In response to:

Obama's Craven Betrayal of the First Amendment

CarolinaSistah Wrote: Sep 14, 2012 6:50 PM
The first amendment does not trump lives. In this instance, I agree that the offensive film should be suppressed.
g15y Wrote: Sep 14, 2012 7:10 PM
Have you seen the film............IT IS TOTALLY STUPID...........MAKES NO SENSE.........SO WHY ARE MOOOOOOOSLEMS ALL RILED UP.........ANSWER..........THEY NEED SOMETHING TO BLAME..........REMEMBER THE DANISH CARTOON THAT SENT THEM INTO A RAGE........THEY HATE US SO THEY NEED NOTHING AT ALL TO SET THEM INTO A RAGE..........ALL THEY USE THESE THINGS FOR IS TO GET THEIR PROPAGANDA OUT..........
bbtruth Wrote: Sep 14, 2012 7:08 PM
The people that made that video didn't kill anyone.
That's always the way it is with you "people". By choosing the side that wishes to suppress this film, it is implicit in your choice that you condone the behavior of the murderers. This choice means that you believe the murders and violence done supposedly in reaction to this film are morally justifiable.
TammyTucker Wrote: Sep 14, 2012 7:07 PM
How about movies that offend Christians?!? We might as well just get rid of hollywood altogether...You know, "Just to show respect", right???
RAY USA Wrote: Sep 14, 2012 7:04 PM
Sistah:
Tyrants have always used the public safety as the excuse for suppressing free speech. There are plenty of countries around the world that agree with you. Perhaps you should consider them.
However, in America, for over 225 years, we have made free speech a cornerstone of our values.
HomeschoolEducator Wrote: Sep 14, 2012 6:53 PM
Can I also ask that the Dark Knight Rises be taken from theaters because some loon decided to kill people at the movie? You want to know how to stop the violence? Kill them all and let God deal with them.
pilot77 Wrote: Sep 14, 2012 6:52 PM
you don't get do you. I think all stupid liberals should be silenced, lets do that. Idot

In the Daily Caller, Neil Munro reports that the Obama administration has asked YouTube to suppress the offensive film that is the pretext for some of the Islamist rioting.  This is, of course, in accordance with the demands of the Muslim brotherhood.

It goes without saying that such government interference in speech protected by the First Amendment is uncomfortably close to a complete betrayal of the President's oath to protect and defend the US Constitution. The "speech" to which the Islamists object is, true, offensive.  So is "Piss Christ" and a variety of other anti-Christian (or anti-Semitic) rhetoric.  But under our...