“Like me, the majority of Americans are Christian, and yet we do not ban blasphemy against our most sacred beliefs," he said. "As President of our country, and Commander-in-Chief of our military, I accept that people are going to call me awful things every day, and I will always defend their right to do so. Americans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to express their views--even views that we profoundly disagree with.
“Now, I know that not all countries in this body share this understanding of the protection of free speech. We recognize that," said Obama. “But in 2012, at a time when anyone with a cell phone can spread offensive views around the world with the click of a button, the notion that we can control the flow of information is obsolete. The question, then, is how do we respond. And on this we must agree: there is no speech that justifies mindless violence."
September 25, 2012
Obama at the U.N.: "[A] crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world."
"I know there are some who ask why we don’t just ban such a video.... The answer is enshrined in our laws: our Constitution protects the right to practice free speech."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
209 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 209 of 209Obama: "Americans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to express their views--even views that we profoundly disagree with."
Obama: "in 2012, at a time when anyone with a cell phone can spread offensive views around the world with the click of a button, the notion that we can control the flow of information is obsolete."
I'm confused: does Obama sees the issue as a matter of free speech, or as a matter of drawbacks of the advanced technology?
Inga, the President of the United States takes a moment to defend the concept of the First Amendment. That's an accomplishment? Should I give him a cookie?
Bryan, was there nothing that resonated with you in his speech at all?
It's not Inga She-Wolf, it's Allie Sheep-dog.
Two+ weeks of watching the President and Sec'y of State grovel and dissemble, followed by a borderline meets-standard defense of freedom of expression in front of the collection of thugs and kleptocrats that is the UN...it resonated deeply.
That the French and Danish governments, in similar circumstances, gave more robust and forthright defensex of freedom of expression resonates deeply, too.
I find bizarre the claim that somehow Obama's position is pro-free speech.
The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.
WTF does this mean? By some unidentified mechanism we're going to limit the political participation of those who "slander Muhammed"? How is this not a threat against free speech?
The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam
is the most anti free speech sentence I've heard a president make. as Mark Steyn says, when you mix ice cream with dog shit it tastes more like the latter than the former.
btw, nice editing job althouse. you missed the lede. or was the man bites dog part where Obama defended free speech?
Please. The Usurper could care less about the Constitution. He is voiding it--- there is no law, and no Constitution when the President is Constitutionally illegal, as he is the executor of the laws. His objective, and the reason why he was installed, and the Republicans let him do it, is to void US Citizen sovereignty-- which emanates from the Constitution. Why do you think Corzine still walks free? Why do you think that Trillions of our money was given away to Foreign banks, and domestic friends of the Usurper? He is the biggest criminal in American history, but the "law prof" voted for him, and still refuses to alert the public that Obama is not a natural born Citizen, not a "creature of our own", and has no allegiance or attachment to this country.
The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam...
...says the "...Black Muslim in the White House".
O Ritmo Segundo,
You're funny. Foreign participants to violent events that take place overseas should not be addressed, while Americans who have nothing to do with those events are addressed instead?
I think, you know, that Americans do have "something to do with" "events" like one of our ambassadors being assassinated and more than one of our diplomatic outposts being overrun.
And the "Foreign participants to [sic] violent events that take place overseas" damn well should be addressed, of course; they should be told in no uncertain terms that they are toast if they try this again.
Post a Comment