The Limits of the 1st Amendment OR Why Lizards Don't Belong in the Oval Office
We have a 2nd Amendment which protects the rights of American to carry arms. It does not protect the right to walk down the street and fire your weapon randomly.
Likewise the 1st Amendment protects freedom of speech and religion.
But it does not protect the right to shout Fire! in a crowded theater. NOR DOES IT PROTECT SPEECH THAT ENDANGERS AMERICAN TROOPS OR AMERICA'S DIPLOMATIC MISSION!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions
Incitement
The Supreme Court has held that "advocacy of the use of force" is unprotected when it is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and is "likely to incite or produce such action".[1][2] In Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the Court struck down a criminal conviction of a Ku Klux Klan group for "advocating ... violence ... as a means of accomplishing political reform" because their statements at a rally did not express an immediate, or imminent intent to do violence.[3] This rule amended a previous decision of the Court, in Schenck v. United States (1919), which simply decided that a "clear and present danger" could justify a congressional rule limiting speech. The primary distinction is that the latter test does not criminalize "mere advocacy".[4]
In response to the attacks against the consulates and embassies in Egypt and Libya, before the attacks attacks were even over and the final body count made known, Romney issued a statement blaming the Obama Administration for a statement issued by the Egyptian embassy...before the attacks even took place...which he criticized as being "apologetic." Thus emboldening the attackers to storm the embassies and which led to the the death of Chris Stevens in Benghazi, Libya and three other Americans.
Romney delivered this with the signature smirk heretofore reserved for answering accusations of personal cruelty.
What he said, by way of contrast with Obama, was that America must never apologize for its values and free speech, and that it was Obama's conciliatory tone which jeopardized the diplomatic mission of the US in the Middle East. He said explicitly that Obama sympathized with the attackers who killed the Ambassador to Libya. He stopped just short of declaring the attacks acts of war.
Initially most Conservatives, especially seasoned politicians who had measured their responses pending full revelation of the facts, greeted Romney's pronouncements with appalled shock.
Fox News talking heads, however, have said that Muslims only respect "strength." Meaning the willingness and ability to kill large numbers of people at any time, at any place and for any reason.
The truth is that the situation in the Middle East, especially in the wake of the Arab Spring is hell and gone from simple.
Despite all the rhetoric about how wonderful it is that autocratic rule is being replaced with fledgling democracy, the conservatives have always distrusted democratic rule by the people, preferring strongmen and autocrats...especially those with theocratic Sharia inflections...over democratic nations as a counter to Soviet hegemony. This makes the Conservative arguments regarding the threat of Islam not just grossly hypocritical, but ahistorical as well. Nowhere more true than in the the training arming and support provided to the mujaheddin in Afghanistan who later became the Taliban, of whom Osama bin Laden was a member.
I don't need to be told..."The enemy of my enemy is my friend."
To which I reply, The enemy of your enemy is flying jet liners into the World Trade Towers about twenty years later. Good one.
This is why we had always given Islamic extremist Pakistan preference over democratically representative India. That fanaticism was something that we took comfort in when it came to the Soviets. That the Indians might be inclined to act more pragmatically with our erstwhile foe was something with which we were uncomfortable.
Likewise the CIA had dealings with Saddam Hussein, Halliburton as well. Right up until the Iraq War.
Mitt Romney has suggested that we need to follow the policy trail blazed by Ronald Reagan in regard to Iran. To which one can only respond, "How many American hostages are we going to give them, and how much will we charge for the weapons we sell them?"
The reason that we have preferred strongmen and autocrats is because, as allies, they are easier to bend to our best interests - and they control their own populace with ruthless efficiency.
It was for this reason that the democratically elected leader of Iran was deposed by the CIA who replaced him with the Shah who was in turn deposed during the Cultural Revolution which saw the installation of Ayatollah Khomeini. Not that Reagan had any trouble playing ball with them, American hostages notwithstanding.
To embrace the spread of democratization in the Middle East means foregoing the advantages of having reliable allies in the region and having less direct involvement in the nations in question. Leaving countries free to elect their own leaders means that our cases must be made to people, to the street. And that these nations may well pursue interests contrary to that of ours. For this reason, supporting the Arab Spring to the degree that he has is an act of profound political courage and faith for President Obama.
The people who are menacing our embassies and consulates are Islamic extremists and not necessarily tied to the government or any political action. The clearest example is that of the attack in Benghazi, Libya which killed Ambassador Steven and four other Americans; which, ironically, might not have anything to do with protests over the the Innocence of Mulsims...though the al Qaeda affiliated/adjacent group may have used the protests for initial cover.
No, the situation is far from simple.
The Republicans and Conservatives who are lining up behind Romney are all making alot of bad noise about the need to demonstrate "strength" in response to the embassy and consulate protests and attacks.
Just what would that look like?
Killing an ass-load of Muslim protesters and extremists?
Declaring Acts of War against countries whose leaders want no beef with us?
What can we expect from this selfsame leader when we start killing his civilians?
How many Iraqs and Afghanistans can we afford to embroil ourselves in?
A dozen? Two dozen? More? The whole Middle East + plus a chunk of Africa and half of Asia?
Romney paints the picture that everything we are risking must be done in the name of defending American values and freedom of speech.
The protesters abroad are outraged because they believe that The Innocence of Muslims was made on the behalf of the American government.
Romney's supporters have said that had Romney been in the White House, there would be no protests.
But had Romney been in the White House, he would have given the Innocence of Islam his personal seal of approval.
That there would have been no protest is a lie.
Only an absolute Reptile fixated on bloodshed and posturing would regard Middle East foreign policy a simple manner of "showing strength."
All of which completely sails over the true threat to American national security, military, and our diplomatic mission.
What is this threat?
Thought experiment:
Imagine a pro-al Qaeda cheer leading corps backed by a Osama bin Laden tribute band touring America. Just how would that play out? Contrary to all the brave noise put out about the American value of free speech, this group would be investigated from collective anus to the inside of their scalp and nails for foreign terrorist affiliations.
And far from raising support for Muslim extremists within the US, they would generate a steady flow military volunteers to fight abroad the against the cause that they are advocating. More telling, it is no stretch of the imagination to see that Muslim Americans and mosques would be receiving about the same treatment as our embassies and consulates are in Africa and the Middle East because of the film Innocence of Muslims.
The threat that the al Qaeda cheer leading squad and bin Laden tribute band would generate in America would not be from Muslim extremists, but from ass-holes similar to the one who perpetrated the Sikh Temple shooting in Wisconsin.
The threat of such a group abroad to our military and diplomatic mission would be negligible, compared to Koran burning ass-hole minister Terry Jones, who's stunt resulted in the killing of 9 people - fortunately none of whom were American.
Just how much of a following would this group have to have to incite an international incident resulting in the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's motorcade being pelted with tomatoes to the chant of "MONICA! MONICA! MONICA!"?
Obviously larger than the following received by Glenn Beck, Michele Bachmann, Jerry Boykin, and Frank Gaffney who sparked all of this with allegations that the Obama State Department had been infiltrated by the Muslim Brotherhood.
And no way could the al Qaeda Glee Club and bin Laden Tribute band have sparked the protests that engulfed the embassies and and consulates through-out the Muslim world that this stupid piece of crap anti-Islamic agit-prop Innocence of Muslims have sparked and provided cover for a terrorist attack that killed the ambassador to Libya!
Contrary to the cheer leading provided by Romney, there is no greater threat to American military and diplomatic mission than that perpetrated under the aegis of 1st Amendment Free Speech.
Instead of fixating in the R (for "Reptile") Complex preoccupations of posturing and bloodshed, what about simply NOT shoving our thumb in the eye of every Muslim in the world?
There are limits to to Freedom of Speech just like there are to the Right to bear arms. If you walk down the street firing your weapon, randomly or not, there are consequences.
You can burn all the Korans you want, make all the anti-Islamic agit-prop you want, spin all the stupid conspiracy theories you want.
But if it causes a single international incident, a single tomato thrown at the motorcade of the Secretary of State, a single protest at an American embassy or consulate, there needs to be consequences.
Absolutely NO-ONE should be able to to imperil American troops or out diplomatic mission or our influence abroad and allowed to walk free without paying a price for it!
If the exercise of free speech causes or is involved in the loss of life - American or not - or the attack on a single consulate or embassy, or the destabilization of entire regions diplomatically; then they must share the same consequences one would deliver upon the head of an accomplice to a terrorist attack or supporter of a terrorist organization...regardless of what "SIDE" the speakers are actually on.
Why?
Because whether they are sincere in their anti-Islamic propaganda that they put out or are "false flag" Muslim extremist provocateurs, THE SUM EFFECT IS INDISTINGUISHABLE! And therefore must be punished identically!
Let me break the 4th Wall for a moment.
Have you ever played Othello or Reversi? Risk?
Have you seen how a bad move on your part as much as a good move by your opponent can undo the result of long work and planning? Going from overwhelming dominance to losing or lost in a single turn?
That is exactly what vociferous unchecked anti-Islamic speech does to the diplomatic mission and American influence in he Middle East and elsewhere in the world.
It is not helped by the fact that many politicians and political wannabes ( I'm looking at You Michele Bachmann, Newt Gingrich and all of your fellow travellers and enablers!) push the East vs. West Clash of Civilizations narrative.
Worse given that these selfsame politicians push social policies that would make any Ayatollah smile, especially in regards to a woman's reproductive rights and the right to gay marriage.
Using the argument that churches are people (a religious application of the of the ideology enshrined in Citizen's United) Obama is being attacked on the grounds that the provisions for birth control violates Freedom of Religion, also insured by the First Amendment - as opposed to burning down churches and imprisoning congregation members.
I don't know about Islam or or Judaism; but I'm pretty sure that I never read in the Bible that the sacrifice of a woman's reproductive choices or a gay man or lesbian's right to marry was ever called a Christian sacrament.
Or that it is good for the underclasses to suffer. Or that the rich and powerful must be rewarded.
Quite the opposite in fact.
Yet the likes of Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum has the pustulent gall and hypocrisy to claim to defend religious freedom. Providing that the religion in question is Dominionist Christian Theocracy. Muslims need not ever bother to apply.
Christian Dominionism is no more attractive, desirable or even that DISTINGUISHABLE from Sharia Law...once you get passed the argument of whether Christ or Allah.
Fortunately like the right to bear arms, and as free speech should be, freedom of religion is limited by the Non-Establishment Clause which separates church from state.
In summary:
Contrary to Romney's position that America should never apologize for exercise of free speech, the ass-holes who made the Innocence of Muslims need to prosecuted as would be members of al Qaeda or the Taliban.
If we were to follow Romney's prescription for foreign policy, we would find ourselves mired in maybe two dozen for more Iraqs and Afghanistans.
That would be so stupid that only someone with the mental capacity of a lizard would call it a good idea.
What is frightening is the number of individuals lining behind Romney on this issue on the news and on talk radio.
Scary monsters. Very scary monsters.
Likewise the 1st Amendment protects freedom of speech and religion.
But it does not protect the right to shout Fire! in a crowded theater. NOR DOES IT PROTECT SPEECH THAT ENDANGERS AMERICAN TROOPS OR AMERICA'S DIPLOMATIC MISSION!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions
Incitement
The Supreme Court has held that "advocacy of the use of force" is unprotected when it is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and is "likely to incite or produce such action".[1][2] In Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the Court struck down a criminal conviction of a Ku Klux Klan group for "advocating ... violence ... as a means of accomplishing political reform" because their statements at a rally did not express an immediate, or imminent intent to do violence.[3] This rule amended a previous decision of the Court, in Schenck v. United States (1919), which simply decided that a "clear and present danger" could justify a congressional rule limiting speech. The primary distinction is that the latter test does not criminalize "mere advocacy".[4]
In response to the attacks against the consulates and embassies in Egypt and Libya, before the attacks attacks were even over and the final body count made known, Romney issued a statement blaming the Obama Administration for a statement issued by the Egyptian embassy...before the attacks even took place...which he criticized as being "apologetic." Thus emboldening the attackers to storm the embassies and which led to the the death of Chris Stevens in Benghazi, Libya and three other Americans.
What he said, by way of contrast with Obama, was that America must never apologize for its values and free speech, and that it was Obama's conciliatory tone which jeopardized the diplomatic mission of the US in the Middle East. He said explicitly that Obama sympathized with the attackers who killed the Ambassador to Libya. He stopped just short of declaring the attacks acts of war.
Initially most Conservatives, especially seasoned politicians who had measured their responses pending full revelation of the facts, greeted Romney's pronouncements with appalled shock.
The truth is that the situation in the Middle East, especially in the wake of the Arab Spring is hell and gone from simple.
Despite all the rhetoric about how wonderful it is that autocratic rule is being replaced with fledgling democracy, the conservatives have always distrusted democratic rule by the people, preferring strongmen and autocrats...especially those with theocratic Sharia inflections...over democratic nations as a counter to Soviet hegemony. This makes the Conservative arguments regarding the threat of Islam not just grossly hypocritical, but ahistorical as well. Nowhere more true than in the the training arming and support provided to the mujaheddin in Afghanistan who later became the Taliban, of whom Osama bin Laden was a member.
I don't need to be told..."The enemy of my enemy is my friend."
To which I reply, The enemy of your enemy is flying jet liners into the World Trade Towers about twenty years later. Good one.
This is why we had always given Islamic extremist Pakistan preference over democratically representative India. That fanaticism was something that we took comfort in when it came to the Soviets. That the Indians might be inclined to act more pragmatically with our erstwhile foe was something with which we were uncomfortable.
Likewise the CIA had dealings with Saddam Hussein, Halliburton as well. Right up until the Iraq War.
Mitt Romney has suggested that we need to follow the policy trail blazed by Ronald Reagan in regard to Iran. To which one can only respond, "How many American hostages are we going to give them, and how much will we charge for the weapons we sell them?"
The reason that we have preferred strongmen and autocrats is because, as allies, they are easier to bend to our best interests - and they control their own populace with ruthless efficiency.
It was for this reason that the democratically elected leader of Iran was deposed by the CIA who replaced him with the Shah who was in turn deposed during the Cultural Revolution which saw the installation of Ayatollah Khomeini. Not that Reagan had any trouble playing ball with them, American hostages notwithstanding.
To embrace the spread of democratization in the Middle East means foregoing the advantages of having reliable allies in the region and having less direct involvement in the nations in question. Leaving countries free to elect their own leaders means that our cases must be made to people, to the street. And that these nations may well pursue interests contrary to that of ours. For this reason, supporting the Arab Spring to the degree that he has is an act of profound political courage and faith for President Obama.
The people who are menacing our embassies and consulates are Islamic extremists and not necessarily tied to the government or any political action. The clearest example is that of the attack in Benghazi, Libya which killed Ambassador Steven and four other Americans; which, ironically, might not have anything to do with protests over the the Innocence of Mulsims...though the al Qaeda affiliated/adjacent group may have used the protests for initial cover.
No, the situation is far from simple.
The Republicans and Conservatives who are lining up behind Romney are all making alot of bad noise about the need to demonstrate "strength" in response to the embassy and consulate protests and attacks.
Just what would that look like?
Killing an ass-load of Muslim protesters and extremists?
Declaring Acts of War against countries whose leaders want no beef with us?
What can we expect from this selfsame leader when we start killing his civilians?
How many Iraqs and Afghanistans can we afford to embroil ourselves in?
A dozen? Two dozen? More? The whole Middle East + plus a chunk of Africa and half of Asia?
Romney paints the picture that everything we are risking must be done in the name of defending American values and freedom of speech.
The protesters abroad are outraged because they believe that The Innocence of Muslims was made on the behalf of the American government.
Romney's supporters have said that had Romney been in the White House, there would be no protests.
But had Romney been in the White House, he would have given the Innocence of Islam his personal seal of approval.
That there would have been no protest is a lie.
Only an absolute Reptile fixated on bloodshed and posturing would regard Middle East foreign policy a simple manner of "showing strength."
All of which completely sails over the true threat to American national security, military, and our diplomatic mission.
What is this threat?
Thought experiment:
Imagine a pro-al Qaeda cheer leading corps backed by a Osama bin Laden tribute band touring America. Just how would that play out? Contrary to all the brave noise put out about the American value of free speech, this group would be investigated from collective anus to the inside of their scalp and nails for foreign terrorist affiliations.
And far from raising support for Muslim extremists within the US, they would generate a steady flow military volunteers to fight abroad the against the cause that they are advocating. More telling, it is no stretch of the imagination to see that Muslim Americans and mosques would be receiving about the same treatment as our embassies and consulates are in Africa and the Middle East because of the film Innocence of Muslims.
The threat that the al Qaeda cheer leading squad and bin Laden tribute band would generate in America would not be from Muslim extremists, but from ass-holes similar to the one who perpetrated the Sikh Temple shooting in Wisconsin.
The threat of such a group abroad to our military and diplomatic mission would be negligible, compared to Koran burning ass-hole minister Terry Jones, who's stunt resulted in the killing of 9 people - fortunately none of whom were American.
Just how much of a following would this group have to have to incite an international incident resulting in the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's motorcade being pelted with tomatoes to the chant of "MONICA! MONICA! MONICA!"?
Obviously larger than the following received by Glenn Beck, Michele Bachmann, Jerry Boykin, and Frank Gaffney who sparked all of this with allegations that the Obama State Department had been infiltrated by the Muslim Brotherhood.
And no way could the al Qaeda Glee Club and bin Laden Tribute band have sparked the protests that engulfed the embassies and and consulates through-out the Muslim world that this stupid piece of crap anti-Islamic agit-prop Innocence of Muslims have sparked and provided cover for a terrorist attack that killed the ambassador to Libya!
Contrary to the cheer leading provided by Romney, there is no greater threat to American military and diplomatic mission than that perpetrated under the aegis of 1st Amendment Free Speech.
Instead of fixating in the R (for "Reptile") Complex preoccupations of posturing and bloodshed, what about simply NOT shoving our thumb in the eye of every Muslim in the world?
Ho Yen-hsi: When the Yen army surrounded Chi Mo in Ch'i, they cut off the noses of all the Ch'i prisoners. (279 B.C.) The men of Ch'i were enraged and conducted a desperate defence. T'ien Tan sent a secret agent to say: 'We are terrified that you people of Yen will exhume bodies of our ancestors from their graves. How this will freeze our hearts!'
The Yen army immediately began despoiling the tombs and burning the corpses. The defenders of Chi Mo witnessed this from the city walls and with tears flowing wished to go forth to give battle, for rage had multiplied their strength by ten. T'ien Tan knew then that his troops were ready, and inflicted a ruinous defeat on Yen.
[Sun Tzu The Art of War translated by Samuel B. Griffin (p.75)]
There are limits to to Freedom of Speech just like there are to the Right to bear arms. If you walk down the street firing your weapon, randomly or not, there are consequences.
You can burn all the Korans you want, make all the anti-Islamic agit-prop you want, spin all the stupid conspiracy theories you want.
But if it causes a single international incident, a single tomato thrown at the motorcade of the Secretary of State, a single protest at an American embassy or consulate, there needs to be consequences.
Absolutely NO-ONE should be able to to imperil American troops or out diplomatic mission or our influence abroad and allowed to walk free without paying a price for it!
If the exercise of free speech causes or is involved in the loss of life - American or not - or the attack on a single consulate or embassy, or the destabilization of entire regions diplomatically; then they must share the same consequences one would deliver upon the head of an accomplice to a terrorist attack or supporter of a terrorist organization...regardless of what "SIDE" the speakers are actually on.
Why?
Because whether they are sincere in their anti-Islamic propaganda that they put out or are "false flag" Muslim extremist provocateurs, THE SUM EFFECT IS INDISTINGUISHABLE! And therefore must be punished identically!
Let me break the 4th Wall for a moment.
Have you ever played Othello or Reversi? Risk?
Have you seen how a bad move on your part as much as a good move by your opponent can undo the result of long work and planning? Going from overwhelming dominance to losing or lost in a single turn?
That is exactly what vociferous unchecked anti-Islamic speech does to the diplomatic mission and American influence in he Middle East and elsewhere in the world.
It is not helped by the fact that many politicians and political wannabes ( I'm looking at You Michele Bachmann, Newt Gingrich and all of your fellow travellers and enablers!) push the East vs. West Clash of Civilizations narrative.
Worse given that these selfsame politicians push social policies that would make any Ayatollah smile, especially in regards to a woman's reproductive rights and the right to gay marriage.
Using the argument that churches are people (a religious application of the of the ideology enshrined in Citizen's United) Obama is being attacked on the grounds that the provisions for birth control violates Freedom of Religion, also insured by the First Amendment - as opposed to burning down churches and imprisoning congregation members.
I don't know about Islam or or Judaism; but I'm pretty sure that I never read in the Bible that the sacrifice of a woman's reproductive choices or a gay man or lesbian's right to marry was ever called a Christian sacrament.
Or that it is good for the underclasses to suffer. Or that the rich and powerful must be rewarded.
Quite the opposite in fact.
Yet the likes of Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum has the pustulent gall and hypocrisy to claim to defend religious freedom. Providing that the religion in question is Dominionist Christian Theocracy. Muslims need not ever bother to apply.
Christian Dominionism is no more attractive, desirable or even that DISTINGUISHABLE from Sharia Law...once you get passed the argument of whether Christ or Allah.
Fortunately like the right to bear arms, and as free speech should be, freedom of religion is limited by the Non-Establishment Clause which separates church from state.
In summary:
Contrary to Romney's position that America should never apologize for exercise of free speech, the ass-holes who made the Innocence of Muslims need to prosecuted as would be members of al Qaeda or the Taliban.
If we were to follow Romney's prescription for foreign policy, we would find ourselves mired in maybe two dozen for more Iraqs and Afghanistans.
That would be so stupid that only someone with the mental capacity of a lizard would call it a good idea.
What is frightening is the number of individuals lining behind Romney on this issue on the news and on talk radio.
Scary monsters. Very scary monsters.
Comments
Post a Comment