Google and Anti-Islam Video

The recently viral video, “Innocence of Muslims,” has challenged free speech on the Internet. The video was produced in the United States, but many around the world have viewed it. The controversial and offensive nature of the video’s content has pressured Google and YouTube to remove the video from the Internet. According to Somini Sengupta, author of “On Web, a Fine Line on Free Speech Across the Globe,” Internet companies have the right to censor their contents, but often try to comply with the laws specific to different countries. Google found that the video did not violate laws within the United States, as its contents did not qualify as hate speech. The video’s contents are covered by the First Amendment. While in some countries, including Libya and Egypt, Google has removed the video due to the violation of laws specific to the country; it has not deemed it necessary to deny its access within the States. 

Shouting Fire Documentary

 Of the four cases presented in the documentary, Shouting Fire, (Ward Churchill, Debbie Almontaser, Chase Harper, and protesters at the 2004 republican convention), the most important is the 2004 Republican national convention protest activity, which included marches, rallies, performances, demonstrations, exhibits, and acts of civil disobedience. The demonstrations occurred in New York City in an effort to protest the nomination of President George W. Bush for the 2004 U.S. presidential election. During this protest, over 1800 individuals were arrested. While 90% of these cases were eventually dropped, this protest speaks to the middle realm of legalism and profligacy in a democratic setting.

“A good index of health of any social institution is its allegiance to the strictures that define this middle realm,” (Kimball). In a democracy, protestors such as the Quran-burners in Florida, who fail to protest in a wise manner, drive us toward totalitarianism on one end of the legal spectrum and imprudent behavior on the other, with an ever-decreasing middle ground to exercise our rights. The Protests of 2004 fell victim to the inopportune moment and circumstance of limited freedom to secure the essential allegiance to the government necessary in a successful democratic setting. “Democracy destroys itself because it abuses its right to freedom and equality. Because it teaches its citizens to consider audacity as a right, lawlessness as a freedom, abrasive speech as equality, and anarchy as progress,” (Isocrates). The Protests of 2004 exemplify a demonstration that crossed the bounds of the middle realm by its taking advantage of the allowance of civil protest. While arrests were excessive, the disruption of the Republican Convention was grounds enough to curb the protest as legitimate State interests were at stake. 

Alvarez vs. United States

In his second term in office, President George Bush passed a law, labeled the Stolen Valor Act, which prevented anyone from falsely claiming service of the military or falsely asserting a military achievement position. Intended to preserve the honor and valor of soldiers who had served in the military, as well as those who have received military honors; violation of the Stolen Valor Act was considered a minor (misdemeanor) offense and was punishable for up to a year in prison.

When introducing himself at a meeting, Alvarez claimed to have been a marine and received the Medal of Honor. Upon his statement, he was arrested. Though he pled guilty to lying about his service, he argued that it was his first amendment right to claim service the military service. Once taken to the Supreme Court, the case found that the Stolen Valor Act was in fact unconstitutional, as it limited the “robust and uninhibited marketplace of ideas.” 

Justice Denied in Missouri

Mark Twain once called free speech the “privilege of the grave.” Nothing more than an empty formality, speech, Twain argued, is not to be regarded seriously as an actual possession. “As an active privilege, it ranks with the privilege of committing murder: we may exercise it if we are willing to take the consequences. Murder is forbidden both in form and in fact; free speech is granted in form but forbidden in fact….Murder is sometimes punished, free speech always.”

Recently in Missouri, two anti-drone protesters, Ton Faust and Brian Terrell, were sentenced to six months in prison and federal probation for five years for trespassing at Whiteman Air Force Base. This base operates predator drones, which are being flown in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The official website for Whiteman Air Force Base states that the base’s mission, as fulfilled by the B-2 drone bombers, is to deliver “Skilled and proud Airmen providing full spectrum, expeditionary, B-2 global strike and combat support capabilities to geographic commanders and the Commander, USSTRATCOM, while supporting Team Whiteman. We kick down doors and kill targets… Weapons on Target, On Time!”

This article covers the story of Ton Faust and Brian Terrell’s conviction, coupled with the humorous approach of Twain’s to free speech in our country. Very interesting article!