Glenn Reynolds @ Instapundit:
WHY BARACK OBAMA SHOULD RESIGN. Just for the record, this is what it looked like for a man who made a film that made the Obama Administration uncomfortable:
Here’s the key bit: “Just after midnight Saturday morning, authorities descended on the Cerritos home of the man believed to be the filmmaker behind the anti-Muslim movie that has sparked protests and rioting in the Muslim world.”
When taking office, the President does not swear to create jobs. He does not swear to “grow the economy.” He does not swear to institute “fairness.” The only oath the President takes is this one:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
By sending — literally — brownshirted enforcers to engage in — literally — a midnight knock at the door of a man for the non-crime of embarrassing the President of the United States and his administration, President Obama violated that oath. You can try to pretty this up (It’s just about possible probation violations! Sure.), or make excuses or draw distinctions, but that’s what’s happened. It is a betrayal of his duties as President, and a disgrace.
He won’t resign, of course. First, the President has the appreciation of free speech that one would expect from a Chicago Machine politician, which is to say, none. Second, he’s not getting any pressure. Indeed, the very press that went crazy over Ari Fleischer’s misrepresented remarks seems far less interested in the actions of an administration that I repeat, literallysent brown-shirted enforcers to launch a midnight knock on a filmmaker’s door.
But Obama’s behavior — and that of his enablers in the press — has laid down a marker for those who are paying attention. By these actions he is, I repeat, unfit to hold office. I hope and expect that the voters will agree in November.
Related thoughts from Ann Althouse:
You’re kidding, right Curt? No violation of the law has occurred here as the police and court system are completely within their rights to question the “supposed” maker of said movie (even the article states they can’t be sure the man being taken in is who it is supposed to be) as he’s on probation.
I’m starting to see a pattern here at FA: FA stands up for dirt-bags like this film director, and convicted felon and other oxygen thieves like TRAYVON MARTIN.
Frankly, it’s nauseating.
Ivan, can we add you to the “useful idiots” column?
If a man who made a film is subject to “questioning”, then why isn’t Michael Moore-on and Bill Maher also subject to “questioning” for creating dissention among the populace?
Now, since you seem to be in the know, perhaps you can tell us where, in this man’s terms of probation, it states he is not allowed to make a film that insults the cult of Islam?
Amazing isn’t it? Those here who defend the current occupier of the White House will stoop to anything.
We need to stop feeding the trolls folks, they add nothing to discussion with their religious adoration of the “O”ccupier n chief.
@Ivan:
We cannot pick and choose who the 1st Amendment applies to, Ivan, if we expect and demand that it apply to the speech and expression that we support.
Now, if someone believes the film is disgusting and atrocious, that lack of judgment was used in making and producing it, that, too, is protected.
However, if, as it seems, at least on the surface, that the government is using force, under the guise of law, to punish the film’s producer for the issuance of the film, then we should all be very worried about it. If this, indeed, is going on, then the next person “punished” for their speech may be you, or someone you agree with, simply because their speech and expression might be deemed as speech and expression damaging to the government.
YVAN
hold it there,
what they did was they use him as a scapegoat to cover the real facts,that OBAMA IS THE RESPONSIBLE ONE, BECAUSE HE KILLED THEIR LEADERS WITH A DRONE AND ALQAEDA VOW TO AVENGING HIM,
HE DID NOT SAY WHEN, BUT LIKE THEY SAID A GOOD TIME BACK.;
YOU HAVE THE WEAPONS AND WE HAVE THE TIME, THERE IT IS DEMONSTRATED ON THIS REMEMBRANCE DAY OF THE 9/11 INFFAMOUS DAY, THEY ALQAEDA HAVE AN INFLUENCE ON MUSLIM COUNTRIES MORE NOW THAN EVER, AND THEY WANTED TO GIVE A SHOW OF FORCE,
BY INCITING MOBS AND MURDERING THOSE SPECIAL FORCES, THE JOB DONE BY THE SAME WHO KILLED GADDAFI AT THE END OF THEIR REVOLTS WHICH ALSO KILLED THE LOYALS PEOPLE WHO HAD STOOD BY GADDAFI TILL THE END,
SO THAT FILM IS NOT MORE OFFENSIVE THAN WHAT YOU READ IN PUBLIC INFOS,
THEY JUST USING IT,
@johngalt:
People like Ivan don’t worry about the free speech of other. Not until theirs is taken away.
The feds were pulling him in for an interview, determining if he violated his terms of probation. The USA Today story doesn’t indicate he was arrested.
If the man violated the terms of his probation, protesting against upholding the rule of law and probation violation by a felon is a foolish argument.
While that is not what is being investigated, I have to wonder how many would reconcile unquestionable 1st Amendment rights – which I defend – with a possibility the film was deliberately created, attempted to incriminate the Jews as the source, translated, and specifically provided to the Egyptian press for broadcast in the week prior to the Sept 11th anniversary in order to assist in the attacks on Egypt and Libya.
In that case, there is no 1st Amendment right to create propaganda material as an aid in the attack on US interests.
Added: More from a Chicago Tribune article.
@retire05:
@MataHarley:
And that, I would entirely agree with, Mata.
My response to Ivan was due to his idea that guys like the film-maker deserve no protection, simply because their speech is offensive, or that he belongs to a group of people Ivan does not like, such as Trayvon Martin did.
@johngalt, it’s a rare day when you find me defending anything Ivan, but that is not what he said. He merely pointed out that the feds are well within their rights to question him because he is on probation, and there is a preponderance of evidence that indicates he violated probational terms by both using the Internet without his probation officer’s approval, and using a false name.
You might want to read it again, eliminate the usual questionable language he throws in, and get to the basics… as I’ve done below.
It’s a joke to spin this as a violation of the man’s 1st Amendment rights. It’s simply their rightful duty to investigate and enforce the terms of his early release from prison.
@johngalt:
Parole officers FREQUENTLY bring their charges in for questioning. We don’t know all the facts of the investigation, JUST LIKE MEMBERS OF THE FLOPPING ACES LYNCH MOB WERE READY TO LYNCH GEORGE MARTIN WITHOUT KNOWING THE FACTS.
Yet, many here at FA are willing to side, again, with the criminal element of our society. Saw it with Aye’s and Mata’s support of NOTORIOUS DRUG DEALING SCUM BAG TRAYVON MARTIN.
This “film maker”, I’d prefer to calling a CONVICTED FELON, has been asked to come in for questioning. So what? No one has said he can’t make the film or is being brought up for any charges, unless the court/PO find out some illegal activity has been going on.
Yet you guys are quick, reflexively so, in absolving the potential guilty of their sins.
You guys are about a hair’s-breadth away from being card-carrying members of the ACLU.
@johngalt:
What are you talking about? HE’S A CONVICTED FELON!!! Is everyone here taking crazy pills today? They just want to ask him some questions. No one in the story Curt linked to, said he’s being brought up on charges of making this film.
ASKING A CONVICTED FELON SOME QUESTIONS IS ROUTINE. HE’S ON PAROLE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD.
@MataHarley: Thank you, Mata, for displaying this intellectual honesty w/r/t this discussion and what I said vs. what people SAY I have said.
@MataHarley:
John,
Did you read what Mata wrote? Do you understand this, now?
@johngalt:
This is what Mata posted from the C.Tribune.
Now, I think many of you OWE the Feds a big, fat, wet apology. This punk, this CONVICTED FELON, who many of you seem hell-bent on DEFENDING, may very well have violated his parole.
If you’re opposed to the Feds questioning him, a convicted FELON, as to the possibility that he violated his parole, than you’re no better than some bed-wetting, ACLU CARD CARRYING cry-baby.
You guys just don’t get it-it’s about the rule of law.
Now, why not have a “come to Jesus” moment, publicly admit you were and are wrong, and we’ll call it a day?
Look at that picture…Five Los Angeles County sheriff deputies. That’s a hell of a lot more fire power than the embassy in Libya had. Think about it.
@Ivan:
How can they prove he accessed the internet? That’s right they can’t. The using an alias part is too damn funny, any first year law student could beat that. And another thing, if you’re a felon it’s called parole not probation.
Nothing is better than mocking.
This site has over 80 pages of mocking photoshops of this.
Some of these are quite good.
Some make you think.
@MataHarley:
Yeah, I didn’t get that the first time through in reading it, particularly with that last paragraph thrown in by Ivan. Reading it through again, now, it makes sense. The last paragraph is still troublesome.
@Ivan:
And if he did, fine. No problem with him being hauled off to jail. But we aren’t “hell-bent” on defending him, Ivan. It’s the first Amendment that we care about. And yes, some of us, even you at times, jump the gun on issues without knowing pertinent facts. That is more what happened here than people defending the man.
As an aside, it was the addition of the last paragraph that made your comment in #1 seem like more than it was.
YVAN
You also are quick to attack HERE AT FLOPPING ACES THE PEOPLE GIVING THEIR OPINION,
YOU ACCUSE US ALL TO BE SIDING WITH THE PERSON ALLEGING HE IS GUILTY OF BREACHING PAROLE,
AS OPPOSE TO HERE THE COMMENTS ARE ABOUT THE BREACH OF THE CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT,
YOU SEEM ALSO TO BE ARROGANTLY SHOOTING YOUR MOUTH AGAINST THOSE BRANDED FELONS,
THEY HAVE FOR MANY PAID THE PRICE OF THEIR CRIMES, SOME HAVING BEEN ARRESTED FOR MINOR CRIMES OR EVEN BEING THERE ON THE SCENE OF CRIME COMITED BY OTHER, MANY FOR MINOR
REASONS, WHO ARE DESPERATE TO FIND THEIR JOBS AFTER MAKING TIME OR EVEN BEING RELEASE WITHOUT MAKING TIME, THEY CANNOT TAKE BACK THEIR LIFE BECAUSE OF THE BRANDING FELON STAY WITH THEM FOR LIFE MAKING THEM IN THE MANY THOUSANDS REJECTED BY SOCIETY,
AS MUST BE KEPT APART OF IT, ALL BEING CATEGORIZE AS DANGEROUS PEOPLE ALONG THE ONES WHO REALLY ARE CRIMINAL,
THE ONE WHO HAD MADE MISTAKE AND NO DANGER FOR THE SOCIETY ARE PUNISH OVER THE PRICE THEY PAY AND SHOULD BE TREATED SAME AS YOUR EQUAL, WHICH IS NOT SO AND WE HAVE A POST FROM MANY TELLING US THEIR SAD AND HARD TIMES, TO REENTER IN THE PRODUCTIVE MARKET AND TRY TO EARN THEIR LIVING, BUT ARE LEFT TO WELFARE IN DESPAIR TO GET THE FELON OUT OF THEIR PROFILE, SO YOU KNOW WHAT A FELON IS GOING THROUGH CONSTANTLY BY PEOPLE BRANDING THAT WORD TO THEM FOR LIFE, THEY ARE THE REJECTS OF THE SOCIETY UNFAIRLY CALLING MANY FELON FOR LIGHT MISTAKES, AS YOU DID,
@GregSucks:
Simple, computer forensics. There is ample evidence easily available to a trained computer forensics expert, even if he tried to erase the evidence it can often be recovered. In fact if he lives alone and he is paying for internet access (it’s not free unless you can ride on another person’s unsecured wireless network) this would indicate an attempt to violate the terms of his parole. Law enforcement can also obpain a search warrant to gather evidence from his provider’s servers. You can be assured that they will check to see if he used an accomplice’s computer. Granted, it is possible that he arranged for someone else to use the internet as his proxy, but a judge may just as well consider that an attempt to bypass the rules of his probation, and revoke it.
Simple probation procedure, no different than had he logged onto an online dating service with a false name, no threat to the first amendment here, nothing to see here. . . . move along.
What bothers me is the “just after Midnight” part of the story. What effing probation officer works the graveyard shift? Probation violations don’t warrant “questioning” at any other time of the day than normal business hours, unless an arrest is involved. So, why did this happen at 0-dark-30?
Pure, simple, jack-booted-thug tactics, that’s why.
ThunderGod, Nakoula agreed to come in, but the media has been besieging his home as of late. I believe the “after Midnight” hour was so that there would be minimal press or protests around, so the man could leave his house with less hassle. Celebrities and the notorious also end up making their check ins/outs with the police stations in the wee hours for the same reasons.
What you find as “pure, simple, jack-booted-thug tactics” is actually common sense that benefits both Nakoula and the LEOs.
Sharia does not take over our laws in one fell swoop.
Sharia creeps into law.
Remember a few years ago?
Muslim cabbies thought they could enact Sharia law over their riders at the St.Paul/Minneapolis airport.
They don’t drink alcohol, so, suddenly their riders could not even bring an unopened bottle into their cab!
They despise dogs (the koran only calls black dogs unclean) so, blind riders could not bring seeing-eye dogs on board, no one could transport a dog in their cabs.
They pray 5 times a day, so they would double-park at the airport, get out into the street, spread out their rugs and pray whenever.
BUT, the airport said no.
The airport said, if they turn down a rider they go to the BACK of the line, but if that happens three times they lose the privilege of coming to the airport at all.
The airport said if they turned down a disabled person, they lose their cab license.
The airport put in prayer rooms and even foot baths (after they wrecked every sink in all the men’s rooms).
Sharia lost…..in that case.
What if Obama had been president back then?
After the fact…..the cabbies admitted they had been FORCED by the MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD into doing all those things!
The cabbies had been well assimilated before the MB moved to town!
INTIMIDATION is the MB’s middle name.
Obama is easily intimidated, apparently.
Hey, the guy deliberately made a film calculated to enrage Muslims. That film has triggered violence around the world that has so far resulted in 17 deaths–4 of which were American citizens–and has put innocent American citizens throughout the Muslim world in serious danger. He has put unsuspecting actors, who were completely unaware of his intentions, at risk. He has a long history of criminal activity, prior convictions that involved a sentence, and he has knowingly violated the terms of his probation to produce the movie in question.
In addition, he’s made himself a high profile target for terrorist retaliation, endangering any innocent, unsuspecting people who happen to be around him at any point in time.
Given all that, how can anyone believe it’s the jackboot tactic of a police state, or blatant disregard for the 1st Amendment, to pick the guy up?
His freedom of speech had already been limited as a result of past criminal activities. That’s essentially what happened when his internet access was restricted. Limitation of that constitutionally guaranteed right was a penalty for crimes committed previously. Limitation of the constitutional rights that law abiding people are guaranteed is one of the basic ways that our society routinely punishes criminals. Does this come as news to somebody?
@Greg:
That’s not a crime. The other stuff may very well be. If he violated his parole, he should be punished. If he defrauded the actors, he should be sued. But creating a film that hurts someone else’s feelings, not a crime.
Curt posted a bunch of cartoons of Mohammed. If it goes viral somehow and the radicals start rioting, should Curt be punished for that?
In Canada you can be arrested for walking a dog too close to Muslims in a public park!
OK, he was NOT arrested.
But this guy was….
@Aqua, #28:
Hurt feelings aren’t what matter. What matters is that a deliberate, calculated action has predictably incited violence that has resulted in people being killed. I’m no lawyer; I honestly don’t know if that can somehow result in charges. I very much doubt it, under federal or state law. The moral issues are far less ambiguous, to my mind: The guy shares moral responsibility for the negative consequences his deliberate actions have predictably produced.
A similar sort of problem came up with Fred Phelps, Sr. His exercise of his freedom of speech took the form of deeply offensive picketing, signs, and speech near the funeral services of fallen American soldiers. While it was hard to find anything specifically illegal about what he was doing, there was no question whatsoever in most people’s minds about the deep moral wrongness of his words and actions. So far as I”m concerned, authorities would be justified in using any minor legal violation to keep a guy like Phelps and his congregation out of sight and out of earshot. His reaction to that would always be to declare an infringement on his 1st Amendment rights.
@Greg, I just want to add to @Aqua’s observations above.
That, in itself, is not a crime as Aqua points out. Leaving aside his possible violations of probation (unapproved Internet access and use of aliases), the production of the film itself can only be investigated as a crime if feds believe it is part of the larger plan to attack US interests. Because it was translated into Arabic, and deliberately distributed to the Egyptian Press between Sept 4th and 8th, including to hardline Islam cleric broadcasters, and cited as part of the reasons for the attacks by the Muslim attackers themselves, the feds would be foolish not to investigate if there was cooperation or links with the terrorists.
But it is not because he made the movie… only the way he chose to place it within the sphere of action, and to whom he provided it… that made it suspicious. Also that he attempted to publicly blame Israel and the Jews for it’s creation.
Well that’s the thing I find interesting. He called police, in fear for his life, and California sent Sheriffs out to his Cerritos home for protection… at his request. But apparently, the only assault Bacile/Nakoula is experiencing is by the media, parked in the front yard, and verbal chatter on the Internet and in the media.
There has been no fatwa from Islamists announced, unlike previous perps. I know of no massive protests outside his home. Even more interesting, tho the hardliner Islamic cleric broadcaster knew that the source was provided by an Egyptian Coptic Christian back on Sept 8th, the Egyptian Copts have experienced no backlash for the film. Odd, eh?
Don’t disagree in the least. But the legal repercussions he is experiencing are not because of the content of the film, but because he breached those limitations imposed upon him as part of his early release for prison.
I believe what I’m trying to say is that while some may go too far into LaLa land, portraying his police experience as a danger to our 1st Amendment rights, you also go too far into that same arena – but in the other direction – if you suggest that the content of the film is the justification for further criminal investigations. Or any material that is offensive, that causes people to go crazy. Other than the scenario I outlined above – evidence that bears scrutiny that it was timed and injected into the Arab world as part of the overall attack plan on US interests – the content of the film, or anything else that incites riots in response, is virtually untouchable in this nation… as it should be. Had Bacile translated into Arabic back in July, or sought out Egyptian broadcast exposure back in July, there would be little way to tie this with Sept 11th attacks. There would be too much time in between to assume a relationship.
However I think there is enough evidence that does warrant it being considered as a possible propaganda tool, created specifically to aid the terrorist attack on US interests. And that would be his timing for Arabic translations plus distribution sphere, his attempts to place this burden on Israel and the Jews, and the fact that neither he, nor the Egyptian Coptic Christians, have experienced the usual backlash from Islamists for similar events.
This clip should be spread far and wide:
@Nan G:
Here is another interesting question for you: the movie [that shall not be named] was released at the Vine Theater in Los Angeles in June. Now, doesn’t that make you wonder if the parole/probation officer who held the film makers files, didn’t know what he was doing? Isn’t a parole/probation officer supposed to be on top of the actions of the convicted criminal they are monitoring? Why wasn’t the film maker picked up before now for violation of his parole/probation if he was using the internet to push his film?
The movie had a great reception when it was shown at the Vine Theater; approx. 10 people attended and at that time, it was called Innocense of Bin Laden. Then it showed up on YouTube in English. Are we to assume that no one in the Middle East speaks enough English to know what the movie dialog was? And still, no uproar from the Muslim street. Then Egypt aired the film. Why? If Egypt, our good friend, knew that it would create problems for the U.S., considering we are shipping them $2 BILLION American taxpayer dollars a year, why would they air the movie?
As I said before, 1/2 dozen LA County deputies and hoards of press to give this administration a photo-op sent a clear message to the Muslim street: insult Islam and we will take action.
If the film maker is in violation of the terms of his parole/probation, he was in violation of it in June, and his probation officer should have been on top of it then, not waiting until now to make an example of his for the Muslim street. He should have been picked up months ago, but obviously one of two things were going on then: either he was not in violation of his probation, or his probation officer needs to be fired for not knowing about his activities.
@retire05:
Good points, retir05.
A parallel exists to the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten’s publication of their original Danish illustrators’ cartoons of Mohammad.
THREE MONTHS went by during which time those same cartoons were reprinted TWICE in EGYPT!!!
They were also reprinted all over the place!
Nothing happened.
Creeping Sharia is not a natural movement.
It required LIES!
It requires DECEIT!
It requires INSTIGATORS!
In each of these cases an imam who wanted to cause an uproar got involved months after the cartoons/film were already old news.
Without that lying instigator no deaths would have occurred.
So, want to lay blame?
Look to the instigators.
Over 50 dead during the cartoon riots worldwide.
Already over 10 dead from the film riots.
Most people are so ignorant of Islam that they don’t even know that modern Iraqis, Iranians and other Muslims commonly had POSTERS of MOHAMMAD in their homes!
An Iranian woman artist Oranous (who is a Muslim and lives in Tehran) created this iconic painting of a young Mohammed and was selling it online as a poster.
Artist Irena Mandich recently painted this portrait of Mohammed crying (entitled “Mohammad, Salaam”).
???
Perhaps you remember history differently than I. Danish Embassies under attack in multiple countries and shutting down their embassies. Danish flights halted to Egypt. Libya closing their embassy in Denmark. The Danish flag burned in the West Bank. The Palestinian IJG ordering all Danes, Swedes etc out of the Gaza Strip and gunman shutting down the EU offices there. Bahrain demanding apologies. Iran banning all trade with Denmark. Demonstrations in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Niger, the Philippines etc etc. And, oh yes, a POTUS Bush condemning the cartoons, even while defending the right to free expression.
“Nothing happened”? I guess that depends upon what you consider “nothing”.
@Aye, #32:
In my humble opinion, Trent Franks is behaving like a total jackass. The problem is that he’s refusing to allow the DOJ official address the matter of hate speech.
Mr. Trent, do you believe there should be any restrictions whatsoever on public hate speech directed toward the jewish people? Yes or No, d-mn it! Stop trying to clarify the question. It’s either one or the other.
In court, any responsible judge would quickly put Mr. Trent in his place.
@Greg:
You answer the question, Greg:
Do you believe there should be any restrictions whatsoever on hate speech directed toward the Jewish people and (and I would add)directed toward Christians?
Do you believe that exhibits like PissChrist should be banned, although it is called “art” and claims to be protected under the freedom of expression, because it insults Christians?
@MataHarley:
I’m trying to understand what you are saying about the Egyptian Coptic Christians, the film-maker, Israel, etc.
It seems to me to be something of an enigma, that a professed Coptic Christian, would deliberately attempt to portray Israel and Jews as being behind a film, in which there is very little doubt that it would affect muslim religious sensibilities. Especially so when one considers how easily that falsehood can be debunked, and was, and that the very people he professed to belong to, religiously, would then be targeted.
From WND;
One should ask, “why would this man do this to ‘his’ people?” Or, “why would this man attempt to incriminate Israel, and Jews in general, to what many see as a common ‘enemy’ to both the Jews and Copts?”
I don’t claim to understand the different religious associations over there, but something here just isn’t making any sense.
As for Greg stating this;
This kind of attitude is why many here have entered “LaLa land”, as you put it, regarding the 1st Amendment. Not saying we are right. Not at all. Just giving perspective.
Depends upon if he thought his word and statements would be questioned. But Coptic Christians are, far and large, as anti-Semitic as Muslims.
INRE the Egyptian Copts being “under threat”…. hummm. It’s been nine days since the hardliner Islamic cleric aired the film on Egyptian TV (likely edited to the South Park scenes only as that was common), and with full knowledge it was posted on the Internet by a “migrant” Egyptian Copt. And yet they did not retaliate against their Coptic population with that knowledge, but protested the US embassies. If they haven’t done it by now, I doubt they will.
To the Jews, it’s understandable because, as I said, they are extremely anti-Semitic and get along with Muslims better than Jews. To themselves? Well.. therein likes the head scratcher. Just why would a professed Copt enlist another professed Copt (extremist Morris Sadek) to help him get an anti-Muslim film pushed into the Egyptian media, with disregard for his own people there?
1: He wanted it traced to Israel, not the Coptic Christians, and
2: Perhaps they knew the Coptics would not suffer any backlash, and that it would be against the US embassy instead.
The Libyan Consulate is an entirely different matter than Egypt’s events, or the rest of the nations and embassies experiences with protests and violence.
Sadek or Jones did not know Bacile/Nakoula prior to him calling them. He came from out of the blue with lies about his past and associations. Why would any Coptic Christian want this in Egyptian media, unless they knew they would have no repercussions for their Egyptian peers? Nor have there been any.
@Greg:
Actually, in any courtroom, the judge would very quickly put the witness in his place by directing him to answer the question.
Your comment on this matter just goes to show that, much like many other subject matters, you know very little about courtroom procedure.
Greg says;
It was a simple question. It deserves a simple answer. Not innocuous sounding spin that doesn’t answer the question Rep. Franks asked
The problem is, that even if the DOJ official’s answer, and the admin’s stance, on the issue, is agreeable to both We, the People, and the Constitution, that his hedging and dodging from answering such a simple question gives a certain perception of the DOJ, and by extension, the WH. Whether it’s warranted or not.
Combine this with their other “transparency” issues, and there is very little to wonder about why it is that people would jump to certain conclusions about the government.
@retire05, #36:
1. Yes, I do. I believe reasonable restrictions on public hate speech are appropriate with religious groups in general.
2. No, I don’t. I don’t believe the “artist” was trying to arouse hatred or incite violence. He was attempting to attain cheap notoriety. In my opinion, such “art” should not be inflicted on anyone who doesn’t make a conscious effort to see it. I would consider such minor 1st Amendment restrictions on the “artist” similar to those that prevent pornographic images from being openly displayed in publicly visible windows or billboards. If a person wants to go into a tacky theater or bookstore to view such images, that’s their right. It’s also a person’s right not to suddenly find such images thrust into his view.
@johngalt, #39:
Trent Franks isn’t really after a thoughtful response. He’s out to score political points. That sort of behavior is a big part of what’s going wrong in government.
@Ditto:
How are the police going to find this computer?
I like these, “In fact” followed by “IF” statements. Isn’t that speculating?
So, what you are saying is the police are going to seize every one of his friends, family and anyone that know him in a 10 mile radius computers and have the computer forensics expert examine them? Spend all of that tax payer money to prosecute a parole violation?
@Greg:
On your #2 above, it wasn’t that the “art” was anti-Christian, or meant by the artist to “arouse hatred or incite violence”. The biggest problem most had with it was that there was public funding involved in the showing of it.
And this;
And who decides those restrictions, Greg? Who decides what is considered hateful and what is not? Is only acceptable, popular speech to be protected?
It is beyond stupid that you would consider restrictions on speech and expression, Greg.
The religious freedom enjoyed in our country stem not from religious tolerance by the people against, or for, each other, but rather, from the absence of government preference for one religion over another. Which is why I can read about some idiot placing a crucifix upside down in a jar of urine and, while considering that person a hateful, ignorant human, not demand that they be place in jail, or otherwise prosecuted, for exhibiting their “art”.
However, when you go demanding, or professing a preference, that the person doing so be prosecuted, based on an arbitrary idea that their “speech” is hateful towards others, it makes one wonder if you even know what “free speech” actually means.
@Greg:
Or, Franks is out to make a point. Maybe a valid one, considering that you, yourself, a liberal/progressive “useful idiot”, seem to want to prosecute the film-maker for the content of his “speech”, as suggested by your comments to retire05 above.
Behold, ladies and gentlemen, the face of the American Left.
@johngalt:
Oh…it’s even better than that john:
@Aye, #45:
Do you think someone should have an unlimited 1st Amendment right to stand outside the entrance of a Jewish elementary school and shout hateful, anti-Jewish slogans at anyone going in or out? Hey, not in my town. I don’t think that’s a leftist attitude. I think it’s an American attitude.
If Greg’s viewpoint were the norm, we could expect this statement from a government official to an applicant;
“You have the right to freedom of speech. Now fill out this form, and include the desired ‘speech’ you would like to make public, and in 2-3 days we will let you know when, where, and, most importantly, if, you can disseminate it to the public.”
The really odd thing is that conservatives have always seemed to hate the ACLU for defending the constitutional rights of unpopular groups to say unpopular things.
@Greg:
Actually, yes I do.
The First Amendment was created specifically to protect unpopular or controversial speech.
In Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson the U.S. Supreme Court said:
By protecting the free speech rights of those I disagree with I am able to maintain and protect my own free speech rights.
I’m a little curious how you reconcile that with the anti-pornography agenda expressed in the GOP’s 2012 platform.
Personally, I’m more worried about the possible consequences of inflammatory hate speech than I am about people looking at sexually explicit images.