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 ...
So, let me get this straight...if I commit a crime everytime Sarah Chayes at the LA Times writes an article I disagree with, they’ll put out a warrant for her arrest, not mine?
I suppose I’ll have to convert to Islam for this new law to apply... :^(
If we give them veto power over the very First Amendment of our Constitution via the threat of or enactment of violence in response - they will exercise that power to the fullest extent possible.
Make a bad movie depicting Mohammad as a lecherous killer? Veto via violence.
Make a historically accurate argument about Islamic violence and methods? Veto via violence.
Say you do not believe Mohammad was a prophet of God? Veto via violence.
Teach that the Earth is billions of years old and life evolves from earlier forms? Veto via violence.
Criticize the state of Islamic nations and the plight of women therein? Veto via violence.
Accurately quote Churchill or Byzantine Emperors about Islam? Veto via violence.
There is no reasonable limitation because we are NOT dealing with reasonable people.
Absent a real offense against Islam when the powers that be in that region need something to distract the mob from their governments inept corruption and redirect their anger against the West and/or Israel - they will simply make one us.
Pretext: 1. An ostensible or professed purpose; an excuse.
2. An effort or strategy intended to conceal something
Interesting to see them reference the ruling that upheld the limit of free speech in reaction to one of the most unconstitutional laws ever on the books in the United States - Schenck v. United States.
The current standard of this ruling is described here:
“...speech is not protected by the First Amendment if the speaker intends to incite a violation of the law that is both imminent and likely.”
The question then becomes - what US law did the ‘speaker’ violate?
The answer is obvious - none. No US law was challenged at all.
The work is a parody. And the US Supreme Court has also ruled on parodies.
“...the Court found that reasonable people would not have interpreted the parody to contain factual claims, leading to a reversal of the jury verdict in favor of Falwell, who had previously been awarded $150,000 in damages by a lower court.”
Maybe the missing element from Hustler ruling is this - “reasonable people”.
Maybe this provides clarity to the situation. The masses in the Islamic world are apparently not “reasonable people” if you deny that Hustler v. Falwell is the relevant case - not Schenck.
Without freedom of speech you can't have freedom or anything. what about this don't liberals/democrats don't they understand?
From what I understand, there is only a Trailer (short preview of the movie). They still haven’t found the movie, although the guy was granted 5 million dollars to make the movie!
It looks like rachel maddow’s brother.
I'm not going to argue against the premise related above. What I am willing to do is argue against it's relevance on this matter. There is no relevance.
We now know that there was no significant protest outside the Libyan safe house. We also know that armed men showed up on a mission to destroy people and property. The types of weapons they had, make it clear this was no spontaneous occurrence. It was premeditated, and intended to commemorate the anniversary of the events of 09/11/01.
Can it be proven that the creator of the video was trying to foster a commemoration of the events of 09/11/01? If so, there are other videos out there that are better produced, and more credibly critical of Islam. Are they guilty of the above infraction also?
I believe these people had something to say, and they got their message out using a video format. I don't equate these activities with someone loading a gun and pointing it at an innocent party.
Look, I'm making these comments as an academic exercise, but I'm not reacting to your comments per se. I appreciate your comments and don't necessarily have a problem with them.
Nice use of weasel words there, Ms. Chayes. It's been thoroughly debunked, but that won't stop you from try to associate it with the tragedy anyway.
It’s a man, Baby!
This is not just a free speech issue.
Using their logic, every element of our constitution and law is an affront to Islam and Sharia. That we practice other religions is an affront to Islam and Sharia. That we fight back against Muslims who attack us is an affront to Islam and Sharia.
That we resist having all our lands under the flag of Islam and Sharia is an affront to them.
That women are treated equally to men is an affront to Islam and Sharia.
That we *live* is an affront to Islam and Sharia.
By what it has advocated in past and today, the Los Angeles Times is an affront to Islam and Sharia.
And most importantly, everything that is an affront to Islam and Sharia MUST BE DESTROYED.
This being said, what we must say to both Islam and Sharia, in the immortal words of “Mr. Garrison”, is:
“NO! GO TO HELL! GO TO HELL AND DIE!”
Sorry if liberals think otherwise. But liberalism is, by definition, an affront to Islam and Sharia, so they should put their money were their hyperactive mouths are, and stop being liberals.
Revolt is coming to end this facism.
Why did you post a picture of Norman Bates to the thread? What is “mother” doing behind the curtain?
That face could start a riot.
IF it caused harm.
Yelling 'fire' in a theater of and by itself is NOT a crime. If no harm comes of it, theres no crime. If other attendees just turn around and shush the person - no crime has been committed. None.
Oliver Wendell Holmes was stating the obvious - that the protection of the first amendment would not cover a person who intentionally used speech in that restricted environment to cause panic and injury.
Here's how it doesn't work: A man with anger management problems tells the court he killed his wife because she 'talked back to him' when he told her his eggs were too runny. He says it was like yelling fire in a theater... that he was incited to violence by her 'speech'. The judge would laugh him out of the courtroom. As would all of us. That's what Islamist have done. They've taken our right to express ourselves and decided their outrage defines our rights. It doesn't.
But entirely predictable when we elect a Marxist/Muslim hybrid as president.
If offending religious sensibilities is now to become a crime, Obamacare is hate speech, as it explicitly violates not only the sensibilities and consciences but also the RIGHTS of Catholics.
But the 1st Amendment protects “Piss Christ” and “Elephant Dung Mary?”
No, dhimmi... either all or none.
Yeah, just put a decibel meter on him and censor anything that sends him higher than a certain level.
Typical fascist: Use a colossal lie (”it was the film that caused this”) as a means to take away the rights of others.
Basically, don’t say anything that will make the crazy people go off..?
“I’ll get you my pretty and your little free speech,too.”
But, I guess Piss Christ and Mein Kampf, do “pass the test.”
She’s a moron.