France bans Down Syndrome ad from TV because smiling kids might ‘disturb’ women who had an abortion


Years ago I was a substitute teacher just outside Chicago. There were days when I had the opportunity to join special education classes, which included kids with Down Syndrome. I am not lying when I say that those were some of the best kids I ever had the privilege to meet.

Given that experience, you can see one of the many reasons why a story out of France caught my eye just before Thanksgiving.  It turns out that a commercial by CoorDown titled “Dear Future Mom” is now officially banned from the airwaves. The reason? It might “disturb the conscience” of women who elected to have an abortion.

The Wall Street Journal published an op-ed on the story Wednesday:

“Abortion is legal in most of Europe, but its proponents are bent on suppressing efforts to change the minds of mothers considering it. Witness France’s ban on a television commercial showing happy children with Down Syndrome (DS).

Produced to commemorate World Down Syndrome Day, the commercial showed several cheerful children with DS addressing a mother considering abortion. “Dear future mom,” says one, “don’t be afraid.” “Your child will be able to do many things,” says another. “He’ll be able to hug you.” “He’ll be able to run toward you.” “He’ll be able to speak and tell you he loves you.”

France’s High Audiovisual Council removed the commercial from air earlier this year, and in November the Council of State, the country’s highest administrative court, upheld the ban, since the clip could ‘disturb the conscience’ of French women who had aborted DS fetuses.”

Ask yourself this question: If French courts are permitted to ban a television commercial that features smiling kids because it might “disturb the conscious” of some viewers, then what is off limits?

Answer: Nothing.

Whether you agree or disagree with abortion, then I hope you can see just how incredibly terrifying this court’s logic is from a free-speech and religious liberty perspective. People often behave like the liberties enjoyed by the western world will be around forever, but that is not the case.

“But Doug!” you said, “Why should we care about France? We sort of expect that kind of thing from the French and Europe as a whole, right?”

The truth, sadly, is that every nation has Thought Police — even the U.S.

One merely needs to check out BuzzFeed’s hit piece on the hosts of HGTV’s hit series Fixer Upper. Writer Kate Aurthur founder herself a juicy target to destroy because a popular married couple is suspected of a Mind Crime. That’s why she wrote “Chip And Joanna Gaines’ Church Is Firmly Against Same-Sex Marriage.”

Shocker — Christian family belongs to a church that does not approve of homosexual relationships.

Perhaps Allahpundit over at Hotair put it best:

“The BuzzFeed piece is proof that we’re past the persuasion stage now in the culture wars, particularly as regards gay rights, and into the bludgeoning stage, where the left feels secure enough in its gains to try to strongarm the holdouts.”


In France, smiling kids with Down Syndrome cannot appear on television. In America, Christian couples with hit television shows have giant websites trying to find ways to destroy their career.

In France, powerful legal councils keep you off the air if you  disturb the conscience of women who had an abortion. In America, liberal reporters will try to derail your television career if you “disturb the conscious” of secular Democrats.

And with that, I will leave you with a quote by John Philpot Curran:

The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt.” — John Philpot Curran.

If you do not think you have anything to learn from men who were born in the 1700s, then think again.


CNN goes full-Orwell during Milwaukee riot, scrubs call to burn suburbs down


Anyone who ever wants to know why Americans do not trust the media needs to merely turn to CNN’s Orwellian coverage of the Milwaukee riots after the shooting death of Sylville K. Smith. After members of the local community went ballistic, burned down a BP gas station, looted buildings, injured cops and shot a man in the neck, Smith’s sister called for them to, “take that s–t to the suburbs! Burn that s–t down!”

CNN then selectively edited its video and said the woman was calling for peace.

Once enough people called the network out on its 1984-inspired reporting, another edit was made and correspondent Ana Cabrera attempted to explain away the decision as “shorthand” that “unintentionally gave viewers the wrong impression.”

Ana Cabrera Twitter

We’ve always been at war with Eastasia…right, CNN?

DeeconX tweet

For those who are not up on the latest details:

  • Sylville K. Smith, an armed black man, was shot by a black cop and killed last Saturday.
  • Sylville K. Smith had a history of arrests.
  • Cops pursued Mr. Smith, who was traveling in a stolen vehicle. The car eventually stopped and he fled on foot.
  • Mr. Smith, armed with a handgun, eventually turned towards a cop with his weapon and was shot.
  • Locals, without any concrete details other than the fact that a man was shot by a cop, started burning their own community to the ground while screaming “Black power!”
  • It is now unacceptable for cops — even black cops — to use deadly force against black suspects for any reason. Sylville K. Smith should have been let go or stopped with fairy magic that wrapped him in warm pink blankets.
  • Police Chief Edward Flynn said body camera footage will vindicate the unidentified cops’s actions.

This story is important because a random guy on Twitter identified as DeeconX should never be in the place where he needs to expose “shorthand” better fit for the old Soviet Union.

This story is important because one of the reasons Donald Trump is popular (again, I’m voting for the Sweet Meteor of Death), is because mainstream media as a whole is often untrustworthy.

This story is important because at some point in time journalists decided that their job was to be political hacks instead of truth-seekers. The long-term consequences to civil society when the media completely abandons its original purpose are enormous. Until there is a shift in perspective, the Western world will continue its downward slide.

Melissa Click calls for Mizzou ‘muscle’ to crush reporters’ rights; future tyrants demand ‘safe space’

Melissa Click Muscle

Timothy Wolfe, the president of the University of Missouri system, gave into demands of student protesters on Monday and resigned. The decision was in response to charges he was not doing enough to respond to racial injustices on the campus in recent months. Lost in the shuffle, however, is the story within the story — the harbinger of an America where women like communications professor Melissa Click have their hands on the levers of power.

Media converged on the school in the wake of Wolfe’s decision, and students and faculty who demanded media attention earlier in the day suddenly wanted total control over journalists — in a public space, no less — with “muscle.”

YouTube video uploaded Monday shows future tyrants shoving student photographer Tim Tai out of a “safe space” (Yes, they really demanded a “safe space” in a public forum). They then called for thuggery on student photographer Mark Schierbecker.

Click: You need to get out! You need to get you!

Schierbecker: No I don’t.

Click: **grabbing camera** You need to get out!

Schierbecker: I actually don’t.

Click: Alright. Hey, who wants to help me get this reporter out of here?! I need some muscle over here!

Even Jake Tapper was taken aback, tweeting: “@melissaclick was that you on the video calling for ‘some muscle’ to remove a student journalist from a public space?

Jake Tapper Melissa Click

Yes it was, Mr. Tapper. Yes it was.

Melissa Click

There is a certain urge to sit back and revel in the fact that liberal administrators are now under an attack — from the left — by the foot soldiers they have trained for years. It is no laughing matter, however.

Here is what I said Oct. 24 when Williams College abruptly pulled the plug on an author’s speech because its organizers thought students would resort to physical violence when their “safe space” was threatened:

The kids at Williams College are being taught a dangerous lesson if threats of violence against unpopular speech are rewarded. Intolerant students are likely to mutate into intolerant political leaders down the line. One doesn’t need a college degree to know that intolerant political leaders easily mutate into totalitarian thugs.

It wasn’t all that long ago that Piers Morgan had a show on CNN. He used to laugh and say things along the lines of, “Do you really think Americans will one day be threatened by a tyrannical government?”

It takes willful ignorance to look at the “safe space” culture permeating the nation and not see how the seeds of tyranny are being sown far and wide. We do not need to ask “if” the seeds take root, but “to what extent.”

Anti-free speech “muscle” on college campuses today will be running for public office tomorrow. Many of these students will become entrenched in executive agencies. They will reach the highest echelons of influence within the entertainment industry and hold positions of power at major news organizations.

Ask yourself: If they ask for football team “muscle” to prevent journalists from doing their job at the college level, what will they do when they have the full force of the U.S. government at their disposal?

University of Missouri staff anti free speech

The anti-free speech “muscle” of Mizzou had a big win on Monday, which means that its allies on campuses across the country will now seek to duplicate or surpass their ideological peers. I implore any young person attending college to push back twice as hard the next time your wannabe police-state overseers request “muscle” to do their dirty work.

University of Missouri activist thugs

NPR ombudsman: Constitution should not protect speech that insults ‘prophets and gods’

Charlie Hebdo die on my feet I’ve met some really nice people over the years who love NPR. Most of them are fairly intelligent as well. However, the peculiar thing about these individuals is that, despite their intelligence, they have a propensity to say frighteningly stupid things. On Feb. 6,  NPR’s outgoing Ombudsman Edward Schumacher-Matos was able to provide the perfect example.

Mr. Schumacher-Matos wrote in his final column:

I am not Charlie.

The French news media may have their ethical standards, but they are not American or sacred universal ones, and they shouldn’t be French ones either. The United States has never had absolute freedom of the press. And the framers of the Constitution—I once held the James Madison Visiting Professor Chair on First Amendment Issues at Columbia University—never intended it to. You wouldn’t know this, however, from listening to the First Amendment fundamentalists piping up from Washington to Silicon Valley.

In this case, the competing social and constitutional demand is the control of hate speech in the interests of social cohesion, without which the very idea of a nation is impossible. …

I do not know if American courts would find much of what Charlie Hebdo does to be hate speech unprotected by the Constitution, but I know—hope?—that most Americans would. It is one thing to lampoon popes, imams, rabbis and other temporal religious leaders of this world; it is quite another to make fun, in often nasty ways, of their prophets and gods. The NPR editors were right not to reprint any of the images.

There you have it: a smart man who is completely unaware of all the frighteningly stupid ideas he’s putting out into the world.

It would be rather bizarre if journalists started publishing nuclear launch codes and the identities of CIA agents in foreign countries, all while operating under the assumption that they could do so with impunity. If one were going to use terms like “First Amendment fundamentalists” to describe “free speech radicals,” then perhaps defenders of such journalists would qualify for membership. However, to use “First Amendment fundamentalist” as a pejorative to describe Charlie Hebdo’s American advocates is absurd.

Charlie Hebdo has said all sorts of “nasty” things about Christians. As a Catholic man, I find the publication’s illustrations of Jesus to be downright revolting — but I will defend their right to publish such pictures until my last breath. The fact that an NPR Ombudsman could ever publish a column in which he advocates giving religious radicals veto power over the content journalists provide their readers only shows how warped our culture has become.

There is no “constitutional demand” to control “hate speech.” There is only the desire among society’s self-proclaimed cultured class to control the actions of the rest of us.

“Hate speech” laws do not act as a salve for the red hot fissures that often occur between disparate groups in a country like The United States of America — they are in fact accelerants. Such laws infuse words with unwarranted power and give every group’s grievance mongers a reason to seek their own list of off-limits speech.

Speaking of off-limits, NPR closed down the comments section on Mr. Schumacher-Matos’ op-ed. Telling, isn’t it?

In the fight for Western Civilization’s soul, the mindset cultivated by men like Mr. Schumacher-Matos is a loser.

NPR closed commentsRelated: Papers go into censorship mode over Paris terror attack; free speech heroes hang up their capes

Papers go into censorship mode over Paris terror attack; free speech heroes hang up their capes

Charlie HebdoThere are countless angles one can cover when they’re writing on the Charlie Hebdo terrorist attack that left 12 people dead, including the paper’s editor. The instinct is to focus in on the attackers, but in this case the real story is that the so-called defenders of free speech are in many cases hanging up their capes. They’re like Superman, if Superman saw a house on fire and said, “There might be Kryptonite in there. I can’t take that chance. Hopefully the fire will go out on its own.”

Buzzfeed reported Wednesday:

[T]he New York Times explained their decision not to show the images in an email from a spokesperson: “Under Times standards, we do not normally publish images or other material deliberately intended to offend religious sensibilities. After careful consideration, Times editors decided that describing the cartoons in question would give readers sufficient information to understand today’s story.”

Other outlets made more subtle choices to censor the images, with some using cropped photos that do not include the actual image of Muhammad. Three images of Charb were released on the Associated Press wire after the shooting, and none of them included a photo of the cover itself.

AP spokesman Paul Colford told BuzzFeed News, “You’re correct: None of the images distributed by AP showed cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad. It’s been our policy for years that we refrain from moving deliberately provocative images.”

Was that a policy that was in place for “years” or “minutes”? Gawker reported that AP was willing to sell images of the infamous “Piss Christ” up until …. yesterday afternoon.

AP PCAsk yourself this question: Why was a piece of “art” that portrayed Jesus submerged in a jar of urine okay for The Associated Press to sell, but an uncensored picture from Charlie Hebdo is not?

Charlie Hebdo die on my feetPerhaps it has something to do with the fact that newspaper editors are not afraid Catholics will behead them when angered.

Free speech has taken a beating in the last few months. First there was Sony Pictures Entertainment, which had to be dragged kicking and screaming to do the right thing after it was hacked by the “Guardians of Peace,” and now major news outlets are giving credence to idea that content should be censored if it is deemed blasphemous.

Any western newspaper that goes out of its way not to offend the kind of people who would burst into an office shouting “Allahu Akbar!” while armed to the teeth is a newspaper that is not living up to its responsibility to defend free speech. If an individual works at a major newspaper and his mentality is, “Hey, I’m just the guy who manages the Twitter account — I didn’t sign up for defending free speech,” then that is not an individual who should be employed at said major newspaper.

If western media outlets are still clueless as to what they are up against, then they should spend more time listening to the words of Britain’s radical Islamic cleric Anjem Choudary: “If freedom of expression can be sacrificed for criminalising [sic] incitement & hatred, Why not for insulting the Prophet of Allah?”

Anjem ChoudaryLace up your boots and put on your capes, free speech superheroes. You have work to do. It’s embarrassing that such a thing even needs to be said.

Sony caves to North Korea: ‘The Interview’ capitulation clowns give Kim Jong-un free speech veto

Seth Rogen James Franco The InterviewThe Founding Fathers knew that the right to free speech was important, which is why it is covered in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as part of the Bill of Rights. Today, Dec. 17, 2014, is the day that U.S. capitulation clowns at Sony gave a dictator veto power over the free speech rights of its American artists and sent a message to thug regimes that if they have enough tech savvy, then they can make studio executives cower in fear.

Here is what the First Amendment says:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” — Amendment I, U.S. Constitution.

Sony isn’t rolling over for the U.S. government, but instead doing something even worse — it’s censoring itself to appease a Communist thug regime that runs gulags.

Here is Sony’s statement regarding its decision to pull “The Interview” from theaters. It also has no plans to release the film in any formincluding VOD or DVD.

“We are deeply saddened at this brazen effort to suppress the distribution of a movie, and in the process do damage to our company, our employees, and the American public. We stand by our filmmakers and their right to free expression and are extremely disappointed by this outcome.”

Cowards. American blood was shed to guarantee that our rights to free speech, press, petition, assembly, and religion could be upheld, but in the face of threats by anonymous hackers on the other side of the globe, Sony crumbled. And before Sony made an utter embarrassment out of itself, the five major movie theater circuits did the same thing: Regal Entertainment, AMC Entertainment, Carmike Cinemas, Cinemark and Cineplex Entertainment.

Imagine you’re Vladimir Putin. Imagine you’re Iran’s Ali Khamenei. Imagine you’re Venezuela’s Nicolás Maduro or China’s Xi Jinping. Is it more or less likely that you would be willing to use hackers to impose your will upon American companies and stifle dissent?

Imagine you’re a writer for a major motion studio. Would you craft any screenplays in the near future that challenge the world’s worst dictators and despots? The message Sony has sent to the world by pulling “The Interview” is downright chilling and its executives should be reminded of it for years to come.

Anyone who cares about free speech should be downright terrified that companies operating in the U.S. would run for the hills the moment a nebulous hacking group threatens Americans with violence. The fact that it was even under consideration to torpedo the film is an indicator that America’s cultural rotgut has grown to gargantuan proportions. We have been hollowed out from the inside, and Sony’s reaction to being hacked by the “Guardians of Peace” has exposed that sad reality for everyone to see.

Sony does not “stand by” its filmmakers. In fact, it is doing the exact opposite. It stabbed Seth Rogen and James Franco in the back, and it sucker punched millions of Americans who realize just how dangerous it is to appease dictatorial regimes.

Calling someone “un-American” should be done only on rare occasions due to the seriousness of the charge. However, I firmly believe that any American employee of Sony who backs the decision to kill “The Interview’s” theatrical release is taking part in something that is wholly and unequivocally un-American.

Related: Seth Rogen rightly called out Sony’s capitulation to North Korean thugs prior to hacking

Seth Rogen rightly called out Sony’s capitulation to North Korean thugs prior to hacking

Seth Rogen James Franco The InterviewIt’s not very often that I find myself in agreement with Seth Rogen, but leaked Sony emails reveal that even a comedian who often spews leftist talking points understands the importance of free speech — when his own is threatened.

As Seth Rogen’s and James Franco’s “The Interview” was filming, Sony CEO Kazuo Hirai took issue with a scene that depicts the death of North Korea’s gulag overseer, Kim Jong-un. He stepped in to make sure that the feelings of a dictator weren’t hurt too much. Amy Pascal, co-chairman of Sony Pictures Entertainment, then had to figure out a way to deliver the news to writer and co-director Mr. Rogen.

Reuters reported Dec. 10:

In an exchange with Rogen, Pascal said she was in a difficult position because Hirai had asked her to make changes in the film.

“And this isn’t some flunky. It’s the chairman of the entire Sony Corporation who I am dealing (with),” she said.

Rogen responded by promising to remove three of four burn marks on Kim’s face, and reduce the “flaming hair” by 50 percent. But he said he could not meet all the demands. …

Rogen initially told Pascal he objected to requests to modify the death scene, which he said would be viewed as censorship and hurt sales.

“This is now a story of Americans changing their movie to make North Koreans happy,” he said in an Aug. 15 email. “That is a very damning story.”

In the end, enough edits were apparently made to satisfy Mr. Hirai, but at what cost?

This blog has covered Hollywood’s willingness to appease Chinese censorship boards if it will bring in a few million dollars more, and now it’s confirmed that similar measures were made out of the fear of what a North Korean dictator might do when he is openly mocked.

There is no doubt that Sony will lose millions of dollars as a result of its recent hacking. There is also no doubt that it is also quite embarrassing when wealthy Jewish liberals are exposed saying things about the first black president that would get a conservative kicked out of the industry in a second.

Buzzfeed reported Dec. 10:

In what has become the latest embarrassing email uncovered in a trove of messages leaked by hackers who attacked Sony, Pascal wrote Rudin: “What should I ask the president at this stupid Jeffrey breakfast?” She was referring to a breakfast hosted by DreamWorks Animation head and major Democratic donor Jeffrey Katzenberg.

Rudin, a top film producer responsible for films like No Country for Old Men and Moneyball, responded, “Would he like to finance some movies.” Pascal replied, “I doubt it. Should I ask him if he liked DJANGO?” Rudin responded: “12 YEARS.” Pascal quickly continued down the path of guessing Obama preferred movies by or starring African Americans. “Or the butler. Or think like a man? [sic]”

Rudin’s response: “Ride-along. I bet he likes Kevin Hart.”

Hopefully, future liberal Hollywood power players will understand that free speech is much more important than their reputations. Yes, there is a risk when taking on powerful regimes that it will result in your personal emails being shared with the world — your very racial, very liberal emails — but that is a risk worth taking.

Seth Rogen is a liberal guy, but it’s refreshing to see that even he understands how bizarre it is to curb creative endeavors because ruthless dictators might throw digital temper tantrums. When Hollywood censors itself because anyone with some top-notch hackers behind them might retaliate, then it is a sad day for freedom of speech.

Lindsey Stone: Poster child for an immature nation

If you haven’t heard of Lindsey Stone, she’s the woman who got caught giving the middle finger while mock-screaming to the “Silence and Respect” sign at Arlington National Cemetery. Stone works for a non-profit that assists adults with disabilities — at least for the time being. She’s on unpaid leave while the organization decides her fate.

It took me years to actually visit Arlington because I knew that it would be incredibly hard to control my emotions. As I’ve already disclosed in previous posts, it’s often difficult for me to even thank veterans for their service without getting a lump in my throat or misty eyes. I’ve always been a bit embarrassed by this, which is why it took me longer than it should have to finally pay my respects. Ms. Stone’s behavior, more than anything else, gives me an opportunity to encourage you to make the trip if you ever have the opportunity. It’s worth it.

With that said, perhaps the best piece of I’ve read so far comes Mistress Carrie’s Blog:

[U]p until she posted the photo on her Facebook page, and all hell broke loose, I think Lindsey Stone was one of the luckiest people on the planet.

First, she is a woman, born in the U.S.A., which the odds are against in the grand scheme of things. She could have been born in Afghanistan, China, or in the Congo, where she would have led a very different life. She could have been born in N. Korea, or Iran where I’m sure they do not look kindly at disrespecting their war heroes. Here in the U.S.A.., what she did isn’t a crime, it’s protected by the First Amendment.

Second, in one of the most tragic economies America has ever seen, Lindsey is employed, at what looks like an amazing organization, that is really helping people and changing the world for the better. How many of us can say that about where we work?

And finally Lindsey, judging by her actions alone, has made it through life without knowing anyone in uniform. That has to be the case right? I mean, how could she have family who has served in previous wars and do what she did? Or, how could she know someone now that is currently serving, after 10+ years of war and terror, and make the trip to Arlington and do what she did?She’s never had to say goodbye, or cry herself to sleep worrying. She’s never packed a care package, or written a love letter to someone far away. She’s never had to pray for a Skype call, or be afraid of the doorbell in the middle of the night. She’s never had to see someone she loves go and look evil in the eye, only to come home a different person.

She doesn’t  know anyone buried at Arlington, except for the few that she learned about in school like JFK. She probably doesn’t even know what Section 60 is. …

She’s part of the 99% that don’t have someone they love, in harms way. How amazing for her. Up until a month ago, Lindsey Stone was living the American dream. The dream where Memorial Day and Veterans Day means long weekends off for BBQing, beer drinking, and good deals on new cars.  Up until a month ago, Lindsey Stone wasn’t afraid. Now, as the hours go by, she learns more and more that her “innocent” joke, wasn’t a joke at all. Somehow, she made it through the gates at Arlington, and wasn’t overcome with the sadness and loss that everyone else feels. But, now she feels sadness and loss … and regret too I bet.

Ms. Stone has apologized, although like most apologies these days it seems more like a “sorry I got caught” than a sincere apology. And, it’s based on the idea that simply saying “sorry” when we act like “douchebags” (her words) makes everything okay.

Some of the worst comments I’ve read across the net on this story say, in essence, that we need to stop worshiping the military, which is odd to me coming from people whose cult-like admiration for President Obama knows no bounds. If there is one group on the planet we should cherish, it’s the men and women who safeguard our freedoms. One of the few legitimate functions of the federal government is to provide for the common defense. The world will always be filled with men like the Muslim Brotherhood’s Mohammed Morsi, who seek to make themselves gods among men. In the United States all that’s really asked of the population is to show the soldiers who held the hordes at bay a little respect. For Ms. Stone, even that simple request was too much to ask.

This incident will follow Ms. Stone for years, and while I believe that it is rare that one event should be used to define a person’s entire life (Let he who who is without sin cast the first stone…), we must be held accountable for our actions. When I started this blog years ago I worked at The Heritage Foundation, and I had to be very careful about what I said, knowing full well that how I conducted myself outside of work could be used to damage the reputation of my employer. My new jobs gives me more leeway in regards to what I can say politically, but I still strive to conduct myself in ways that will not cause headaches for my employer. That’s what adults do. Unfortunately, modern America is filled with immature, narcissistic men and women in their late twenties and early thirties who never grew up. There is a difference between being a dad and being a father. Legally, you can be an adult while demonstrating for all the world to see that you are a child. Exhibit A: Ms. Stone.

The great thing about life is that it’s filled with learning experiences. Every moment of every day offers an opportunity to grow as a person and nurture our better angels. It is our choice to take advantage of them or let them go wasted. Hopefully, Ms. Stone will draw upon this moment to mold herself into the better person she was meant to be.

Los Angeles Times: Saboteur of free speech

The Los Angeles Times offered to give Sarah Chayes some ink. She’s a woman who has spent so much time living in a culture of corruption and tyranny that she’s now doing the dirty work for tyrants in major American newspapers. In order to make her life easier overseas, she promotes curbs on the First Amendment here at home. Here, she watches the Taliban blow off a woman’s head with an AK-47, the always-reliable Kalashnikov, and wonders: “Which American can we hold responsible for this travesty?”

Thomas Jefferson once said the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. He was right. However, what he probably never expected was that free speech would be under attack from dhimmitude clowns like Sarah Chayes, individuals who would willingly shackle and gag themselves before bowing to Islamic slave masters, if it provided them with a little temporary security. They would rather appease tyrants than fight for God-given natural rights. But then again, these things are to be expected, since even the Obama administration has repeatedly stood behind the assertion that the current round of Mideast violence is about “a film.”

Read on, as The Los Angeles Times allows itself to become an intellectual saboteur of free speech:

In one of the most famous 1st Amendment cases in U.S. history, Schenck vs. United States, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. established that the right to free speech in the United States is not unlimited. “The most stringent protection,” he wrote on behalf of a unanimous court, “would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic.”

Holmes’ test — that words are not protected if their nature and circumstances create a “clear and present danger” of harm — has since been tightened. But even under the more restrictive current standard, “Innocence of Muslims,” the film whose video trailer indirectly led to the death of U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens among others, is not, arguably, free speech protected under the U.S. Constitution and the values it enshrines.

Who defines what “falsely shouting fire in a theater” is? To Ms. Chayes, it is the imams and clerics, dictators and despots — who stone women, execute gay people, advocate on behalf of “honor killings,” and seek to spread the “behead those who insult Islam” mentality like a virus.

The film “Innocence of Muslims” did not lead to the death of Christopher Stevens in any way. Period. If I want to make a “stick figure Mohammad” flip book tonight and post it online, whereas the “prophet” pole vaults into the arms of his many wives, I have every right to do so. If a Pakistani cleric issues a fatwa on me because I dared to depict Mohammad (again, as a stick figure), and people die because of it, then fault lies with the murderous sub-humans who committed the crime, and the insecure, troubled culture that produced them. Fatwas and death threats aimed at innocent people practicing their right to free speech are symptoms of a disease — a culture that is incompatible with freedom and liberty and the pillars of Western Civilization.

The Los Angeles Times refuses to acknowledge reality, and so they find themselves betraying the keystone to our Constitution.

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 … “If the result is violence, and that violence was intended, then it meets the standard,” [says Anthony Lewis].

While it’s not surprising that The Los Angeles Times thinks it should be the judge, jury and executioner for mind crimes, it’s even more frightening that they would abdicate the setting of the limits of free speech to religious fanatics, whose litmus test for committing violence is whatever they deem it to be at any given moment.

Ms. Chayes ultimately speaks for herself, but her misdiagnosis of what ails the Middle East is shared by many on the left. The current violence in the region, for example, has exposed the Obama administration’s fecklessness in the face of true evil. Its inability to accurately describe the challenges we face overseas is downright scary. However, what is even worse is that the one industry that should be fighting to safeguard our First Amendment rights now lends credence to saboteurs seeking to curtail them.

Judge Mark Martin: Founding Fathers wanted an Islamic Police State

What do you do when a judge tries to reinvent the First Amendment as an edict out of an Iranian mullah’s totalitarian handbook? You expose him. If you haven’t acted accordingly with Judge Mark Martin, do so today. If he’ll tie himself into logical knots to allow atheists to be choked out by inflamed Muslims, what would stop him from doing the same to you?

I normally don’t do much for Halloween, but I might have to reconsider and get dolled up as Zombie Mohammad in light of the recent Pennsylvania court case that determined we no longer have First Amendment rights. Here’s the abridged version: Ernie Perce, an atheist, marches in a parade as zombie Mohammad. An Islamic guy flips out and “allegedly” chokes him along the course (watch the video and decide for yourself). The cops get involved. The case is brought to court, and Judge Mark Martin, a Muslim convert, throws it out because the Founding Fathers apparently wanted an Islamic Police State. He states:

Here in our society, we have a Constitution that gives us many rights, specifically First Amendment rights. It’s unfortunate that some people use the First Amendment to deliberately provoke others. I don’t think that’s what our forefathers intended. I think our forefathers intended to use the First Amendment so we can speak with our mind, not to piss off other people and cultures – which is what you did.

I don’t think you’re aware, Sir, there’s a big difference between how Americans practice Christianity – I understand you’re an atheist – but see Islam is not just a religion. It’s their culture, their culture, their very essence, their very being. They pray five times a day toward Mecca. To be a good Muslim before you die, you have to make a pilgrimage to Mecca, unless you’re otherwise told you cannot because you’re too ill, too elderly, whatever, but you must make the attempt. Their greeting is ‘Salam alaikum, wa-laikum as-Salam,’ uh, ‘May God be with you.’ …

And what you’ve done is, you’ve completely trashed their essence, their being. They find it very, very, very offensive. I’m a Muslim. I find it offensive. I find what’s on the other side of this [sign] very offensive. But you have that right, but you are way outside your bounds of First Amendment rights.

Note to Judge (or was that Imam?) Martin: The Constitution doesn’t give us rights—it merely articulates the inalienable rights granted to us by The Creator. Disingenuous men like you wish our rights came from old pieces of paper so you could burn them and replace them with something else—perhaps Koranic verses that could never be burned, lest Afghan civilians—and eventually Americans—go bonkers and kill people?

Are we in the Twilight Zone? Is Judge Mark Martin taking hallucinogenic drugs, reading the Koran, and then driving into work each morning? The idea that the Founding Fathers were not in favor of “provoking” language is absurd. In fact, one could make the case that provoking totalitarian turds and their advocates at home and abroad is necessary and proper! I’d like to ironically say, “God bless atheist Ernie Perce for “provoking” Judge Mark Martin to show his true colors! Perce’s parade persuaded the enemies of liberty to show themselves, through their actions and words.

Here now, is the text of the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Got that, Judge? No one gets to implement Sharia Law in the United States. If an Army of Zombie Mohammed Atheists want to parade down the street they can do so, and have every right not to have their life or their liberty threatened by uncorked kooks. Citizens and judges who want to turn Pennsylvania into global skid marks like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran (and every other Islamic police state that executes its critics) need to be exposed for patriotic Americans to see.

What relevance did this judge’s lecture on Islamic culture have to do with the case? Nothing. Who cares if a guy walks down the street trashing someone else’s “essence”? What the heck does that even mean? If someone walked down the street with a sign that literally read: “I hate Douglas Ernst’s Essence and damn that bastard to hell,” would that give me the right to choke him out on the street? Of course not. We’re on a very dangerous path when the rule of law rests in the hands of judges like Mark Martin. The future is not bright when Pentagon officials are going to Virginia mosques to apologize for Koran burnings in Afghanistan (the same Korans taken from terrorists using them to scribble personal “Death to America” journal entries before getting shut eye).

Why are news organizations spiking this story in favor of the latest segment on Rick Santorum’s sweater vest collection? It’s a mad world.