I am not a huge conspiaracy theory guy, but really, who can look at this without flinching.
The first picture is chilling.
The second picture looks like some screen cap from exactly the people that the Obama administration is apologizing to for our first amendment.
Amazing.
-XC
PS - A parolee isn't allowed to refuse to go talk to the police, so "voluntary" is a red herring.
You realize that the guy is opting to hide his face because he doesn't want to be on film since there are some people that are angry at him, correct? How is any of this chilling? And Obama never apologized for the first amendment, a freaked out embassy staff in Cairo did and the Obama admin then disavowed it."Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind," Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in a Tuesday statement.
Official state department tweet, not a staffer: StateDept @StateDept #SecClinton: The U.S. deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. http://state.gov Look it up on twitter. That is an apology for the first amendment. She even repeats it: amazing. The whole paragraph was Clintonian in its parsing. -XC PS - Much like her belief in her namesake, Hilary dreadfully misreads American history, starting with the debate of Judaism among the founding fathers to the anit-Catholic and anti-Mormon bigotry.
Well, its not really an apology; its a position. It doesn't say "The US thinks that people shouldn't say things of this nature". I think calling it an apology is a bit strong, but I agree that even these words probably didn't need to be said. The right to express oneself is one of the most fundamental human rights, and the US historically has been the most vigorous defender of it. Perhaps a better statement would have read, "Every citizen in the US enjoys the right to say what they like, and the US government has no control over the behavior of the filmmaker." Nothing more on the topic is of relevance.
I'm intrigued, what debate about Judaism are you referencing?
Ah, there was a LOT of debate about what the First Amendment should cover and at one point the FF talked about explicitly calling out Jews as not being subject to special rules and regulations. In the end they decided to just have blanked separation. Same went for speech - it's broad on purpose. Of course we've swerved some, especially around the civil war and WWI, but on the whole the courts have been able to keep the gov't out of speech. Don't even get me started on so-called Hate Speech. My soapbox can only stand so much in one day. -XC