Right on schedule, some reporter found some "experts" who opine that the stupid movie is not 'protected speech'. But they manage to ignore something very important.
While many 1st Amendment scholars defend the right of the filmmakers to produce this film, arguing that the ensuing violence was not sufficiently imminent, I spoke to several experts who said the trailer may well fall outside constitutional guarantees of free speech. "Based on my understanding of the events," 1st Amendment authority Anthony Lewis said in an interview Thursday, "I think this meets the imminence standard."
Oh?
...words don't have to urge people to commit violence in order to be subject to limits, says Lewis. "If the result is violence, and that violence was intended, then it meets the standard."
...The point is to emphasize that U.S. law makes a distinction between speech that is simply offensive and speech that is deliberately tailored to put lives and property at immediate risk. Especially in the heightened volatility of today's Middle East, such provocation is certainly irresponsible --CMR quoting Chayes/LATimes
The proposition here is that speech should be limited if it puts 'lives and property at risk'--which may be correct. However, if that 'risk' is contingent on the activity of counter-provacateurs, is that 'risk' "deliberately tailored"?
The Obozo apologists (Lewis of the NYSlimes among them) don't like logic, of course. It impairs their intended course of action. Eliminating the middle-man--the Muslim provacateurs--makes it easy. Not a correct formulation, but hey! It works..
By the way, Chaves manages to lump "Christians" with Muslim rabble-rousers. Nice.
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder