Replies

Actually I think you took him out of context. The heading is out of context of the paragraph you quoted. And the paragraph itself is out of context of the entire speech. At least the parts I read, Obama actually did a fair job of defending free speech. Full Speech

Some parts you left out....

"And yet the turmoil of recent weeks reminds us that the path to democracy does not end with the casting of a ballot. Nelson Mandela once said: “to be free is not merely to cast off one’s chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others.” True democracy demands that citizens cannot be thrown in jail because of what they believe, and businesses can be opened without paying a bribe. It depends on the freedom of citizens to speak their minds and assemble without fear; on the rule of law and due process that guarantees the rights of all people."

"I know there are some who ask why we don’t just ban such a video. The answer is enshrined in our laws: our Constitution protects the right to practice free speech. Here in the United States, countless publications provoke offense. Like me, the majority of Americans are Christian, and yet we do not ban blasphemy against our most sacred beliefs. Moreover, as President of our country, and Commander-in-Chief of our military, I accept that people are going to call me awful things every day, and I will always defend their right to do so. Americans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to express their views – even views that we disagree with.

"We do so not because we support hateful speech, but because our Founders understood that without such protections, the capacity of each individual to express their own views, and practice their own faith, may be threatened. We do so because in a diverse society, efforts to restrict speech can become a tool to silence critics, or oppress minorities. We do so because given the power of faith in our lives, and the passion that religious differences can inflame, the strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression, it is more speech – the voices of tolerance that rally against bigotry and blasphemy, and lift up the values of understanding and mutual respect.

"I know that not all countries in this body share this understanding of the protection of free speech. Yet in 2012, at a time when anyone with a cell phone can spread offensive views around the world with the click of a button, the notion that we can control the flow of information is obsolete. The question, then, is how we respond. And on this we must agree: there is no speech that justifies mindless violence.

"There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents. There is no video that justifies an attack on an Embassy. There is no slander that provides an excuse for people to burn a restaurant in Lebanon, or destroy a school in Tunis, or cause death and destruction in Pakistan.

I notice that you left out the part following the first paragraph you cited:

In other words, true democracy – real freedom – is hard work. Those in power have to resist the temptation to crack down on dissent. In hard economic times, countries may be tempted to rally the people around perceived enemies, at home and abroad, rather than focusing on the painstaking work of reform.

In a true democracy, those in power cannot legitimately crack down on dissent. They don't have the power to do so. It is not a matter of resisting temptation.

Moreover, as President of our country, and Commander-in-Chief of our military, I accept that people are going to call me awful things every day, and I will always defend their right to do so.

It always boils down to how this affects Obama. The "I" word. He is really not defending the right of free speech in the case of this video. The Administration tried to get Goggle to put it off YouTube. The Chairman of the JCS called a private citizen in GA asking him not to support the video. The alleged filmaker "voluntarily" reported into federal officials from the DOJ to determine if he had committed probation violations. And Obama has been far more vocal and angry about the content of the video than about the right of the person to make it.

I know that not all countries in this body share this understanding of the protection of free speech. Yet in 2012, at a time when anyone with a cell phone can spread offensive views around the world with the click of a button, the notion that we can control the flow of information is obsolete. The question, then, is how we respond. And on this we must agree: there is no speech that justifies mindless violence.

It sounds like Obama is rueful about the fact that we can't control these offensive comments because technology has made such control impossible.

The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. Yet to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see when the image of Jesus Christ is desecrated, churches are destroyed, or the Holocaust is denied. Let us condemn incitement against Sufi Muslims, and Shiite pilgrims. It is time to heed the words of Gandhi: “Intolerance is itself a form of violence and an obstacle to the growth of a true democratic spirit.” Together, we must work towards a world where we are strengthened by our differences, and not defined by them. That is what America embodies, and that is the vision we will support.

So as long as we condemn all "slander" against religion, it is OK. We just have to be consistent. But who decides what is slanderous and worthy of condemnation? How does it fit into free speech and tolerance? Obama is again giving credence and legitimacy to supposed insults against the Prohphet. He is preaching the worse kind of censorship: self-censorship. It is the reason why only a few US papers ever reprinted any of the Danish cartoons despite the fact that Danish embassies were being attacked around the globe. Americans could not judge for themselves why they were offensive. And the MSM withheld information to protect themselves from being physically attacked.

Obama employed his usual tactic of trying to be on both sides of an issue. His "fair jpob of defending free speech" was more than counterbalanced by validating those who were supposedly offended. He doth protest too much. And we all know that the video was not the reason that Ambassador Stevens was killed and our consulate attacked.