Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The question that Rep. Trent Franks asked Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez in July shouldn’t be very difficult to answer — especially for the man who heads up the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, and who swore to uphold the Constitution when taking that job. Yet Franks has to ask the question four different times, and Perez refuses to provide a direct answer. The question is this: “Will you tell us here today, simply, that this administration’s Department of Justice will never entertain or advance a proposal that criminalizes speech against any religion?”
If you read the First Amendment, the answer is simple. Perez, however, does a two-minute dodge while Franks asks it four times:
As recently as December 19, 2011, the U.S. voted for and was instrumental in passing “U.N. Resolution 16/18” against “religious intolerance,” “condemning the stereotyping, negative profiling and stigmatization of people based on their religion.” While this may sound innocuous, it was the latest incarnation of a highly controversial “anti-blasphemy” resolution that has been pushed by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) at the United Nations since 1999.
The real aim of the “anti- blasphemy” resolution is not to protect religion but to clamp down on freedom of expression. Accordingly, “defamation of religion,” by the definition of the 56-member OIC, could include things such as satirizing Mohammed in a newspaper cartoon or a YouTube video, criticism of Sharia law, or security check profiling. A report by the New York–based Human Rights First listed more than 50 cases in 15 countries “where the enforcement of blasphemy laws have resulted in death sentences and long prison terms as well as arbitrary detentions, and have sparked assaults, murders, and mob attacks.”
The U.N. “anti-blasphemy” resolution has been put to the vote by the OIC in the Human Rights Councils every year since 1999 and in the General Assembly every year since 2005. It has passed every year, but it receives a dwindling number of votes. Most Western democracies have voted against, seeing it correctly as a threat to free speech.
Last December, the Obama Administration, during three days of closed negotiations at Foggy Bottom, brokered a compromise for the implementation that allowed the controversial measure to pass the U.N. General Assembly unanimously. The only country to voice concern was Poland, whose representative wondered—rightly—why the only example of interfaith dialogue mentioned in the resolution was located in Saudi Arabia.
When Egypt’s President Morsi threatened to sue the makers of the YouTube video Innocence of Muslims and demanded that the US prosecute them, this was the pretext for demanding legal action. It’s the reason why Franks asked Perez to categorically state that the DoJ would never seek to criminalize criticism of religion, and why Perez refused to do so. As Heritage notes, the initial response from the Cairo embassy to the protests calling the YouTube clip an “abuse” of free speech goes right along with this administration’s pussyfooting on First Amendment rights in this regard.
There are tough questions that might take multiple parsings to fully answer. This isn’t one of them. The DoJ under the Constitution has no leeway on this issue, and the correct answer is, “Of course the DoJ won’t allow speech critical of religion to be criminalized.” When the man running the Civil Rights Division of the DoJ can’t bring himself to give that answer the first time it’s asked, we should all be very, very concerned.
Evidently, Liberals here don't care too much about Free Speech...why am I not surprised by that?
Really???!!!
In the link provided, it tells of a Conservative who posted a anti-Obama billboard right over a fueling station, and as a result, the filling station has lost business because of it.
What's that saying? how does that go, that the right wing-conservatives are always seemingly able to spout without a thought?
I'd always thought of a conservative being pro-business, this looks like anti-business to me.
So much for freedom of speech for all Americans. It probably only applies to conservatives when a situation fits their needs.
Really???!!!
In the link provided, it tells of a Conservative who posted a anti-Obama billboard right over a fueling station, and as a result, the filling station has lost business because of it.
What's that saying? how does that go, that the right wing-conservatives are always seemingly able to spout without a thought?
I'd always thought of a conservative being pro-business, this looks like anti-business to me.
So much for freedom of speech for all Americans. It probably only applies to conservatives when a situation fits their needs.
What does any of that have to do with the DOJ not committing to protecting free speech?
So what does a person exercizing their freedom of speech and expression by putting up a billboard have to do with Obama's DOJ not being able to confirm that American's freedom of speech is secure?
What exactly does the DOJ have to do with criminalizing something? Criminal statutes are passed by the congress, not the DOJ. Shouldn't the DOJ be asking Franks that question rather than the other way around?
They are only interested in protecting liberal propaganda if at all possible
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
First Amendment Right Gone Over The Edge
