Los Angeles Times Op-Ed: 'Innocence of Muslims' doesn't meet free-speech test

Los Angeles Times ^ | 09/18/2012 | Sarah Chayes

[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.

[Elendur]

Cairo Embassy Statement in Tune with Obama U.N. Resolution
-
As recently as December 19, 2011, the U.S. voted for and was instrumental in passing “U.N. Resolution 16/18” against “religious intolerance,”
-
Accordingly, “defamation of religion,” by the definition of the 56-member OIC, could include things such as satirizing Mohammed in a newspaper cartoon or a YouTube video, criticism of Sharia law, or security check profiling.

[Elendur]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2932862/posts

[ctdonath2]

The non-compliant party is making no violent gestures, but the government is threatening property, freedom, and even life in its assertions.

Too often people fail to notice this juxtaposition, criticizing someone for "rocking the boat", failing to note the incongruous lengths to which the government will go to stop that rocking.

Latest prime example: TSA is doing random checks of drinks bought inside the secured area. Most people would express dismay at someone resisting such a check: "why not allow the check? do you have something to hide?" Instead they should be outraged at insistence of the check: "TSA is willing to go so far as to arrest, even shoot, someone just for not consenting to a bought-in-the-secured-area coffee check? WTF?"

[SoldierDad]

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 . . .

So, let me get this straight. A video clip, posted to YouTube in July is responsible for the murder of four people who were killed on 9/11/11? What? these muzzies took more than a month and a half to become enraged and then engage in spontaneous riots, which led to these people's deaths?

Sure, I'll buy that for a dollar!!!/s

[pabianice]

The Prototypical Libtard

[OneWingedShark]

Good points. The TSA itself is a WTF.

[longtermmemmory]

but cross in urine does?

but marry with feces is ok?

npr has too much money

[ScubieNuc]

I thought I was agreeing with you, but whatever.

[GeronL]

NPR shouldn’t be getting any tax dollars whatsoever

[moehoward]

"Those who are tardy do not receive fruit cup".

[OneWingedShark]

Ah, well then, please forgive me for misreading your post.

[Renderofveils]

“The medieval Islamic period.” Oh, Current Events!

When did they move up?

[bigheadfred]

This hideous thing

[supremedoctrine]

Raven, I would like to nominate you to a Cabinet position of your choosing!

[Future Snake Eater]

what’s wrong with her head?

[BigEdLB]

Where is the Rashid Khalili tape, “LA Times”?

[markman46]

bump

[Aleya2Fairlie]

I would love to hear Mitt Romney(and many more Conservatives) have the guts to stand up and say just what you posted in even more graphic terms.

However, Romney has hit on a glaring and fundamental problem that has reached a tipping point in this nation. Are you certain that there are enough responsible, sane people of character and intelligence left in this country to vote to bring back the policies of individual hard work and responsibility as opposed to one of government dependency? I must admit that I’m not sure there is.

The very thought that a Romney Administration might create an expectancy that all able-bodied people provide for themselves and their offspring is enough to scare a large segment of America witless. That the dwindling numbers of working citizens who finance their every need is going to deprive them of their freebies anyway doesn’t seem to register. If they have become the majority as it appears they are close to doing, America is lost.

[rmlew]

A former special assistant to the chairman of the Obama Joint Chiefs of Staff and a a resident associate at the Carnegie Endowment, declares that any speech that any speech which will offend Muslims and lead to Salafist and Jihadi retribution to be beyond the First Amendment. If the Obama regime does not denounce this, then we can take it to be a proclamation of principle to enforce Sharia speech restrictions in America. 

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks rmlew.