We’ve noted in these pages details on our lawsuit against the government, Facebook, and Twitter. We were disappointed that the case was not allowed to move forward because the government agencies have been dragging their feet on FOIA requests. Well now that the
I remember when Pres. Obama gave this speech to the UN following the attack on our consulate in Benghazi, Libya that US Ambassador Chris Stevens was murdered at. Everyone who was critical of the attack focused on how the Obama administration allowed it to happen, why the response wasn't more forceful given the significance of attacking and murdering a US diplomat. And the timing of it, just before the 2012 election, and on the anniversary of 9-11. These were all important and valid criticisms.
But as bad as all of that was, this speech by a US president to the world in the formal world body was a far worse assault on the US, our constitution, our most important right of all, the First Amendment, that protects all the freedoms and liberties we cherish. He blamed our First Amendment for the attack and deaths. He apologized for free speech to the world. A US president for the first time in our nation's history attacked the keystone of our freedom.
While he went on to give lip service to free speech being being protected by our constitution so there was nothing he could do about it. He used flowery rhetoric that supported the notion of free speech. But he fingered free speech as being responsible for the attack and therefore required the need for citizens to be more responsible and respectful in what they say, And that those who are irresponsible with free speech should be marginalized. As his DOJ imprisoned the filmmaker on trumped up charges. When words and actions diverge trust the actions not the words.
I knew that it marked at dangerous turning point in our nation, that our First Amendment was under direct attack by our nation's leaders. And the fact that nobody else in power, not even his Republican opponents raised the alarm at what Pres. Obama's speech signified informed me that they quietly consented to restricting free speech.
The focus on the Benghazi attack was a distraction to the far bigger threat to our constitutional liberties and freedoms that this UN speech the attack provoked signified. This was the moment that war was declared on our First Amendment by the establishment, by the system, by The Swamp for lack of a better descriptor. All of the censorship since flows from this moment.
"That is what we saw play out in the last two weeks, as a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world. Now, I have made it clear that the United States government had nothing to do with this video, and I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity.
...
I know there are some who ask why we don’t just ban such a video. And the answer is enshrined in our laws: Our Constitution protects the right to practice 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 -- (laughter) -- and I will always defend their right to do so.
Americans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to express their views, even views that we profoundly disagree with. We do not do so because we support hateful speech, but because our founders understood that without such protections, the capacity of each individual to express their own views and practice their own faith may be threatened. We do so because in a diverse society, efforts to restrict speech can quickly become a tool to silence critics and oppress minorities.
We do so because given the power of faith in our lives, and the passion that religious differences can inflame, the strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression; it is more speech -- the voices of tolerance that rally against bigotry and blasphemy, and lift up the values of understanding and mutual respect.
Now, I know that not all countries in this body share this particular understanding of the protection of free speech. We recognize that. But in 2012, at a time when anyone with a cell phone can spread offensive views around the world with the click of a button, the notion that we can control the flow of information is obsolete. The question, then, is how do we respond?
And on this we must agree: There is no speech that justifies mindless violence. There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents. There’s no video that justifies an attack on an embassy. There’s no slander that provides an excuse for people to burn a restaurant in Lebanon, or destroy a school in Tunis, or cause death and destruction in Pakistan.
In this modern world with modern technologies, for us to respond in that way to hateful speech empowers any individual who engages in such speech to create chaos around the world. We empower the worst of us if that’s how we respond.
...
It is time to marginalize those who -- even when not directly resorting to violence -- use hatred of America, or the West, or Israel, as the central organizing principle of politics. For that only gives cover, and sometimes makes an excuse, for those who do resort to violence."
There are several lines in that speech that acknowledge the importance of free speech to free people. Many of those lines could and should be being spoken by leaders today to push back on censorship about Covid restrictions and mandates, foreign interventions, election integrity, etc. In fact, quoting Pres. Obama from this speech might even be productive in shaping public opinion.
But make no mistake, his words spoken at the time shrunk in comparison to the actions he took. And the original sin of blaming a video, free speech in the first place is unforgivable. Especially knowing that the video itself wasn't even seen or heard of by the attackers, and has dubious origins and amplification traceable to the DOJ itself. The speech was a declaration of war on the First Amendment to the US Constitution. The words defending it were just empty rhetoric to the man delivering them.
I remember when Pres. Obama gave this speech to the UN following the attack on our consulate in Benghazi, Libya that US Ambassador Chris Stevens was murdered at. Everyone who was critical of the attack focused on how the Obama administration allowed it to happen, why the response wasn't more forceful given the significance of attacking and murdering a US diplomat. And the timing of it, just before the 2012 election, and on the anniversary of 9-11. These were all important and valid criticisms.
But as bad as all of that was, this speech by a US president to the world in the formal world body was a far worse assault on the US, our constitution, our most important right of all, the First Amendment, that protects all the freedoms and liberties we cherish. He blamed our First Amendment for the attack and deaths. He apologized for free speech to the world. A US president for the first time in our nation's history attacked the keystone of our freedom.
While he went on to give lip service to free speech being being protected by our constitution so there was nothing he could do about it. He used flowery rhetoric that supported the notion of free speech. But he fingered free speech as being responsible for the attack and therefore required the need for citizens to be more responsible and respectful in what they say, And that those who are irresponsible with free speech should be marginalized. As his DOJ imprisoned the filmmaker on trumped up charges. When words and actions diverge trust the actions not the words.
I knew that it marked at dangerous turning point in our nation, that our First Amendment was under direct attack by our nation's leaders. And the fact that nobody else in power, not even his Republican opponents raised the alarm at what Pres. Obama's speech signified informed me that they quietly consented to restricting free speech.
The focus on the Benghazi attack was a distraction to the far bigger threat to our constitutional liberties and freedoms that this UN speech the attack provoked signified. This was the moment that war was declared on our First Amendment by the establishment, by the system, by The Swamp for lack of a better descriptor. All of the censorship since flows from this moment.
Obama blames the video in his UN speech
September 25, 2012 (1:40 video clip)
https://youtu.be/BfiUQASpVdc
Obama’s Speech to the United Nations General Assembly — Text
New York Times, September 25, 2012
https://archive.ph/Izv27#selection-475.0-531.277
Excerpts on free speech:
"That is what we saw play out in the last two weeks, as a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world. Now, I have made it clear that the United States government had nothing to do with this video, and I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity.
...
I know there are some who ask why we don’t just ban such a video. And the answer is enshrined in our laws: Our Constitution protects the right to practice 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 -- (laughter) -- and I will always defend their right to do so.
Americans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to express their views, even views that we profoundly disagree with. We do not do so because we support hateful speech, but because our founders understood that without such protections, the capacity of each individual to express their own views and practice their own faith may be threatened. We do so because in a diverse society, efforts to restrict speech can quickly become a tool to silence critics and oppress minorities.
We do so because given the power of faith in our lives, and the passion that religious differences can inflame, the strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression; it is more speech -- the voices of tolerance that rally against bigotry and blasphemy, and lift up the values of understanding and mutual respect.
Now, I know that not all countries in this body share this particular understanding of the protection of free speech. We recognize that. But in 2012, at a time when anyone with a cell phone can spread offensive views around the world with the click of a button, the notion that we can control the flow of information is obsolete. The question, then, is how do we respond?
And on this we must agree: There is no speech that justifies mindless violence. There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents. There’s no video that justifies an attack on an embassy. There’s no slander that provides an excuse for people to burn a restaurant in Lebanon, or destroy a school in Tunis, or cause death and destruction in Pakistan.
In this modern world with modern technologies, for us to respond in that way to hateful speech empowers any individual who engages in such speech to create chaos around the world. We empower the worst of us if that’s how we respond.
...
It is time to marginalize those who -- even when not directly resorting to violence -- use hatred of America, or the West, or Israel, as the central organizing principle of politics. For that only gives cover, and sometimes makes an excuse, for those who do resort to violence."
There are several lines in that speech that acknowledge the importance of free speech to free people. Many of those lines could and should be being spoken by leaders today to push back on censorship about Covid restrictions and mandates, foreign interventions, election integrity, etc. In fact, quoting Pres. Obama from this speech might even be productive in shaping public opinion.
But make no mistake, his words spoken at the time shrunk in comparison to the actions he took. And the original sin of blaming a video, free speech in the first place is unforgivable. Especially knowing that the video itself wasn't even seen or heard of by the attackers, and has dubious origins and amplification traceable to the DOJ itself. The speech was a declaration of war on the First Amendment to the US Constitution. The words defending it were just empty rhetoric to the man delivering them.
Righteous! Love it!