Not even sure it works like that. I am no longer in Spain, but I still get back once and again and I am always amazed at how much more freedom of expression there’s on TV. As opposed to the US, which is rather Puritanical in open programming, there, they really talk like we do in The Pit in all channels. Plenty of nudity as well.
So no, that didn’t help. In fact, makes it more confusing 
But I’d imagine if you stood in a street corner yelling “Fuck Reagan!!!” it might not go over very well. Well, outside of NYC that is.
That’s what **Alessan **said. Rule Number One: do not act incautiously when confronting little bald wrinkly smiling men !
Even (or perhaps especially) in NYC, it would probably qualify as “disturbing the peace” and thus could entitle you to a free ride in a municipal vehicle.
Standing around on a street corner yelling anything tends to be frowned on by the guardians of law and order. Freedom of speech is not synonymous with freedom of shout.
But in any case, it wouldn’t qualify as defamation or slander.
Obscenity isn’t protected by the First Amendment except very narrowly, although I think I was right in saying that you could put your dirty speech on your own website, so the Federal Communication Commission is allowed to regulate it quite strictly in commercial broadcasting.
Political speech, though, meaning basically anything that isn’t specifically for commercial or obscene purposes, is very broadly protected. That’s the sense in which Europe is more straitlaced than the US when it comes to free expression.
Which of your rights do you think has been violated in that instance?
It would be perfectly legal for me to put a bumper-sticker on my car saying “Reagan was a Nazi” with lots of little swastikas.
Dumb as shit, but legal.
Isn’t that the consensus of this thread? Making a film mocking Mohammed is legal, and dumb, and the proper response is for us all to say how dumb we think it is.
Morris Dees, in a case where a school newspaper had censored an article that denied the Holocaust, said, instead, that it should be published. Freely. Never censored. Let it be printed…and then let every single one of us write a letter to the publisher telling them how stupid it was. Respond to hate speech with speech, not with censorship, and, obviously, not with violence.
And yet, its rules/traditions of decorum make our Congress seem so wimpy and wussy compared to the House of Commons . . .
Nuthin’ wrong with a little decorum. As noted above, I’m all for more decorum when it comes to choices like deciding whether it would be appropriate to make a nasty, stupid, vicious movie grossly insulting Muslims and put it up on the internet.
But having laws to enforce such decorum would not be the right way to go, IMO.
But you shouldn’t have been surprised.
Terr is right: from the U.S. perspective, you don’t have a right to not have your views or your opinion mocked. If someone tries to stop you from practicing your religion or exercising your right to vote, say, it’s another story. But defamation is difficult to prove, and when you are dealing with a public figure like a religious leader - we’ll leave out Muhammad because he’s dead, but examples could include the Pope or David Miscavige of Scientology or Monson of the Mormon Church - the speech is strongly protected. Legally the standard is this that if you are a public figure (the head of a large religion would certainly qualify), you can sue for defamation if the speech harmed you and if you can demonstrate it was uttered with the knowledge it was false or reckless disregard for whether it was true or false. It is very hard to prove this. That’s only for the people being defamed or mocked. A U.S. Muslim couldn’t sue the fillmmakers just for saying nasty things about their religion. That’s plainly protected by the First Amendment.
I doubt it. You’d have to either scare the crap out of everyone or do it for so long a cop wandered by. People shouting on the street corner is not an unusual occurrence and the police have better things to do than arrest people for yelling.
If someone throws abuses at your face its a different scenario. But in this era of internet, you can’t react with violence, damage public property when someone abuses your belief anonymously sitting in a safe far-off place.
Act like grown ups, ignore it and continue with your life. Next time, no one will bother making and uploading such content and you will build respect for your religion.
Something interesting I learned by way of Hitchens is that Jefferson was fully aware of the depravity of slavery (making him a hypocrite). More info here.
The thinking now seems to be that the movie was nothing but a pretext for a strike against the US for the killing of an al-Qa’ida operative recently.
The timing of the attack does seem significant.
But of course we must bear in mind, protesters in that part of the world always keep a few RPGs handy, so it could have just been a coincidence they got a little carried away.
I posted in another thread on the subject that the official postion is that there was no premeditation for the attacks. cross-link.
:rolleyes:
Which leads us right back to the beginning of this thread: “…the statement from the U.S. Embassy…”
How naive do you have to be to take statements coming from some official government spokesperson at face value? Really? :smack:
Why would the government want to make a premeditated attack seem like a random act of mob violence, exactly?
Once again, your sneering is completely off base. The recent developments about the probable origins and exploitation of the anti-Muslim movie don’t in any way affect the validity of the original statement of the US Embassy in Cairo that this thread is about.
To refresh our memories, here’s that original statement again, as quoted in the OP:
It doesn’t make a shred of difference to the free-speech issues involved whether the “misguided individuals” who “abused the universal right of free speech” in order to “hurt the religious feelings of Muslims” by promulgating this movie were solely Islamophobic non-Muslims, as originally thought, or included opportunistic Muslim-extremist jihadis trying to use Muslim outrage as a screen for their terror attacks, as now seems likely.
The US Embassy was still perfectly correct to denounce and repudiate the movie as an abuse of the right of free speech even as it upheld the abusers’ fundamental right not to have their expression squelched by “the enemies of democracy”.
Good work on the part of our official government spokespersons, sez I.
