Head of news school believes 1st Amendment ends at insulting Islam
In this age, it's not so surprising to find an alleged professor in America who's a coward on issues like Islamofascism (Hat tip: Hot Air):
The most current issue of Charlie Hebdo again has Mohammed on its cover. This time, he appears crying under a headline that reads: “All is forgiven.” Well, apparently not. Ten people have been killed during protests in Niger, a former French colony. Other anti-French riots have erupted from North Africa to Asia. In reaction to all of this, Pope Francis has said of the magazine, “You cannot make fun of the faith of others.”…The professor fails to grasp that the supreme court hasn't used that "clear and present danger" argument for decades. He's one of many leftists who vehemently refuse to take issue with Islam's resorting to violence or make clear how violence is an unhealthy influence for anyone. He is not fit for his job.
In 1919, the Supreme Court ruled speech that presents a “clear and present danger” is not protected by the First Amendment. Crying “fire” in a quiet, uninhabited place is one thing, the court said. But “the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic.”
Twenty-two years later, the Supreme Court ruled that forms of expression that “inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace” are fighting words that are not protected by the First Amendment.
If Charlie Hebdo’s irreverent portrayal of Mohammed before the Jan. 7 attack wasn’t thought to constitute fighting words, or a clear and present danger, there should be no doubt now that the newspaper’s continued mocking of the Islamic prophet incites violence. And it pushes Charlie Hebdo’s free speech claim beyond the limits of the endurable.
Labels: dhimmitude, France, islam, jihad, Moonbattery, msm foulness, United States
