and gratitude to the diplomatic corps for their service

which is very smart.

There's more than one American value at stake here. Let's learn from the pros.

I would think it's rather about terrorism. Terrorism is not a religious right. I would agree that it is about freedom FROM religion.

It is not appropriate to defend a film which attacks the core belief system of so many people.

The white house can not defend the kkk's right if they put out a film. the ACLU can and will.

We do have laws against hatred and bias. My guess is that the film is full of hatred and bias. have not seen it.

That is surely a core belief system of many people. One can argue that "faith" is required for it be a "core" belief, but is intertwined with fallacious assumptions in my opinion.

Also, "we" (the U.S. and all of its jurisdictions subject to the U.S. constitution) do not have any laws at all against either hate or against bias. People are free to hate and be biased against whatever or whomever they wish. One is not free to carry that into the realm of public commerce and employment. This film does not violate any U.S. law whatsoever.

Not a word was said about free speech during the Jones Koran-burning riots, and the US government acted, and Jones got scared and backed off.

Which proved to sacrilege-alert Muslims that if you push the US, they will stop "supporting" sacrilege against Islam.

We may not see it that way, but why shouldn't they think that Obama can stop films from being made, and stop Korans from being burned?

He stopped Jones the first time, why shouldn't they expect him to do it again. It's what their own governments do when films they don't like get made.

Without an understanding of free speech, US government failure to stop attacks on Islam will always be seen as a signal that the government supports the sacrilege.

you don't have a right not to be offended.

Go at it, Mr./Ms. Foreign Policy Wiz.

nt

And by one being a smug douchebag, even if one might have a point in what one is saying, typically isn't the best way to calm an angry mob.

It's like trying to diffuse a timebomb by smashing it with a hammer.

Anti-Muslim "blasphemy" is legal in the US, and incidents will continue to happen.

About the only coherent response the US has is to make it clear that "free speech" trumps religious sensitivity.

Simply standing up in front of the cameras and saying something to the effect of, "Sorry you all were offended, but we have free speech here, so too bad, so sad. U-S-A! U-S-A!" would be idiotic.

The American perspective on free speech can be something of a double edge sword, but the most important part to keep in mind is that it is first and foremost an American concept. You know that democratic, developed and highly advanced countries such as Germany and France do not have the free speech protections that the United States has. The bottom line is that every country may deal with issues of speech differently, and you can't claim that the American view is the worldwide view.

Yes, what was produced was covered under free speech in this country. But as a sensitive international relations incident, that's totally a red herring. No, we cannot cowtow to mob violence, but nor should we make this foriegn relations issue about an American concept. Why was so much of the world disgusted when we invaded Iraq? Because they viewed us as attempting to impose an American style democracy on a foreign country. It's no different here.

I agree it isn't ea,y to explain "free speech" in societies that never had any, where anything that's published can be censored by government.

But I don't see why it can't be done over time, and can't see what else we can do, other than explain, over time, what free speech entails, and why offensive "blasphemy" is now and will continue to be legal in the US.

But the most important thing to keep in mind throughout is that the utmost level of tact is required. We cannot afford to be viewed as either patronizing or apologetic to the message.

And I like our guy (Obama) much better than the other guy (Romney, or most other Republicans) in being able to do that, to choose words carefully.

You said it better than I could have. Someone else pointed out that films have been propaganda rather than entertainment to shrug off.
Clearly the extremists are and should be held responsible. But, I think understanding these incidents within a an honest cultural context is necessary.

He knows what has to be said and I have complete faith he will do so.

He is setting himself up for future conflict and failure re: incidents where Americans exercise their right to free speech so as to offend Islam. This is far from over.

I trust him to know what has to be said to smooth the situation and IMO that is what is important. I agree, this is far from over. But he will handle all the crap the RW will throw at him over this. Jut like rain on a duck.

Does YouTube have an 'alarm' function like DU's where viewers can warn admins about material that violates terms of service?

And what is YouTube's policy on hate speech?

Hasn't Bacile told reporters that he thinks Islam is 'a cancer'? Is this kind of religious hate protected by the US Constitution?

In the US, you can offend any religion you want to offend.

Would you have it any other way?

courts in other countries that we all consider as free. See, for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech .

But IMO YouTube should have responded to viewer requests to take down the Bacile clips before they succeeded in causing very predictable violence. Make Bacile have to sue them in order to spread his poison through a reputable outlet such as YouTube.

I don't think what YouTube does matters much in this situation. The video will now spread way beyond YouTube.

to go viral without the help of YouTube's hundreds of servers.

Without YouTube and FaceBook, it likely just would have crashed Terry Jones's website for at least week and not been able to ignite flash mobs.

Hate speech is not illegal here.

The problem was escalated by religious extremist imams who lied to their people vie television campaign and told them this was a major Hollywood film that was being released to all the theaters and that it was going to be a big blockbuster hit.

Then, people looking for reasons to kill in the name of god found their reason in this.

People who want to kill in the name of god will always find a reason to kill in the name of god.

decree to the world, especially when hate speech IS illegal in most of the rest of the Free World.

We value our freedom of speech here, even speech we hate.

Stating that is neither justifying or defending an obscure film that no one ever saw that extremist Imams made a tv capaign about, filled with lies that inflamed radical religious extremists who were looking for a reason to kill for their god.

what standard shall we set?

If someone is offended we use censorship?

Or only if someone is offended who chooses to commit murder?

and extremists of all stripes are willingly deaf to anything they deem to be outside their goal of fomenting hatred against their "enemies". President Obama is, I expect, at this moment doing a hundred things at once to address the immediacy of a very tense situation. No one who isn't upholding an extremist pov believes that he is anti free speech but making any kind of statement must be done carefully.

Give him a minute. He has a lot of actions to take before he can stand back and talk policy.

Not that it excuses murder. Especially the murder of someone that had nothing to do with this Terry Jones guy. But our cultures are very different which is why nation building doesn't work. They need to sort out their own political issues and decide what they as muslims want in their society to be valued.

Your OP, to me, is merely a pathetic attempt to attack President Obama and it fails miserably, imo.

I support the President, but I also criticize him when I think he's making a mistake.

And I do think it's a mistake not to even mention free speech in the context of what's happening, for reasons explained.

to stand up for HATE speech. True, the government can't stop it, but he certainly can't CONDONE such hateful speech either.

Yes, we do have free speech here. And yes, people can use that right to spew any hate they wish. That doesn't mean you have to, or even should.

If this were an anti-gay marriage, pro-slavery, anti-women's rights (or whatever) hate filled movie, would people still be going on about free speech.

But, do you think the State dept. tweet was sent out to save lives because their building was under attack?

On one hand, as an individual, it is admirable when you put your life on the line to stand up for certain causes. On the other hand, when acting as a group leader, your focus should be on keeping the rest of your group safe. You don't have the right to turn your group into martyrs, IMO. That should be an individual choice.