Freedom of Speech... Motherfucker

Oh, I'm not supposed to do that, am I? Put such coarse language in an article title? But... I'm not going to be arrested for it. No one is going to enforce this particular social rule upon me under threat of force. This is partly due to a concept very deeply rooted in the United States called "freedom of speech".

As long as freedom of speech has been a concept, there have been debates about its boundaries. What if you say something is a lie for the purpose of harming another person's reputation? What if you say something for the purpose of inciting violence? If you say something you know is vastly unpopular, is that incitement? What if you say something in support of an action which is itself illegal, such as child pornography? Does that count?

Indeed, in the United State the Supreme Court has wrestled with these issues as long as our Constitution has been a document. Although the Court never ruled on freedom of speech until the 20th century, it has repeatedly upheld a higher standard of freedom than society at the time is generally comfortable with.

In invalidating the Child Pornography Protection Act of 1996, the Court wrote:

First Amendment freedoms are most in danger when the government seeks to control thought or to justify its laws for that impermissible end. The right to think is the beginning of freedom, and speech must be protected from the government because speech is the beginning of thought.

Yes, this is a point that I think many will agree with. Yet, there are limits to what you are allowed to say or do in the name of free speech.

Not All Utterances Are Created Equal

There are several limits the Court has established to freedom of speech, but they can broadly be described as thus:

• Obscenity, which is speech with no redeeming cultural, social, artistic or scientific value and is offensive to the sensibilities of a community is not protected free speech.
• Speech which causes a clear and present danger of substantial evil that Congress or the States have a substantial interest in preventing.
•  Slanderous words which must be false, uttered with malice (or the intent to defame), articulated to the third person, and attacks an actionable aspect of that person which primarily have to do with the character of that person and their personal history.

But even with these restrictions, and these are very brief descriptions of the largest ones, the Court has held that it is best to err on the side of speech.

[Our] decisions have fashioned the principle that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not allow a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or cause such action.

The general public is protected in speaking even when the content of the speech is advocating the use of force or violation of the law unless such speech is producing imminently lawless action. This means that as long as I am not, say, at the head of a giant mob, I can advocate burning down Federal buildings or spraying graffiti on police cars.

The Court of Public Opinion

There is one group, however, that is not really given the full protection of the First Amendment, and that is politicians. Politicians cannot enjoy free speech to the extent most others can because they are reliant on the approval of a large number of people. The speech for which the First Amendment is most necessary is that which is unpopular, but such speech can end the careers of politicians.

In reality this is a failing of our society. We are not interested in electing politicians to do a job, we are interested in picking the person we like the best. Such a process is... farcical.

So why write about this topic? Because we have a prime example on our hands over the last 24 hours.

Mitt Romney (R) giving an address about his attack

Mitt Romney, the Republican Nominee for President, attacked President Obama for "apologizing for our values" to the protesters which ended up killing four people in Libya, including a U.S. Ambassador. He said that such an apology, (in this case condemning the video which became the pretext), undermines Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion, two very closely held values of our country.

Now there are problems with this view, not the least of which is that the "apology" came before the protests started, and was issued by the Egyptian Embassy, not the President, but I think the most interesting thing about this is that Romney has stumbled upon a truth in the time since, albeit accidentally.

He does not have the luxury of making such statements whenever he pleases, because his speech must be protected not only by the Supreme Court of the United States, but also by the court of public opinion, and the public is much harsher.

One of the qualities we look for in a President is moderation. Not just in their positions and views, but also in how they conduct themselves. The reason for this is obvious: a President can say anything they want, but if they do not moderate what they say the consequences can stretch out across the entire country and lead to death, destruction, or financial loss for countless others.

In defending Freedom of Speech, Romney has accidentally highlighted why we as a society protect such speech: because radical speech and ideas can never come from those in power, even in democratic societies, and in order to move forward as a culture, we must depend on our citizens to push the edge of conversation while our politicians follow.

Romney saw this as an opportunity to lead our society in way that could help him appear Presidential. Instead, we saw someone who doesn't really understand the job he's applying for, or the people who he's trying to convince.

U.S. Ambassador Killed in Libya... Extremists, of All Sorts, Win

As I write, the news that Christopher Stevens, Ambassador to Libya, has been killed in an RPG attack on the American Consulate in Bengazi is only hours old. Yet the script is a familiar one, and much like a formulaic summer flick that doesn't live up to the hype, I'm looking at my ticket stub wondering if the price of admission was really worth it.

I live, like most people, more or less in the middle of warring extremists. I don't live in a place where it touches me personally routinely, but I've long since given up the illusion that simply because it is another part of the world feeling the munitions, it's not my concern. I'm human first, and American second. I'm a citizen of our species, and our planet, and right now that species is being railroaded by extremism.

A Tale of Two Ideologies (or more)

A newspaper front page after the Atlanta bombing

People, especially in the West, are familiar with Muslim extremists. And certainly, they seem to be the flavor most likely to wield destruction upon others lately, but it is true, if perfunctory to many people, to note that there are many kinds of extremists. The thing is, these other kinds aren't as toothless or gentle as we make them out to be.

There are Christian extremists, of course. The 1996 Olympic Bombing in Atlanta was perpetrated by Eric Robert Rudolph who also bombed several abortion clinics and a lesbian nightclub, saying "the purpose of the attack on July 27 was to confound, anger and embarrass the Washington government in the eyes of the world for its abominable sanctioning of abortion on demand".

There are Jewish extremists as well. Some have sprayed graffiti on Christian sites in Jerusalem saying in Hebrew "Death to Christians". Others have attacked women, Arabs, Christians, and even the Israeli military in the region for not conforming with their views on religion and morality.

And there are extremists from other walks as well. It was a Hindu extremist that killed Gandhi. Buddhist extremists (which is a bit of a mind-fuck in itself) have damaged churches in Sri Lanka and killed thousands of Muslims and Christians in Myanmar and India. Even Atheism has its extremists, though they tend to restrict themselves to going online and being obnoxious to people they don't know.

But anywhere there is something which is a concept, there are people that want to take it to an extreme.

In this case, a perfectly respectable man has been killed because two opposing extremist groups have decided to play games with one another.

Where Did This Come From?

A natural question when something like this happens is why. Why did these people do this? Some are satisfied with this question, but I'm not. That question can be answered with such platitudes as "they hate America" or "they're extremists", as I outlined above. No, the question I'm interested in is "Why did these people believe this was a good idea?"

Now you may think at first glance that these are the same question. But they are not. People do not think something is a good idea simply because they hate America or because they are extremist. People believe that an action is a good idea because they think it furthers a goal of theirs. Generally, but broadly, people only do things that they honestly, truly believe are a good idea. They may change their mind later, but at the time most people believe that their current course of action is always a good thing. There are exceptions, but that is always the case.

So why would someone believe this to be a good idea?

Tahrir Square in Cairo, Egypt during the Arab Spring

Nearly two years ago what has become known as the "Arab Spring" began, sweeping several longtime dictators out of 'public service', and into the private sector. The positive and negative aspects of these various revolts and revolutions are many, but the important thing to remember here is that they occurred in both Libya and Egypt, and that we directly and materially supported the revolution in Libya.

These countries are both finding their footing, attempting to institute democratic forms of government in regions that have been largely unstable in the recent past. In this process, many of the most extreme groups have come out, trying to convince the people that they should be trusted to lead. This has been more successful in Egypt than in Libya so far, but both have sizable populations that are wary of extremism.

Many of the people there are however Muslim, and because of this the extremists try very hard to control people through religion. All they need is an excuse.

Cue Christian and Jewish extremists. So, remember the fellow that was going to hold a Quran burning party in Florida? Him and a man name Sam Bacile, an Israeli currently living in California, played off of one another beautifully to provide a perfect storm. Bacile, a real estate developer, wrote and produced what the Boston Globe (correctly) calls a "Saturday Night Live spoof" of Islam and its prophet Muhammad.

I've seen the video... it's hard to watch. You can tell that the people who thought it up believe it to be very clever, but to the average person it can only be described as stupid, tactless, and vulgar. It depicts the prophet as a confused pedophile who promotes homosexuality, is not capable of coherent thought, and even engages in soft-core pornography.

It's everything you would expect from an extremist.

Terry Jones, pastor

Terry Jones, of Quran burning fame, decided to hold a viewing of the video at his church on September 11th (of all days), and attention was drawn. The Arab world, now with a dubbed version of the film to review, found the video insulting and outrageous. I can't really blame them for that... I'm not Muslim and I found it insulting and outrageous.

But... the extremists never miss an opportunity. A religious television station in Egypt, owned by a Saudi national, began spreading the idea that this video was somehow an official U.S. Government product, and that it represented an official view of American policy. Then it called for protests.

And protest they did.

It All Went So Wrong...

Christopher Stevens

This video, as vile and tasteless as it was, probably was nothing more than a pretext for riling up local sentiments to swing popular opinion or make people more malleable. Unfortunately, this time it had some rather dire consequences. A dead ambassador is a very big deal, and while I doubt the American Government will respond with sanctions or missiles, the killing of an ambassador is considered one of the most barbaric and uncivilized acts imaginable in international politics.

But extremists can rarely see past their own followers.

Our world is a cruel and strange place, with different extremists on both sides, and dead diplomats in the middle. Many will tell you yet again after today that Islam is the problem. Maybe, I don't know. But I suspect not.

I think extremism is the problem. We have so much hate for other people that we forget they are people, and that in my opinion is far worse and far more shameful than anything Islam or any other religion teaches.