That Anti-Muhammad Film: Its Totally Protected by the 1st Amendment – Emily Chertoff – The Atlantic

Apropos of our conversation last week about the limits of free speech (both on and off the Internet), here is an article in the Atlantic that discusses free speech protections in relationship to the recent events in Libya and Egypt.

“Sam Bacile” and Terry Jones may be hateful, but they are not, as far as we know, criminals. The impulse to argue that repeat offender Jones in particular has somehow overstepped a line and, as commenters across the web have put it, “shouted fire in a crowded theater,” is tempting and understandable, both as an emotional response and as an intellectual one. From a distance, the line between protected speech and incitement seems blurry.

via That Anti-Muhammad Film: Its Totally Protected by the 1st Amendment – Emily Chertoff – The Atlantic.

Advertisements

One thought on “That Anti-Muhammad Film: Its Totally Protected by the 1st Amendment – Emily Chertoff – The Atlantic

  1. Religious freedoms have always been an attractive feature of the United States. In recent times, maybe because we’re living it, these freedoms appear to be forgotten. Another key issue that fires people up is the fact that not everyone gets their way and people can’t be pleased all the time. So, the points of religious freedom and freedom of speech. Both of these facts trump the arguments that this film should not be allowed to see the light of day. If this speech was hate speech and not just critical of a religion it could be very arguable that the film should not be allowed to continue.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s