It has been clear for some time that an obscure YouTube video was not the cause of the recent violence in the Middle East, as confirmed even by Libyan president Mohamed Magarief. The only people who seem not to know this are Barack Hussein Obama, who unhelpfully played into Muslim hands by denouncing the video as “crude and disgusting” before the UN yesterday, and the liberal establishment authoritarians at Slate, who are using it as an opportunity to attack the First Amendment:
The universal [If only!] response in the United States to the uproar over the anti-Muslim video is that the Muslim world will just have to get used to freedom of expression. …
But there is another possible response. This is that Americans need to learn that the rest of the world — and not just Muslims — see no sense in the First Amendment.
As usual, from the progressive point of view, the Muslims have it right. The author gripes bitterly that our provincial and outdated Constitution would
prevent the U.S. government from restricting the distribution of a video that causes violence abroad and damages America’s reputation. And this is a video that, by the admission of all sides, has no value whatsoever.
But of course it has value. Look how it has served to reveal Muslims and their moonbat allies as thuggish enemies of our most cherished liberties.
More griping: the author grouses about “the bizarre principle that U.S. foreign policy interests cannot justify any restrictions on speech.”
If it were up to liberal establishmentarians, there would be no freedom of speech, and anything deemed by the likes of Obama or Shrillary to offend the perpetually offended overseas would be forbidden. This will not even vaguely resemble a free country if they get their way.
Liberals simply cannot grasp the concept of liberty.
On tips from Smorfia48, Ummah Gummah, Artfldgr, Bob Roberts, and Shawn.