Mohamed counts his gold as his henchmen are off to rape the children.
What is the “right of free speech?” That’s been the question since the founding fathers first penned the first amendment.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The fabulous first amendment, “guaranteeing” freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the right to assemble, and to petition the government. The words are all there, simple and clear, unfortunately our understanding of them is neither clear nor shared.
First, this little beauty says “Congress” shall make no law, it doesn’t say anything about your mother, as mine so often reminded me. As many of us with well-soaped mouths will attest’ the first amendment is far from a guarantee of protection. What the first amendment actually does is make it much tougher for the US Government, and through the 14th amendment, state county and municipal governments to shut people up. The citizens of these United States, as well as those of other countries are “free” to speak their mind, and free to suffer any consequences. Because the first amendment is at best quite limited in it’s protection.
The first amendment won’t stop a bullet, nor a swift punch in the nose, nor a suit of libel or slander. It certainly won’t hold back the soap cake of doom or the jeers and guffaws from friends and family or, for that matter, any passing stranger. It’s no protection against an angry mob or a quiet, yet endless, parade of sign bearing offended protestors.
An ambassador, and several others were killed by an angry mob in libya yesterday. In a sense they were killed over free speech. They were killed because of a 13 minute movie “trailer” called “The Innocence of Muslims” released on the Internet. That was wrong, as vile as it was ignorant and a great tragedy. However, mostly it was due to an incredibly stupid or malicious use of the powers of freedom granted to us in the United States.
Just like a certain bible totin’ preacher in Florida, hate and evil have the power of free speech as well in this country. Free speech is expensive, really expensive. The cost is, not just the good guys get it, Nazis also get it, Skinheads get it and child molesters get it. It’s no good unless everyone gets it. Which is why “Sam Bacile” an “American-Israeli film maker” made a two hour sick rant against the religion of Islam. A film designed to inflame rage in the religion’s supporters and thereby damn them even more in the world’s eyes. That’s why only the trailer made it to the net and why it was deftly translated to Arabic.
“Sam Bacile” says he’s in hiding now. Typical throw the stone and run away behavior of those who incite others to violence and watch gleefully from the shadows. “Sam Bascile” says the movie cost 5 million dollars donated by “more than 100 Jewish contributors. Oh yeah, “Sam?” If any of that were remotely true, you all got seriously rooked. Calling this piece of trash amateurish is an insult to amateurs everywhere. Pieces of floor show through the chromakey sand and the “actors” are insipid buffoons reminiscent of some drunken uncle “coochie cooing” a very tolerant baby.
But that wasn’t the point, was it “Sam?” Production values didn’t matter at all, did they? All that really mattered was that it looked like a movie made by an angry Jewish boob. People who already hated Muslims who saw the “trailer” would cheer and say “see I told you so!” Muslims extremists who saw the same footage would be enraged, maybe even enough to riot and kill. Score four for “Sam.”
The fact is no one knows who actually made or financed the movie, there’s no prior trace of “Sam Bacile” or his “more than 100 Jewish donors.” They are hoping it doesn’t matter, they didn’t make it to expose the “truth about Islam.” They made it to expose bare and hurting nerves even further. They made it in the name of violence. They made it in the name of horror. They made it to entertain, or possibly enrich, themselves as they watched gleefully from the shadows.
When you shout fire in a crowded movie theater is that Free speech? What happens to the shouter when grandma is trampled in the rush? “Sam Bascile” knows, I wonder if the clearly recognizable actors do? I wonder if the members of the crew do? I wonder what was going through their heads during production, was it thoughts of the soap cakes of doom or were they in on the “gag?” If so then they’re the real fall guys here. Start running boys and girls, the tar and feathers are warming up, if not the AK-47s. There are going to be more casualties, protect yourselves.
While we can descry the production values, laugh off the stupidity of the screenwriters and poo-poo the any righteous indignation of the audience, we also need to recognize the intent. I’m not sure I’ve ever seen actual evil so close before, it’s chilling. Four dead and counting makes it effective evil and the work of decades to defeat. An infection is afoot. Pernicious, malignant and unrelenting, it seeks only advantage through chaos and death. We are warned and we are wary.
See the trailer here, if only to recognize and expose evil:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSlPE04Ubt4
Copyright Prentiss Gray 2012
Prentiss Gray is a writer and columnist and currently writes the Domesti-Tech Blog for Gannett. He can be reached through his website at GrayResearch.net
Prentiss Gray
Prentiss Gray is a writer/columnist/blogger from New Jersey. After 27 years as a Information Systems consultant and the death of his wife of 21 years, he returned to his roots as a writer, creating the national column Adventures of the Lone Dad/ Daddy chronicles. He now Blogs for Gannet on domestic technology, and writes feature pieces and stories for general publication. He is a member of the American Society of Journalists and Authors and contributes to Bloomberg News, Daily Record, Gannett and the Tribune Syndicate.
Follow Me:
excellent article, prentiss. i always learn a lot when i read you.
Report this comment
Was this trailer the real reason for what happened or was it already set up and the trailer just happened to be a good excuse? I really don’t know; however, should anything like this ever be posted on our SWI site – it would certainly push the limits of what I would call “Free Speech” and certainly “Common Sense.”
Report this comment
Prentiss I’m with Bob on this one. That otherwise normal people would be spurred to commit murder because they saw a movie is suspect at best. To believe that, is to assign people a primitive or even childish status. Something I would never do. Also, I’m not waiting too long for the media to give us anything but some cursory facts about anything. So I don’t expect to find out. I’m afraid there is a war looming in the Middle East and it is coming from a long way off.
Freedom of speech as enumerated in our Federal Constitution and every one of our State Constitutions is a limit on the power of Government. It is not a license to have no responsibility, incite violence, or to commit libel or slander. The way it is discussed is many times at cross purposes with reality and common sense. On the other hand you can’t refrain from saying something because it might offend someone. Who is to say what is offensive?
Report this comment
I agree with most of what you say here Don, although not about the war. I also believe that when things are made intentionally offensive or constructed to inflame hatred they need to be called out. Thanks for the comments guys!
Report this comment
Bob, things of this nature are posted here at SWI. The hateful posts are geared towards Chrisatians however and consevatives which is very politicaly acceptable these days. I find it odd that you recognize hate when geared towards moslems but fail to see it when geared toward Christians.
Report this comment
Can you be more specific Steve?
Report this comment
Steve, I respectfully suggest that you be more specific about those “hateful posts” – are you referring, for example, to the satiric posts of Richard Cahill? If so, how would you compare them to the last 3 posts of Deana Goldberg satirically mocking liberal Democrats? Are his posts “hateful” but hers aren’t? Obviously, Bob thinks neither does “push the limits” and neither do I. You probably don’t think so either, but your lack of specificity, it seems to me, isn’t much help.
Report this comment
Prentiss you got me to thinking and it got me to writing. Thank you. That’s what this is all about.
Report this comment
mistermuse I thought Deana was funny. Do I think she likes democrats? No. But if politcians can’t laugh at themselves I say “a plague on both of -their- houses.” I don’t know what is with me an ole Willie today I just keep quoting him.
Report this comment
Just to clarify, Don, my point was that Richard’s and Deana’s satire are equally legit…whether they’re equally funny or not, I suppose, depends on which side of the perspective one is on.
Report this comment
Don and mistermuse are correct in my judgement. Someones insult is not license to rampage kill and burn innocents. It is practiced here in the USA every few years or so and many defend it.
Report this comment
I hadn’t read Deana’s posts until just now. I would consider hers somewhat inflamatory but not quite so hateful as some of Richards. I am 100% in favor of these same writers writing whatever they feel like writing, I just tend not to read them. I stop enjoying satire when it crosses a line and characterizes large groups of people in a false and dememaning manner. In the last few years I feel like I am witnessing kind of a gang mentality dynamic taking place where extreme left wingers are feeling safer and bolder to come out. I actually feel this is a good thing as moderates will have the opportunity to see exactly what they are supporting.
Report this comment
In thinking about this today I’ve come to the conclusion that the current social state we live in, a kind of global village, comes with heavy responsibility. In some respects we are responsible for how our expressions inflame others. There is no hiding from this responsibility, currently we call it “Incite to riot” and the inciters are sometimes held as responsible as the rioters themselves.
Are the guys who put this hateful propaganda together as responsible as those who fired rocket-propelled grenades at the American embassy, no I think not. That would be giving them too much import, too much power. Are they contributing to an already inflamed situation, certainly. There was a case a number of years ago when several gentlemen went to jail for cheering on the rape of a young woman, though none physically participated. That’s the kind of responsibility we are inheriting by living the way we do, and it comes in a great big global basket. Our misguided clerical friend in Florida is certainly guilty, unabashedly so, the question becomes how do we hold him accountable?
Report this comment
I would agree that this video is not something I want to see everyday. But I also saw the photos from the Bin laden raid via European sources, as we chose not to show them here. Most gruesome, and in some way enlightening. It is always a tough call as to what is acceptable speech. I tend to think that the circumstance surrounding the speech is important, does not a detail matter in interpretation?
Don’t you get sick to your stomach every time you see footage of victims of a concentration camp or war prison? Yet the shock of it is valuable. And in the same way, exposure to it on a daily basis causes a morphing into the dim emotion of butchering animals. The PETA folks are just astonished and horrified at a slaughterhouse(now called a “harvest facility”). I’ve seen it all my life, and watching a pig or bull be killed and rendered is not disgusting at all…to me; the end being rather delicious, though it is tough when you realize that “miss piggy” gets butchered today. Perspective matters, lest your sense of sight become askew… Reality, what a perspective!
At times, I though Deana was funny as well, and welcome her to continue to “expand” her writing a bit. Perhaps to a new person, we tend to jump on someone for the unwritten “rules” of comity we try to maintain. I did it myself once, without thinking; in part, Steve refers to this. And also, there are time when SWI could be seen as predominantly featuring “liberal and far left ideas,” ideas skeptical or hateful to Christianity, or Christians who were hateful in a comment or post; over time all manner of “perspective” can be found; Bob’s goal yes? We have a good balance and broad perspectives, can’t we engage in a dialogue which allows for this? Perhaps as contributors, we can contribute our common sense and try to be good to each other. For Example:
Prentiss once told me to be careful or I would “gag on my pointy headed sock” or something like that. I took no offense, rather pride in getting such a tactful response. I enjoyed arriving at my own response! The same was true when Prentiss used a somewhat rarified mathematical reference to make a point to someone else. Very crafty… I saw another where Minnette was called “Minny,” and she didn’t like it, and she WROTE a good response. Aren’t we all supposed to be writers?
As to the events, The video is a BS story, and this is just another case of militant Muslims killing Americans on 9/11. Is that too harsh? Or is it just “common sense,” like when the 767 hit the second tower on that clear blue day…
Never forget about it, it happened.
Report this comment
PS Good article Prentiss…
Report this comment
Prentiss, That really was a good article, I agree with your take on it.
Report this comment
Censorship occurs for a number of reasons. The range is vast but it can be from trivial to personal to political. I think it is the method in which it is done. I liked your article very much and agree with much of what you say. I actually like Michael’s comment, I think he covered it across the board quite well.
The interesting dynamic is that at some point SWI represents a freedom that some of us seldom get to use. Some may be more timid timid or reserved to speak the way they write. Some may not have a venue to express. Then there are some who just crave and need all types of dialogue. I may be straying away a bit here, but as for Deana, I liked and appreciated her style. Less filling….tase great. Not all of us are going to agree. Deana was kind of Maddish, and although I can’t do that anymore it can be fun to see, kind of in a Looney Tunes fashion. Bon Voyeggie! See ya in Snt. Louie!
Report this comment
There’s no comparison. Mine are better.
Report this comment
I thought the “Libtard” was wonderful! I actually liked her style, more to the point and not all that self insertion. That said, I enjoy your reads, but I do not agree with your politics, what little I think I understand of politics!
Report this comment
I like creative writing period! Mostly everyone here writes with that quality and what is even more key, I learn…most of the time.
Report this comment
I think she was one of you guys in drag.
Report this comment
Noooo…she was Don’s flingy dingy!
Report this comment
As it turns out all references in the film to Mohammad and Islam were dubbed in later, apparently the actors thought they were making a movie about ancient Egypt. I’ll wait for more analysis before deciding, but the intent I’m sure of. Want to bet we run the guys responsible down?
On a side note, what is going on with Romney’s team? Someone needs to shake their head, there’s something loose in there.
Report this comment
Romney made a costly mistake by politicizing the embassy raids. Very bad call and very bad judgement.
Report this comment
It’s got to be his advisors. He’s got a crappy team. I don’t know how he ended up with these people but they are killing him. Frankly I guessed early on that the things he would say would cost him the election. You know he reminds me a lot of Herbert Hoover, great business man, great humanitarian, lousy President.
Report this comment
It was an attempt at a bold move, which backfired they say. I don’t have a problem with “what” he said, since it was relatively true, but the timing wasn’t so good. It reminds me of the Gates “stupidly” remark by the President. A situation where one speaks before contemplation; I’m sure none of us have ever done that…
I would like to know why we spent hours apologizing also. Doesn’t this remind you of 1980? An inept Democrat President with out of control embassy situations, and the opponent who isn’t going to win.
Report this comment
No, Not really. Reagan responded with complete support for President Carter in 1980 as did G H.W. Bush (senior) said “”I unequivocally support the president of the United States — no ifs, ands or buts — and it certainly is not a time to try to go one-up politically. He made a difficult, courageous decision” A different class of Republican apparently. And let’s not forget the embassy attacks in 1983 (Beruit, Kuwait), 1986 (Jakarta), 1987 (Rome), 1990 (Tel Aviv), 1998 (nairobi, Dar es Salaam), 1999 (Beijing), 2002 (Karachi), 2004 (Tashkent, Jeddah), 2006 (Damascus), 2007 (Athens, Vienna), 2008 (Istambul, San’a), 2011 (Sarejevo, Cairo, kabul) I’m sure the list will go on and on, most Presidents have to deal with these, at least for the last 30 years or so.
We certainly disagree on the President’s “ineptitude.” As for who’s going to win, still very close, anyone who doesn’t vote this time is really being dumb. A lot can happen in the next 7 weeks, and probably will. However if congress doesn’t get off their buts and pass the Jobs act and the farm bill, it will be time to get out the tar and feathers.
Report this comment
“Relatively true?” You sound like you’re running for office yourself, Miguel. Remember, the “weak” statement was made by the Embassy staff itself, the people who were surrounded by an angry mob. If they had tweeted “Bring it on!” would you be happy?
As to the Carter-Obama comparison that the Republicans would have us buy into, the prisoners of Tehran were being held hostage by a foreign government. No such situation exists in Egypt.
Report this comment
Sort of like you and I, relatively bald… they would have to take me kicking and screaming into office, because I would be afraid of death then. I actually would balance the budget, reform taxes, and fix entitlements in the first hundred days. But it probably wouldn’t pass the Congress regardless, even in eight years, unless there were millions with pitchforks surrounding the capital building. Politicians of any stripe seem, for the most part, to be self-serving crooks…I wouldn’t fit in.
Report this comment
I did expect the lefties to stick together.
Embassies are attacked all the time. Did the guards in Libya have bullets in their guns? It is the response which shows something. The White House was more worried about “politicizing” the issue themselves, and did so, before they ever condemned the people over there and what they did.
This is a natural conclusion of the milquetoast way that we did Libya and the middle east the last few years; including the apology tour. Over there, President Obama is viewed as weak as water. In fact the people over there view us less favorably than when Bush “the cowboy” was in, as he was viewed as putting up with no BS.
There were many conservatives and some Democrats who railed against the administrations Libya/Egypt policies; and even some on this site. Where is all the chatter NOW about how great the Muslim Brotherhood and Arab Spring are? Was it not our “friends” in Libya who moved the ambassador and then gave him up to the mob a la Khadaffy? That is governmental to me, as they are in charge over there. But who really cares about splitting hairs?
The hostages came back after Reagan was elected because the Iranians knew that HE would whack there ass, as opposed to the weak and ineffectual Carter. Currently, our President refuses to see the leader of Israel, and has not been very effective in doing anything but passing healthcare, and saying the same pablum over and over, without result or actions. And don’t give me the Republican Congress “do nothing” argument. The President and his party had COMPLETE control of the levers of power for two years, and all they really did was pass Dodd-Franks financial reform, sponsored by two of the individuals most responsible for the economic and financial mess, and this “healthcare” bill which PASSED with zero input or votes from Republicans, but they couldn’t pass a budget for three years due to Republican obstruction? The President’s budget couldn’t even get the Democrats to vote for it, and the Senate, which the Dems still control, can’t even bring one for a vote, yet the House has passed one multiple times…
The President of the United States, Barack Obama is ineffectual and ineffective. He has been a campaigner, not a good judge of how to govern or manage. That is why he doesn’t deserve to be re-elected. His first miscalculation was barely after he ever used the toilet in the White House, when he told the Repubican leaders, whom he was just meeting, that “we won the election” and your thoughts don’t matter. He reaps what he sowed. Post Partisan my ass…
Report this comment
Miguel, you have not been to the Middle East and talked to the people over there. That they prefer Bush to Obama, or respect him less, is just what you hear on Fox and outlets of their ilk.
As far as the Arab Spring goes, could it have been inspired by the messy yet more or less democratic Iraq that was the result of Bush’s invasion? Can we blame (or credit) him for it? I doubt it, but saying Obama made a mess of it is reality-defying. Should he have offered the services of US troops to shoot the protesters in Egypt and Tunisia when their own armies refused to do so? Should we have backed Qaddafi, the murderer of Lockerbie, in the interests of preserving stability in Libya?
Of course the Repubs don’t mind screeching about Obama’s “failures” in Libya while at the same time blaming him for not jumping into the snakepit of Syria with both feet. And Obama’s ‘weak’ for not saying exactly who are our enemies, who are our friends, and what we’re going to do in any situation, as if flexibility in the pursuit of the national interest was never advisable.
Remember, in 1983, 241 Marines were killed in Lebanon. Ronald Reagan responded by tucking his tail and getting the hell out of there. Obama’s never run away from anything, but to you, Reagan’s a hero and our current President is a wimp. Your preconceptions form your opinions. It’s true of all of us, but sometimes I think, wistfully, that you could do better.
And there’s nothing relative about my baldness. To paraphrase an ex-governor of New Jersey, I am a proud bald American.
Report this comment
“lefties?”. Not up to your usual standard of civility Michael, or habit of deeper and measured thought. I must have made you very angry, for that I apologize. It’s a symptom of the times, I guess.
Report this comment
“Discretion is the better part of valor.” During an ongoing crisis while additional embassies are still under attack, a prudent man would know not to politicize the issue. Romney’s comments were ill-timed and ill-advised; it wasn’t the time to criticize the president. It is a time for us to come together as one. This is when we need cool heads to prevail. Mitt’s inflammatory remarks will only incite more violence. His lack of diplomacy and tact just underscores the fact that he’s poorly suited for the job.
Report this comment
You know, it wasn’t anger so much as frustration. Both men have politicized the issue, easily seen if one takes off the partisan lenses. I had just seen how the media coordinated the optics on the whole affair and how to stick it to Romney; what with NPR and CBS et al pre-planning how the news conference would go.
The MS media are nothing more than partisan cheerleaders for Barack Obama. If you cannot see it, then you are very blind. That’s not mind-numbed me being taken in by Fox News, that is me seeing the video in context, seeing the coverage, viewing the actual events, and coming to the simplest most obvious conclusion. In your heart, you KNOW I’m right about that.
Add Bernanke and his shenanigans, and you all know I’m against printing any more money, especially 60 days out of an election and that makes eggroll, when I read your comments, I was perhaps a little strident, I hope you know I like you fellows.
I’m not going to get into the blame game, most of these politicians are self-serving liars. I don’t care who did what, I just want to hear how it is going to be fixed. While it is possible that Romney lacks, he was the parties best in show. But I am willing to vote for him, because the current administration has already more than proved to me that he is ill-suited to the job…and out of his depth.
Perhaps I shouldn’t say it; I firmly believe that Prentiss and I could do a better job than Obama and Biden…We would “argue” alot, but we would actually deal with real issues instead of the shiny objects.
Report this comment
Clearly, there is never a good time to criticize Obama. People with real experience in intelligence are aware he is an amateur and apologist that is seen as weakness. We were warned a week before the Egypt incident and both Obama and Clinton failed to inform Egypt we expect them to protect our embassy. The same people who sang the praises of the Arab spring as some form of democracy being birthed are defending Obama and ignoring the fallout from attacking Libya a renewal of al Queda. Arab culture demand reprisal for perceived offenses if it takes a hundred years. Those who have no experience with this culture and its violence blather ad nauseum. I hope this is not the Clinton years response to terrorism re dux. Hatred of America is bred in children from preschool on up in many parts of the middle east. This is going to be a long term problem.
Report this comment
Good job Prentiss.
Report this comment