Freedom of Speech in America and the anti-Islam Movie

[CENTCOM]

We understand the anger stemming from the anti-Islam film. In his speech Tuesday to the UN, President Obama described the video ‘Innocence of Muslims’ as "crude and disgusting" and an insult "not only to Muslims, but to America as well." There is no doubt that many Americans feel this way.

It’s important to understand that this was a low-budget, amateurish film produced by an individual with private funding, and that individuals in the U.S. are not required to register with a government agency before writing and publishing a book or producing a film. As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has said on several occasions, “Let me state very clearly, and I hope it is obvious, that the United States government had absolutely nothing to do with this video.”
Of equal importance is what Secretary Clinton went on to say: “We absolutely reject its content and message. America’s commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation, and as you know, we are home to people of all religions, many of whom came to this country seeking the right to exercise their own religion, including of course, millions of Muslims, and we have the greatest respect for people of faith.”

Many users on various social forums throughout the Muslim world have wondered in recent weeks why the U.S. didn’t simply ban the video. President Obama addressed this question in Tuesday’s speech at the UN, saying, “The answer is enshrined in our laws: Our Constitution protects the right to free speech. Here in the United States, countless publications provoke offense. Like me, the majority of Americans are Christian, and yet we do not ban blasphemy against our most sacred beliefs. As president of our country, and commander-in-chief of our military, I accept that people are going to call me awful things every day, and I will always defend their right to do so.”
We understand that there are different views around the world about the outer limits of free speech. This is well and good – in fact, it is largely because there is value in differing opinions that we have laws protecting free speech. But surely we can agree that violence in response to speech is not acceptable.


Capt. Joseph Kreidel
DET-United States Central Command
U.S. Central Command

 

[bhisma]

Freedom of speech is good but insulting religious god is insane. And not banning this kind of material is like supporting it.

 

[Mabs]

Also, the 1st amendment does not grant complete freedom of speech. It has been debated and decided by the US Supreme Court. Anything which incites hate or beaches immediate peace is not protected under the 1st amendment.

 

[somebozo]

And what people are doing in the name of protest

pure backwardness..nothing else..

 

[Don Ramsay]

We understand the anger stemming from the anti-Islam film. In his speech Tuesday to the UN, President Obama described the video ‘Innocence of Muslims’ as "crude and disgusting" and an insult "not only to Muslims, but to America as well." There is no doubt that many Americans feel this way.

It’s important to understand that this was a low-budget, amateurish film produced by an individual with private funding, and that individuals in the U.S. are not required to register with a government agency before writing and publishing a book or producing a film. As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has said on several occasions, “Let me state very clearly, and I hope it is obvious, that the United States government had absolutely nothing to do with this video.”
Of equal importance is what Secretary Clinton went on to say: “We absolutely reject its content and message. America’s commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation, and as you know, we are home to people of all religions, many of whom came to this country seeking the right to exercise their own religion, including of course, millions of Muslims, and we have the greatest respect for people of faith.”

Many users on various social forums throughout the Muslim world have wondered in recent weeks why the U.S. didn’t simply ban the video. President Obama addressed this question in Tuesday’s speech at the UN, saying, “The answer is enshrined in our laws: Our Constitution protects the right to free speech. Here in the United States, countless publications provoke offense. Like me, the majority of Americans are Christian, and yet we do not ban blasphemy against our most sacred beliefs. As president of our country, and commander-in-chief of our military, I accept that people are going to call me awful things every day, and I will always defend their right to do so.”
We understand that there are different views around the world about the outer limits of free speech. This is well and good – in fact, it is largely because there is value in differing opinions that we have laws protecting free speech. But surely we can agree that violence in response to speech is not acceptable.


Capt. Joseph Kreidel
DET-United States Central Command
U.S. Central Command

I can understand your point of View but our point is that There is a difference between freedom of expression, defamation and intentionally doing an act to cause abetment for violence. Was it Freedom of expression or Defamation of a Religon ,which according to law of civilized world is tort as well as crime, which in end caused bad feelings against U.S