Reuters: US ambassador to Libya dead

[CountDeMoney]

What's a separate civil rights issue? I asked a question why the US government feels a need to issue a formal statement with respect to an action of a private US citizen, not affiliated in any manner with the US government, that offends a certain group, where it does not seem to have the same policy with respect to similar actions offensive to other groups.

Tell you what:  when a bunch of drag queens start scaling the walls at Magazine Street and setting chiffon cocktail dresses on fire over something on youtube, then the US government will issue a statement.

[dps]

I am still waiting for the answer to my question why the US government does not issue official statements condemning US-based bigots who say offensive things about gays, or Jews, or Catholics, or pretty much anyone except Muslims.

Because that is a separate civil rights issue.  And you know how we feel about free speech, regardless of however abhorrent, disturbing or LGBT-friendly.

What's a separate civil rights issue? I asked a question why the US government feels a need to issue a formal statement with respect to an action of a private US citizen, not affiliated in any manner with the US government, that offends a certain group, where it does not seem to have the same policy with respect to similar actions offensive to other groups.

I suppose that you have to at least say something when someone attacks one of your embassies.   That's not to say that it was the right thing to say.

Of course, the best thing to say IMO would simply be to point out that any opinions expressed by private individuals or groups are not the views of the US government.  Sooner or later maybe people will figure out that Fred Phelps, the makers of the film at the center of the current storm, and the Danish cartoonists aren't branches of the US government.

[derspiess]

You guys are all abusing free speech

[derspiess]

Dunno if this really means anything or not, but...

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2012/president/candidates/obama/2012/09/13/obama-speaks-with-libyan-egyptian-presidents/gNYivFq9kLSODWg3egLZqL/story.html

President Barack Obama says the U.S. would not consider Egypt an ally, ''but we don't consider them an enemy.''

[Jacob]

http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/09/obama-romney-has-tendency-to-shoot-first-aim-later-135355.html

Asked if Romney's remarks were irresponsible, Obama responded: "I'll let the American people judge that."
...
Most Republicans "reacted responsibly, waiting to find out the facts before they talk, making sure that our number one priority is the safety and security of American personnel," Obama said, according to Carney. "It appears that Gov. Romney didn't have his facts right."

There is "never an excuse for violence against Americans, which is why my number one priority and my initial statement focused on making sure that not only are Americans safe, but that we go after anybody who would attack Americans," the president added, according to Carney.
...
In his interview with CBS News -- according to Carney's reading of the president's statements -- Obama defended the embassy's response, saying it was "an an effort to cool the situation down" as protests broke out in Cairo. "It didn't come from me. It didn't come from Secretary Clinton. It came from folks on the ground who are potentially in danger. And my tendency is to cut those folks a little bit of slack when they're in that circumstance rather than try to question their judgment from the comfort of a campaign office."

[garbon]

I think validating the view that the film's offensiveness was worthy of an emotional reaction in the same sentence as you condemn the attack means you aren't condemning the attack.

Don't see how that follows.  If someone calls your mother a whore, people can see how that might upset you yet still condemn your actions if your response is to slip into the guy's house at night and slit his throat and the throats of his entire family in their sleep.

Indeed.

[Berkut]

"It didn't come from me. It didn't come from Secretary Clinton. It came from folks on the ground who are potentially in danger. And my tendency is to cut those folks a little bit of slack when they're in that circumstance rather than try to question their judgment from the comfort of a campaign office."

Score!

A great response.

[Valmy]

I am still waiting for the answer to my question why the US government does not issue official statements condemning US-based bigots who say offensive things about gays, or Jews, or Catholics, or pretty much anyone except Muslims.

To protect our people abroad of course.

[Berkut]

I think validating the view that the film's offensiveness was worthy of an emotional reaction in the same sentence as you condemn the attack means you aren't condemning the attack.

Don't see how that follows.  If someone calls your mother a whore, people can see how that might upset you yet still condemn your actions if your response is to slip into the guy's house at night and slit his throat and the throats of his entire family in their sleep.

Indeed.

If the topic of conversation is someone going into someone house and murdering their entire family, and the response is to note that someone called the guys mom a name, then I certainly think that is bullshit. It suggests that perhaps the actions of the victim in some fashion excuse or mitigate the actions of the criminal.

The instigation is so out of whack with the response that mentioning it as even a mitigating circumstance is not worthy, and suggests in fact that maybe the response is not all that unreasonable, or more importantly, that even if the response was not reasonable, maybe people should in fact censor their speech in case more unreasonable responses occur. And that is completely wrong.

The issue here is that people have every right to be offensive assholes. People do in fact have the right to speak out against things they find wrong, and even have the right to do so in a manner that those they are speaking out against find offensive. Pointing out in the same breath that something terrible has happened while noting that the perpetrators were provoked suggests that perhaps people should stop provoking them. Which is exactly what those who engage in this kind of violence are trying to accomplish

[Valmy]

The issue here is that people have every right to be offensive assholes. People do in fact have the right to speak out against things they find wrong, and even have the right to do so in a manner that those they are speaking out against find offensive. Pointing out in the same breath that something terrible has happened while noting that the perpetrators were provoked suggests that perhaps people should stop provoking them. Which is exactly what those who engage in this kind of violence are trying to accomplish

Exactly.

[Martinus]

I am still waiting for the answer to my question why the US government does not issue official statements condemning US-based bigots who say offensive things about gays, or Jews, or Catholics, or pretty much anyone except Muslims.

Because that is a separate civil rights issue.  And you know how we feel about free speech, regardless of however abhorrent, disturbing or LGBT-friendly.

What's a separate civil rights issue? I asked a question why the US government feels a need to issue a formal statement with respect to an action of a private US citizen, not affiliated in any manner with the US government, that offends a certain group, where it does not seem to have the same policy with respect to similar actions offensive to other groups.

I suppose that you have to at least say something when someone attacks one of your embassies.   That's not to say that it was the right thing to say.

Of course, the best thing to say IMO would simply be to point out that any opinions expressed by private individuals or groups are not the views of the US government.  Sooner or later maybe people will figure out that Fred Phelps, the makers of the film at the center of the current storm, and the Danish cartoonists aren't branches of the US government.

Tell you what:  when a bunch of drag queens start scaling the walls at Magazine Street and setting chiffon cocktail dresses on fire over something on youtube, then the US government will issue a statement.

Ok so you are essentially confirming that Obama has been bullied to issue that statement. Not very statesmanlike.

[Berkut]

The right to freedom of speech as a liberal ideal is not subject to review based on the perception of offensiveness of the speech by some arbitrary group willing to engage in violence in response to it.

To suggest in any way that the act of speech should be curtailed in response to violence intended to suppress it is a terrible, terrible message to send to both those speaking and those who are deciding whether some more violence to curtail some more speech might be in order.

[Jacob]

I concur that we should not limit freedom of speech, especially in response to violence and attempted intimidation.

On the other hand, I think it's perfectly legitimate for a government and it's representatives to acknowledge that a particular exercise of speech does not represent the view of the government or the nation, and that the particular example of speech is deliberately offensive and wrong - especially when that's true.

In short, I think it's legitimate for the embassy to say "that video insulting your religion does not represent the US, and the people who made it are assholes"; but it is not okay to add "so we'll make some laws to make sure those assholes are punished for upsetting you."

[garbon]

I think validating the view that the film's offensiveness was worthy of an emotional reaction in the same sentence as you condemn the attack means you aren't condemning the attack.

Don't see how that follows.  If someone calls your mother a whore, people can see how that might upset you yet still condemn your actions if your response is to slip into the guy's house at night and slit his throat and the throats of his entire family in their sleep.

Indeed.

If the topic of conversation is someone going into someone house and murdering their entire family, and the response is to note that someone called the guys mom a name, then I certainly think that is bullshit. It suggests that perhaps the actions of the victim in some fashion excuse or mitigate the actions of the criminal.

The instigation is so out of whack with the response that mentioning it as even a mitigating circumstance is not worthy, and suggests in fact that maybe the response is not all that unreasonable, or more importantly, that even if the response was not reasonable, maybe people should in fact censor their speech in case more unreasonable responses occur. And that is completely wrong.

The issue here is that people have every right to be offensive assholes. People do in fact have the right to speak out against things they find wrong, and even have the right to do so in a manner that those they are speaking out against find offensive. Pointing out in the same breath that something terrible has happened while noting that the perpetrators were provoked suggests that perhaps people should stop provoking them. Which is exactly what those who engage in this kind of violence are trying to accomplish

But it's really just establishing the chronology of events / understanding that people might have gotten upset by what was said. That doesn't mean that you're excusing the actions that were taken as a result of being upset.  After all, if you don't at least try and understand why someone could have gotten angry - you've really no common ground and no way of trying to convince them why they shouldn't go and murder people (especially those not even involved).

Going back to the example I posted this morning. If a group of white guys go into a black neighborhood and one starts cursing about n****ers - there could be a non-zero chance that guy would be attacked and perhaps even all of them would be attacked (though their only fault was hanging out with a racist) - and let's posit here that one of the accompanying white guys died.  I don't see what is wrong with saying that one understands why the black people were upset but that their response was disproportionate to the offending event.  Those black people should also get punished to the full extent of the law for what they did - but I don't understand how it becomes death to free speech if one says perhaps the white guy shouldn't have gone to that neighborhood saying those things.  He isn't guilty but he did play a role in what happened.

Is the difference between that scenario and real events that there's no real threat of the black guys wanting to destroy the free-speech culture of those white guys - which isn't the case with these muslim fundamentalists vs. the US?

[crazy canuck]

To suggest in any way that the act of speech should be curtailed in response to violence intended to suppress it is a terrible, terrible message to send to both those speaking and those who are deciding whether some more violence to curtail some more speech might be in order.

Speech which is ignorant should also be condemned as such whether or not people have also reactived violently too it.  Freedom of speech does not carry with it the freedom from criticism - quite the opposite.  If that criticism curtails the ignorant speech then that is an undeniable good.