Michael Maiello's picture

    Hi, We're Going To Offend You

    By Michael Maiello on Tue, 09/25/2012 - 5:56pm | Politics

    In his speech at the United Nations, President Obama did not apologize for the B movie that may or may not have sparked riots throughout the Middle East.  And, of course, the President owes no apologies.  We're a classically liberal democratic republic.  That means that we allow our citizens to be stupid, to be rude and even to be hateful.

    Obama did criticize the movie and the intent of the filmmaker.  That is his right and it's the right thing to do.  Just because the law allows for something doesn't mean that we can't disapprove of it.  As the riots spread through Egypt, its president asked our president to do something.  The filmmakers needed to be punished, he argued.  Spoken like a man who has lived under a dictatorship (however benign) he whole life.

    Now, in Slate, Eric Posner is arguing that we have too much free speech.  Posner doesn't exactly say what should be done, but he is arguing that our collective need to have a rational and productive foreign policy should outweigh the rights of somebody to make heretical movies about Islam.  It's tempting to go down that road, but ultimately dangerous.

    To give Posner his due -- he points out that other western democracies don't view free speech as inviolate as we do.  It's illegal to deny the Holocaust in Germany or to wear Nazi costumes and German society does seem better off for it.  Other European countries have stricter rules about what types of speech incites racism or potential violence.

    Then there's the issue of sharing the world with a whole lot of people who don't share western values.  I think the stance favored by most Americans, and definitely by me, is that freedom of speech is a universal right, no matter where you're born.  If your culture doesn't allow it, you're living in an oppressive culture.

    The plain truth is that Americans have big mouths and they're not going to shut them, no matter what the world thinks.  In an interconnected world, people are just going to have to get over it when they feel insulted or blasphemed.  This might be easy for me to say as a secular liberal with no real spiritual beliefs that are vulnerable to mockery.  I'd also argue that people should put more thought into how they express themselves, particularly if they are going to try to communicate as a global citizen.  But they can't be forced.

    Ultimately, I have to conclude that the positive right of people to say what they want how they want is more important than the negative right of Muslims or any religious believer or believer in anything, to not be offended.  In that sense, I'm definitely pushing western attitudes on the rest of the world.  But the reverse is worse.  I can't make fun of the prophet?  Why?  Because your religious texts say not to?  I don't believe in your religious texts.

    There's only one really good reason not to transgress in that way -- the desire to want to be a good neighbor even to fellow humans on the other side of the globe.  But you can't legislate that and I don't believe we should even try.

    Topics: 
    Politics

    Comments

    Here's a thing I find, Destor. When I'm on American blogs, the debate (over the latest inflammatory and insane thing that was said) instantly - and I do mean instantly - turns to the "question" of Free Speech.

    And yet, when I'm in a place like England, or here in Canada, the discussion very often heads off toward a different question entirely. Which is, "How best to reduce the amount of screaming stupidity being screamed, stupidly, in public?" 

    Because, it's not necessarily a question of repressing or censoring that speech. It may turn to the question of... education. Or bringing in or changing or mollifying or replacing some group that is otherwise off its rocker. Or of asking people who play editorial roles in the media to maybe not instantly highlight the most inflammatory and stupid voice they can find.

    Now, I know you in particular value very highly "freedom," to do or say XY and Zed, and would give it an extremely wide swath in our lives. And thus, when you see people questioning these freedoms, you decide the key question is whether or not that freedom should be suppressed. Very often in cultures, we like to fight and re-fight, the last war, while other, gaping, failures cause extreme damage and go untended. 

    So what if a different, but equally useful, question was, "Why do we have so many compete asses blabbing on and on about other peoples' religions, and saying completely bizarre twisted and hateful stuff about it, and how can possibly reduce that, and reduce the attention paid to it, without having to censor people?"

    Footnote. And yes, we Canadians run a very close 2nd to you Americans in this regard, and I think it's quite apparent that some Canadians, even on this blog, are complete loudmouths. I would therefore like to take this opportunity to apologize for acanuck.

    In our defence, he lives in Quebec, and they're a sneaky lot. Go Leafs Go.


    by quinn esq on Tue, 09/25/2012 - 6:31pm

    You had me thinking, "What a thoughtful, reasonable point of view Quinn has posted." Well played, sir.

    I'm heading out to riot and burn something down right now.


    by acanuck on Tue, 09/25/2012 - 6:47pm

    I definitely agree with you, Quinn.  We need smarter and better and more compassionate people.  It's a long term education problem.  And even if we do a good job of it, there will always be freaks and weirdos out there who will be able to use the Internet to promote themselves.

    I guess we have to beat these people with more and better speech.

    Also, like acanuck, I'm headed out to riot now.


    by Michael Maiello on Tue, 09/25/2012 - 7:00pm

    Some kind of public education might play a role, coupled with shaming and disapproval, but it is not going to stop people who know exactly what they are doing, and who do it anyway.

    I think all we can do is say to the world that it is our tradition to let people say pretty much whatever they want, even when it rubs most of us the wrong way.  It might also be useful to acquaint people in other countries with some of the nasty things that are said, written and filmed about Christianity, so they understand that it is not a matter of bias.


    by Dan Kervick on Tue, 09/25/2012 - 7:47pm

    Soooo.... I hope you note that, basically, you and Destor both noted what was said, mentioned education, and then.... essentially walked on past and said "that won't stop them."

    Do you not think other countries have maybe done different things, in different ways, that might be worth learning from? 

    For instance. The dynamics of the right-wing American churches, and how it interlocks with the political system, the media, the schools and so on have given it a very different growth curve, political weight and media role than in other countries. Since a subset of these people have actively CREATED today's situation, and are behind some of today's most egregious events, is the only thing the American center and left has to offer the world the wise words of "they will always be here" and "suck it up?" 

    Because, in fact, their role in society and the media has changed dramatically over the past 40 years. Why can't we see ways to reverse or transform it? 


    by quinn esq on Tue, 09/25/2012 - 9:29pm

    No, I didn't say that education won't be effective with anybody - only that it won't be effective with politically committed agitators who are determined to promote conflict.  These hard core extremist Coptic groups aren't laboring under a lack of education.  They know what they want - violent conflict and war - and are trying to provoke it.  The same is true of Ms. Geller and her associates.


    by Dan Kervick on Wed, 09/26/2012 - 12:20am

    I often wonder why some things are even considered news. I used to live in Gainesville, home of the infamous Terry Jones, so I knew about him before he became famous. Why in the world was this insignificant nobody made an international star just because he decided to burn a Koran? It reminds me of an Asimov psycho-history novel. The emperor asks Hari Seldon what to do about trouble makers. He talks about steadily increasing the penalties with no effect. Seldon replies, they're just looking for publicity. Instead of releasing their names give them a number and a derogatory appellation. Dumb ass #3 was just arrested for vandalizing  the east gate. It would be helpful if the media felt it had to report on people like Terry Jones they simply said, some dumb ass nobody in Fl is threatening to burn a Koran.

    As an aside, I'm prepared to forgive acanuck since there's been such a clear unequivocal apology. It takes a big man to apologize, Quinn, so I'm sure you've earned a lot of respect for that.


    by ocean-kat on Tue, 09/25/2012 - 9:42pm

    I think there's something valuable in the idea of mobilizing new (old) social mechanisms to reduce the amount of media - and political - attention these wingnuts get. We probably have as many weirdos and freaks up here as you do down there (acanuck excluded), but they very much seem to me to be given less societal oxygen. 

    In many cases, these clowns have less public support and fewer backers than they claim. So a simple focus on the reality of their claims to speak "for" anyone can do some good.

    A follow-up question is, what do we need to do to influence our media and political machinery to ignore or downplay these ditzes more often? It's a bit like getting sugar out food, and downsizing the average drink/meal people are served. It sounds crazy, after decades trending one way, but it can be done I think. All trends seem unstoppable, until... they start to go the other way. And pretty much every one does, sooner or later.


    by quinn esq on Tue, 09/25/2012 - 9:57pm

    I don't want to sound pollyanna but I think this trend is on its way out. Though it will take some years. The republican party has always had some crazies on its fringes, the birchers and evangelicals, that the main stream didn't talk much about. In desperation they've been stirring them up, moving them into the mainstream, speaking for them on the news while the moderates have left the party. That's an election strategy that is failing or will soon. If Obama wins in this absolutely shit economy that's a pretty clear indication that the majority of Americans are recoiling from the right wing extremism. If he's then able to make some meaningful repairs to the economy the republican party will have to find a way to move to the center and shut up its kooks, or face sure defeat in future elections. Of course if the world can't figure out how to repair this world wide economic calamity anything could happen including the rise of some sort of fascism and war.

    The question is what will faux "news" do if the republicans move to the center. Will they continue to be the propaganda wing of the republican party?


    by ocean-kat on Tue, 09/25/2012 - 10:59pm

    If Obama wins in this absolutely shit economy that's a pretty clear indication that the majority of Americans are recoiling from the right wing extremism. If he's then able to make some meaningful repairs to the economy the republican party will have to find a way to move to the center and shut up its kooks, or face sure defeat in future elections.

    This feels plausible to me, and I want to think it's true.

    But these times are so unpredictable, I wouldn't bet on it, somehow.


    by Anonymous PS (not verified) on Wed, 09/26/2012 - 12:06pm

    Although I'd LOVE to see the result be the demise of the whacko right, I'm feeling more like they will rationalize that it was their flawed candidate, not their ideology that was rejected. That had Romney been GENUINELY more to the right, Obama would not have won.

    As for people flapping their lips in outrageous ways, we will NEVER be able to stop that, and these people who are so easily offended need to get over it. Other religious groups are disrespected every day without rioting and/or killing people.


    by stillidealistic on Wed, 09/26/2012 - 1:32pm

    Of course the republican base is going to say that. The leaders might claim it as well, but they aren't stupid and those in charge know its not true. The republican strategies are beginning to fail in virtually every way. As I said it will take some years and it requires that the democrats produce some reasonably effective turn around. But if Obama wins and can produce that reasonably effective turn around the republicans will have to do something and I think they will.

    The southern strategy is on its way out. Its not gone but one can see the writing on the wall. Demographic changes, more minority population and immigration of less conservative voters from the north as well as a new generation of voters are breaking the republican lock on the south. Johnson reportedly said when signing civil rights legislation that the dems have lost the south for a generation. Well its been more than a generation and the old guard is dying off and their children have by and large accepted the new reality.

    Those same demographic changes are affecting elections across the board. Republicans are losing minorities in greater percentages every year as minorities increase as a percentage of the population. The republicans can't be just the party of the white men when the percentage of the white population is steadily decreasing. Republicans will have to find a way to increase their numbers with minorities. Jeb Bush and other republican leaders are discussing this.

    Trickle down is dying as an economic strategy. Everybody gets a tax cut was always a scam, a few crumbs for 90% with massive breaks for the rich. But the beloved Reagan popularized it, it seemed to work for him, so people bought the scam. The biggest surprise for me is that Romney's talk of lowering the rates for everybody by 20%  isn't working. It appears people have finally seen through the con and realize it really means tax cuts for the rich. Polls show that people support tax hikes on the rich to deal with the deficit.

    The republicans are losing on gay issues. Polls clearly show that the younger you are the more you favor equal rights for gays. Even Ryan has just stated that while he thought it was wrong to change don't ask don't tell he doesn't think it should be turned back.

    Republicans have gone too far on abortion. It was one thing to pass laws requiring minors to get parental permission, to tie foreign aid to abortion policy, to stop tax dollars from being used to fund abortions, to try to ban late term or partial birth abortions. But when you require vaginal probe ultrasounds, get wishy washy on abortions for rape or incest victims, and are against commonly used birth control except barrier methods you begin to lose those who are fence on the abortion issue.

    Main stream America is too far right for me. But the republican party has been getting farther and farther to the right of main stream america. They used to talk to the center right while giving the old wink wink nudge nudge to their far right. But as the country changed around them they chose to embrace their crazies to win elections. It worked for a time but now there are virtually no moderate or center right  leaders in the republican party. The leaders are not stupid, they see tea party candidates losing elections. They can understand the polls and the changing demographics of our nation. America is not a far right country just as it is not as far left as I am.

    Politicians may believe in and care about the policies they mouth, but they care much more about being in power. Those in the republican party who can are starting to push back and speak out. You can see it in the fight they had with Norquist a few months ago. You can see it with almost everything Jeb Bush says. If Obama wins and if he can find a reasonably effective fix for the economy I believe these small beginnings will accelerate and we'll see the republican leaders attempt to move the party to the center right.

    Things weren't always like this. I've watched the Republicans move farther and farther right and the democrats do the same. I think we're at a turning point. The democratic leaders are making tiny steps to fight for democratic policies and ideas. The republican leaders are starting to push back cautiously against their far right. As Quinn said, "All trends seem unstoppable, until... they start to go the other way. And pretty much every one does, sooner or later."

    Of course all bets are off if a break up of the EU or some other economic collapse pushes the world into a second great depression. Then anything at all could happen.


    by ocean-kat on Wed, 09/26/2012 - 3:32pm

    Earlier this month, some Republican insider (wish I could remember whom) admitted, "This is the last election that will be run this way." Meaning that, with the country trending in all the ways you cite, putting together an anti-immigrant, anti-minority, anti-"socialist," anti-tax, anti-poor, anti-abortion coalition has become a losing proposition for the party.

    There's no longer a way you're going to find a smiling, avuncular Reagan-like figurehead to successfully make that sales pitch. McCain hit that wall, and Romney even harder -- despite running against their former core principles. Who is going to want that role in 2016? I have no idea how it all will shake out, but the Republican Party is in for some soul-searching, not to mention blood-letting. I can't wait. 


    by acanuck on Wed, 09/26/2012 - 5:37pm

    Are you one of those British Queer guys or Queen guys?

    Defence is rooted in the British empire and I, for one am abashed!

    And yes, I am very close to you all with my Minnesota accent and such being only a hundred or so miles from your despicable border--oh and yes, did you not attack us sometime ago when history was history and Americans were Americans?

    What was the question?


    by Richard Day on Wed, 09/26/2012 - 8:45pm

    So, what is it exactly that you have against being a good neighbor?

    Does every direction have to be made a law in order for it to be followed?

    Can't we just aim for being unoffensive without being told we must?


    by wabby on Tue, 09/25/2012 - 6:33pm

    I can be a good neighbor and you can be a good neighbor.  The people behind this film?  I don't have much faith in them.  So the world will have to tolerate them and their ilk.


    by Michael Maiello on Tue, 09/25/2012 - 6:51pm

    Well Destor what you say is true.

     

    But like an old timer in AA once said "If you go around stepping on people's toes, don't be surprised if they retaliate."


    by cmaukonen on Tue, 09/25/2012 - 6:35pm

    sometimes toes need to be stepped on.

    and sometimes some step on toes just to step on toes with no positive intent.


    by Elusive Trope on Tue, 09/25/2012 - 9:13pm

    I think one problem is that it's so much easier these days to get attention for being an ass. Thirty years ago, there was no internet, no youtube, no 24-hour cable news with an insatiable need to fill time. So, if somebody in California did something stupidly offensive but objectively harmless, pretty much nobody outside of his or her circle, of possibly community, would know about it. Today, that same person can up the stakes, using social media and rabid cable reporters. 

    But I agree with Destor and disagree with Quinn. Perhaps countries in Western Europe are managing the concept of freedom of speech differently, but by doing so they are restricting speech and giving weight to the words of idiots. I learned along time ago about sticks and stones. Maybe instead of KFC and McDonalds, we can export that concept to the rest of the world.


    by Orlando on Tue, 09/25/2012 - 10:07pm

    An idea I'd like to export is: you have the cradle of civilization, the poetry of the Koran and thousands of years of history behind you. You can safely ignore a few dullards in LA with a Youtube account and Ed Wood's production values.


    by Michael Maiello on Wed, 09/26/2012 - 10:51am

    Somewhat ironically, folks in Muslims DO have free speech and, much more than that, the freedom to riot, burn, and kill. Some of the things they call Jews and Christians would make Terry Jones blush. But it is true, they don't have the freedom to blaspheme the prophet, and they don't want anyone else to, either.

    Some of what Quinn is talking about is culture and hard to change. Cultures DO change over time in response to influences, but I'm not sure how you do that in a programmatic way. And, as someone above said, instant, worldwide, and anonymous visual and written communications makes all this much harder.

    Destor, I think you have to keep in mind that, despite the maximalist language found in the Bill of Rights, NONE of our "personal freedoms" are limitless, including speech. The courts have imposed some limitations on each of them. It isn't always easy to see the line in the sand, but it's there. See hate speech; crying fire in a crowded theater; incitement to violence; threatening to kill the president or anyone else. And the Founders, for what it's worth, acted in ways that limited speech all the time.

    We don't live in a libertine society, and our legal architecture isn't libertine.


    by Anonymous PS (not verified) on Wed, 09/26/2012 - 11:53am

    We hosted five young politically committed Canadians during the 2008 campaign. They'd come down to go door to door for Obama.

    One morning, over breakfast, I asked them why Canada (as far as I knew) was free of these insane debates over what I felt were common sensical government actions.

    Their answer was something like: "Canadians don't have a strong, innate distrust of government. We didn't rebel against the King."

    Somehow, Canada managed to get its freedom from England without all the fuss and bloodshed. I don't know the history, admittedly, but it appears that Canada just sloughed off English rule like an old skin.

    I once asked a Canadian on the TPM cite, Den Valdron, if he could recommend a good history of Canada for me. He laughed and said everything I needed to know could fit on one page. "Nothing ever happens in Canada," he said, "and we like it that way."


    by Anonymous PS (not verified) on Wed, 09/26/2012 - 12:01pm

    Of course Den was no stranger to insane debates himself.  I guess he must have been disappointed that his brand of white hot rage and interpersonal viciousness were unpopular in Canada.


    by Dan Kervick on Wed, 09/26/2012 - 12:16pm

    Your description brings him to life again for me, spot on.


    by artappraiser on Wed, 09/26/2012 - 3:12pm

    They say "no way", destor, they're gonna continue to be mad and they want international legislation:

    Blasphemy's back
    By Colum Lynch, Turtle Bay @ ForeignPolicy.com, September 26, 2012 - 5:09 PM

    President Barack Obama on Tuesday delivered an impassioned defense of the values of freedom of expression, explaining that the appearance on the Internet of a controversial film mocking the Prophet Mohammed did not justify the violent attacks on American embassies throughout the region. It was aimed at persuading the Arab Spring's new leaders that criticism against Islam, however offensive, should not be answered with violence or prohibitions on speech. It didn't work.

    Egyptian President Mohamed Morsy, in his first speech to the U.N. General Assembly, said today that the "obscenities" contained in the film are "unacceptable" and that ‘we will not allow anyone to do this by word or deed." He proposed that the U.N. Security Council and the U.N. General Assembly consider steps to prevent similar religious offenses.

    "There are limits to the freedom of expression especially if such freedom blasphemes the beliefs of nations and defames their figures," added Yemen's President Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi.

    Over the past day and a half, speaker after speaker, from Indonesia to Qatar to Pakistan to Yemen called for the need to pass international legislation limiting the freedom of expression if it insults the religious beliefs or leaders [....]

    I  think it's really no longer possible to be in denial of a metaphorical "war of civilizations" on this issue, as small as demonstrations themselves were.


    by artappraiser on Thu, 09/27/2012 - 5:35am

    And here we go, this is where their thinking gets you, where a criticism that the powers-that-be don't like also just happens to be deemed an unacceptable insult, surprise, surprise:

    Iranian freedom of press in action--paper shut down

    Uskowi on Iran, September 26, 2012,

    In keeping with the Iranian tradition of freedom of the press, the Iranian "Press Supervisory Board", best described as a "censorship bureau", ordered the daily independent paper "Shargh" closed today. The news was announced by Pars news (Only on the Persian version of the site).

    The reason for the closure was the publication of the cartoon shown in the photo above. The regime claims that the cartoon represents an insult to the Iranian war veterans. I assume that the timing of publication and the similarity of the blindfolds in the cartoon to the basij bandanas is used as an excuse to attack this hard hitting political cartoon, which has nothing to do with the 1980s war and tons to do with the current social and political environment in Iran. 

    In addition to the closure of the paper, the editor was arrested [....]

    And I do believe Obama's speech was trying real hard to get this point across.


    by artappraiser on Thu, 09/27/2012 - 6:14am

    While I can't see the institutions of multilateral law, such as they are, ever taking this up, I do wonder what happens if somebody like Terry Jones ever gets the gumption to leave the protective cradle of US soil.  The State Department might react with, "Come on, Iran, give us our crazy preacher dude back," but I can't see them trying anywhere near as hard as they do when hikers find themselves accused of espionage and the like.

    It may well be, as a practical matter, that people who engage in such provocations will have to be Kissengerian in their travel choices, whether they realize it or not.  Now, more likely than not, if Jones tried to get a visa to see the pyramids, he'd probably just have it denied.  But he should be skeptical of any invitations to see the lands where the bible takes place.


    by Michael Maiello on Thu, 09/27/2012 - 7:56am

    Terry Jones deserves the same protections as Salman Rushdie.

    If Jones wants to show the Mideast is intolerant, he succeeded. That wasn't Rushdie's point, but he sure got taught the lesson. 

    Pussy Riot offended the Orthodox church - along with Putin. Any different than a movie overdub intended to inflame the Mideast?

    Why is Piss Christ more valid art/speech than Terry Jones' burning? Isn't Greek reaction to the movie of "Last Temptation of Christ" much the same as Muslim reaction to Rushdie? (okay, just riots, no fatwas....)

    And then there's that Chick-fil-a guy who just spoke out about what he considers "family values" - guess he won't risk free speech again anytime soon.


    by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 09/27/2012 - 8:49am

    I believe that Rushdie's protections were arranged by the British government.  But, I take your point, in general.  But, look at it this way... if I innocently go hiking in the Middle East and cross into Iran or Syria and get myself detained, the US State Department will step in to help, but they will only go so far.  The Seals are not going to come rescue me, for practical reasons, yes, but also because I'm not a national security priority, and neither is Terry Jones.


    by Michael Maiello on Thu, 09/27/2012 - 9:41am

    Terry Jones gets the same protections, no?

    That was not Jones's intent. His intent was to say that Islam is a despicable religion.

    Isn't Pussy Riot in jail?

    It's more valid, IMO, because the message is more valid; it enlightens. Jones's message is just about ignorance and bigotry.

    The Greek reaction shows, if anything, that we aren't so different from Muslims in our ability to get angry and destructive when offended.

    AFAIK, Mr. CFA still has a business, wasn't censored or put in jail. He spoke freely and demonstrators demonstrated freely. We have freedom of speech, but we don't have freedom from all consequences of our speech.

    Not entirely sure what your point is here-:) But these are my reactions to whatever it was you're saying-:)


    by Anonymous PS (not verified) on Thu, 09/27/2012 - 3:58pm

    But you are forgetting that this situation has to do with protecting diplomats and diplomatic offices..

    Haven't all these leaders have just stood up at the UN and basically said that all countries should be responsible for the speech of every one of its citizens on the internet, and if they don't agree to do that, they shouldn't be surprised if embassies or diplomats are violently attacked in the host countries? They are saying that they agree that each country should be held responsible for the speech of each and every one of its citizens?

    It is one thing for an iman in a country to issue a fatwa against a Salman Rushdie or a Danish newspaper, it seems like a whole 'nother big step up to me to have the leaders of countries basically announcing at the UN that they will be holding the countries of residence responsible from now on if they don't punish not just their Rushdie's and their newspapers, but also any speech that insults them by every damn citizen publishing on the internet anywhere

    Does it matter if the persons doing it are a couple of nuts where nobody paid any attention to their video until the Egyptian media covered it? No it does not, they say, the country is responsible, if you don't prosecute them for it, you are responsible. Does the country get a break if the person insulting is say, a pre-teen and developmentally disabled? Possibly not if it's Pakistan! Have we disciplined in some way soldiers actually representing our government if they insult via blasphemy? We see that you do. Does that count for anything? Not much, as you don't do it harshly enough, and you still have to discipline each and every citizen that insults.

    I almost feel like maybe it would be wiser for Secretary Clinton and many of her cohorts to stop the nice-nice and scream a version of the old Susan Powter commercial: STOP THE INSANITY! Get real, stop the charade, you are talking like children, this is bullshit. The US government had zero to do with this video and  YOU KNOW THAT. Do you want to participate in international diplomacy or don't you? Shall we just resort to duelling at 40 paces when one of our citizens posts a picture of Mohammed and we don't put him in prison and one of your citizens burns our flag and you don't put him in prison? Right let's just fuggeabout all this diplomacy stuff developed over the centuries since Marco Polo, and send all the diplomats home.

    Friedman had some interesting quotes in his last column from Mideast media, of moderates questioning their countries'  own sanity. Of course he probably had his assistant working overtime to find the few examples to make his "hopeful" point, and also picks out the ones that talk about his favorite topic, competing in a globalized world.. Speaking of hate speech, I must admit that it's nice to see the MEMRI examples in his article that are translating something other than Mideast hate speech about the Great Satan(s.) But once again, it's not that hopeful to me if the countries' leaders are getting up at the UN saying what they said; they didn't ask for respect for their lowest common denominator citizens, they instead demanded that we prosecute ours.


    by artappraiser on Thu, 09/27/2012 - 12:09pm

    I'm with you, AA.  Not to mention all of the actually state-sponsored hate speech against the western world that comes out of their part of the world.  If a drone showed up every time a U.S. flag was burned at a state-sanctioned protest, how would the world react?


    by Michael Maiello on Thu, 09/27/2012 - 12:20pm

    I was just thinking someone should tell them they are proving "The Decider" right that "they hate us for our freedoms." But then I thought again: some of those guys that spoke yesterday secretly would probably prefer Bushes back over Obama's & Clinton's.  It's all absurd.wink


    by artappraiser on Thu, 09/27/2012 - 1:24pm

    If you're running Iran you definitely want your people focused on the threat from the White House rather than their problems with you.


    by Michael Maiello on Thu, 09/27/2012 - 1:38pm

    Oops, here's the Friedman link fixed.


    by artappraiser on Thu, 09/27/2012 - 1:17pm

    Interesting coincidence this ruling from France came down in time for your blog.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4337031.stm

    France's Catholic Church has won a court injunction to ban a clothing advertisement based on Leonardo da Vinci's Christ's Last Supper.

    The display was ruled "a gratuitous and aggressive act of intrusion on people's innermost beliefs", by a judge.

    The authorities in the Italian city of Milan banned the poster last month.

    Yes, other countries have different laws about free speech. But if this is any indication of how they work I don't think they can even claim to have free speech.


    by ocean-kat on Thu, 09/27/2012 - 7:01pm

    Yeah, this kind of thing irks me and it goes way beyond the bounds of "different notion of free speech."  It simply isn't free speech.  I think in trying to be diplomatic on this issue that I lost sight of how absolute speech rights have to be in order to be meaningful.

    Of course, one could make all sorts of arguments about priorities here, especially as this is commercial speech.  But sometimes you have to side with the crass interests of the clothing store without much regard for the sacred.

    This way of thinking, though, has implications for issues such as Citizens United.  We are saying here that a clothing company has the right to advertise in the manner it wants to.  What if this same company also wants somebody to be a US Senator?


    by Michael Maiello on Fri, 09/28/2012 - 8:29am

    Latest Comments