My sharia amour
Sarah Chayes at the LA Times wonders Does ‘Innocence of Muslims’ meet the free-speech test?
…much 1st Amendment jurisprudence concerns speech explicitly advocating violence, such as calls to resist arrest, or videos explaining bomb-making techniques. But words don’t have to urge people to commit violence in order to be subject to limits, says [Anthony] Lewis. “If the result is violence, and that violence was intended, then it meets the standard.”
Indeed, Justice Holmes’ original example, shouting “fire” in a theater, is not a call to arms. Steve Klein, an outspoken anti-Islamic activist who said he helped with the film, told Al Jazeera television that it was “supposed to be provocative.” The egregiousness of its smears, the apparent deception of cast and crew as to its contents and the deliberate effort to raise its profile in the Arab world a week before 9/11 all suggest intentionality.
And the whole sharia law thing also seems like it might be a bit of a slippery slope. For example, once someone has had a close relative honor-murdered, had a homosexual friend or two stoned, had the LA Times burned down because they ran a Mohammad cartoon (not that they would ever do that!), or had their cut a tongue out for partaking in fermented beverages, Chayes and her fellow travelers may think twice about the wisdom of such a position.