I pit the statement from the US Embassy in Cairo

[Kimstu]

@kwimby

What percentage of the adult population in Tripoli do you think participated in, or presently participates in the unrest there over the past couple days? It’s a very small minority instigated by or loosely affiliated with the local AQ or HQ cells. […] The vast majority don’t condone or agree with this at all, and they “get it.” “It” being free speech.

Good. How is that any kind of argument against our embassy personnel putting out a statement affirming our nation’s commitment to free speech while simultaneously deploring a hateful dickish instance of free speech?

[RedFury]

@Kimstu

:dubious: Oh, right now it looks as though part of the rest of the world cares a great deal how we apply our Constitutional rights. And because they don’t understand the way it works, many of them assume that for us “permitting” offensive speech is the same as “sponsoring” or “endorsing” offensive speech.

And then they get all upset and protest at our embassies. So yeah, I think this etiquette question of how we should explain our Constitutional rights to the rest of the world is fairly important.

But, but…I thought I already answered that?

In fact, yes, yes I did – it’s in the part you edited out of my post. To wit:

In that vein, I think the original statement from the Cairo Embassy was right on point. Meaning no one really needs a lesson in American free speech – unless, like myself, they take an interest in it – but simply an official statement distancing the US Government from crap like that.

Or are you suggesting The World[sup]®[/sup] take a course in American Constitutional Law? Because if so, I have news for you…

[kwimby]

@Kimstu

How is that any kind of argument against our embassy personnel putting out a statement affirming our nation’s commitment to free speech…

It’s a given. Need I (or they) elaborate?

@RedFury

Or are you suggesting The World[sup]®[/sup] take a course in American Constitutional Law?

I suppose maybe if the content and message is targeted at the rat bastard terrorists and we make attendance mandatory.

Yeah, that’ll do it.

[Marley23]

I think you two are just talking past each other.

[Kimstu]

@kwimby

It’s a given. Need I (or they) elaborate?

Oh, I see. You’re upset because the Cairo Embassy spokespeople said something that many people already know.

Okay. Hope you feel better soon.

[Anduril]

@Whack-a-Mole

No.

I’m surprised this needs to be explained.

If I start shouting hateful, horrible words at your wife/husband (if you don’t have one pretend you do for sake of argument) will you stand there and shrug deeming it my right to free speech or will you take action to defend her/him?

We ALL have the right to say what we want (within some moderate restrictions such as slander). That does not mean we spout whatever goofy shit crosses our mind.

Words have power and have an effect and ignoring that to suggest because we can say whatever we want it is somehow ok to say whatever we want is short sighted in the extreme. I am willing to bet you self-censor yourself on a near daily basis and moderate what you say from what is actually on your mind.

Make no mistake, Muslims (some of them at least) need to get a thicker skin and be more tolerant. Their beliefs are not universally shared and they have no right to impose their restrictions on someone else who does not agree with them.

That said the movie in question (I have watched some of it) is not fair comment or parody or comedy or anything other than a poorly made hateful smear. OF COURSE it is going to piss people off!

Yes, Muslims should have looked at it and blown it off for the bullshit it is. In any population of millions you are bound to find someone who you intensely dislike. Killing others because they share nothing more than a nationality with that person is flat out retarded.

With that in mind the person making that film is aiming to incite and he succeeded. He got people killed as a result.

Words have consequences and that should be considered before you speak.

The person who made the film got people killed??? What stupidity is this??? Un-fucking-believable!!! A mob of religious fanatics kills somebody because of their disgust over a film and the filmmaker is to blame??? The film aimed to piss people off? Really? So what??? Is that any justification at all for killing someone. Why are you giving Muslims a pass at their murderous behavior?

And your analogy sucks. You, of course, will take action to defend your wife if she is being verbally harangued by someone else. But it will take a number of forms like moving away, haranguing the other man, talking to the other man. Will it ever justify you killing the other person for it? Your answer should be NO, but I’m not sure given your statements.

[BigT]

It is an abuse of free speech, just like any time you use your freedoms to act like an asshole and hurt other people. Free speech exists to keep the government from censoring the very people that control said government. It somewhat exists to allow creativity and a feeling of freedom amongst the populace. It absolutely does not exist to allow you to be a jerk–that’s just a side effect.

Of course, this only applies if you made your speech specifically to offend people and for no other reason, which I’m pretty sure is not the case in what’s going on, but that is what the quote in the OP is clearly assuming. To get all offended by something so basic is just silly.

[BigT]

@Marley23

I think you two are just talking past each other.

Uh-oh. Don’t say that. You’re being a Pollyanna by trying to help people resolve their problems in the pit.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

[QUOTE=kwimby]
From Cool Hand Luke: “Some People You Just Can’t Reach…”
[/QUOTE]

Nitpick: the line is “Some men you just can’t reach…”

[Measure_for_Measure]

1. Offensive film by ex-felon operating under an alias released.

2. US embassy of Egypt releases statement that freedom and responsibility are 2 sides of the same coin:

@US Embassy in Egypt

The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims — as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.

. Doesn’t sound too different from this guy.

@George W Bush

Some of the comments that have been uttered about Islam do not reflect the sentiments of my government or the sentiments of most Americans. Islam, as practiced by the vast majority of people, is a peaceful religion, a religion that respects others. Ours is a country based upon tolerance and we welcome people of all faiths in America.

3. The US Consulate in Libya is attacked and becomes engulfed in flames.

4. Romney releases press statement, embargoed until midnight of 9/11, saying that Obama responds to the attack by sympathizing with the attackers, despite the extreme discrepancy in timing, geography and the English language for that matter.

5. Romney ends the embargo, and releases the statement at 10PM during 9/11. Statement was drafted by a committe. Romney’s foreign policy team appears to consist of neocons who became disenchanted with Bush, such as Bolton and Dan Senor. If you think the Iraqi War was misguided, you should really plunk for Republicans like Scowcroft. And yet they are nowhere to be seen.

6. Romney doubles down the next day.

7. Today, Romney says,

@Mitt Romney

I haven’t seen the film. I don’t intend to see it. I you know, I think it’s dispiriting sometimes to see some of the awful things people say. And the idea of using something that some people consider sacred and then parading that out a negative way is simply inappropriate and wrong. And I wish people wouldn’t do it. Of course, we have a First Amendment. And under the First Amendment, people are allowed to do what they feel they want to do. They have the right to do that, but it’s not right to do things that are of the nature of what was done by, apparently this film.

I agree, but that doesn’t sound different from the statement on top. Neither apologizes for America and to the bizarro extent that they do, they are equal.
Shameful dishonesty on the part of Romney. And launching a false smear against a sitting President while the US Consulate is in flames is just craven.

[kwimby]

Never let a good crises go to waste.

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

@kwimby

Never let a good crises go to waste.

Singular: crisis

Plural: crises

Please make a note of this.

[elucidator]

…They have the right to do that, but it’s not right to do things that are of the nature of what was done by, apparently this film…

I am in awe of this sentence. The crystalline clarity of his writing is Lewis Lapham, Gore Vidal and a touch of Bill Buckley, blended sublimely together and lobotomized.

[gamerunknown]

@JohnT

I posted the following on Facebook… we’ll see if anybody bothers to respond:

Great, you’ve just given Clothahump more fodder by comparing Obama to God.

@kwimby

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.

Ah, finally a country where people actually exercise their second amendment rights.

@Damuri Ajashi

I don’t remember mass riots over piss christ of shit being smeared on the Virgin Mary.

It wasn’t smeared, it formed the breast in the painting.

@Anduril

The person who made the film got people killed?

Did Wikileaks? Did the individuals releasing pictures of the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse?

[Anduril]

@gamerunknown

Did Wikileaks? Did the individuals releasing pictures of the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse?

Wow. What a stupid comparison. There is a direct causal relation between these two examples and harm; there SHOULDN’T be for the movie.

[MaxTheVool]

@Anduril

Wow. What a stupid comparison. There is a direct causal relation between these two examples and harm; there SHOULDN’T be for the movie.

But we live in the world we live in. In the world we live in, bad people respond with homicidal violence to things that are not worthy of that response, and we all know that. Therefore, someone doing one of those things, and inciting violence, absolutely bears some responsibility for the resulting violence. The key point is that this DOES NOT DIMINISH THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PERSON(s) WHO ACTUALLY CARRIED OUT THE VIOLENCE.

An analogy: everyone knows that the east side of town is a bad place where bad things happen. You have a houseguest visiting from out of town, and you tell them they should go to the east side of town, and sure enough they are assaulted. You clearly bear some responsibility for that assault, but the fact that you bear some responsibility for the assault in no way mitigates the guilt of the actual criminal who carried it out. If the case came to trial your actions would never be used during the sentencing phase to try to shorten that person’s sentence.
And I’m also not saying that things which might piss people off should never be done. If Hilary Clinton was going on a state visit to Saudi Arabia, and a bunch of extreme Muslim cranks said “if this immodest foreign women appears on our sacred soil without wearing proper headcoverings, we will wreak a terrible vengeance”, and then Hilary Clinton does not wear proper headcoverings (as would almost certainly happen), and then a bomb is set off in a crowded marketplace a kills a bunch of people… well, Hilary Clinton would probably feel a teeny bit responsible for their deaths, even though the action she took which led to those deaths was one which she (and the US government, and all decent individuals) agreed was the correct one (ie, not giving in to blackmail). But you tell that to the parents of an innocent person who got blown up in that marketplace…

[Anduril]

@MaxTheVool

But we live in the world we live in. In the world we live in, bad people respond with homicidal violence to things that are not worthy of that response, and we all know that. Therefore, someone doing one of those things, and inciting violence, absolutely bears some responsibility for the resulting violence. The key point is that this DOES NOT DIMINISH THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PERSON(s) WHO ACTUALLY CARRIED OUT THE VIOLENCE.

An analogy: everyone knows that the east side of town is a bad place where bad things happen. You have a houseguest visiting from out of town, and you tell them they should go to the east side of town, and sure enough they are assaulted. You clearly bear some responsibility for that assault, but the fact that you bear some responsibility for the assault in no way mitigates the guilt of the actual criminal who carried it out. If the case came to trial your actions would never be used during the sentencing phase to try to shorten that person’s sentence.
And I’m also not saying that things which might piss people off should never be done. If Hilary Clinton was going on a state visit to Saudi Arabia, and a bunch of extreme Muslim cranks said “if this immodest foreign women appears on our sacred soil without wearing proper headcoverings, we will wreak a terrible vengeance”, and then Hilary Clinton does not wear proper headcoverings (as would almost certainly happen), and then a bomb is set off in a crowded marketplace a kills a bunch of people… well, Hilary Clinton would probably feel a teeny bit responsible for their deaths, even though the action she took which led to those deaths was one which she (and the US government, and all decent individuals) agreed was the correct one (ie, not giving in to blackmail). But you tell that to the parents of an innocent person who got blown up in that marketplace…

So what’s your solution? Ban everything that offends Muslims? They are the only ones who do this on an almost regular basis - why are we not talking about THEM and not the people who are simply exercising their RIGHTS? Feeling guilty about anything doesn’t make YOU responsible. Taking REASONABLE PRECAUTIONS is okay. What is NOT okay is to censor your own speech just because Muslims might react homicidally. They have done so for very small offenses - when does it stop??? You say it doesn’t diminish the responsibility of these barbarians but you’re talking about the culpability of the filmmaker and NOT the barbarians. Why is that?

If an acquaintance asks you not to leave your job because it offends Muslims and if you don’t he’ll blow up Congress, will you? Of course not. What you will do is find him out and report him. Are Americans really this cowardly?

[Measure_for_Measure]

Er… what? Is anybody advocating speech restrictions in this context?
I say the answer to bad speech is more speech. I say that there’s such a thing as irresponsible behavior and irresponsible speech and that both should be condemned. And the felon-produced movie should be denounced. Using the sort of inflammatory speech that the film did about Mohammad is over the top, comparable to saying that Christians advocate cannibalism… look at holy communion after all! Blood libel. Put another way, “…the idea of using something that some people consider sacred and then parading that out a negative way is simply inappropriate and wrong.”

[Anduril]

@Measure_for_Measure

Er… what? Is anybody advocating speech restrictions in this context?
I say the answer to bad speech is more speech. I say that there’s such a thing as irresponsible behavior and irresponsible speech and that both should be condemned. And the felon-produced movie should be denounced. Using the sort of inflammatory speech that the film did about Mohammad is over the top, comparable to saying that Christians advocate cannibalism… look at holy communion after all! Blood libel. Put another way, “…the idea of using something that some people consider sacred and then parading that out a negative way is simply inappropriate and wrong.”

We agree on that. Nobody is saying that the film was in good taste - but that is all it is. It should not encourage people to murder and if somebody does murder because of the film, it’s not the filmmaker’s fault. It’s all the barbarians’ fault for believing in a most vile religion.

I’ll prove it. Christians advocate cannibalism!!! There!!! So if a Christian kills somebody over it, is it my fault?!?!?!? Of course NOT! The fact that Muslims seem to regularly kill infidels over these kinds of statements is THEIR FAULT. We have so gotten used to their barbarism that some of you talk more about the filmmaker than these hooligans. They should be shamed and ostracized because of their barbaric culture and behavior.

[Anduril]

Come to think of it, I wouldn’t even concede that the film SHOULD BE an example of insulting speech. The film is about Muhammad and NOT any Muslim. Yes, the film is in poor taste but there SHOULDN’T BE any reasonable expectation that it would provoke any murderous behavior - in the same way that a film about George Washington cavorting with a mule SHOULD NOT provoke murder.

Civilized people should start holding these barbarians to the same standards. We concede too much to these hooligans. They are shaping our world to fit their barbaric expectations - that shouldn’t happen.