Politics

The First Amendment Doesn’t Care If Muslims Are Offended

Sep. 25, 2012 9:05am

Will Cain is an analyst for TheBlaze and a contributor to CNN. In his role for The Blaze, he provides commentary and analysis on the 2012 presidential election and other major political events. Cain frequently contributes to a wide range of CNN shows and has also been an analyst for National Review where he hosted the video interview series “Off the Page.” He has interviewed guests such as Sen. Jon Kyl, and UN Ambassador John Bolton, and moderated debates between National Review and The Nation. Prior to hosting and producing, Cain financed, bought and sold two digital and print media companies. Quince Media was a Hispanic media company that garnered Cain the accolade of 40 Most Influential People in the Magazine Industry (Folio 2007). Cain Communications was a community newspaper group in Texas sold to Stephens Media. Cain is a licensed attorney in Texas.

Here is the sound of a second-rate mind on free speech: “You can’t yell fire in a crowded theater.”

From the pages of The Los Angeles Times and The New Republic to theCain: The First Amendment Doesnt Care If Muslims Are Offended microphones at MSNBC, so many are so willing to condemn The Innocence of Muslims and sacrifice the First Amendment at the alter of Muslim violence. And the standard they would set for protected speech would have nothing to do with the speaker, his intentions, or his words.  Instead, only the listener, his sensitivities, and his reaction would matter.

But the stories of anti-war socialists, the KKK, and Hustler magazine illustrate how ignorant this view is of the First Amendment.

Schenck v. United States

The case that provided pseudo-lawyers the pretense of expertise by parroting “You can’t yell fire in a crowded theater” is Schenck v. United States.  But the 1919 case had nothing to do with fire or theaters.  Charles Schenck, the general secretary of the Socialist Party of America, was convinced that World War I was a rich man’s war and mailed 15,000 flyers to military draftees urging them to resist the draft.  He was charged under the Espionage Act for causing insubordination.

Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell, reaching for examples of unprotected speech, said in Schenck, “The most stringent protection would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing panic.” This line amounted to an – “oh, by the way” – in upholding Schenck’s conviction.  The court set the standard for unprotected speech at words that “create a clear and present danger” of bringing about evils government hopes to prevent.

Here’s the deal though, Schenck is meaningless. And Holmes’ “fire in a crowded theater” line is just bad dicta in what is now bad law.

Brandenburg v. Ohio

The free speech standard for almost half a century has been the 1969 case of Brandenburg v. Ohio. Clarence Brandenburg was a rural Ohio KKK leader who called a Cincinnati television reporter and invited him to cover a KKK rally.  At the rally a cross burning served as the warm up act for a series of speeches to an audience of armed men in white robes.   One of the speeches went like this: “We’re not a revengent organization, but if our President, our Congress, our Supreme Court, continues to suppress the white, Caucasian race, it’s possible there might be some revengeance taken.”

Brandenburg was charged with advocating “the duty, necessity or propriety of crime, sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism as a means of accomplishing…political reform.”   However the Supreme Court reversed Brandenburg’s conviction and held the Ohio law he was charged under unconstitutional.  The Court said that the advocacy of force or violence in the abstract or even advocating the moral necessity of force or violence is protected speech. Wiping away Schenck, the Court set the new standard of protected speech to include everything except that “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”  Essentially this extended free speech protection to everything short of “Pick up your guns boys! Let’s go get him!”

The Brandenburg test includes three elements: intent, imminence, and likelihood that speech will cause lawless action.  The sad case of a boy who accidentally hung himself attempting autoerotic asphyxiation highlights the strict nature of the Brandenburg test.

Herceg v. Hustler

Although a Fifth Circuit civil case, Herceg v. Hustler illustrates how far courts will go to protect speech.  In this 1980s case a 14-year-old boy accidentally hung himself while attempting autoerotic asphyxiation as described in a Hustler article.  A friend discovered him hanging nude in the closet with the magazine open to the article entitled “Orgasm of Death” lying at his feet.  However the court found Hustler had no liability in the boy’s death.

No matter how attractive or how explicit the instructions, said the Court, absent direct and overt exhortations to commit dangerous of illegal activity, speech is protected by the First Amendment.  This suggests that unprotected speech must be active encouragement as opposed to simply dangerous or erroneous encouragement.

Calls to censor The Innocence of Muslims or prosecute its creator fail the test of all these cases. There is obviously no active encouragement as required in Herceg. It seems impossible to prove a speaker’s intent to provoke a violent mob reaction as required in Brandenburg. And even Holmes’ worthless “Fire!” test required a false alarm of yelling “Fire!” You wouldn’t want to censor someone from alerting theatergoers of an actual fire. How do you prove anything The Innocence of Muslims said about Islam – a religion, like all religions, dependent upon faith – is false?

More importantly though, all the cases dealing with incitement address a “meeting of the minds” between speaker and listener.  Schenck, Brandenburg, Herceg and other cases deal with agreement or instruction between speaker and listener. They don’t address offending someone or provoking someone into lawless action as The Innocence of Muslims is accused.

If you can offend someone into violent action, you place all the power of censorship in the hands of the listener.  The speaker’s words, not to mention his intent, no longer matter.  The action doesn’t matter, just the reaction.  The new standard for protected speech becomes the highly subjective standard of sensitivity.

To be fair, I doubt people like Justice Stephen Breyer or Anthea Butler are suggesting all sensitivities be the standard for censorship. That would be crazy. No – just those sensitivities whose reactions involve beheadings.

Update: 

UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh, who runs the best legal blog I can find, pointed out to me that Justice Breyer clarified his remarks to CNN’s Larry King. Breyer does not think burning a Koran (and presumably, offending Islam) is the equivalent of yelling “fire in a crowded theater.”

 

Comments (88)

1 2
  • Billca
    Sep. 25, 2012 at 6:24pm

    I like to remind people that while their freedom of speech is protected, they are not necessarily protected from the consequences of that speech. Think of a man on a soapbox. If he expounds that the President is a Muslim, a traitor and unfit for office, it’s his right to speak. So would it be if he said that he supported NAMBLA and sexual relations between adults and children. I’m sure many folks would be offended by both speakers. If your speech is offensive enough, people start to boo. If it’s extremely offensive you may be forced to dodge fruits, vegetables and some rocks. Are the object-throwers legally correct or protected? No, not always. But speak your mind and take a lesson from the consequences. You may have to run from an angry mob if your views are too outlandish. Is that censorship? Those listeners have a right to voice their opposition, disapproval and ire about YOUR viewpoint too.

    What makes the “Innocence of Muslims” dreadful is not the movie itself, but the way it was created by deceit and – I think – its likely intent. The movie was made with actors who agreed to perform a script, but in post-production, it was heavily edited and the a different script’s dialog dubbed over it. Take Star Wars and re-dub it so that the rebels are spouting Nazi propaganda and the Empire is a benevolent gov’t trying to protect it’s people.

    Report this comment

    Billca  
    • DarkJello
      Sep. 25, 2012 at 10:05pm

      None of your examples are very relevant to the discussion of free speech.

      A 3rd rate movie is NOT an excuse to burn, deface, trespass, desecrate, or kill ANYONE.

      Savvy?

      Report this comment

      DarkJello  
    • Watermain
      Sep. 25, 2012 at 11:03pm

      @darkjello: well said.

      Report this comment

      Watermain  
    • nuckollsr
      Sep. 25, 2012 at 11:59pm

      The First Amendment was never about shouting fire, writing suggestive porn or putting one’s bigotry on public display. Recall that the Constitution was a list of protections of honorable citizens from the actions of their government. The First Amendment is about being able to stand on the steps of the capitol and call them out for dishonorable behaviors without risk of being ‘disappeared’. The same constitution protects the liberty of honorable citizens by an exercise of due process and just law. Yes, the KKK dudes can put their machismo and bigotry on display . . . but the first time they put their hands on the person or property of an honorable citizen, the government is duty bound to step in.

      Youtube is rife with public displays of the worst of human intellect and thought . . . but so is a great deal of what is taught in public schools. Where is the difference between some individual trashing a fur shop because of something they saw on YouTube or learned from their teacher?

      I agree with the author that the First Amendment isn’t about protecting anyone from insult. People who take insult over the words or deeds of another suffer that malady only because they allow it. “Insult” to the head of a religion, the CEO of a company, or the leader of s street gang is no excuse for attacking the liberty of any other citizen. If the “victim” can show damages, then pursue remedy through due process and just law . . . leave the beheading knives at home.

      Report this comment

      nuckollsr  
    • Idadho
      Sep. 26, 2012 at 12:12am

      Anybody’s right to protest what I or others may say under freedom of speech ends before your/their fist hits my or anothers nose. The fruit and vegetables thrown in response to the speakers speech have limited protection. The stone throwing never is protected.

      Report this comment

      Idadho  
    • NancyO
      Sep. 26, 2012 at 6:41am

      Isn’t it about time someone pointed out that being “offended” and having one’s “feelings hurt” is a choice? I’m sick and tired of hearing about the victims of their own predilections.

      Report this comment

      NancyO  
    • GNAC
      Sep. 26, 2012 at 8:44am

      Just becuase you may be offended by word or idaes does NOT give the offended the right to physically assault anyone. Perhaps you never heard the little ditty to teach this concept of tolerance as a child? Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me.

      Report this comment

      GNAC  
    • BondmanPhil
      Sep. 27, 2012 at 12:16pm

      If a society cannot adequately protect from harm citizens who exercize the rights enumerated by the Republic, then those rights have no meaning at all. Epic fail, BillCA. If CA indicates you are in Califiornia, that helps explain your senseless comment (no offense to conservative Californians, all six of you).

      Report this comment

      BondmanPhil  
    • SmarterThanLibs
      Sep. 28, 2012 at 7:05am

      People are resonsible for their speech and it’s effect on their person, not the lawless reaction of others to their speech.

      Report this comment

      SmarterThanLibs  
    • winoceros
      Sep. 30, 2012 at 3:39pm

      BillCA. Nice false equivalency. No one with a free mind would quibble with consequence-free speech not being an aspect of the free speech argument. But then you all-too-cutely segue into being chased by a mob (terror/harassment) and having items thrown at the offender (assault/intent to injure) as the “oh well, better take the bad with the good” bromide as if that was the remedy for offensive speech.

      The remedy for offensive speech is more speech or boycott (used as a general term) of the speaker(s).

      You are saying that if one falsely cries “Fire” in the proverbial theater, then one should take the legal heat when people get trampled and injured. Good for a theater argument, bad for a commentary. Like most liberals and fearful, dhimmified, hand-wringing “ooo, let’s not go there” conservatives, there exists an utter disregard for the obligation of all people, Muslim or otherwise, to restrict their behavior to legal outlets. Are devout Muslims likely to riot, injure and oppress those who don’t give a rip about their idiotic warrior icons? Of course. Are we to change the observance of our Creator-endowed rights for the soft-bigotry of low expectations? You know, the IOC and Hillary Clinton are hoping we’ll do just that, and the lack of clarity exhibited by the clueless in our nation and in Europe is astonishing.
      Do all you can to teach others that legal action should always be pursued against those who violate the law, and they always had another option:

      Report this comment

      winoceros  
    • winoceros
      Sep. 30, 2012 at 3:43pm

      And by the way, bearing legal responsibility for a false cry of “Fire” would even hypothetically be considered is that the “violence” and harm comes from people correctly fleeing for their lives, taking and having no personal obligation to fastidiously avoid harm coming to others in their path. Crying “Fire” does not cause the theatergoers to whip out their butterfly knives and stab all those within reach or to stab the “Fire”-cryer.

      Report this comment

      winoceros  
  • BadKarma375
    Sep. 25, 2012 at 6:03pm

    I am a citizen of the United States and if I say something that offends the muslims,,,, oh well!!! F#ck ‘em and feed ‘em pork balls!!

    Report this comment

    BadKarma375  
    • mike1127
      Sep. 25, 2012 at 7:23pm

      Seconded.

      Report this comment

      mike1127  
    • Do Not Mess With Us Texas Proud
      Sep. 25, 2012 at 7:43pm

      It should be unanimous we do not shape our speech to suit them period. They join the 21st century and quit acting like 7th century idiots. Say what you want and if they misbehave stop them however necessary.

      Report this comment

      Do Not Mess With Us Texas Proud  
    • DarkJello
      Sep. 25, 2012 at 10:06pm

      As our leaders and nation continue to turn from the constitution, things will worsen.

      Stand for something, or fall for anything.

      Report this comment

      DarkJello  
  • freedomisnotfreestuff
    Sep. 25, 2012 at 5:42pm

    As much as the current violence in the Middle East has nothing to do with the movie, which the majority of the Arab world has never seen, the calls to sacrifice the First Amendment have very little to do with intentions of not being offensive to Muslims.
    Violence in the Middle East started as an anniversary of September 11 and became a celebration of America’s current inability to protect its own people.
    The calls to limit the First Amendment are just attempts to teach Americans to get used to government induced censorship.
    Socialist economy requires totalitarianism; it cannot exist in a society where people have rights to independent thinking and free speech. Totalitarianism is very difficult to enforce in a society where people are capable of protecting themselves.
    The famous statement “If the Jews did not exist, we would have to invent them” is still relevant. But because this time there are plenty of targets to be terminated, starting from Christians and small business owners, and as a last resort Jews again, the problem is to find who should be protected. That’s why liberals and today’s administration worry so much about the poor Muslims’s feelings.

    Report this comment

    freedomisnotfreestuff  
    • DarkJello
      Sep. 25, 2012 at 10:14pm

      You nailed it!!

      Progressives want even more power, and that means less for we the people.

      Report this comment

      DarkJello  
  • illinioshoj
    Sep. 25, 2012 at 5:15pm

    Sorry Muslims if your offended but freedom of speech is more important take a cue from your christian brothers and realize that sunlight on bigotry is the best antiseptic let ignorant people rant and rave the more they are exposed the less significant they become and if the law is broken I would be the first to stand up for your rights

    Report this comment

    illinioshoj  
  • Wizzid0
    Sep. 25, 2012 at 5:02pm

    “The Innocence of Muslims” SHOULD be condemned, not because it is untrue [because it is not], not because it offends people who have an emotional maturity of a 2 year old, [more power to them], but because it is terrible film making. Will no one from the Cinematographers’ Guild speak up about this atrocity? Can we no longer count on the Hollywood elite to protect us from such obvious crap, [when could we ever]? Where is Sean Penn when we really need him, [will anyone ever really need him]?

    No we should have respect for a “world class” religion that advocates pedophilia, and treating women as possessions, “honor” killings, killing those who don’t agree, etc.

    Mohammad? I wouldn’t follow that sphincter across the street.

    Report this comment

    Wizzid0  
    • Mulder1
      Sep. 25, 2012 at 5:16pm

      I agree wholeheartedly! In the U.S.A., we are governed by a Constitution, which grants all people residing in our country the right to freedom of speech. Americans have the right to express opinions on any topic, including religion. Americans may criticize Jesus and Christianity, Abraham and Judaism, Buddha and Buddhism, and Muhammad and Islam. Millions of Muslims are offended by a video on YouTube that criticizes Muhammad and Islam. Tough sh&t. They are going to have to live with criticism of their founder and their religion, just as Jews and Christians living in America deal with insults to their religions. I stand behind our freedom of speech 100%.

      Report this comment

      Mulder1  
    • DarkJello
      Sep. 25, 2012 at 10:16pm

      We were once governed by the constitution…

      America is failing precisely because we disengaged, and now elect shizz leaders.

      Report this comment

      DarkJello  
    • Watermain
      Sep. 25, 2012 at 11:05pm

      Be prepared for a fatwah coming your way.

      Report this comment

      Watermain  
  • annelouisegelinas
    Sep. 25, 2012 at 3:28pm

    Since 2008 when the messiah barry obama came to power, islam has already been hard at work
    wiggling into top positions in America to bear down on Americans to take away Christianity and replace it with islam, to take away our guns to protect ourselves, to change our laws to be their laws and once done there is no turning back. women will wear burkas, have no say, gay people will not be allowed, and all the freedoms everyone has fought for here in America will be forced out and replaced by islam and sharia law. So how’s that going to hurt you ? Just wait and see. Better vote as your freedom and life depend on voting the messiah muslim leader out. Madonna just admitted that we have a muslim black president runining our oval office. How does that make you feel? Americas should unite on the streets of every town and city and state and stand up for America and Her
    Constitution, Her Freedom, Her Christian/Judeo birth. We are under attack because of the Christian Judeo birth that brought America into the world and it is those beliefs that made America the greatest, richest power on this earth. We must fight back and demand aplogies from any country or countrymen who degrade Jesus Christ. Until then the islam muslim world cannot ever make peace with this Christian Nation until they recognize it is a Christian/Judeo country. They don’t want peace by the way, they want to rule the world “that is why they keep calling it the muslim world” don’t you get it?

    Report this comment

    annelouisegelinas  
    • qz2026
      Sep. 25, 2012 at 4:06pm

      And what would happen if you or I admitted/charged the President of being a Muslim? BTW, he is not a Muslim.

      Report this comment

      qz2026  
    • BadKarma375
      Sep. 25, 2012 at 6:06pm

      If Obama ain’t a muslim, he’s the next best thing!!

      Report this comment

      BadKarma375  
    • DarkJello
      Sep. 25, 2012 at 10:35pm

      It does not matter if the POTUS is a muslim. Irrelevant.

      Defending the constitution and amendments at ALL costs is what counts.

      Report this comment

      DarkJello  
    • Watermain
      Sep. 25, 2012 at 11:09pm

      @badkarma: not sure there is a next best thing to a Muslim.

      Report this comment

      Watermain  
  • steveh931
    Sep. 25, 2012 at 2:04pm

    The OIC is already planning to bring their arguments against Freedom of Speech before the United Nations. The Leaders of foreign nations not understanding our system of government or our God given Rights will pass or amend a resolution requiring Laws against Free Speech that offend Islam. F.D.R. and other world leaders thought they were doing future generations a favor by establishing the United Nations, hoping there would never be another world war, they are to costly. Unfortunately what they accomplished was to impose laws upon U.S. Citizens written by foreign nations. Welcome to the New World Order.

    Report this comment

    steveh931  
  • gigalynx
    Sep. 25, 2012 at 12:24pm

    The darkness is spreading…
    Bullets, lots of bullets!

    Report this comment

    gigalynx  
  • Flag-Man
    Sep. 25, 2012 at 12:18pm

    I don’t are if they are offended tough sh–
    Go eat a pig

    Report this comment

    Flag-Man  
  • brotherwil
    Sep. 25, 2012 at 12:13pm

    islamaphobia is an offshoot of homophobia which is a psychological invention designed by the homosexual conscience to salve the rational fear generated by indulgence in unnatural behavior.

    Report this comment

    brotherwil  
  • DeOppressoLiber
    Sep. 25, 2012 at 11:36am

    You have to hand it to them by attacking the 1st Amendment and wrapping some religious content around it.

    Sounds so nice but many people on the religious right will fall for it.

    I am proud that I defend everyones right that insures you can burn the flag, rip a Bible in half, or burn the Koran.

    Report this comment

    DeOppressoLiber  
    • Watermain
      Sep. 25, 2012 at 11:08pm

      Don’t burn a flag around me. The first amendment will not protect anyone foolish enough to do that…

      Report this comment

      Watermain  
  • dynaboy
    Sep. 25, 2012 at 11:15am

    I could careless about muslims and their radical beliefs screw them.Muhammed is a joke,don’t tell me there are good muslims out there if they are out there why don’t they speak out if they are to scared then hide in your closets and say nothing but don’t tell me I can’t speak out.Muhammed should wear a dress.They burn my flag I burn their Koran,I use it fore T.P when I run out.All jokes aside you can read it in Koran fore yourself muslims must smile in face of their enemies and even be friends with enemies when you turn your back they will stab you in it,if you read the koran it makes no sence ,read it so you know the truth fore yourself take no one’s words fore it.Now back to jokes Allah works at 7 / 11 and rides a magic carpet

    Report this comment

    dynaboy  
  • CaliforniaScreaming
    Sep. 25, 2012 at 11:09am

    Let the “moderate Muslims” (if there is such a thing) become the main voice of the so-called “religion of peace” and then, maybe then, the modern world will start to listen. Until then it’s just “noise”.

    Report this comment

    CaliforniaScreaming  
    • American1969
      Sep. 26, 2012 at 11:49pm

      I concur. Where are the “moderate Muslims”? Shouldn’t they be speaking out? If this were a bunch of radical Methodists or Protestants that committed terrorist acts, true Christians would be out denouncing such action. Muslims need to do the same.

      Report this comment

      American1969  
  • BSdetector
    Sep. 25, 2012 at 11:00am

    (“\(;.;)/”) <— Only known picture of the Prophet Muhammed after being blessed by "Allah"
    ….(.)
    …./`\

    Report this comment

    BSdetector  
    • MittensKittens
      Sep. 25, 2012 at 11:16am

      Article well articulated. It still comes down to what a personal responsibility is and accountability of the person choosing to act upon what is heard from the “free speech”…

      Report this comment

      MittensKittens  
  • Small World
    Sep. 25, 2012 at 10:26am

    Atheists. burning the US flag, Piss on a cross all offend me.The UN also offends me.The new world order is also offense.

    Report this comment

    Small World  
    • TheLeftMadeMeRight
      Sep. 25, 2012 at 10:55am

      When the entire country burns to the ground we will once again ban together, under God, and rebuild the country we loved. At that time we will add a constitutional amendment to prohibit burning the flag of the United States under the “burning the bridge you stand on” clause. Next we will round up all the Lefties that are left (remaining alive) and deport them, on barges. Cuba comes to mind.

      Doesn’t anyone else see the truth? The Left is against anything and everything good that the US stands for. They must be purged. The time to do so will be right after the collapse they have helped orchestrate.

      Report this comment

       
    • FoxholeAtheist
      Sep. 25, 2012 at 11:12am

      So what you’re saying is that you’re really not for liberty or the rights that our Constitution ensures us. What you are for is a theocratic dictatorship. What a coincidence. I know of a nice little country you can move to. It’s between South Korea and China. I’m sure they will welcome your views.

      Report this comment

      FoxholeAtheist  
    • BadKarma375
      Sep. 25, 2012 at 6:15pm

      Regardless if anyone wants to admit it or not, but everything “THELEFTMADEMERIGHT” said is true!!!

      Report this comment

      BadKarma375  
    • WARRIORSCROWN
      Sep. 25, 2012 at 8:26pm

      THELEFTMADEMERIGHT I can’t believe you made me agree with FOXHOLEATHEIST, but in your post you sound like the left… you just attached “under God” with evil. Thanks for making us Christians look so bad. Read the Contstitution. You comment made me sick. You have no idea what “freedom” is apparently.

      Report this comment

      WARRIORSCROWN  
  • two4america
    Sep. 25, 2012 at 10:18am

    Really? Many willing to sacrifice the First Amendment, to condemn an anti-Islam “movie”? A new standard for protected speech –“ sensitivities” – “reaction”? What’s really going on in this country? Are Muslims the only Americans, the only people that have First Amendment rights? How about “separation of church and state”? And the Obama administration’s continued support for one specific religion – Islam. Our Federal government spends tax-payer money to run ads in Pakistan denouncing an anti-Islamic “film.” The Secretary of State cites “America’s commitment to religious tolerance” while taking the time to condemn an anti-Islam “movie,” but she does not address the terrible violence being committed against Christians in so many Muslim majority state countries, including Pakistan. How many Christians are being persecuted in Muslim majority states, attacked, murdered, imprisoned, executed; churches attacked and burned. There are laws mandating that “blasphemies” of the Qur’an are to be met with punishment, including imprisonment and death. Where is our Secretary of State’s “disgust” for these acts against Christians? People are being brutally attacked and murdered for their religious beliefs, and our government has no comment on that, but it cites “religious tolerance” and condemns a ridiculous anti-Islam “film”? The Secretary of State took time to condemn a “movie” because of it being anti-Islam, she stated that it i

    Report this comment

     
    • two4america
      Sep. 25, 2012 at 10:26am

      she stated that it is “disgusting,” but where is her equal “disgust” about the latest Hollywood offensive movies and programs, the latest “art” that blaspheme Jesus Christ and Christianity? If our government is going to represent our country and stand for religious tolerance, it has the responsibility to defend all religions equally as they are attacked – not just Islam.

      Report this comment

       
    • StandingOnMyHead
      Sep. 25, 2012 at 10:49am

      My sentiments exactly!

      Report this comment

      StandingOnMyHead  
  • Rufus.Cornpone
    Sep. 25, 2012 at 10:14am

    Truth has become the new hate speech…

    Report this comment

    Rufus.Cornpone  
  • Rufus.Cornpone
    Sep. 25, 2012 at 10:12am

    I propose that those in the west put out a steady stream of daily offensive cartoons, images and videos of Mohammed that will hopefully dull the senses of the Mooselems and they will get tired of responding to slights to the religion of the suicide bomb…seems to have worked well for the left attacking Christianity

    Report this comment

    Rufus.Cornpone  
  • RiseLiberty
    Sep. 25, 2012 at 10:08am

    Speech is a vibration of certain frequencies produced when pushing air through a voice box. It cannot injure physically, as a blade. It cannot draw blood as an arrow. It can and will injure the psyche, but that is the whole point. Our founding fathers were geniuses. They would rather you strike each other with words, than with weapons.

    Report this comment

    RiseLiberty  
  • Stelex
    Sep. 25, 2012 at 9:50am

    But it seems the Blaze does……….

    Report this comment

    Stelex  
  • Amazingoly
    Sep. 25, 2012 at 9:49am

    Stop burning our flags. We don’t like you either.

    Report this comment

    Amazingoly  
  • luke9.54_56
    Sep. 25, 2012 at 9:45am

    frankly, whether someone is offende or not is not the standard for freedom of speech…every time we speak out against obombya he may be offended, but this speech is exactly what the First Amendment protects. Obombya is responsible for his actions, once offended.

    I never met a mmuslims I could trust, and I once had plenty of muslim friends…one day I decided I had had enough and told each and every one of them I would never ever become a muslim, and since I knew that was the reason they “befriended” me, it was pointless for us to continue knowing each other…I did not care if they were offende when I told them mo was a terrorist, either. I told them that if the SHTF I knew they would turn against me, and never come to my aid….I gave them the raw truth….None has spoekn to me since…

    Truth is far more important than deception and we all need to take stock of our associations and clean those up, as times a re getting to where we should only be surrounded by those we can trust.

    Report this comment

    luke9.54_56  
  • Epic Fail
    Sep. 25, 2012 at 9:39am

    And I dont care either.

    Report this comment

    Epic Fail  
  • TRUMPETCALL
    Sep. 25, 2012 at 9:36am

    Welcome…….

    To…….

    The…….

    F U T U R E ! ! !

    Report this comment

    TRUMPETCALL  
  • ONE PERCENT
    Sep. 25, 2012 at 9:34am

    The thought , by those that made the first amendment law, that opinions would be expressed without offense, to someone or group, is a fairy tale. Freedom is an acquired taste, with continuous growing pains, and for us to believe that those who have never tasted it will hit the road running is naive at best. Come to think of it, naive seems to be the best description of our foreign policies at present.

    Report this comment

    ONE PERCENT  
1 2

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

TheBlaze

Channel Finder

Find TheBlaze on your TV

This zipcode is invalid, please try again

Channel Finder

TheBlaze is available on channel .

Spread the word!

If you can't find TheBlaze, please call to upgrade your package

Channel Finder

Unfortunately, TheBlaze is not available on .

But you can help! Call at or press CONTINUE to email your provider and urge them to add TheBlaze to your channel lineup.

But you can help! Press CONTINUE to email your provider and urge them to add TheBlaze to your channel lineup.

Continue

Request TheBlaze

Please complete the form

I would like to receive news and information from TheBlaze.
Skip

Thank you for supporting TheBlaze

Interested in doing more? Spread the word about TheBlaze to your friends and family.

Spread the word!

TheBlaze Magazine
Restoring Love