First amendment and Middle East

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? U.S.

In the L.A. Times at:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-chayes-innocence-of-muslims-first-amendment-20120918,0,3112718.story

is an Op-ed advocating the position that the youtube video "Innocence of Muslims" may not be protected under the First Amendment. The basic argument is that such a "film" (If you saw the clip you know why the quotes.) may intentionally cause imminent risk to life much like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.

For a different view (and one making fun of the current administration's purported reaction), see:
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/09/16/nakoula-arrest-photoshops-best-of-the-best/

Should such speech be protected under the First Amendment?

tranquility said:

Should such speech be protected under the First Amendment?

Click to expand...

Yup .

Stevef said:

Yup .

Click to expand...

Boy, you better have passed as that analysis won't fly in Feb. when the question will come up to those poor sons of guns.

tranquility said:

Boy, you better have passed as that analysis won't fly in Feb. when the question will come up to those poor sons of guns.

Click to expand...

But if it's an MBE question, the answer choice will be

(a) No.
(b) Hell, No
(c) Yup
(d) Hell Yes.

When in doubt, Charlie out (pick C)

Stevef said:

Yup .

Click to expand...

I concur. I did pass and I don't care. But yes, it should be protected. Freedom of speech does NOT mean freedom from being offended.

I don't see any real difference between this and Snyder v Phelps (I'll admit I haven't read the WHOLE decision)

Ohiogal said:

I concur. I did pass and I don't care. But yes, it should be protected. Freedom of speech does NOT mean freedom from being offended.

Click to expand...

And that's exactly what the radical Islamists don't understand. Or don't care. Or aren't capable of grasping. Whichever.

Silverplum said:

And that's exactly what the radical Islamists don't understand. Or don't care. Or aren't capable of grasping. Whichever.

Click to expand...

I agree with this, but to be fair, its all so far outside of their cultural norms that it would be very difficult for most of them to understand. I read something recently that said that the only way to compare something showing a negative visual image of mohammed, would be to equate it with our reaction to someone showing child porn to elementary school students.

I can understand something being so offensive in someone's particular culture that it would cause an extreme emotional reaction. What I cannot understand is translating that emotional reaction into violence.

Stevef said:

I don't see any real difference between this and Snyder v Phelps (I'll admit I haven't read the WHOLE decision)

Click to expand...

I think Snyder was a tort lawsuit regarding intentional infliction of emotional distress and not a criminal one having to do with imminent risk of harm to human life. (Not that I would not be tempted to risk some of the members imminently if they protested someone from my family who died while in the military.)

LdiJ said:

I agree with this, but to be fair, its all so far outside of their cultural norms that it would be very difficult for most of them to understand. I read something recently that said that the only way to compare something showing a negative visual image of mohammed, would be to equate it with our reaction to someone showing child porn to elementary school students.

I can understand something being so offensive in someone's particular culture that it would cause an extreme emotional reaction. What I cannot understand is translating that emotional reaction into violence.

Click to expand...

That was what I meant when I wrote, "Or aren't capable of grasping."

You can't understand their violence because it's not a part of your culture. Neither can I. Not capable of grasping.