIOUR...
...WERE BEING MOCKED AND SLANDERED...
AND MOCKED AGAIN????????

...lying...
...two-faced...
...biased...
...unprincipled...
...opportunists...

-- pretending to be reporters & journalists...

*******

Happy Monday (oxymoron)... everyone

27 posted on 09/18/2012 6:52:00 AM PDT by Wings-n-Wind (The main things are the plain things!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TexasFreeper2009

By Left reasoning “Piss Christ” doesn’t fail the Holmes standard for free speech because no protected group is likely to maim or murder in reaction to it. Moslems, being a protected group, get to define the limits to free speech by what they are willing to maim and kill in reaction to. This, of course, is a total ban on free speech.


28 posted on 09/18/2012 6:52:11 AM PDT by arthurus (Read Hazlitt's Economics In One Lesson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
The comments on this article at the LA Times are interesting.

They are almost uniformly critical. The LA Times is going to get an earful about this.

I'll be surprised if they withdraw it with an apology, but it might come to that. Someone may make a threat against the LA Times, just to make a point.

29 posted on 09/18/2012 6:53:45 AM PDT by justlurking (The only remedy for a bad guy with a gun is a good WOMAN (Sgt. Kimberly Munley) with a gun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

What about NBC editing 911 tapes to incite violence?

Does that meet the “free speech” standard?


30 posted on 09/18/2012 6:53:50 AM PDT by IMR 4350
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
"Holmes' test — that words are not protected if their nature and circumstances create a "clear and present danger" of harm"

That is not that Holmes test and not even close.

31 posted on 09/18/2012 6:54:36 AM PDT by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

First step toward Canadian hate-speech laws.

Let’s f-up the commies this November, OK?


32 posted on 09/18/2012 6:54:54 AM PDT by St_Thomas_Aquinas (Viva Christo Rey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind; All
That's why I said last night, this Supreme Court would not necessarily block an attempt by this administration to abridge criticism of a religion.
33 posted on 09/18/2012 6:54:54 AM PDT by newzjunkey (Election night is 50 days away.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
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.

Unbelievable that a major mass-circulation daily would take this position. If this isn't protected under the 1st Amendment what is?

34 posted on 09/18/2012 6:56:19 AM PDT by Rummyfan (Iraq: it's not about Iraq anymore, it's about the USA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Amazing that they could stop bashing Christians long enough to write this article?

Pray for America


35 posted on 09/18/2012 6:57:30 AM PDT by bray (If you vote for a communist what does that make you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

The next time the LA Times publishes something I find offensive I will start a riot. That way according to Ms. Chayes the gov’t will ban future items I find offensive.


36 posted on 09/18/2012 6:57:53 AM PDT by C19fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bkepley

Notice that when it comes to First Amendment Rights, the threat and arguments against exercising it freely almost always come from Democrats.

Who for instance, were the government folks who were threatening Chick-Fil-A for their CEO’s personal opinion?

Who for instance are the ones FORCING the Catholic institutions to pay for contraceptives and abortificents for students and employees?

Who are the ones forcing Boy Scouts to change their policies to accept Gay scout masters?

Just a few examples folks. This article is just another example.

Vote for Dems and slowly lose your constitutional rights to speak freely.


37 posted on 09/18/2012 6:58:04 AM PDT by SeekAndFind (bOTRT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: NoobRep

I couldn't resist.... Not so bad - she looks a lot like Crispin Glover....

38 posted on 09/18/2012 6:59:32 AM PDT by Rummyfan (Iraq: it's not about Iraq anymore, it's about the USA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
"Holmes' test — that words are not protected if their nature and circumstances create a "clear and present danger" of harm"

That is not that Holmes test and not even close.

39 posted on 09/18/2012 7:01:56 AM PDT by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Little Ray
Sorry, we don’t have to take into account the behavior of the sub-humans who follow a demon-possessed pedophile prophet. We just need to kill them in job lots when they threaten or annoy us. And we need a president who will do this.

I thought it was worth repeating. Well said!

40 posted on 09/18/2012 7:03:48 AM PDT by Rummyfan (Iraq: it's not about Iraq anymore, it's about the USA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Rummyfan

I’ll bet she wears “sensible shoes” (thank you Michael Savage).


41 posted on 09/18/2012 7:03:48 AM PDT by JohnnyP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

There is quite a difference between the real danger posed by a fire in a crowded theater and the irrational, emotional reaction of irrational people thousands of miles away to nothing but words or images.

If speech in the US must be limited by how irrational nutcases in any part of the world might react, then we are allowing the most irrational people on earth to determine what our freedoms should be.


42 posted on 09/18/2012 7:03:51 AM PDT by Will88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: utahagen
“Or does the First Amendment depend entirely on non violent listeners?”

Exactly! I can imagine a situation now, where someone shouts "filet mignon" at a vegan convention and the resulting stampede and rioting results in any words referencing meat products to now be hate speech and not protected by the 1st Amendment.

We are either right on the edge or over the edge where foolishness is becoming the law and subjugation is being mistaken for peace.
43 posted on 09/18/2012 7:05:31 AM PDT by ScubieNuc (When there is no justice in the laws, justice is left to the outlaws.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

According to this asswipe, murder and terrorism are justifiable methods for repressing Constitutional Liberties.

Not only will the Marxist regime conceal terrorism under the veil of a possible false flag, good chance they’ll consider signing onto International law that prohibits the denigration of Islam.


44 posted on 09/18/2012 7:06:45 AM PDT by Gene Eric (Demoralization is a weapon of the enemy. Don't get it, don't spread it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Didn't know there was such a thing as a "free speech test"... would that be akin to, "if liberals don't like what you say but will fight to the death your right to say it" test?
45 posted on 09/18/2012 7:07:08 AM PDT by dps.inspect (rage against the Obama machine...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Will88

Might just as well let Rageboy be our censor....

46 posted on 09/18/2012 7:08:19 AM PDT by Rummyfan (Iraq: it's not about Iraq anymore, it's about the USA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Free speech test? Hey, if you don’t like free speech, go to a nice Muslim country or go to Cuba. Just don’t decide to come back!


47 posted on 09/18/2012 7:08:48 AM PDT by NRA1995 (I'll cling to my religion, cigars and guns till they're pried from my cold dead fingers!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rummyfan

Those eyebrows are, well, manly I guess...


48 posted on 09/18/2012 7:09:45 AM PDT by dps.inspect (rage against the Obama machine...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Rummyfan
Another photo:

Nice smirk, huh?

I remember her mother from the 1970s (Antonia Handler Chayes). She was an Undersecretary of Defense for Carter. She pushed the rail-mobile MX system in Utah, to much opposition.

It's a weird family, but one commenter on another site got it rite: the woman is an egomaniac.

Her only real job in life was being an NPR reporter, and that probably says all we need to know, but she has written some good commentary about the prevalence of massively corrupt "mafia governments" throughout the so-called developing world.

All in all a strange mix of neo-Bolshevist politics and warped sensibilities about the use of power.

That she thinks she can chatter-speak the First Amendment out of existence where it isn't convenient for her shows her to be just another Leftist thugette in the end.

49 posted on 09/18/2012 7:11:26 AM PDT by Regulator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

This author is a jackass. To sum up the logic, free speech is there to protect the violent, but not the non-violent.

Islam is a pestilence upon the world, as are their bedmates, the Socialists


50 posted on 09/18/2012 7:11:56 AM PDT by MarineBrat (Better dead than red!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-148 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson