1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

"Innocence of the Muslims" and Free Speech Issues

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by YankeeFan, Sep 20, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    LA Times Op-Ed says it doesn't meet the standards to be protected under the First Amendment:

    Google denies White House request to remove the video:

    And, the US Embassy in Pakistan has put out an ad denouncing the movie:

    The idea that this movie -- however despicable it is -- does not deserve First Amendment protections is absurd to me.

    And, the idea that our Government would spend time and/or money trying to have speech restricted, and also to condemn private speech in unsettling to me.
     
  2. Uncle.Ruckus

    Uncle.Ruckus Guest

    Amendment.

    And why are you disobeying the no-politics rule? Don't deny it, either. It's right in your last graf.
     
  3. Starman

    Starman Well-Known Member

    Of course he is, as he and his ilk always do.

    Boomy Boy should be arriving from Mount Olympus any second now to add his passive-aggressive concern-trolling bullshit.

    Neener-neener!!!

    EDIT: AND RIGHT ON CUE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
     
  4. Boom_70

    Boom_70 Well-Known Member

    Pretty clear now that the movie did not get Ambassador Stevens killed.
     
  5. Versatile

    Versatile Active Member

    The movie kind of sucks, completely ignoring its content.
     
  6. Armchair_QB

    Armchair_QB Well-Known Member

    Shame people have to politicize this because it is chilling how the First Amendment is being attacked in this country.
     
  7. Starman

    Starman Well-Known Member

    Golly yes, I am concerned.
     
  8. Boom_70

    Boom_70 Well-Known Member

    You might even expand it to the entire Constitution.
     
  9. Armchair_QB

    Armchair_QB Well-Known Member

    And BTW, if we're not going to protect this then we need to stop protecting crucifixes dunked jars of urine in the name of "art."
     
  10. Starman

    Starman Well-Known Member

    Except for the quite extensive parts of it you boys don't like.


    "Piss Christ" was done in 1987. Try to stick to the current millennium.

    And oh BTW, who was president in those immoral pagan days who allowed such desecration to occur? Must have been some mooslim pinko or something.

    Go ahead and Google if you can't remember.
     
  11. Azrael

    Azrael Active Member

    Brandenburg v Ohio. Chaplinsky v New Hampshire.

    We can and do restrict incendiary speech.
     
  12. Boom_70

    Boom_70 Well-Known Member

    Uncle Ruski -- you seem to be in fear of having an honest discussion on free speech. What is that you are afraid of ?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page