A Good Way to Kill Free Speech

A recent op-ed in the Los Angeles Times attempts to make the case that the anti-Islam video that supposedly touched off violence on the Arab Street may not be the kind of speech protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Is the video free speech or is it incitement to violence?  That’s the question raised by Sarah Chayes, a resident associate at the Carneigie Endowment, a woman who went to Harvard, who joined the Peace Corps, who worked as a reporter at NPR and has appeared on TV with liberal icons like Bill Moyers and Rachel Maddow.

There are two things I find fascinating:  train wrecks and liberals who argue against speech they don’t like.

Ms. Chayes tells us that “U.S. 1st Amendment rights distinguish between speech that is simply offensive and speech deliberately tailored to put lives and property at immediate risk.”

After all, she says, the Supreme Court long ago put limits on what we can and can’t say.  We can’t yell fire in a crowded theater and get away with it, for example.  The First Amendment doesn’t protect that kind of speech.  Oliver Wendell Holmes made that perfectly clear in his written opinion reflecting a unanimous Supreme Court decision.

From there, it’s only a short hop to the “The Innocence of Muslims,” the movie trailer that Ms. Chayes believes may not be protected by the First Amendment.

“Holmes’ test — that words are not protected if their nature and circumstances create a ‘clear and present danger’ of harm — has since been tightened,” she writes.

“The current standard for restricting speech — or punishing it after it has in fact caused violence — was laid out in the 1969 case Brandenburg vs. Ohio. Under the narrower guidelines, only speech that has the intent and the likelihood of inciting imminent violence or lawbreaking can be limited,” she tells us before detailing how the movie trailer may very well have had both the intent and the likelihood of inciting imminent violence.

Her argument seems to suggest that there are times when extremists who riot and kill may get the final say on what is constitutionally protected free speech and what isn’t.  After all, if a bunch of radical Muslims thousands of miles away take offense to something any of us say here in America, and then proceed to burn buildings and set off bombs – and if we should have known that would be the result — then we’re the ones who’ve crossed the line.  We’re the ones who, in effect, yelled fire in a crowded theater.

Let’s pursue that line of reasoning – a word I use loosely – and see where it takes us.

Does a Yankee fan have First Amendment rights of expression to wear a Derek Jeter jersey into enemy territory – Fenway Park?  Before you say, “Of course,” let me remind you that anyone who’s been following fan-on-fan violence (I just did a piece on the subject for HBO’s Real Sports) would know that such a “provocation” might very well touch off imminent violence.

Do the producers of the soon-to-be released movie on the killing of Osama bin Laden have free speech rights under our constitution?  If a crummy little video touched off riots in the Arab world imagine the havoc a multi-million dollar Hollywood movie might touch off.  Bin Laden is a hero in much of the Muslim world.  The movie will show American SEALs putting a bullet in his head.  The filmmakers can say all they want that they had no “intent” to cause violence, but the rioters would disagree.  And don’t they get the last word?

And I’m afraid to imagine what would happen if a bunch of right-wing radicals rioted every time they read an infuriating left-wing editorial in the New York Times.  After a while it would become clear to the Times’ editorial writers that their work was likely to touch off imminent violence.  And the rioters could argue that that was the Times’ intent all along.  So, no constitutional rights for the newspaper of record?

Ms. Chayes concludes her piece with this:

“The point here is not to excuse the terrible acts perpetrated by committed extremists and others around the world in reaction to the video, or to condone physical violence as a response to words — any kind of words. 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.”

This is intellectual drivel. She may argue that she’s not excusing violence, but that’s exactly what she’s doing, by making a case that an American – even a dopey one – may not have First Amendment rights because of what a bunch of angry radicals might do.  Their intolerance of views they don’t like shouldn’t make us intolerant of views we don’t like.

Liberals used to be the ones who fought for free speech.  That’s when they really were liberal. Now we have a liberal journalist and scholar putting forth an intellectual argument that perhaps government should step in and stifle free speech.  Not all speech of course.  Just the kind correct-thinking liberals like Ms. Chayes detest.



Bernie's Next Column.

Enter your email and find out first.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_KJB6LG6DZV2DNDGZ6F3WG3SJRY Ray

    I turned on my laptop to see a mob protesting free speech in MICHIGAN! 

  • Ted Crawford

    If a Law should be passed that banned “offensive language” the entire Progressive platform would be silenced! That would make it ALMOST worth the doing, ALMOST being the operative word! 

  • Mrice1234

    Call to prayor, Coming Soon to cities and schools near you!

  • Brianfruman

    I really can’t stand the fire in the crowded theatre arguement anymore. One intends to imflict harm by alerting people to a false pyshical danger and one simply makes comment on relegion, or even an offensive joke. The aftermath of which may yield the same result but there is a difference. For years I have always been wary of a slippery slope theory on many things but this fundemantal shift in free speech and expression as not to offend a religion or people is crap.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1316927675 David M. Hunt

    Chayes logic is flawed in two different, but fundamental ways.


    First – absolving the perpetrators of criminal acts (be it
    attacking embassies or assaulting individuals) is logically suspect – I suppose
    there are actual cases of insanity being to blame, but in general people are responsible
    for their actions – attacking an Embassy doesn’y happen by accident. Ms. Chayes, despite claims to the contrary, does the equivalent
    of blaming a rape victim for dressing provocatively – if said rape victim had
    not “deliberately tailored” her outfit to arouse, no rape would occur? That’s
    just ignorant!!


    Second – Chayes theory would have us assume that otherwise
    law abiding Muslims (and not just violent Islamist ideologues) are driven to
    murderous acts by, in this case, a crappy video! This is the same logic used by
    the anti-gun lobby when they say that crime will sky rocket if guns ownership is
    liberalized!!! The logical conclusion here is that the only thing preventing otherwise
    law abiding citizens from going on crime sprees is that they are prevented from
    owning a gun – it’s the video or the gun that commit the real crime!! That’s even more ignorant & it’s offensive to boot!

  • Blubs Blub

    How curious Ms Chayes and others never mention the extremely offensive, heinous and even violent speech that is  omnipresent in the written doctrine of political Islam, the Coran and Sunnah.  If any law is passed forbidding the insulting of other people’s religions, I propose the first case be brought against written Islamic doctrine.

  • Soubellvoter

    It sure would help Romney if every Republican or conservative voter would enlist 3-4 extra voters who normally sit on their hands on election day to get out and vote this Nov. I’m doing my part and driving them to the polls. We need everyone to make a stand and speak out by our votes to protect our Constitutional rights!!!!

  • John Galt

    You needn’t travel to a foreign land to witness violence when issuing a commentary against a group. Just go to any union protest and confront them with logic and reason while their states and country are going bankrupt. If you continue, you are likely to get punched in the face after the noisy bullhorns no longer have batteries to continue drowning out your opinions. 

  • Pam F.S.

    Mr. Goldberg , I am just a normal hard working American , and I know the limits of speech.I do not believe this video is this reason for the attack.I believe it is being used as an excuse to start possibly a war.I also believe Obama has a part in this.I truly think Obama wants Muslim laws her in America.If you look on YouTube,there are many locks to Mohammed .This is hardly the first one.I feel Obama set this all off.I hope and pray I am wrong ,but this is my gut feelings.

  • Ccccggg

    I want to yell fire, in a crowded theatre………..FIRE!!! 

  • Mikeroat

    It’s not free speech if someone picks and choose what you can
    say and how you can say it. There may be repercussions because 
    of it afterwards but nobody said it was free. Freespeach is our greatest
    of all rights.

  • Lori Miller

    For the first time in my life I feel like we are living in a dictatorship, however, it is  not the Military that are supporting Obama, but the media doing his bidding with all the charm of an attacking pit bull.  I’ve got to stop watching the Sunday morning talk shows they make my blood boil with their cover ups of Obama’s failures: the Libyan scandal,his lies to the American people.  The middle east is on fire, and the hatred of America becomes more intense day by day; simply because thanks to Obama we have gained the reputation as a weak and faltering Country, with a gift for throwing our allies under the bus

    • Deny916

      That’s why I said I have to stop listening to these polls because they are driving me crazy.  HOW and I mean H-O-W can this loser still be leading in these polls! 

    • Wheels55

      Yup. We are sorry for a stupid video but buring our flag is always OK. Killing our personnel is understandable. No wonder the world sees us as weak. This weakness showed up in the last 3 to 4 years. Mr. Peace Prize is truly unifying the world…against us.

      • Grammie

        Our President declared it a perfectly “NATURAL REACTION”, doncha know, before condemning how violent it got.

        Perhaps we can work any “natural reaction” test into our new right of free speech.  I’m sure that that will make it far superior to what our Founding Fathers bequeathed us.

  • brendan horn

    The people really inciting this violence are the leaders in the Muslim community encouraging these angry mobs. America should never restrict its free speech, not even a little bit, to cater to angry mobs. The strength of America is its freedom. America should never apologize to any country for the freedom of this country. Those angry mobs would never change for our benefit, and we should never restrict our freedoms to appease angry mobs. The angry mobs, their violence and murder, are the real disgrace to Mohammed and Islam. After all, it is obviously more of a disgrace to murder in Mohammed’s name than it is to make a movie of Mohammed. 

  • Drew Page

    Shouldn’t all Hollywood movie producers then be prohibited from making films that offend any class or group of people, lest that group be offended and riot?   How about news paper editorials, shouldn’t they be prohibited from printing anything that might offend  certain groups or classes of people?  Such editorials could lead to violence by those who were offended.    I put it to all liberals out there, shouldn’t all “free” speech be limited to that which couldn’t possibly offend anyone?    We could all learn to speak like Mr. Rogers, “It’s a beautiful day in the neighborhood…”   

  • Lucky3511

    Why is our country letting a bunch of mongrel people set up an organization  and actually listen to what they say. Let us have Obama take CAIR group over to Iran, and USA terminate his re-entry rights for ever.

    • Drew Page

      Great idea.  We should be so Lucky 3511.

  • Lucky3511

    Free Speech is only free if the liberals like it. If I tell the truth about Obama, the liberals would love to get htat banned. They have not yet, but it is not far away. My belief that the only good moslesm amd democrats are dead ones, that is not an incitement to violence it is purely a matter of oppinion being expressed.

    • Parker

      Its scary that two people liked your post.

  • FloridaJim

    I do not understand how anyone can believe muslims they lie to infidels as the koran tells them to, they behead any non-believer with impunity, the eventually behead one another if they have different beliefs sunni, Shia, wahabi, Sufism,Ibadi and many other small offshoots have fought with one another at different times. When islam is attacked as in Egypt they appear as one but that has never lasted long they will be at each other’s throats, or heads, soon.
    I doubt only the imams in islamic countries are striving to install sharia and jihad but believe it is worldwide including America. There are few if any muslims who do not defend terrorists are they too shy or too afraid of the imams or fellow muslims?

    • Sheikyerbhouti

      I agree.

  • Roadmaster

    I expect the same level of “free speech” that the New Black Panthers enjoy when they’re calling for the lynching of Zimmerman and murdering of crackers.  Oh wait, I don’t get that because I’m a WASP! 

    I’m told “just keep paying your taxes and STFU!”

    The Tea Party lives.

  • Frank P

    Is it permissible under the First Amendment to suggest that the only way we will make any progress against the inexorable upsurge of the cult of violent Islamic Jihad is to nuke Mecca at the next Hajj. I’m not suggesting it (yet) btw., merely asking whether or not it would be illegal to suggest it?

    • Alden514

      Frank, illegal or not, as POTUS, that’s EXACTLY what I would have done after 9/11 (2001)  My ads on islamic television would have said “Anyone else want to play?  NEXT!”

    • lemonfemale

      It would not be illegal because there is no way you could make it happen.  Unlike, say, ayatollah so-and-so issuing a fatwa death sentence against Molly Norris or Salman Rushdie.  What I would like to see, and I AM suggesting this, is anyone issuing such a fatwa goes on the “kill list”.  We can’t reasonably expect to try them so this is the only way to defend our citizens.  I’d like to see Molly Norris out and about and imam whatshisface in hiding.  What do we train our black ops people for, if not that?

  • lemonfemale

    I believe the Brandenburg case would apply but not in the way Sarah Chayes has in mind.  According to the Court, speech may be prohibited that is meant to “incite or produce” imminent lawless action and is likely to do so.  So urging people to hijack the starship doesn’t qualify.  Telling a crowd to burn down the embassy does, if there is an embassy anywhere nearby to burn down.  This movie does not do that.  What it properly is is “fighting words”.  These are words like finishing a sentence in Spanish that begins with “Su madre”.  Expect to get punched.  However the Court upheld as protected speech the burning of a cross on a black family’s lawn.  (R.A.V. v City of St. Paul)  And said you cannot regulate speech by content.  I doubt this movie is in danger.

  • Kathie Ampela

    If the Obama administration is apologizing to the Muslim world for an offensive YouTube “clip” not full length film, but a short “clip” why is it helping Hollywood produce a film about the Bin Laden killing which is sure to offend as Bin Laden was the hero of the Muslim world? http://capitalistpreservation.blogspot.com/2012/09/cbs-news-report-slams-obama-admin-for.html

    • Sheikyerbhouti

      Because Obama is taking credit for bagging Bin Laden, of course.
      Our fearless leader is not only a Nobel Peace Prize recipient, but now also a war hero. He saved millions of jobs, the economy in his spare time, I.E. When he wasn’t busy golfing.

    • Drew Page

      Using some off-the-wall home video, put together by some disgruntled Quintin Tarantino wannabe, as an excuse to murder four people, burn our embassies across the Middle East and chant “Death to America”  is just that  —  an excuse.   There are over 300 million people in the U.S.  how do you propose to regulate the thoughts, words and deeds of anyone who chooses to mock Islam?  Want to pass some more laws?  You want to tell the American public they have to watch what they say and do because it might offend Muslims?   If so, there goes the women’s fashion industry, the liquor industry and the gay/lesbian population in the U.S.   Oh yeah, there goes the Jewish population as well.

  • Soubellvoter

    There should be laws against hypocrite liberals always shooting their mouths off and angering people with common sense. Great defense, Bernie! With such a pedigree, Ms  Chayes appears to be confused about our 1st amendment right; probably due to the company she keeps.

  • Ksp48

    Liberals used t0 teach that we only needed  protection for speech that some people find offensive. After all nobody objects to the other kind. 

  • Nborden

    Excellent analysis

  • Bonzo3244

    When I hear shit like this I’m always reminded of the  Star Trek episode where Kirks teaches the people about the US Constitution that they some how inherited but really don’t understand. The parts where he say that the words weren’t meant for Kings and they must apply to everyone or they mean nothing. Schmaltzy I Know, but too true and nowadays too easily forgotten.

  • Berryraymond

    A video once know of by 88 people, viewed by 42 people set off a spontaneous reaction by muslims who happened to have had a few sholder fired rockets under the living room sofa, several dozen machine guns and a couple of mortars.  Most of past  spontaneous riots were rocks bottles and some fire bombs.  I understand this has nothing to do with 1st ammendment, but this also had nothing to do with the attack on the embassys.  Now that it has all the attention the video has been seen by almost one thousand people, still has nothing to do with the attacks.  By the way the correct definition of speech not covered by the first ammendment is anything liberals find offensive.

  • ssquared

    Every thing that has happened with middle east policy since Obama became President and specifically in Lybia since Qadafi’s troubles began in Lybia are primarily the result of Samantha Power and Susan Rice.

    They should be tried for stupidity and treason.

  • Dickwilson94

    IF the video incited violence overseas among extreme Muslims unable to control themselves , would not the video have incited violence among extreme Muslims in the USA who likewise would be unable to control themselves?  When President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton apologized to overseas radical Muslims, did they believe these Muslims to be of inferior personhood than American Muslims?  Maybe President Obama and Secretary Clinton didn’t intend to label these Muslims, but they did. Personally, I will never believe these Muslims are so primitive as to create all this violence because of a video.

    • Lucky3511

      These Muslims still think as the 12th Century Muslims think Therefore I think they really are that primeval

    • Wheels55

      Excellent point! I do wonder if most Muslims in the USA are here because they couldn’t safely function in their country – as peaceful people.
      It is now very clear this video was an excuse, not a reason. Many people in the middle east are upset about wars, leaders being killed and leaders being extreme dictators. They must feel like they are in a no win situation. So, it doesn’t take much to get them going. We should take our troops, other personnel and money and leave those countries that hate us.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_CUUKXGLLXQAVKHZMCBSLR7ONCU Jon Marklev

     A backward primitive civilization that kills at the word of a madman or at the insinuation of female immorality cannot coexist with us;  I am done accommodating or ignoring every half-wit who takes offense at what we do as a free people.  No more words from CAIR and other institutional apologists.  No more so-called education and consciousness raising.  I understand them.  I am not impressed.  I shall judge the worth of this backward faith by the actions of its adherents and not by the words of its apologists and opportunistic political fellow travelers.  

    • joer1

       You are right … but, what do we do about the apologists in power?  According to the media, we are putting them back in…. because they lie and the opposition tells a truth that apparently … folks don’t want to hear.

      • Lucky3511

        What can we do? For one thing, we can stop giving the unmentionable servants of hell american dollars as Aid. I think they dished some more out to them soon after the murders took place

        • joer1

          Again, I totally agree but, according to the media and the “polls” … Obama will be re-elected by the “needy” idiots … So we will grin & accept it – if it’s true.

          • Drew Page

            If it’s true we need to consider secession from the United States  and re-writing the Declaration of Independence for those of us who don’t want to live under socialism.

  • TransplantedTexan

    Ms. Chayse is simply another liberal airhead who ignores factual reality to trash speech with which she does not agree. The facts are that in every news report I have watched, when the rioters and their leaders are interviewed and asked if they have seen the video; they have not. Has anyone identified a single protestor who has seen this video? I have not seen any report to that effect. The most that I have seen said about the video is from the Obama Administration trying to find an excuse for the failure of his policy of appeasing radical Muslin extremists in the Middle East and his denial that there is, in fact, an organized effort to attack the United States by those same extremists.

    • Bev

      “trash speech with which she does not agree.” It seems that liberals don’t have the corner on this behavior …. plenty of that here.
      Interesting the tendency to attack in others what we often do ourselves.
      The Christian religion has had a track record of much of the behaviors I see being described here. Of course, our culture perpetuates the same message in its movies to kill the evil (different one). Children have a steady diet of kill videos that originated with the military.
      Yes, we are sooooo different.
      “ignores factual reality”
      Each person also believes they have the corner on reality.
      Even in science it changes based on evidence. Not so with most of those who use “factual realtity” to make their point.

  • Pat

    Seems anything against the USA is free speech candy.  Anything we speak can be torked, worked and spun into a kind of means to violence. Depends on who is wanting to be the victim.  If yelling ‘fire’ in a theatre is not considered free speech…nor is speech that incites any  violence ‘free speech’ fare.  This is OUR Constitution…let us use it for our means. God knows the devils are up to no good.  Stop the stripping of OUR Constitution for means to danger and violence.   AND THAT CRAPPY FLAG….from Obama…is obnoxious.

  • joer1

    I sense people are very tired of Harvard and all the Ivies who think they are in control of the dialogue … Talk about the “entitlement” society ….. I prefer hearing from folks from Missouri, Idaho, Nebraska, and Iowa.  Just have a look at the liberal “luminaries” we have gotten from the Ivies.  They make me sick.

  • bonaparte3

    The bleeding-heart left is more concerned with placating our enemies (why don’t we just have them over for a beer and apologize for hurting their feelings) than acknowledging a failure of leadership by our appeaser-in-chief. It’s time for realpolitik: if we are not at war with Islam, Islam is sure as hell at war with us.

  • Shane

     Liberals cannot be counted on to protect our constitutional rights as they are too busy submitting to Islam. Obama has attacked religious institutions right to practice their religion with Obamacare, and liberals want to lie down and submit to the Islamic fanatics.

  • venter

    Great Bernie,  you are saying what alot of  us felt  this week,  especially when Obama and Hillary kept balming the video for the mess in the middle east.  I have gotten use to  Obama’s read between the lines messages.  I fell we could have a problem with our  FREEDOM OF SPEECH,  if we don’t watch out!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.    May be another executive order?  Watch out internet.    I better hurry and hit send!

  • Kathie Ampela

    I’m going slightly off topic here, but the entire narrative that these violent attacks are based on a YouTube video that first came out in July has been ringing false to me. I’ve heard that it would take 1700 years to view all the videos on YouTube, so I say it’s a safe bet that there are enough videos to offend both Muslims and Christians and the odds that this video was the cause of riots breaking out all over the Middle East are slim to none.  My bet is that these uprisings are retaliation for the drone strikes and Obama’s army in the media does not want us to know it. They (the MSM)  wanted us to believe that Gitmo was a recruiting tool for Al Qaeda yet it’s IMPOSSIBLE to believe that drone strikes would carry ANY consequences? Only because it’s their guy in the WH…the narrative would be quite different if Bush was in the WH. Obama’s drone program being the cause of riots all over the middle east would be an election game changer and the media know it.

  • Ahalbert

    If Obama wins, I look for the Democrats to go on another Fairness Doctrine rampage to silence conservative opinion.

  • Elaine Coyle

    I am not happy when I see Christ submerged in urine, but I live with it.
    Jews, Catholics, Protestants, Mormons are insulted on a daily basis yet only Muslims
    are protected from slights. NO WAY!!! They are not any better than the rest of us.
    Freedom of Speech trumps Muslim sensibilities as it does all religious sensibilities.
    Muslims riot, pillage, burn & kill when they dislike a cartoon or a film is
    their way of trying to enslave the rest of the world with their values. This is Censorship!!!
    This is Blackmail!!!
    No we will not lift them up Muslims  to a position of superiority over this planet.
    We must  stop indulging their horrible, uncivilized behavior with apologies & more money.
    Killing our fine men, burning our flags & Embassies, & chanting, DEATH TO AMERICANS
    should have consequences.The best we can do is to withhold FUNDS from the offending countries.
    Above all we must be firm in our right to FREE SPEECH & FREEDOM OF THE PRESS.
    Call your elected Representatives, the State Dept & the White house to let them know our displeasure with the perpetrators & the way that these incidents were handled.
    It is time for the SILENT MAJORITY  TO SPEAK UP.

  • http://shawmut.blogspot.com/ Dave O’Connor

    The issue of what this pretext caused in the Mulim lands is consequential if we review what it has already done here in the United States.  (Especially so, if we ask how binding the UN declarations regarding religious embarassment.)
    The pretext that has generated mob violence has already generated elitist contempt; President, Sec. State, Press Mouth and, of course, the tenured capons.
    We must, if only to be alert, monitor how the First Amendment arguments will convert to suppression in the name of “national security’.  Look, at how this has been used (historically) before.

  • sendtheclunkerbacktochicago

    Obama and his Foot in Mouth VP have been “spiking the football”  by bragging about the killing of the radicals most revered saint, bin Laden, is that hate speech coming from the Fraud in Chief?  The Muslim’s climbing the embassy walls in Egypt were crying “were are all bin-Laden Obama.”  Now that sounds like they were a little pissed off at the Fraud in Chief not a Youtube that they never saw.  The Pakistanians were carrying around fake Obama coffin draped in an American Flag.  So who would they be pissed off at?  

    This whole Youtube dance this administration is complaining about is a well orchestrated cover-up of a CIA operation gone horribly bad.  The Navy Seal (CIA) Sean Smith did an ABC interview a couple of weeks ago in which he described his job as being responsible for finding shoulder held missiles and rocket launchers.  That doesn’t sound like an embassy guard to me.  Ambassador (CIA) Chris Stevens was part of an operation to find these weapons.  It is believed by some that he was ready to make a big deal to get back a whole bunch of these heavy weapons in exchange for the Blind Skeik who is responsible for the ’93 bombing of the WTC.  The two Navy Seals (CIA) have been involved in that operation along with Ambassador (CIA) Stevens.  Check out the Tweet the Navy Seal sent out just before the place was overrun, do you really think a man who was about to die was tweeting him gaming buddies?  Don’t be absurd, he was contacting his CIA buddies.  This was Fast and Furious Middle East scandal.  Obama does not what you to know he was dealing with al-Qaeda in the overthrow of Gaddafi Duck.   That would not bode well for his re-election but neither is the cover-up, right Bernie?  

    So Bernie, when are you and Bill Boy O’Reilly going to put on your investigative journalist cloths and finally do the American citizen a patriotic service that is long over due.  We need to pin this on the top dog, the so-called Commander in Chief.  

  • Randy

    So now that they are going to reshow the “Piss Christ” picture, does this mean Christians need to riot?  Or is this disgusting picture free speech and protected, while the slightest insult to the cult leader Muhammed is not free speech and therefore not protected?  Talk about a double standard.  Talk about hypocrisy.  What are we becoming?  A nation of cowards?  Some idiots burn a building, murder four americans and scores of their own people and we run and hide and throw away our hard won freedoms!  I guess speech a liberal likes is protected and speech a liberal doesn’t like is irresponsible.  What happened to the Hillary of old that believed disagreement and debate was the highest form of patriotism?  Oh, I remember, that was before she was in power.  Very Jeffersonian of her.  And the hypocrit in chief who has taken it upon himself to decide what is and is not the church?  I guess he’s more muslim that he’s wanting anyone to know.  The truth will out and God help us if he is re-elected.  No one else will be able to.

    • ginger

      Clinton has since changed her mind…after all she is a woman and we all know how that is supposed to work…she is as much to blame for the deaths of our people in the consulate as the mobs. And a liar to boot.

      • asl3676

        Clinton is to blame for the deaths in Libya? Care to share your reasoning?

        • Ahalbert

          1. She didn’t make sure her diplomats and embassies were protected well enough.  2. The apoligistic attitude and ads showed weakness and encouraged more defiance.

          • asl3676

            Weakness is a Republican talking point ….Whenever there is an attack there cold have and should have been more security….If the Ambassador was so concerned why was he in the embassy on 9/11? Obviously he wasn’t….

          • venter

            It  was his job to be in the middle east . On 9/11 2900+ workers  went to their jobs at  the World Trade Center.  Responsible people !  Terroriests hide in shadows.  Apparently there were some hints then as there were now.  However no one was minding the stored again.  Or  were we out campaigning?

          • Ahalbert

            You’d be singing a different tune if YOU were related to one of those who was killed and sodomized. It now appears the U.S. had 48 hrs advance warning of the attacks. The White House blatantly lied about the nature of the events to protect Obama’s foreign policy image. Shame on our spineless, politically correct leaders such as Obama and Clinton.

          • asl3676

            Wish you got as agitated about all the deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan…..So sad to hear this nonsense come out during election season….

      • venter

        Ginger   we are all here and silent and I have to believe that quiet is very powerful.    The lies that were thrown out at us  this week are disgraceful . I agree Washington has blood on it’s hands.  BIG question who is protecting us. We don’t have secret service men either..  I don’t think our so called leaders have a clue .  DAH  it was   9/11!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
         I still want to know who in  Eygpt saw the  video  on u-tube and downloaded it to their family and friends that started these riots and killings.  I am sure that will come out in the investigation! HA  we need another investigation/committee!   This is what should be  investigated…………WHAT FLOWER CHILD IS WRITING ALL  THE APOLOGIES THAT ARE BEING READ ON TV HERE AND IN THE MIDDLE EAST? 
        God help us!  We will do a fall clean-up on Nov. 6!

        • asl3676

          You are one angry guy….have you tried having some sex…It would appear from the flower child reference that you still haven’t gotten over being left out of the sixties….how sad..

          • venter

            That’s your reply?

          • asl3676

            terrorist attacks should not be a political football…Do you really think that all the U.S. drone strikes are going to go unanswered forever and do you think any adminitration can stop all terrorist attacks….If the Ambassador had actionable intelligence he would not have been in the embassy…In war, shit happens..stop with the political nonsense..

          • Elaine Coyle

            If you are going to play the part of the condescending, know it all, you should keep
            up with the latest news It turns out that the Ambassador was in a safe house, about a block away, being protected by a firm from Whales.Someone let the attackers know his location. . Now there were reports of such actions from the start but it took the Administration 10 days to get a sketchy ides what happened.
            I personally think it took them 10 days to come up with an idea that would give Obama someone to blame besides himself.
            There is little evidence that Al Quieda was involved .but IMO
             Obama was  looking for another Bin Laden.

          • Drew Page

            Did Al Quaeda think that 9/11 was going to go unanswered forever?   I don’t want to hear whining about U.S. drone strikes.  If there weren’t a 9/11 there would have been no no holding pens at Gitmo, no return to Iraq, no Afghanistan, no drones and bin Laden would probably still be alive.  So blow it out your asl.

          • Brett

            Derisive comments and trying to ridicule one, is as bad or worse than name calling. Look in the mirror ( letters and #’s … you who are afraid to name yourself), you have said that. You just lost the argument, and you know exactly what I mean. If you do not like a reasoned and truthful argument or comment, your only recourse is to ridicule, name call or change the subject. How infantile and so like the incompetent we have come to know as Oblahblahblah.
            My prayers and pity should be directed to you but I can not waste them on  your verbal diarrhea, when Carrot Top  needs them. No comment you make has relevance or can be taken seriously, you know that. You continue to waste space, time, and my oxygen.

        • ginger

          that obscure video was not the reason for the riots…these people want to destroy ALL of us. The fact that the administration lies constantly is the problem. We cannot be quiet about the evil…we need to speak up and to act.

      • sendtheclunkerbacktochicago

        The only folks to blame in this CIA operation gone horribly bad is Ambassador/CIA Agent Chris Stevens and his two CIA Navy Seal co-operators.  These CIA personnel know the risks when they go underground, especially those Navy Seals.  Obama was arming al-Qaeda during the overthrow of Gaddafi Duck and these folks were part of an operation to recover as many of those weapons as they could before Obama was exposed for that Fast and Furious Middle East scandal.  The dead give-a-way came when the Navy Seal sent out a Tweet (vile-rat) that most dumb ass journalists thought was to his gaming buddies.  Now do you really believe that a Navy Seal that was about to die was tweeting his “gaming buddies?”  If crappers like Bernie and Billy O’Reilly would do something with their lives besides complaining day to day about crap that is meaningless and help expose crap like this we would be better served.  

        • ginger

          the messages to the “gaming ” buddies was a call for help…they knew the attack was coming and wanted someone to know about the “workers” taking pictures of the compound etc.

        • Alden514

          Glen Doherty  and Tyrone Woods were the SEALS.  Sean Smith was an information officer with the State Department. 

          “The only folks to blame are Stevens and the two SEALS”?????  Are you insane????

          • sendtheclunkerbacktochicago

            War is hell, when one chooses to put on the uniform or go underground to fight in a war they know the risks.  The enemy is there to kill you, sometimes you win and sometimes you lose.  If Stevens and the Seals had decided to be teachers or lawyers or medics or truck drivers they wouldn’t have died.  They chose to become part of a CIA operation and the operation went horribly wrong.  Do you want to blame the enemy for trying to taking them out, are you insane.  We are not an Army of draftees anymore, these folks volunteer knowing the risk.  Grow up, I am simply dealing with the reality of war.  

          • Alden514

            your answer actually proves you’re insane.

    • Drew Page

      Come on now, would Obama lie to us?      He wouldn’t lie about converting from Islam to Christianity, would he?  The Quran says it’s ok to lie to infidels (like us) if you are a Muslim, but he wouldn’t do that, would he?

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/OPNB6IPETRLINDT2YVYONNTUEY BARBARA

    Under Ms. Chayes theory of limiting “speech that is deliberately tailored to put lives and property at risk,” the mainstream media would be guilty every single day.  I believe media bias is the biggest threat we have to our nation and I along with others find it horribly offensive.  The media has become no more than an extension of the DNC and report or not report news with the explicit intent of shaping the outcome of our elections.  This type of propaganda definitely would qualify as deliberately tailoring speech to put lives and property at risk.   If Ms. Chayes seriously thinks free speech should be governed by how offensive it is, she would be guilty of this crime and would never have another article published.  If  her thinking is representative of the intellectual elite whose ideas are so valued we publish their thoughts, we are in some seriously deep do do. 

    • ginger

      AMEN and AMEN .

    • asl3676

      Based upon your statement can you tell us why child pornography is illegal?
      There is no such thing as unfettered free speech so stop with the long winded nonsense..

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/OPNB6IPETRLINDT2YVYONNTUEY BARBARA

        Golly, you think it might be restricted because you are recording a criminal act with little children. Under your suggestion why not record murders and have them legal.  Get real, your comparison is stupid. 

        • Alden514

          Amen and AMEN from me, too!  As Beck said Babara….”auguing with idiots”…

  • Hoosierdaddy500

    Let’s take your example of the “soon-to-be released movie on the killing of Osama bin Laden” a step farther.  If indeed this movie incites riotous behavior that leads to death somewhere in the world (you choose the spot), then could all those in the White House (including you-know-who) who are believably alleged to have participated in leaking classified information to the movie producers be indicted for being accessories before the fact?  I certainly hope so.

  • POC247

    If speech that has the propensity for encouraging violence is not to be tolerated, then tell me why our society puts up with lyrics in music inciting men to hit women and kill “the pigs’?  Music from artists (I use the term loosely) like Dr. Dre, Scarface, DMX, Eminem, just to name a few and their record companies enjoy freedom of artistic expression far more disturbing than the anti-Muslim movie.

  • Reactoroperator

    With as little logic that you and your fans typically are capable of processing, I have to agree with you on this. I do believe this was a political attempt to stir up hatred against muslims, just as fox “news” is usually doing in their daily banter, and generally cause unrest on their side of things; However, it is free speech, no matter how stupid and backwards these narrow-minded bigots can be. It is not expressly riotous in nature and the unruly response is from a small secion of radical muslims, just like when christian extremists try to ban gay marriage or bomb abortion clinics.

    • Jeffreydan

        Based on your last sentence, you’re the one who sucks at processing logic. 
        I’ll straighten it out for you, and I apologize if some of the words have too many syllables: keeping marriage as it’s traditionally defined is not a fringe, extremist position–look up the actual numbers and then the words “small section”. And while bombing abortion clinics is extremist, let’s see you justify democrats’ widespread belief that a living, breathing newborn child should be killed because an abortion wasn’t successful.
        Oh, and if you plan on trying the “preserving Roe” crap, you’re on the wrong site. People here know the whole story. 

    • Will Swoboda

      Hey reactor operator,
      Gay marriage is one of those oxymorons and very unhealthy and abortion is murder. It’s as simple as that.
      Will from Baltimore

  • JohnHD

    Someone needs to mention to Ms Chayes that this is the United States. And although our free speech if limited to the extent we can’t yell fire in a crowded theater. That is the only limit on our free speech. But if a backward nation or religion is insulted, Tough. I remind her again, this is the United states, and to tell you the truth I didn’t hear her mention anything about the insult to Christianity when the Crucifix suspended in urine, of the Virgin Mary covered with feces was presented in one of our most prestigious Museums. She is another of those whose leftist thinking matches Chris Mathews, confused, unreasonable and perverted.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/2Q3UK3SZ23ED6FUW3X3MUO2TVM Daniel

    Once again it takes a conservative to follow a liberal train of thought to it’s logical conclusion. Liberals just can’t seem to do that. 

  • Joel

    Nice article, Bernie.
    Chayes’ piece raises so many issues, it could probably spawn a whole book. Perhaps Dershowitz should take note.I suspect a greater flaw in her argument is the misuse of the word “imminent.” Yelling fire in a crowded movie theater creates an imminent or immediate problem. Publishing Mohammed cartoons in Denmark or a low-budget movie trailer on Youtube created problems which took months to develop. The latter was put on Youtube on 7/2/12.In any case, sometimes it’s sad to see what a Harvard education buys. Should Harvard refund Chayes’ tuition?

  • http://www.facebook.com/jack.cox.5203 Jack Cox

    Bottom line is~~The Liberals have said and done things that incite me to anger, especially taking christianity away from most Americans who believe this nation was founded under God, yet have no problem, making it illegal to use God in the Pledge of Allegience, etc.  Trying to take down crosses, even those on private property, and someone who wants to display an American flag, on their on property. These are things that incite me to want to be violent toward the Liberal agenda, taking away my rights. I haven’t; because I want common sense to take over at some point and hope the right (pun intended) changes take place come November, or; there may very well be violence against this immoral attack on my rights! You can take that to the bank!

    • James King

      Jack, I sure do agree with what you say about your own private property, but nothing else. God exists only in your own mind, not in reality. And as liberals are wrong in much of what they believe, so also are conservatives. As to what you believe coming from the word faith, to quote Craig Biddle of The Objective Standard, “Faith is acceptance of ideas that are unsupported by or contrary to evidence.”

      Read that line carefully.

      • sendtheclunkerbacktochicago

        It takes more blind faith to NOT believe in God than it does to believe in God.  Hell, every day you make faith decisions that are not supported by evidence that is fail safe.  You believe that every time you proceed through an intersection with a traffic light you do so based on blind faith that the other side of the light is always red.  Every time you stop for that red light, you make a faith decision that the brakes are going to work.  Every time you jump on an airplane you do it with blinders on believing with no evidence that the pilot is sober and of good health.  We can find many many daily examples to show we live every single day based on decisions that are faith based. 

        When I open my Bible I discovered that there were nearly 300 prophecies fulfilled in the life, death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ.  Some skeptics has challenged some of those prophecies as not be prophetic so lets say that may be so.  So lets say a skeptic can discredit 283 of them (they cannot but we use it for argument sake and give a little benefit of the doubt).  Men with incredible math skills and specialist in the laws of probability applied the laws to only 17 of the more popular prophecies.  They low-balled the statistic just to make it fair and reliable and acceptable to a math digest.  The chance that ONE man would fulfill just 17 of those prophecies  calculated to be 1 in 480 BILLION X 1 BILLION X 1 TRILLION that would be 480,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 something  a little larger than our national debt (LMAO).  Good luck with living your life on a long shot gamble that your reality is the truth.  

        • James King

          You are so addicted to being blind that you have confused blind faith and evidence. You think blind faith protects you at an intersection but it is really experience (evidence) that shows the way, not faith.

          The Bible is a work of fiction. Jesus was a fictional character patterned after perhaps hundreds who came before him with the same vitals–virgin birth; star in the sky; 3 wise men, etc, etc.
          The stories are the same.

          You have seemed to be dedicated to what you cite as political evidence against this president, but you require no evidence for the preposterous writings of a bunch of ancient men who were probably afraid of their own shadows and who thought the earth stood still and the sun revolved around it, because that’s what it says. It is all as phony as P.T. Barnum, and even more successful in conning billions of people.

          It is also very easy to disprove.

          • sendtheclunkerbacktochicago

            Knock yourself out Mr. King, begin disproving it.  Do you really think you are the first fool to attempt to disprove the Scriptures?  There are many, many more brilliant men who have come before you with their futile attempts to disprove the Scriptures.  It all ends in the trash can and the Bible remains the best seller year after year decade after decade and century after century.  Those ancient men were acting cowardly as they watched what they thought was their King being crucified on that Roman cross.  One of the best defenses for the resurrection of Jesus Christ is the historical testimony of the horrible deaths those same cowardly ancient men suffered defending what they saw with their own eyes.  I learned a long time ago not to argue with a fool but I find myself always giving into the temptation but I quickly snap out of the insanity of that bad idea, so ya need to grab hold of someone else that may want to debate you.  

      • Ahalbert

        Then you should never get married, since the divorce rate is 50% and you’d have to have faith that the marriage would work. And you’d need to avoid staring a small business due to the 90% failure rate. For that matter, Obama asks you to routinely ignore reality and just have tons of faith in his view of the world. Many of the greatest achievements came in the face of lack of support, opposing evidence, and disdain for a man’s or woman’s faith. If you think believing in God creates a burden of proof, then you won’t mind the responsibility of proving that God doesn’t exist.

        • James King

          I sure wouldn’t believe BO, but your argument just does not pass the smell test. Also, it is extremely easy to prove that God is nothing more than imaginary. Once again I refer you to the web site if you can stand the rational heat, godisimaginary.com and recommend you read some of the many proofs. It became apparent to me more than sixty-years ago when I was 10. But then, I have never been fooled by con men.

          It is easy to equate con men with current commercials that urge you to wait for the most amazing offer of receiving a second product free, just pay separate s&h. If you know what I mean, these commercials would not exist if thousands of people did not respond to them. Fooling people is easy. Getting them to use their brain a great deal harder.

  • Homer

    “intellectual argument”? 

  • James King

    Liberals and conservatives alike are against what the other is for, but none of this answers a simple question. Who decides?

    You can say fire in a crowded or an uncrowded place, but then you can be sued or put in prison because you incited  violence. Who decides? Both conservative and liberal believe at the start of their conviction in immoral concepts because they never answer the question of who decides. Both want decisions made in the opposite camp against each other because neither understands what is the legitimate function of government. Here is what it is–it is to protect citizens from acts of violence in our own country, including our embassies. Nothing more.

    True liberals want government to have, as just one example, access to abortion and convinced SP Justice’s that it is constitutional to get an abortion, which it is not to any clear-thinking, unbiased brain. Conservatives want government to prevent, as just one example, access to abortion. Both are wrong in this example. The correct stance is that it is not their business either way, but only the business of the woman seeking an abortion.

    To deny an abortion is an act of agression in the same ball park as murder, so it could be said by a clouded mind that in this specific scenario liberals are more right than conservatives. But that is wrong because there is nothing CONSTITUTIONAL about abortion.

    The only job of a government of free people is to protect those people from acts of agression and nothing more. Not Social Security–not Medicare–not schools, etc. In the “providing for the general welfare”  clause of Article One Section Eight the key word is general, not specific, which is where the Constitution has been violated since our founding.

    Now I know that the Constitution has many other parts over and above protecting people from acts of agression and I would be happy to return to only those provisions. But until that happens America will continue to go down the road to ruin. The road of conservatives and liberals in and out of government who routinely want to violate our highest law. This is not rocket science. Take off your BIASED hats and look around. What you will see is the end of America as the beacon of freedom that was completely lost beginning in earnest with the Teddy Roosevelt administration.

    • sendtheclunkerbacktochicago

      “To deny an abortion is an act of aggression.”  Now their is an idiotic non-thinking statement almost not worth of criticizing but I take joy is exposing evil.  It is obvious that you have never seen a true to life abortion Mr. King at least I hope that is the case because if you did and still feel the way you do than there is no hope for you morally speaking.  One has not seen anything more brutal and aggressive than another human being going into what DESIGNED to be the safest place on earth for a baby and taking forceps and tearing the arms and legs off another very little human being and then using the same forceps to crush the little human’s head allowing the brains to gush out so that the broken and dismantled human being can be pulled through the birth canal.  Sorry Mr. King, abortion is disgusting and evil only a society gone insane will allow this to continue.  

      • James King

        I agree that abortion is disgusting. Where I part company with you is that it is your business to deny an abortion because it isn’t. It is only the business of the woman, except when it is done in what is called a live birth abortion or late term. Obviously no one has the right to take the life of a living person. That is murder. And there is another time when it cannot be done, and that is when the fetus has a brain and heart.

        Many people believe that the extremely tiny cells that would fit on the head of a needle is a life. Wrong. To be alive a fetus must have a brain and a heart. That is when life happens, not at conception. The conception line is just emotion, but when there is a heart and a brain there is a human life and to kill it is murder, governed by capital-crime laws. Not before.

        • sendtheclunkerbacktochicago

          So Mr. King, please set a time and place when it is unacceptable for someone to kill an unborn baby.  Is it when the cells that are responsible for forming a brain start that process, when might that be?  Is it when those cells responsible for building a heart begin to form a heart, when might that be?  I think that most scientist would say those processes start at a very early time after conception, probably when the cells begin to divide rapidly.  A vast majority of women don’t know they are pregnant when those processes begin.  

  • Richard Gronowski

    Where can I get a autographed picture of Bernie Goldberg, not a auto pen signed one.
    Richard Gronowski, better yet one of Mr. Goldberg and Bill O’Reilley

  • Ivannavi

    I suspect that Ms. Chayes has not read the parts of the Koran that dictate how a [true] believer should deal with non-believers.

  • LW

    Chayes’ analogy is flawed.  It’s reasonable to expect that shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater would incite violence and mayhem — human life is at stake.  It is NOT reasonable to expect that making a film that expresses an opinion unpopular with a certain group would incite violence and mayhem.  Since (in this case) Muslims are not being threatened with the loss of their lives by the making of this film, perhaps they should grow up and be mature citizens of the world instead of having ballistic tantrums whenever someone says something they can’t stomach.  Hey, that’s what I expect of myself as a Christian when someone here in America says something hostile to my faith.  Chayes seems to be saying that those exercising free speech have responsibilities and those hearing it have rights, but she’s left out the other half of the equation — the rights inherent in free speech and the responsibilities of those listening to it.

  • http://blog.cyberquill.com/ Cyberquill

    The movie in question, I believe, violates not the 1st but the 8th Amendment, for it is so badly done that watching it amounts to cruel and unusual punishment. 

  • JohnInMA

    By such flimsy reasoning as Ms. Chayes uses, it is possible that all derogatory speech would be banned if only those who were criticized made it a point to protest the speech violently.   I’m no lawyer, but it’s my understanding that the test in the U.S. requires you measure the impact or reaction through the eyes of the average or common person.  Yelling ‘fire’ in a confined space elicits a common reaction from all.  Criticizing a religion, no matter how vile the speech, does not assure a violent reaction from most every religious person on earth.  And not even all of the Muslim population.

    Using Ms. Chayes effort to rationalize the events, it would be a simple matter to squelch speech against white supremacists, for example.  Their reactions quite often MAY lead to violence, so the same rules would apply.

    One can only hope Ms. Chayes never represents herself as a scholar or even a serious analyst. 

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/NU6QF3EHGK5LHIM6ID6GO72JYQ Seasoned Critic

    Liberals used to be champions of free speech. However, their position has been in transition. Over the last four decades, the position has moved toward enforcement of politically correct speech. Various liberals have moved at different speeds towards the new stance. You might find a few touting the old position of free speech, but nowadays, they are few and far between. The transition is more or less complete.

  • asl3676

    Always great to see right wingers like Bernie Goldberg bloviate about about free speech when it suits them but then whine about pornography on the internet when it doesn’t suit them….Wonder how Bernie would react if You Tube had an all Nazi channel?

    • Bradmtm

      Bernie is consistent, perhaps you might want to do some research before making  such a supercilious comment. 

      • http://www.facebook.com/jack.cox.5203 Jack Cox

        3676 is a dematard! Too ignorant to know better.  He is so full of the lies told by his messiah Oblammer, he can’t think straight! One thing about the stupid in America–they’er consistant!!  

        • asl3676

          Dematard? I thought since Sarah Palin Republicans are not allowed to refer to anyone as retards?

    • sunnyinaz

      …sounds like you like your porn!

      • asl3676

        America loves porn…..Republicans don’t…

    • Patrick

       Okay, Bernie has not whined about pornography, some conservatives have, but he hasn’t. The most I’ve seen him do is ask for a discussion about the content of our culture. You must think all conservatives are alike, asl. That’s what bothers me about you. And anyway, who decides what’s offensive because people’s standards differ.

      • asl3676

        So you know Bernie’s position on pornography? How would you know that?

        • gepaza

           Well, you brought it up.  Remember “and then whine about pornography?”  Yep, that was you what said that!

          How would YOU know what his position is?

          Just curious about the handle.  In the world of tweet, does asl stand for a$$hole?

          • bookman65000

            I’ve been referring to this jerk as as(sho)l(e)3676 since he started posting his inane drivel.

  • Kathie Ampela

    We have to consider the vastness of the internet…do we now have to have internet police patroling the net for jerks posting offensive speech? If so, about 60% of the population would be in jail!  And what exactly is offensive speech, who makes that determination? Common sense should dictate what’s offensive and what is not.  Not we have to put people in jail for a lack of common sense. Since we’ve apologized to the Muslim world for a stupid YouTube video does this now mean every seemlingly offensive video is permission for Muslim radicals to attack every U.S. embassy in the world? Start fires? Burn U.S. presidents in effigy? Better not post a comment that is “offensive” they may burn down our embassy!

  • potemkin_village_usa

    The Classic Slippery Slope Argument applies Here!
    –The Slippery Slope is an argument style where one Small exception to a principle, like free speech, opens the floodgates for more and more exceptions to that principle until it becomes the rule.
    — A good example would be Woodrow Wilson’s Sedition Act where the government jailed speakers and Newspaper writers and editors to long jail terms for openly criticizing the government, and more specifically in regard to war and foreign policy.
    –These offenders to this act were deemed”disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language” which the government claimed was not covered under the First Amendment of the US Consttution. This was called punishable speech or opinion; an exception to free speech.
    –Another example of an exception to free speech covered under the slippery slope argument would be the McCain-Feingold Act which curbed political opinion during an election which prohibited documentaries from being marketed in regard to specific canditates and their opinions. This act was overturned by the Supreme Court.

  • Bruce A.

    If the film “Innocence of Muslims” was produced by the Hollywood left I wonder if the Libs. would be looking to suppress it under hate speech.   If anything it should be suppressed  strictly for the bad acting. 


    Different playing fields concerning conservatives vs. liberals.  Conservatives insist on rules and refs; libs despise both.  

  • Wheels55

    Fine tuning political correctness to the point of not having a point. Harvard you say?

  • EddieD_Boston

    And they don’t grasp the hypocrisy? No, they never do. But conservatives are the stupid ones?

  • Johnny Deadline

    Nice, Bernie.  Liberal illogic never ceases to amaze.  Bush lied, kids died.  Obama and Sec of State Clinton brazenly lie about what caused the murder of four Americans , our embassies are set ablaze, our flag desecrated and replaced by Salafism’s black flag on  U.S. territory in four countries (so far), Obama’s grand rapprochement with Muslim countries is laid to waste for the embarrassment it is, and what does the administration do? They post $70,000 worth of TV spots on Pakistani airways  blaming a two-bit filmmaker for a film that no one has seen.  Apparently community organizing skills aren’t transferable trans-nationally. 

    • NS Sherlock

      I wonder how the blasphemous “Popeye the Sailor Meets Ali Baba’s Forty Thieves” managed to escape the cartoon Nazis? Look out…more muslim ‘spontaneous’ protests on the horizon!

  • david

     Free speech Bobama he is not a God Why does media things he is. do you need help i was dem now rep in2012isnew@hotmail.com

  • SeattleSam

    Actually you do have a right to yell fire in a theater that is on fire. 

  • GlenFS

    My suggestion is that we all every day write something offensive to these Islamists until it just becomes a boring drone unworthy of riots and mayhem.  I will post my contribution after the first 1,000,000 of you have posted yours  😉

    • Alden514

      I’ll go first Glen…WHY do we allow Mosques where women cannot use the front door?  How does their religion trump equality?  And while I’m at it–let’s take a shot at all the liberal secularists who won’t allow the use of the word “God”.  How is it that they are so Hell bent of bowing to a culture where “God” (or allah or whatever) IS their sense of self?  Why is it okay for muslims, but not for Americans????

      • Phantom

        “…liberal secularists who won’t allow the use of the word “God”. ” 
        Your next sentence says secularists bow to cultures where god, allah, or whatever is their sense of self. 
         If your trying to say “liberal secularists” pick easy fights with other religions and not the Muslims, you’re wrong.  Bill Maher admitted he (and Salmon Rushdie, Christopher Hitchens and others) do not think all religions are equally destructive.  He (and they ) think all religions are equally wrong, but not equally destructive.  He and the others, an I agree that Islam is currently the most dangerous of all religions.  
        Why do you drag secularists into your argument?  If you are a person of faith, you have much more in common with the Muslim than any secularist. 
        Here’s my insult to Islam:  Hey Muhammed!  Go fiuck yourself…and the horse you rode in on!

        • Deny916

          Don’t you mean camel?  I agree with your insult 100%.

          Here’s my insult:  I hope when you sickos blow yourselves up in a suicide bombing that your 99 virgins turn out to be 99 used up old ho’s!

          • Phantom

            No, I meant horse.  The myth is that in the year 621 at the age of 51, Muhammed (the Islamic Jesus) rode his winged horse to heaven.  He named his horse Burak, which literally means ‘white horse’.   (make your own joke here)

    • LW

       Coward. :-)  (Please don’t shoot me!)

  • Jerrytaylor

    What we say or do is never going to change the Mid-East.