I'm sorry if this argument seems simplistic. It is. But it's essential and is being ignored. Here's the logic:
Egyptian Embassy statement was against hate speech.
Egyptian Embassy was criticizing what certain people had "said" and shown in a movie they made. Because it was against another religion, and it hurt people who believe totally in that religion.
Yet. Romney comes out attacking them.
And. Romney says Obama is attacking "our values."
He means that the Egyptian Embassy attacked our values and Obama caused that, or is responsible for that.
Is he saying no one should criticize hate speech? There can be no "abuse" of it?
That because we love and allow free speech we cannot criticize hate speech? We cannot express our opinion about some particular speech?
Is he saying that he tolerates hate speech to such an extent that he would never speak out against that hate no matter if it stirs up violence and even wars, for instance?
Please continue reading........
In America, we value and protect the right to speak anything virtually.
That does not mean we approve of all speech!
That does not mean we cannot speak against hate speech! Or hate movies or books.
What difference does it make if one is criticizing hate speech or criticizing the speech a president just made?
What is the f'n difference, Mr. Romney?
The Egyptian Embassy did not make a statement against Free Speech. Rather, they complained and decried the particular hatred toward a particular religion in a movie, in "speech."
They did not say there should not be Free Speech. They said speaking so hatefully toward a religion was abusing the value of Free Speech.
There is a difference between saying it is "abuse" and in saying it should not be allowed, or quelled.
They spoke against the content, not the right!
They made a statement against people who "abuse" it by making hate-mongering comments/movies. That's different.
Should Americans not condemn hate speech?
Should we allow hate speech to cause violence and/or wars even, and say nothing? We should go mute or be accused of being against Free Speech?
No. For even while protecting their right to make that speech, we too have a RIGHT to condemn the content of their speech!
a·buse verb (used with object)People such as Terry Jones "pastor" of hate, who promoted this movie on his website, and Morris Sadek"* who caused the movie to be made, they need to be condemned as having abused the right and privilege of Free Speech.
1. to use wrongly or improperly; misuse: to abuse one's authority.
2. to treat in a harmful, injurious, or offensive way: to abuse a horse; to abuse one's eyesight.
3. to speak insultingly, harshly, and unjustly to or about; revile; malign.
I love the value of Free Speech.
I use my Free Speech to say they abused Free Speech by spewing dangerous hurtful hatred of a religion and its peoples.
I'm sorry if this argument seems simplistic. It is. But it's essential.
Because some people just don't get it.
*The US guy who backed this film says he's sorry people died. That he was just trying to show how Christians are being persecuted. Sure. By portraying Muslims as perverted. By thus condemning all Muslims.