All of Obama’s promises come with expiration dates as Jim Geraghty would say; some of them much shorter than others: President Barack Obama used Air Force One to conduct a policy loop-de-loop Wednesday, asserting in a CBS interview that he supports Americans’ right to criticize Islam, following almost 18 hours of determined condemnation from Team Romney and damaging news from Egypt and Libya. “We believe in the First Amendment,” Obama told CBS’s Steve Kroft during an interview arranged days earlier. “It is one of the hallmarks of our Constitution that I’m sworn to uphold, and so we are always going to uphold the rights for individuals to speak their mind,” he said, according to a transcript narrated by White House spokesman Jay Carney. – The Daily Caller’s Neil Munro on Wednesday, in a piece titled, “Obama caves to Romney, embraces free speech for critics of Islam.” As I wrote at the time linking to the story, could there be a more grudging and reluctant defense of the First Amendment, from a president with two books to his name? In addition to the Joint Chiefs dialing up Koran-burning Pastor Terry Jones earlier this week, we now know that Mr. Obama’s defense of the First Amendment is very reluctant indeed. Or as Munro is reporting today, “Obama submits to Brotherhood, asks for suppression of anti-Islam video:” More
Were there laws passed denying any legal releasing of the video? If yes, please show them to me. If no, then what's the problem? Of course any rational human would come out against a hateful, bigoted, BS video. That's especially true if some idiots would use the video as an excuse to carry out violence on Americans.
So where is the suppression of free speech or disregard for the 1st amendment? You can disapprove of what someone is saying or how they're saying it without wishing to revoke their right to say it. Please support this crappy op-ed with some evidence to the point, since the writer himself clearly did not.
Maybe it’s the martini talking, but I think this director knew what he was doing. He lied to everyone who helped him make the movie about what it was; this was planned. .He got the reaction he wanted just before the election. Like drawing the pictures of Mohammad, he knew what this would incite. Check where this guy got 5 million dollars. Who backed this?
Even if this video were suppressed, it may not violate the First Amendment. There is a long standing exception for "incitedul speech". Is this video incitedul speech? I don't know as I have not seen it. I bring this up to mention that it may not be so cut and dry.
He didn't "cave", he covered up for Romney's awkward, premature bumble, to save American face. Atleast, that's how the rationally thinking world sees it. Fail thread
FYI, telling Youtube to review whether or not a video violates their terms of use is not a violation of the First Amendment; just like if you were banned here for violating the terms of use of this website, you wouldn't be able to hide behind the First Amendment.
Obama is in muh minds telling me to do dings. In muh corner, I cry "NOBAMA NOBAMA NOBAMA NOBAMA NOBAMA NOBAMA"
If the video cost 5 million dollars to make, one has to wonder what the real motivation was behind it. That's a lot of money to put into something for simply venting about Islam. Oh, and the OP makes no sense. All I see are quotes affirming the right to free speech.
This video does not cost $5 million. This number is a lie like his lies about being Israeli and having 100 Jewish investers. For example, the 2005 pornographic film Pirates cost $1 million to make according to Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirates_(2005_film) According to serious articles that I read, Pirates had better production value and better known actors in it than this film. No way this joke of a video cost $5 million.
