Right on schedule, some reporter found some "experts" who opine that the stupid movie is not 'protected speech'. But they manage to ignore something very important.
While many 1st Amendment scholars defend the right of the filmmakers to
produce this film, arguing that the ensuing violence was not
sufficiently imminent, I spoke to several experts who said the trailer
may well fall outside constitutional guarantees of free speech. "Based
on my understanding of the events," 1st Amendment authority Anthony
Lewis said in an interview Thursday, "I think this meets the imminence
...words don't have to urge people to commit violence in order to be
subject to limits, says Lewis. "If the result is violence, and that
violence was intended, then it meets the standard."
...The point is to emphasize that U.S. law makes a distinction between
speech that is simply offensive and speech that is deliberately tailored
to put lives and property at immediate risk. Especially in the
heightened volatility of today's Middle East, such provocation is
certainly irresponsible --CMR quoting Chayes/LATimes
The proposition here is that speech should be limited if it puts 'lives and property at risk'--which may be correct. However, if that 'risk' is contingent on the activity of counter-provacateurs, is that 'risk' "deliberately tailored"?
The Obozo apologists (Lewis of the NYSlimes among them) don't like logic, of course. It impairs their intended course of action. Eliminating the middle-man--the Muslim provacateurs--makes it easy. Not a correct formulation, but hey! It works..
By the way, Chaves manages to lump "Christians" with Muslim rabble-rousers. Nice.
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
So, every time we are offended by someone's "speech", all we need to do is Riot and that speech will be declared illegal.
It's all academic anecdotal bullshit.
What is basis in causality?
Already there exists inherently angry Catholic/Christian-hating, Western-hating, America-hating, hating-for-the-sake-of-hating-hating radical Islam angry and ready to strike for decades, if not centuries.
Some little film is simply an excuse and a primer...not a crime.
Typical government-based simple-mindedness-bordering-on-the-sociopathically-mental legal misinterpretations.
Massive bias in First Amendment interpretation by Muslim-In-Chief who, in the end, is REALLY behind the arrest and interrogation.
After all, OCrimeA IS a supposed Constitutional misinterpretation specialty lawyer...whatever the fuck constitution "it" ever studied is beyond this cat but it sure the fuck ain't the Constitution Of The United States.
Nunquam MINORIS AESTIMO Sancta Mater Ecclesia.
Pauperes Commilitones Christi Templique Solomonici.
Peruse other Saint Revolution Dad29 blog comments here.
Post a Comment