"The Burden Of Speech"

[Amskeptic]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

September 13, 2012, The New York Times

The Burden of Speech

By Timothy Egan

A fanatic makes a hate movie, filled with wild claims about the founder of one of the world’s major religions. Fanatics of another sort are inflamed by the crude film, crying blasphemy.

Hatred flares. Mobs attack the embassy in Cairo, shouting there is no God but their God. Another mob attacks the sanctuary in Benghazi, Libya, a military-style assault, using the film as motivational cover. An extraordinary public servant, Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, is killed in the line of duty in a city he had helped to save from a dictator’s last gasp. Three other Americans are killed as well.

Who is to blame? The mobs, the attackers — clearly. Security forces as well, for allowing the fragile wall that separates a diplomat from street thugs to be breached. But what about the filmmaker who launched the first shot?

Beyond that, what to make of Mitt Romney, trying to score cheap political points before the bodies of the murdered American diplomats are even cold and hailing that odious film as an expression of “American values”?

Mohammed Abu Zaid/Associated PressEgyptian protesters, largely ultra-conservative Islamists, climbed the walls of the U.S. embassy in Cairo, brought down the American flag and replaced it with a black flag with Islamic inscription, in protest of a film deemed offensive of Islam.

What’s more, Romney’s craven attack was fundamentally dishonest, riddled with errors, and premised on notions that a kook would harbor. His response was no more accurate than the film.

Free speech — for all its liberating qualities, this founding virtue of ours imposes huge burdens on the speaker and comes with its own set of civil rules. In the Islamic world, people have no idea how much freedom Americans are given to say pretty much anything, true or not. Many don’t understand that a zealot’s YouTube provocation does not represent a government.

But we do know better in the United States. And so, it falls upon our leaders to educate the rest of the world about unfettered speech, its perils and wonders, by example.

In the case of the cartoonish film on the Prophet Muhammad — depicting him as a child molester, a liar and a buffoon — we still don’t know much about who is behind it. Steve Klein, a California insurance man with a long history of making erroneous claims about Islam, says he’s one of the backers. A Florida preacher, Terry Jones, who inspired deadly riots in Afghanistan by threatening to burn copies of the Koran, has come forth as a promoter of the film.

And when asked whether he bore any responsibility for the violence prompted by the incendiary film, Jones said his conscience was clear.No matter its exact provenance, the film is a hate-bullet, and we’ve had plenty of those in our history. Not long after the witch hunts of the 1950s, a good man in my home state of Washington was accused of being a Communist. Years later, his son’s family — Charles Goldmark, his wife and two kids — was slaughtered by a mentally deranged killer who believed the original libel and thought he was doing right by a delusional cause. How much blame did that speaker half a century ago, planting a falsehood that took to the winds over the years, have for the death of an entire family during a Christmas dinner in 1985?

Now to Romney. He had promised not to take political potshots on Sept. 11, that most mournful of anniversaries. But he couldn’t help himself. But before the day was done, he fired off a statement bashing the commander in chief and the American Embassy at a moment of extreme peril. He did not have the dignity to wait for the families of those killed to be properly eulogized or the wisdom to wait for the facts.

This episode is the most revealing moment of the campaign. Remember, earlier this year Romney went after American diplomats just as they were trying — successfully, it turned out — to negotiate the freedom of a Chinese dissident.

But this is worse. A man who wants to control America’s nuclear arsenal can’t wait for the fog of a fatal attack to clear before popping off. He implied that the Cairo embassy, in sensibly releasing a statement condemning the hate film before any rioting had begun, equates to President Obama “sympathizing with mobs.”

He said, “It’s disgraceful that the Obama Administration’s first response was not to condemn the attacks on our diplomatic mission, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.”

The Cairo embassy was taking emergency steps to save American lives, a pre-emptive move. “We firmly reject those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others” was the statement. They were educating — in a panic, possibly, knowing the anger in the Arab street — about the perils of free speech. No apology.

And since when is a clumsy, propagandish, inaccurate film an expression of “American values”?

Romney can’t see the facts for what they are because he’s persuaded that Obama’s foreign policy is one long apology tour. Nor does he have the good sense to stand down until he knows what he’s talking about, as did most of official Washington, Republican and Democrat.

Romney was left sputtering in the gutter with the dregs of his party. He was there with Sarah Palin, who used the tragedy to make cringe-worthy fun of and crude jokes about the president. Like Romney, she got her facts wrong, a professional trademark in her case. And he was there with Rush Limbaugh, who lauded him as a statesman.

Free speech, when it’s abused, can lead millions of people to believe a lie. Thus, up to a third or more of Republicans still tell pollsters that they think the president of the United States is not an American citizen. This is little different from ignorant Islamists who think the American government could be behind a blunt attack on their religion.

Don’t expect Romney to say he made a mistake; his last book, after all, is titled “No Apology.” But a man who can’t say he’s sorry abused one of the biggest free speech opportunities in the world. His words were revealing, and in that sense he did voters a favor.

[Bleyseng]

Since the Neo-cons watch FoxNews 24/7 what do you expect? Making fun is part of the President is their pastime.

[JLT]

For another excellent, thought provoking article on the subject, here's Roger Ebert:

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2012/09 ... _film.html

I was talking last night with a woman who had heard this interesting report from the mid-East. A Muslim was decrying the US for making that film possible, and asked why it hadn't been censored. Surely there must be a "film board" that oversaw all production and would have kept such a film from being released, he said; he had never heard of a country that didn't have one. He was astonished to find that there was no such agency in the United States.

This is the mind-set we're facing in the Muslim world. Our government, as dysfunctional as it sometimes is, is so different from tyrannies and ex-tyrannies in the Muslim world that activists there are easily persuaded that films like this are government-approved. It will take a long time for that mind-set to be overcome, especially for people who have no experience of how democracy is really supposed to operate.

[pj]

Who has seen this movie? Where does this movie exist, and where is it playing? I see today that the FBI has arrested the producer of this film, of course they say it is on a probation violation. Of course the article did not say what he was on probation for, just that he was hauled in for questioning? I hate to beat an old horse, but if this "filmmaker" had been picked up under the former President most on this board would be talking about Nazi's, Fascists and the like, picking up this artist on trumped up charges. Curious as it might be, it seems that this board is silent about this, because we've been told it is the film that caused the trouble. Bull ****

I believe as I read the news, their were no Marine Corps personnel on the ground in Libya, only contractors, a choice made by Mrs. Clinton and in turn the President. The President's hand picked man on the job in a war zone, and the best we can do as a country is offer him and the others in our employ, lowest bidder protection. We also read that Mr. Obama the week before and the day after skipped his national security briefing, and the day of attended a fund raiser in Las Vegas. Just saying if my hand picked Ambassador had been killed along with three other Americans by savages, I promise you, if I did nothing else I'd sit on my ass in the White house and let people think I was going to break some balls.

Again out comes the dead horse. There was a movie about the former President's actions or lack of action before 9/11/01, along with a plethora of bad press about his moves. Yet today, one reads it's the damn movie that causes these people to act the way they did, I guess then it's the damn movie that made Mr. Obama act the way he did as well. He's just following his strategy that freed Libya back last year, leading from behind. America deserves better then a guy who leads from behind.

[Westy78]

So what do you suggest we do PJ? Start another war that we can't pay for?

[rallybug]

If I recall correctly, the film maker was picked up for possible parole violations based on his fraud conviction - one part of his parole was not to use an alias, which he did when making the film, so it would appear that he broke his parole terms.

[Amskeptic]

Curious as it might be, it seems that this board is silent about this, because we've been told it is the film that caused the trouble. Bull ****

There was a movie about the former President's actions or lack of action before 9/11/01, along with a plethora of bad press about his moves.

Yet today, one reads it's the damn movie that causes these people to act the way they did, I guess then it's the damn movie that made Mr. Obama act the way he did as well. He's just following his strategy that freed Libya back last year, leading from behind. America deserves better then a guy who leads from behind.

Pj, "this board" is a group of VW enthusiasts with diverse and divergent opinions. We are not a monolithic lock-step machine. Try to give us our due. I was silent, for example, because my computer fritzed.

The movie about our former president's shortcomings in the face of a terrorist attack that destroyed the WTC and killed 2,900 people was above-board and based on facts. It stands in the light of day.

The pathetic and sophomoric YouTube video that was financed by right-wing idiots (who somehow blew 5 million dollars on its production?!) was a putrid act of knowing inflammation of people halfway around the world, its timing and dissemination are very questionable.

Obama has received high marks from around the world for his handling of Libya. Perhaps you could waste less time on categorical shoeboxing of your friends here and a little more time expanding your perusal of news sources. He is surely a superior representative of American values than anyone we have seen from across the aisle this century.
Colin

[ruckman101]

Hillary pegged it. Decrying the insecurities of a faith that is unable to take criticism without issuing death warrants. Blasphemy will happen. The film has a connection to Terry Jones, the preacher who wanted to burn Korans to remember 9/11 a year ago. The film maker strikes me as a feeble Breitbart wannabe, apparently a Coptic Christian. Not sure why there has to be such hate in this world.

pj, the film hasn't been released. The reaction is to a 15 minute promo that was posted to YouTube. An independent film. Even the crew and actors were misled about the true nature of the film, the offensive language attacking Islam was dubbed in after production wrapped. The sole intent of this film would appear to be to incite.



neal

[Amskeptic]

Hillary pegged it. Decrying the insecurities of a faith that is unable to take criticism without issuing death warrants. Blasphemy will happen. The film has a connection to Terry Jones, the preacher who wanted to burn Korans to remember 9/11 a year ago. The film maker strikes me as a feeble Breitbart wannabe, apparently a Coptic Christian. Not sure why there has to be such hate in this world.

pj, the film hasn't been released. The reaction is to a 15 minute promo that was posted to YouTube. An independent film. Even the crew and actors were misled about the true nature of the film, the offensive language attacking Islam was dubbed in after production wrapped. The sole intent of this film would appear to be to incite.



neal

Neal, explain how it has a connection to Terry Jones. I know only that Terry Jones is on a Pentagon "hush your mouth" list. For Free Speech adherents, Terry Jones is on a hush warning because his "free speech" history is more akin to yelling fire in a theater.

Here's a Huffington Post clip:

In July, clips from a film purporting to be the work of rich American Jews were dubbed into Arabic and promoted online by Egyptian-American lawyer and Coptic Christian activist Morris Sadek. The film was later revealed to be the work of another Egyptian-American Coptic Christian, Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, who produced it fresh from a stay at a halfway house after a history of criminal behavior. Nakoula seemed to have tricked the cast, crew and probably even the director into believing they were making a comedy about life in the ancient world, then dubbed in dialogue that made the film a full-on attack on the Muslim prophet Mohammed. Sadek seems to have then produced and distributed a trailer for the film, which Sky News described as "designed to enrage."

[JLT]

Neal, explain how it has a connection to Terry Jones.

I'm not Neal, but here's the connection:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/1 ... 78060.html

No actors or crew members have been named or identified, and only a couple of the film's apparent backers -- fringe figures like pastor Terry Jones, Morris Sadek of the Coptic Church and Steve Klein, a "consultant" on the film who self-released an anti-Islamic book in 2010 -- have come forward to reveal themselves.

Since that was written, a number of the cast and crew have come forward to say that they were misled by the film's producers into thinking that they were making a film that had nothing to do with Islam, and that the anti-Islamic dialog was added in post-production.

Wikipedia says:

In September 2012, it was reported by The Atlantic that Terry Jones was involved in the promotion of a movie vilifying Islam, titled Innocence of Muslims. The movie led to protests in Egypt, Yemen, Tunisia and Libya. In Cairo, protesters breached the wall of the U.S. Embassy and burned the flag. The U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, was largely burnt and looted; killing Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other American citizens. Jones screened the film for his followers on September 11, 2012, a day he dubbed, "International Judge Mohammad Day".

[ruckman101]

Thanks JLT.


neal

[Spezialist]

Comedy central nails as usual.
Just saw it on Jon Stewart's show.

Does the "right" have a counter point comedy network?
That's the rub.

[pj]

Colin says: "He is surely a superior representative of American values than anyone we have seen from across the aisle this century." I assume he means the 21st century, which is only 12 years old, and if he's the best example of American values we are doomed.

He may be the superior representative of American values, but he sucks at running the government. I see in today's news that the government finally conceded it was a deliberate and organized attack in Benghazi. This would be like FDR standing in front of Congress on Christmas eve 1941, and stating that we have now decided here 17 days later that December 7, 1941 will be a day of infamy, just disregard all those right wing news reels that we said pissed off the empire of Japan, and caused them to go on the warpath.

When do you think Moore's movie will come out?

Now I know it ain't the Huffington post, but I hope Reuters will do for my source.

http://news.yahoo.com/u-now-says-bengha ... 11151.html

[Amskeptic]

Colin says: "He is surely a superior representative of American values than anyone we have seen from across the aisle this century." I assume he means the 21st century, which is only 12 years old, and if he's the best example of American values we are doomed.

He may be the superior representative of American values, but he sucks at running the government. I see in today's news that the government finally conceded it was a deliberate and organized attack in Benghazi.

I am not conceding to your claim that he "sucks" at "running the government".
The Congress does.
Obama's popularity ratings have been consistently hovering near 50% in a very trying time in our history. Congress' popularity has been in a nose dive, especially Republican house which is currently at about 8%. That is record-breakingly historically awful.

Give me a break, pj, I see Fox News and that Ariel Fleischer guy pounce and jump and froth and wet themselves over small trivial insignificant moments, and they are blind to the death throes of the Insane Republican Party. I look forward to the return of the Republican Party of old, after the TeaPartyNitwits are hopefully drubbed in this year's elections.

I have read many articles, I have seen many clips, I watched Susan Rice many times carefully state that their initial assessment *was based on the best information provided by our intelligence agencies available at the time". It was not a failure. It was not indicative of any sort of conspiracy to deceive the public. It was the best information available at the time. Then, as new information came in, the Administration called it for what it was. . . unlike GWBush's "uranium cakes from Nigeria" lies which were stated as fact during his State of the Union address and doubled down on by Colin Powell and helped lead us into war.

This whole Republican bitch-fest looks to be an effort to mirror and one-up the disastrous refusal to *listen* to Clinton's national security team when they advised Bush and Condoleeza Rice that an airplane-based terrorist attack was imminent in the spring and summer of 2001.
This situation is a totally different thing, but you would not know it listening to Mitch McConnell and Eric Cantor and others whose credibility is so damaged by their irrational hatred of the President, that you can pretty much ignore them.

Our conduct on the international stage is met with far greater approval now than it ever was under GWB. Give credit where credit is due, Obama and Hillary Clinton have done superb work at repairing our terribly tarnished reputation. This tragic situation where we lost a statesman in Libya, U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens, who was well-respected by that country appears to elude your care or consideration as you happily follow the twitterers and naysayers to their hapless irrelevancy.
Colin

[Spezialist]

Pj really?

Really?

If its Obamas fault that the embassy was attacked then that must be the burden of proof Obama is not Muslim.