A Democratic Senator analyzes the First Amendment: “Are these people [bloggers and tweeters] journalists and entitled to constitutional protection?”
Yeah, makes sense. Protect some people, but really, no one ever thought the first amendment applied to those people.
The words of those who falsely blamed the Benghazi terrorist attack on an obscure YouTube trailer, and were then willing to abandon the First Amendment to defend their lies.
Yesterday’s dramatic congressional testimony about the deadly Sept. 11, 2012 terrorist attacks on U.S. interests in Benghazi, Libya convincingly corroborated what was widely reported within days of the attack: that senior American officials on the ground knew immediately, despite the Obama administration’s storyline to the contrary, that the assault did not arise out of a “spontaneous” demonstration outside the U.S. Consulate in protest of an obscure YouTube trailer of a homemade anti-Islam movie called Innocence of Muslims.
Falsely assessing partial blame for the violence on a piece of artistic expression inflicted damage not just on the California resident who made it—Nakoula Basseley Nakoula is currently serving out a one-year sentence for parole violations committed in the process of producing Innocence—but also on the entire American culture of free speech. In the days and weeks after the attacks, academics and foreign policy thinkers fell over themselves dreaming up new ways to either disproportionately punish Nakoula or scale back the very notion of constitutionally protected expression.
The article then shows us who in American politics was willing to abandon freedom of speech for political reasons. If we have any courage, we should throw these words back in their face again and again and again and again.
A Justice department official today refused to rule out the idea of passing a law that would criminalize speech against any religion. With video.
The exact wording of the question: “Will you tell us here today that this administration’s Department of Justice will never entertain or advance a proposal that criminalizes speech against any religion?”
Despite being asked the question four times, the official consistently refused to answer the question directly. In other words, the Obama administration would consider criminalizing speech against religion. Or to put it more bluntly, they don’t believe in freedom of speech.
JPL lawyers want to limit media access and reporting during ‘intelligent design’ trial.
This suggests strongly to me that JPL did fire this guy because of his religious beliefs.
The Zombie Mohammad judge defends his actions.
On the first amendment:
Here’s the thing: It’s a right, it’s not a privilege, it’s a right. With rights come responsibilities. The more that people abuse our rights, the more likely that we’re going to lose them.
So in other words, it’s an abuse of free speech to criticize Mohammad, but perfectly okay to physically attack that person for that criticism.
This judge has got to go.
“This judge needs to be out of office.”
An exclusive interview with the atheist who was assaulted by a Muslim for criticizing Mohammad, and then verbally attacked for that criticism by a Pennsylania judge.
A Muslim admits to attacking an atheist; the Muslim judge dismisses the case. The punchline: it happened in Pennsylvania.
You can listen to the judge’s statement, beginning at 1:42, here. A video of the attack is here.
This judge should be removed from his office immediately. Rather than defend the law, he defended a specific religion, Islam, and showed a complete lack of understanding of the First Amendment.
A Maryland post office bans Christmas carolers.
“He told them that they had to leave immediately because they were violating the post office’s policy against solicitation,” Duffy said. “He told them they couldn’t do this on government property. He said: ‘You can’t go into Congress and sing and you can’t do it here either.’”
I like this from the comments:
So our freedom of speech is suspended upon entering government property?
A victory for freedom: The Veterans Administration has settled the lawsuit filed against it by veteran’s groups at Houston National Cemetery over the VA’s attempt to stifle prayer at funerals. The key terms of the settlement:
That it took a court suit to make the First Amendment clear to the VA is beyond sad.
Texas congressman demands the firing of VA cemetery director for denying mourners their first amendment rights.
