Democrats Stumble On Free Speech

By Rod Dreher • September 17, 2012, 6:15 AM

Glenn Greenwald, bitch-slapping the president and his party over the inflammatory anti-Muslim video:

The White House’s request to YouTube provoked almost no objections from Democrats, who – when there is a Republican president – tightly bind themselves to the ACLU and parade around as free speech crusaders. To the extent they acknowledged any of this at all, their responses ranged from indulging patently absurd pretenses (this was just a polite request from the White House: what’s wrong with that?) to affirmative justification (the film is intended to cause violence and thus should be removed).

Just imagine if the Bush White House had called YouTube and “requested” that it remove anti-war videos on the ground that such videos were endangering US troops. That is hardly some fantastical hypothetical. The claim that administration critics were “emboldening the enemy” was a very common trope during the Bush era (an ugly trope that some progressives now repeat toward conservative critics of Obama). John Ashcroft infamously announced when testifying before the Senate in December 2001 that civil libertarian objections to administration policies “only aid terrorists” and “give ammunition to America’s enemies”.

Does anyone doubt that if the Bush White House had “requested” in the wake of 9/11 that all anti-war or anti-administration videos be “reviewed” to see if they should remain on the internet – on the not-implausible ground that they might encourage attacks on American troops or personnel – that Democrats would have little trouble seeing why it is dangerous to have the executive branch taking action to influence private internet companies to suppress political speech? The actions of the Obama White House are no less inappropriate.

Greenwald isn’t impressed with GOP behavior on the free speech of Muslims. Read the whole thing. He’s tough on his commenters too, pointing out how they all declare themselves in favor of free speech, but inevitably support banning speech advocating things they dislike.

Posted in Islam, Law. Tagged Democrats, free speech, Glenn Greenwald, Islam, Republicans, YouTube.

28 Responses to Democrats Stumble On Free Speech

JonF says:

September 17, 2012 at 6:31 am

Since when is the President of the United States, and the various people serving his administration, not allowed free speech as well? I really, really do not understand why the Right is complaining that the video in question was criticized*. Isn’t the President and everyone else allowed to express their opinions too? Assume for a moment that the George W Bush and assorted people in his administration had panned the film “Religilous”. Would they be violating anyone right to free speech by expressing a negative opinion there?
It’s been said before: the right to free speech is not a right to be free of criticism for the content of that speech. (Neither does the right to free speech come with a right to publicly-provided megaphone to amplify beyond measure– if a publisher refuses to publish something he is not violating the 1st amendment). Nobody after all is talking about locking anyone up or fining anyone over the video.

* Oh, well, yes, of course I understand: the Right would take offense and beg to differ if Obama said the sun rises in the east. More brain-dead partisanship.
reflectionephemeral says:

September 17, 2012 at 7:08 am

Democrats, who – when there is a Republican president – tightly bind themselves to the ACLU and parade around as free speech crusaders.

That’s just not so. Most Democrats went along with the USA PATRIOT Act, didn’t do that much to prevent us from torturing people, or from wiretapping US citizens without a warrant, etc.

JonF’s point, about how one can defend someone’s right to speech but criticize the content of the speech, is well taken. Now, I actually had a similar reaction to Greenwald when I heard that the filmmaker was brought in for questioning. But he’s being investigated for parole violations:

The man, who served 21 months in prison on fraud and identity theft charges, could face more prison time if it is determined his involvement in the film was a violation of his probation, which barred him from either owning or using devices with access to the Web without prior approval from his probation officer.
Rod Dreher says:

September 17, 2012 at 7:13 am

It’s the White House’s calling YouTube asking them to consider pulling the video down that has people upset.
Jim says:

September 17, 2012 at 7:23 am

Don’t expect Romney to push too hard on this: his own Mormon faith has experienced in the past and still may experience this election year some intense historical scrutiny, fair and unfair, that he would not defend as free speech. Romney likes to discuss such controversial things “in quiet rooms.”
Clark says:

September 17, 2012 at 7:53 am

Greenwald’s message is that all fail in purity in comparison to Greenwald. The White House call to Google was stupid and counterproductive, but the notion that it chilled free speech is dubious.
P.S. I have never managed to read an entire post or article (except in the physical confines of TAC) of Greenwald. He rambles forever and appends numerous updates. Who has the time?
Beyng says:

September 17, 2012 at 8:13 am

JonF and reflectionephemeral miss the point admirably. Fortunately, reflectionephemeral has managed to discover “acceptable” motives for the Administration’s request–because the Obama Administration always ensures that there are acceptable, non-political motives for its choices. To quote JonF, more “brain-dead partisanship.”

Why is it so hard for folks like this to admit that, yes, both sides have done it, and it is an abominable thing no matter which side is doing it? Obama isn’t he savior of either the left or America. You have nothing to lose by making such an admission.

Nor in admitting that this affair has been badly handled in general.
Richard Johnson says:

September 17, 2012 at 8:27 am

Those who complain about the White House’s actions in this are in the right, but they need to make certain that they didn’t express a desire to have movies by the radical left pulled down when Bush was in office.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1089

“Commenting at an official news briefing, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer called Maher’s remark “a terrible thing to say,” adding, “There are reminders to all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do, and this is not a time for remarks like that; there never is.” The White House’s transcript of Fleischer’s remarks mysteriously omitted the chilling phrase “watch what they say,” in what White House officials later called a “transcription error” (New York Times, 9/28/01).”

Such comments and actions from the White House have a chilling effect on free speech, and there is a long history of attempts to silence critics in order to cover missteps by the President (Pentagon Papers). Obama and his people were wrong to play this card. But few critics in the GOP will be able to speak out on this without sounding like hypocrites themselves.
MattSwartz says:

September 17, 2012 at 8:29 am

JonF’s point, about how one can defend someone’s right to speech but criticize the content of the speech, is well taken. Now, I actually had a similar reaction to Greenwald when I heard that the filmmaker was brought in for questioning. But he’s being investigated for parole violations

I think an analogy to conditions in a decidedly un-free country might be helpful here. In China, software piracy is illegal, but everyone with a computer does it. Now when the police go on IP law enforcement raids, they have a funny habit of only, or primarily, raiding the homes and computers of people who criticize the regime. Are they following the law, or are they repressing speech?

Is the film-maker being targeted because of his parole violation, or because of the international outcry? The best way to tell is to ask him to compare his treatment and scrutiny to that of another, more pedestrian parole violator, who hadn’t just earned the wrath of the White House. If there’s a significant difference, then there’s suppression of speech going on. That’s the standard I would have used on Bush, too, lest anyone accuase me of inconsistency.

And isn’t it odd that nearly every defender of this President does so by quizzing you about how the last President made you feel? Can you imagine any other sort of inquiry/discussion where this rhetorical tactic could pass without comment? “Sure, you’re against child slavery, but I didn’t hear you protesting against it four years ago!” Oh, I guess I’d better shut up about it now, too. Good point.
Roger II says:

September 17, 2012 at 8:33 am

Glenn Greenwald is a free speech absolutist. He is right that the filmmakers have the right to make their intentionally offensive movie about Mohammad (whether they have the right to trick the actors and redub their lines after the fact would probably turn on the contracts signed by the actors). He is wrong that the US government has to support the movie or is barred from asking — NOT REQUIRING — YouTube to take it down. If the US government believes that the movie is causing harm, nothing in the Firsf Amendment prohibits the government from asking YouTube to consider removing the video. The government does not have to support the speeches of Nazis or KKK members — it just cannot prohibit it. Big difference.
reflectionephemeral says:

September 17, 2012 at 8:50 am

It’s the White House’s calling YouTube asking them to consider pulling the video down that has people upset

My first-blush reaction is that people ought not be upset. This is a video that has been the justification for riots all around the world; asking YouTube to pull it down isn’t the same thing as showing up with a SWAT team at YouTube, or threatening anyone who views or posts it with criminal sanctions.

Am open to the view that I’m underselling the power of a request from the White House. Even still, it’s not like they’re asking YouTube to pull down anti-White House ads, or racist or unpopular political content; it’s a very rare video that is actually being used to justify worldwide riots.
riot says:

September 17, 2012 at 8:59 am

JonF:
So you would have no problem defending the presidents right of free speech if he asked youtube to remove anti Christian videos ? You seriously would want others to believe that people like you and the ACLU would be defending their free speech rights.
MH - Secular Misanthropist says:

September 17, 2012 at 9:37 am

Politicians are such cowards. From what I’ve read the video and the ambassador getting killed are only correlated, not causal. Since it all happened on 9/11 are we really to believe its related to a movie, or was it planned and the movie is an excuse?

Sure the demonstrations outside other embassies may be related, but if it wasn’t that video it would be cartoons or a South Park episode. It will always be something.

Unfortunately false DMCA take down requests are a much easier way to censor content on the internet. Eventually these guys will figure that out and start using that as a censorship technique.
Dan Davis says:

September 17, 2012 at 10:36 am

It’s news to me that the First Amendment protects the free speech rights of the government.
Brian says:

September 17, 2012 at 10:53 am

Why do we scratch so many liberals and find wannabe tyrants underneath? Greenwald is right to call these pathetic losers out.

The apologizing for the federal harassment of a guy who decides to openly insult Islam has to stop. It is the very definition of unAmerican.

Or if it’s not, then I want Richard Dawkins arrested the next time he sets foot in America. And I want Bill Maher arrested tomorrow. And I want Christopher Hitchens’ bloated corpse exhumed and thrown in the slammer. And I want the White House to call youtube and have every one of their Christian-bashing videos taken down.

(I’m sure we can find trivial justifications for harassing them, if we’re dumb enough to believe the “parole violation” BS. Surely they all break the speed limit.)

Of course, we all know the reason for the selective outrage at anti-religious hate speech is that Christians don’t riot and kill people over this stuff, and the kowtowing jackals and vipers are complete cowards.
M_Young says:

September 17, 2012 at 11:11 am

“Assume for a moment that the George W Bush and assorted people in his administration had panned the film “Religilous”.”

But they didn’t.

Whenever conservatives question whether the Feds should be spending money supporting stuff like‘Piss Christ” the Left works itself up into a high moral dudgeon about the sacredness of free speech and mocks the likes that Donohue dude at Catholic League.

Whenever [Muslim, black, GLBTPDQ,...] people get b*tt hurt by “offensive” material, the Left is fully supportive og government efforts to squelch free speech.
reflectionephemeral says:

September 17, 2012 at 11:13 am

Now when the police go on IP law enforcement raids, they have a funny habit of only, or primarily, raiding the homes and computers of people who criticize the regime. Are they following the law, or are they repressing speech?

Reasonable enough, MattSwartz; maybe I am underselling the, for lack of a better term, chilling effect.

That said, did you hear the story a few weeks ago, about some dude from Pennsylvania, who was flying to Texas, and then some other dude who was mad at him for posting on Faceboook a compromising photo of a woman Dude #2 was dating, and Dude #1 had dated? Dude #1 did nothing at all wrong in this story, but he still wound up getting arrested on an old marijuana charge in Texas, simply because he’d come to the attention of the authorities. It seems to me that we’d expect authorities in this case, regarding a suddenly high-profile fellow who may have violated the terms of his parole by using certain technologies, to investigate.
Linda says:

September 17, 2012 at 11:22 am

I wonder how people would feel if removing the video saved the life of one of their relatives.
Charles Cosimano says:

September 17, 2012 at 12:06 pm

I would cheerfully sacrifice my relatives to free speech, to say nothing of anyone elses. In fact I’ve been wondering if the foreign service would take my in-laws.

I’ve been seriously considering making an anti-islamic video of my own. The free PR would be worth a fortune, I would simply put it up on my own website as well as youtube so a the guvment could request until it turned blue in the face, the video would stay and I am squeaky clean. Let them TRY to stop me, they would have a fight on their hands like they have never had before.
thehova83 says:

September 17, 2012 at 12:37 pm

“I wonder how people would feel if removing the video saved the life of one of their relatives.”

We are a nation of laws. We should not commit illegal acts to save loved ones (especially with regards to something that we should all hold sacred, freedom of speech).
Bob says:

September 17, 2012 at 1:52 pm

Brian, you seem to be conflating different things. This Nickoula character is a convicted felon, who likely violated his parole. I don’t think politics should excuse criminal behavior. With regard to you false equivalencies. Keep in mind was fired from ABC for exercising his free speech. Granted it was on command of the government, but it was on threat of right wing boycotts of the network and some political pressure.
Gus says:

September 17, 2012 at 2:04 pm

“Whenever [Muslim, black, GLBTPDQ,...] people get b*tt hurt by “offensive” material, the Left is fully supportive og government efforts to squelch free speech.”

I would like to see instances of “the left” (whoever that is) doing this.
M_Young says:

September 17, 2012 at 2:18 pm

“I would like to see instances of “the left” (whoever that is) doing this.”

See Jerod Taylor’s experience in trying to hold the 2010 Amren conference in Charlotte.
ThoughtCrimes says:

September 17, 2012 at 3:09 pm

Gus:
There are some hollywood and media leftists openly calling the movie maker to be charge with murder, do a quick search on the internet and you will find it quickly. And they are very much left wing, no quote marks required.
sdb says:

September 17, 2012 at 3:34 pm

A group of sheriff deputies did not call on Nakoula in the middle of the night because of a purported parole violation. He wasn’t arrested, and he was released after being held for about 20min according to accounts I’ve read. His parole officer could have called him in for a chat. This didn’t happen. The purpose of this visit by law enforcement was obviously intimidation.

The president’s primary obligation is to defend the constitution of the US. Undermining the 1st amendment by using the power of the White House to intimidate private companies is a big deal. The President of the United States has a solemn duty to defend the Constitution and its principles – a brave president would point out no government has the right to determine what people think and believe, curb how people peacefully express that belief, or protect people from pointed criticism. Caving into to the demands of the mob only incentives more such behavior – the mob should hear that their anger is behavior is completely unjustified.

I don’t care if both parties do it. It has to stop. Obama deserves to be eviscerated for his response to this crisis, and if there was any coordination between the White House and the authorities who called on Nakoula, Obama should be disqualified from serving as president. If Romney becomes president, he should be held to the same standard.
AnotherBeliever says:

September 17, 2012 at 4:56 pm

From the handful of legal seminars I have been privy too, this video is basically First Amendment protected activity. There ARE allowances made for outlawing speech which purposefully instigates to violence or riot. This doesn’t quite apply here, because the video itself is not demanding that people go out and kill infidels immediately. It is religious leaders who have called for protests, and terrorist leaders who have called for violence. At any rate, the most our leaders can do is make it clear that the U.S. government had nothing to do with this distasteful video, and to continue to insist that no insult against any religion is worth human lives. It will be quite some time, however, before that region grasps the statement attributed to Voltaire, “I may not agree with the words that you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say them.”

I think the best we can hope is that someone sues the living daylights out of those responsible for this film. It’s not justice for the men who lost their lives, but it’s something. (I also imagine that our criminal justice system is combing for evidence for any other charges, like the old standby of tax fraud.) And that the Middle East’s new governments take this as a wake up call. Today, the U.S. embassy is broken into, and the Ambassador killed. Tomorrow, it could be their own governments, democratically elected or not. Peaceful protest is great. It gives the people a voice, and can often defuse potential violence. Violent protest, however, has to be dealt with swiftly and decisively.
Elizabeth Anne says:

September 17, 2012 at 7:07 pm

I don’t know, Rod. Given the timing and location of the publicity of the film, and the fact that even the actors involved were deceived about what the movie was about (and key dialogue was redubbed in post production) it looks suspiciously like intentionally inciting a series of riots.
JonF says:

September 17, 2012 at 7:38 pm

For those taking me to task, please read everything I wrote, especially the part about no one having a constitutional right to any given third party platform for disseminating their speech. Besides which, the administration only suggested YouTube review the video for compliance with the website’s own policies. No coercion was used.

Re: Is the film-maker being targeted because of his parole violation

Yes — and that should be staringly obvious. Convicted criminals who violate parole or probation may get away with it if they keep a low profile and do not come to the notice of the authorities. However having one’s name splashed across every newspaper on the planet basically guarantees that the authorities will notice and come calling. The same result would have ensured if this guy had he become a major contestant on American Idol.
Siarlys Jenkins says:

September 18, 2012 at 11:45 am

Donohue had every right to condemn “Piss Christ,” no right to have it suppressed or the “artist” arrested. No public or private art venue had a duty to display or promote the work. (Incidentally, the artist claims he was protesting the commercialization of religious faith, although I’d say he failed miserably at offering a coherent critique).

President Obama has every right to denounce the film in question, no right to have the artist arrested for the content. Neither YouTube nor anyone else has a duty to display or promote the despicable, amateurish piece of garbage, nor to refrain from doing so.

I have no doubt that translating the clip into Arabic and reposting it was a deliberate attempt to incite riots. That doesn’t excuse rioting.

The promoters are a particularly vile species of coward. They don’t have the courage of their convictions to go show their film in the middle east. They sit smug and happy in California, letting other Americans who had nothing to do with it take the violent reaction. Now presenting that perspective might be part of defusing things in the middle east.

It would also help to point out that “Piss Christ” and “Corpus Christi” are not subject to prosecution here either — even by courts that openly acknowledged the latter “is indeed blasphemous.”