Message from the Obama Admin: Cause enough violence and we'll pressure media companies to censor content on your behalf.
Talk about incentives!
Administration officials have asked YouTube to review a controversial video that many blame for spurring a wave of anti-American violence in the Middle East.
The administration flagged the 14-minute “Innocence of Muslims” video and asked that YouTube evaluate it to determine whether it violates the site’s terms of service, officials said Thursday. The video, which has been viewed by nearly 1.7 million users, depicts Muhammad as a child molester, womanizer and murderer — and has been decried as blasphemous and Islamophobic.
All we need for peace is do to whatever they want!
And if you want, go and look at the comments for the sickening useful idiots taht are getting angy at the people behind the film, including those that demand publishing the names of everyone involved and the forceible relocation to a Muslim country. Or those that think this movie was made as a conspiracy to incite voilence, and thus make Obama look bad. It's all about him isn't it?
Classy eh?
Who wants to bet me money that the "anti-Muslim film" was produced for the sole purpose of affecting the outcome of the 2012 election by inciting violence in the Middle East during the election season, and for no reason other than that?And another
Yea this seems to be another one of those "Swift Boat" type of corruption. President Obama really needs to step up and do something. We cant have this type of corruption effecting our foreign policy and putting Americans at risk around the world. The President needs to get the FBI on this case and see where it leads and then try to rat out all the conspirators. We got our Libyan Ambassador killed and 2 embassies raided so this is a matter of national security now. If this film is not made then none of this happens.
Free Speech must be tempered by security! Forign Policy cannot be risked by such dusty old concepts of Free Speech. Not when it can embarass the President!
Oh and anonymity must be banned. And people should not be able to go into hiding if being threatened. Okay then...
Note the self serving and delusional nature where the State is king and the State's concerns literally trump every individual act of expression. Who dertermins what's offesnive? Why the murderers that's who!
Also by Ed Driscoll is this bit on our Constitutional Scholar President's Ignorance of the First Amendment.
Especially this bit from Jonah Goldberg in appeasing lynch mobs by discarding Freedom of Speech.
One might ask who is to decide what is crude and what is refined. But that would be fruitless, because we know the real answer: the Islamist mobs and their leaders. Their rulings would come in the form of bloody conniptions around the world.
Are we really going to hold what we can say or do in our own country hostage to the passions of foreign lynch mobs?
If your answer is some of form of “yes,” then you might want to explain why U.S. citizens aren’t justified in attacking Egyptian or Libyan embassies here in America. After all, I get pretty mad when I see goons burning the American flag, and I become downright livid when a U.S. ambassador is murdered. Maybe some of my like-minded friends and I should burn down some embassies here in Washington, D.C., or maybe a consulate in New York City?
Of course we shouldn’t do that. To argue that Americans shouldn’t resort to mayhem while suggesting it’s understandable when Muslims do is to create a double standard that either renders Muslims unaccountable savages (they can’t help themselves!) or casts Americans as somehow less passionate about what we hold dear, be it our flag, our diplomats, or our religions. (It’s hardly as if Islamists don’t defame Christianity, Judaism, moderate forms of Islam, or even atheism.)
Meanwhile the Whitehouse is telling Youtube to pull the video:
As anyone who has dealt with YouTube knows, though, asking the video site to review a video for possible violations is how one starts the process of getting a video pulled from the site. Todd’s clarification amounts to a confirmation.
Added to Thursday’s news that the Department of Justice investigated and publicly identified the man believed to be behind the film, and the fact that Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Martin Dempsey called Rev. Terry Jones to ask him to rescind his support for the film, and the picture of a White House going out of its way to squelch free speech is clear.
Good for Youtube, they're telling Obama to pound sand.
Take note fanatics of other faiths and even ones of pure political stripes. Maybe you too can get the Pentagon, the State Department, the Department of Justice, and the White house to bat for you if you kill an ambassador.
To put this into clearer terms. Say there were mass attacks on gay activists at the hands of some "traditional marriage" fanatics or maybe on some abortion activits or doctors that preform abortions, and in response the US goverment decidedto pressure Youtube to remove a video critical of Jesus that the murders were using to "justify" their rage.
When you put it that way, it sounds like the goverment is rewarding very people commiting the atrocities doesn't it?
The lesson is obvious. The more ruthless, voilent, and desturctive you are the more the US goverment will bend over backwards to satisfy your demands.
Blasphemy laws ho!
Ace is more to the point: "US GOVERNMENT NOW ACTING AS CENSORSHIP ARM OF ISLAMISTS"
If we're going to have anti-blasphemy laws, I want them official and passed by Congress and reviewed by the courts. I don't want this executive-only implementation of a despicable law.
Executive only is Obama's style. And more with the FBI getting in on it.
And Roger L Simon notes that this is all part of the real danger. It's not what they'll do to us, but what we'll do to ourselves.
The Middle Easterners can cause isolated outbreaks of mob violence, killing or injuring innocent people, more often than not themselves. The media can break apart the fabric of the Western world, destroying through their narcissism what it has taken generations, indeed centuries, to build.This delusional thinking from the media and government is getting hilariously frightening.
JAY CARNEY: Well, as you know, there, we, are very vigilant around anniversaries like 9-11. The president is always briefed and brought up to speed on the precautions being taken. [crosstalk] But let’s be clear. This, these protests, were in reaction to a video that had spread to the region. [crosstalk] We don’t know otherwise. You know, we have no information to suggest that it was a pre-planned…attack.
That’s a lot of false information to pack into one short soundbite. The foreign office in Benghazi was not secured, so the administration was not vigilant. The president tends to skip his daily briefings. He even skipped the briefing on the day after the attacks. The attack was pre-planned; we posted the warning here on Monday regarding the embassy in Cairo. It was not in reaction to a film, but an attack staged by terrorists on the 9-11 anniversary.
And then less than an hour later Carney contradicts himself.
The administration would rather pretend that some film was the cause of all this. That's right, they would rather play along with a patsy and scapegoat and go with instituting ad-hoc Blasphemy codes.
Well, you can bet on the American Media to keep dutifully pushing the narrative.
More here. And here.
If an American consulate had been attacked and four Americans including the ambassador slaughtered on George W. Bush’s watch –on 9/11, no less– the outrage broadcast over the nation’s elite media would have been intense and round-the-clock.
Had George W. Bush then responded to those events by jetting to Vegas for a fundraiser and campaign rally marked by a rote and emotion-less nod towards the victims and a callous transition to the difficulty of campaign life for political volunteers, well, the hysteria that would have followed would have melted wires.
Because Barack Obama is the MSM’s favorite president ever; however, when these events followed that outrageous attack on Wednesday, the Manhattan-Beltway media did not even pause from their unremitting attack on…Mitt Romney, of course.
From Glenn Reynolds:
"MICHAEL TOTTEN: "Why can’t the President of the United States bring himself to defend free speech in front of a murderous mob? Because apparently he doesn’t respect it." Got it in one."
And here's the Top 8 Dumbest Things Said about the First Amendment this Week
Can't say we weren't warned. Hillary Clinton did pledge to "shame and pressure Americans who denigrate Islam".
Laugh now all you progs. But remember, Islamic conservativism isn't exactly keen on abortion, homosexuality, or feminism either.
How long until the "Arab Street" starts saying they're rioting because of those offenses?
Is the lesson here that if Social Cons in America really want to stop gay marriage, or whatver they think Jesus finds offensive, that they should start voilent riots and break into US govermental buildings?
Remember Obama did predict that hostilities with the Islamic world would cease with his inauguration. Well, Obama is campagining on "Gimme a Mulligan". Steven Green takes that idea with: "Maybe we should have bowed more."
Maybe hostilities with the Islamic world will *really* cease the day we set up our very own Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice. Maybe we can merge it with like minded organizations such as the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene
Really, none of this is terribly shocking. If our political elites don't want people to have dangerous tools, they certifiably don't want us to have dangerous ideas, let alone being able to spread them to whoever we want.
Keep an eye out for more "May Issue" Free Speech laws.
No comments:
Post a Comment