Reuters: US ambassador to Libya dead

[garbon]

Had someone spoken out about this video PRIOR to a bunch of nutjobs killing people over it, I would have been right there calling the people making the video a bunch of assholes.

But to keep quiet UNTIL someone reacts violently suggests that in fact it is the violence that has triggered the criticism, rather than the content of the speech.

How about the fact that virtually no one knew about this shitty film until someone acted violently?

[Barrister]

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.

The thing is that governments (quite rightly, by the way, if only because it would take too much time) do not, as a rule, issue official statements whenever their citizens say something ignorant. There is no reason why this is being done in this case, other than fear of violence. If I was an American, I would think it is shitty for my government to conduct its policy in response to threats of violence, but would prefer it to be built on more solid principles.

I don't know about you, but I think a policy of "we don't comment on things unless, for whatever reason, they become widely discussed around the world" is pretty defensible.

[CountDeMoney]

How about the fact that virtually no one knew about this shitty film until someone acted violently?

Yeah, no shit.
Once the embassy in Cairo got wind of the heat it was generating with Egyptian clerics on the street, they issued their statement to simmer things down locally, since nobody fucking else on the planet outside Egyptian mosques knew about it at all.

[crazy canuck]

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.

Do you think that's something the government should get involved with?  If so, then why don't we set up a Department of Criticism of Ignorant Speech, just to make sure nothing slips through the cracks?

Ignorant speech is routinely regulated.  Take an example of of someone selling snake oil saying it will cure cancer.  Does one need a Department of Silly speech (a department of the ministry of silliness), just down the hall form the Department of Silly Walks, to take care of such a thing.  No, but it does requires some common sense which I am afraid Libertarians seem to lack.

What makes this case difficult is that the ignorant speech in this case would, widely defined, itself fall under a protected form of speech and so it cannot and should not be regulated but there are other ways to deal with it and that is to roundly condemn it for what it is.  As I said, freedom of speech does not and never should include freedom from criticism.

[Valmy]

Supposedly the Marines in the Cairo embassy were not allowed by the ambassador to carry live ammo.

He was aware he was ambassador to Egypt and not Canada right?

[CountDeMoney]

Also, this whole "policy" of religious tolerance, particularly with regards to Islamic-centric events, has been boilerplate since 9/11. 

From 9/11 to the Iraqi insurgency to Abu Gharib to Afghanistan, there's been no deviation in the United States' public affirmation of respecting all faiths.

The Bush Administration reinforced that concept for the entire length of his presidency.  Don't see why it's suddenly a problem now.

[Berkut]

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.

No argument here, except to note that the government should be very careful about even criticizing speech - they have unique powers that make it problematic for them to criticize speech without at the same time curtailing it, even if unintentionally.

I agree.  But I think this is one of those times when it is appropriate.  Muslims around the world are venting their anger at the US government and its officials for something the US government had nothing to do with.  I think it is a rational response for the US government to say that not only did they have nothing to do with it but also to strongly affirm its commitment to tolerance of religious beliefs.

That is fine, I guess.

However, who are we kidding here?

It's not like anything that the US Government can say is going to make a damn bit of difference with people who are prone to murder in response to any perceived offense towards their deity. The idea that if only the government says or does the right thing, maybe it will make it better is pretty much hopeless, IMO.

People who are not rational are not amenable to rational discourse. And religious fanatics are not rational.

[DGuller]

What are the rules of engagement for embassy personnel anyway?  I imagine that actually firing live ammo at inhabitants of the host country is highly undesirable, and would only be contemplated when people in the embassy start getting beheaded.

[derspiess]

Ignorant speech is routinely regulated.  Take an example of of someone selling snake oil saying it will cure cancer.  Does one need a Department of Silly speech (a department of the ministry of silliness), just down the hall form the Department of Silly Walks, to take care of such a thing.  No, but it does requires some common sense which I am afraid Libertarians seem to lack.

We're not talking about advertising products using false claims, or other legitimate legal limitations on speech.

What makes this case difficult is that the ignorant speech in this case would, widely defined, itself fall under a protected form of speech and so it cannot and should not be regulated but there are other ways to deal with it and that is to roundly condemn it for what it is.  As I said, freedom of speech does not and never should include freedom from criticism.

...from other private citizens.  I don't think government should be in the business of criticizing speech it doesn't like.

[crazy canuck]

It's not like anything that the US Government can say is going to make a damn bit of difference with people who are prone to murder in response to any perceived offense towards their deity. The idea that if only the government says or does the right thing, maybe it will make it better is pretty much hopeless, IMO.

People who are not rational are not amenable to rational discourse. And religious fanatics are not rational.

I agree that it might not make any difference.  But it would be wrong not to at least try. Also, in terms of the domestic audience I think it is important for the government to affirm the value of tolerance in society.

[Jacob]

No argument here, except to note that the government should be very careful about even criticizing speech - they have unique powers that make it problematic for them to criticize speech without at the same time curtailing it, even if unintentionally.

Had someone spoken out about this video PRIOR to a bunch of nutjobs killing people over it, I would have been right there calling the people making the video a bunch of assholes.

But to keep quiet UNTIL someone reacts violently suggests that in fact it is the violence that has triggered the criticism, rather than the content of the speech.

That's also fair enough as a general principle. I think there is some wiggle room if, say, you're not aware of the speech in question until someone angrily brings it to your attention; I mean, it's not like we expect the various governments to watch out for every bit of offensive speech and disavow it preemptively. So there has to be room somewhere to react to other people's upset and anger and then let them know that you, as a government, do not agree with the offending speech; but I agree with you that it should not be in response to the violence.

Regarding this specific course of events, is there anything you think should have been handled different in term of the US's response?

... and as an aside, I don't think that characterizing the killers as nutjobs is likely to be accurate. I suspect (but I don't know), that the killers have a very specific and rational agenda, though one that is obviously both violent and anti-American, and that they either opportunistically took advantage of the anger of the mob or deliberately staged and encouraged the protests to use as cover.

[Valmy]

Mohammed is not even a diety he is just a dude.  Theologically speaking it should not even be blasphemy to insult him.

[crazy canuck]

We're not talking about advertising products using false claims, or other legitimate legal limitations on speech.

Glad to see you at least acknowledge there are legal limitations on speech.  I think we are making progress with you.

[Jacob]

I agree.  But I think this is one of those times when it is appropriate.  Muslims around the world are venting their anger at the US government and its officials for something the US government had nothing to do with.  I think it is a rational response for the US government to say that not only did they have nothing to do with it but also to strongly affirm its commitment to tolerance of religious beliefs.

Yeah, I concur.

It's worth it to be vigilant about slipping down the slope of government controlling free speech, but I don't think this is on that slope.

[derspiess]

Also, this whole "policy" of religious tolerance, particularly with regards to Islamic-centric events, has been boilerplate since 9/11. 

From 9/11 to the Iraqi insurgency to Abu Gharib to Afghanistan, there's been no deviation in the United States' public affirmation of respecting all faiths.

The Bush Administration reinforced that concept for the entire length of his presidency.  Don't see why it's suddenly a problem now.

It was bad policy then and it's bad policy now.