Originally published on the CGS blog on September 18, 2012.
Thousands of Muslims around the world have exploded in anger in response to an anti-Islam film titled The Innocence of Muslims, which, putting it lightly, depicts the prophet Muhammad and his followers in a negative light. On September 11, 2012, protesters in Cairo breached the outer perimeter of the US Embassy and proceeded to vandalize the property. Since then, Egyptian police have secured the Embassy and are guarding it against further protests.
On the same day as the Cairo protests, the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya was attacked during protests against the film. Tragically, Ambassador Christopher Stevens, former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, and information management officer Sean Smith were murdered in the line of duty. As of September 15th, Al-Qaeda has assumed a sort of removed responsibility for the killings, citing the attack as a response to a drone attack that killed Ayman al-Zawahiri’s lieutenant.
In the wake of the initial protests in Cairo and Benghazi, violence and protests surrounding the film have spread to Yemen, Kuwait, Sudan, Tripoli, Lebanon, Australia, Paris, and Jerusalem.
There have been a number of other responses to the film, including Al-Qaeda in the Arab Peninsula’s call for more embassy attacks, the Taliban’s attack of a base in Afghanistan resulting in the death of two Marines, and the country of Afghanistan’s blocking of YouTube until The Innocence of Muslims has been removed from the site.
On September 12th, Obama gave a speech that denounced the mockery of religious beliefs and promised to work with Libyan authorities to bring those responsible for the Benghazi attacks to justice. As a result of the recent violence surrounding this movie, the White House asked Google to take down the offensive clips, but Google refused.
It should go without saying that the death of Americans in the line of duty, and those brave four were some of the best that we had to offer, is a deplorable occurrence and those responsible must be brought to justice. However, bowing to the demands of people that resort to violence in order to address their disagreements or grievances should not even be on the table; bending to the will of murderers and thugs should never even be a choice that is in contention. Interestingly, we should be commending Google for their backbone in supporting free speech.
It would be irresponsible to deny that there is a duty to consider situations where “clear and present danger” is a large concern, and it is not too difficult to think of an instance where the repercussions of permitting free speech outweigh the utility associated with permitting that speech. A classic example illustrating this idea is a hypothetical situation assessing whether or not it is acceptable to limit the free speech in of an imbedded reporter televising details of an impending military operation; most reasonable people would agree that the reporter should not be able to report those details, even though it would result in her freedom being restricted. However, it is a rather large stretch to label a movie as ridiculous as The Innocence of Muslims a sufficient condition to trigger a clear and present danger argument.
In the face of forces that are willing and able to employ tactics that are designed to harm and kill people when their demands are not met, there are certainly instances where the risk of such things happening can and should be mitigated through actions that limit the chances that such an action will occur. However, when a right as important as the free expression of religion and ideas about religion is the point of conention, the conditions for limiting that speech should become extremely stringent.
If the White House had it their way, the video would have been taken down and this issue would have been pushed under the rug; this is a disappointing affront to our proud tradition of free thought and speech, ideals that we as Americans hold to be sacred. Instead of attempting to curtail the freedom of speech at home, we should, and must, recommit ourselves to efforts aimed at how to better facilitate education, tolerance, and civil discourse abroad.
In traditional form, Thomas Jefferson offers a perspective on the issue that resonates to this day in the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom and is as follows, “all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of Religion…”
There is no doubt in my mind that Mr. Jefferson is not looking too favorably upon Obama from his perch at Monticello right now.
