But, then, the Left has been repressing Free Speech in America because of the concerns of foreign crazys for at least the last four years...

...but nobody cared when it was Nakoula Basseley Nakoula.

There wasn't any liberal skin in the game when it was Nakoula Basseley Nakoula.

Who is Nakoula Bassely Nakoula?, you ask.

//The foothold to censorship was established years ago. But Oswalt and his ilk didn’t care about Nakoula Basseley Nakoula. They weren’t screaming about his First Amendment rights when Obama falsely blamed him for a terrorist attack in front of the whole world




They were too worried about the 2012 election to give a damn about free speech.

Now North Korea has successfully proven that the future will not belong to those who slander Kim Jong-un. They didn’t do it by hacking us. They did it by watching how we respond to terrorist threats.

This is the world you’ve made, leftists. Now you don’t like it. If only you were capable of learning something from the experience.//

Nonetheless, blaming free speech was politically the correct thing to do.

Obama lied, someone went to prison for exercising free speech.

Former CIA deputy director Mike Morell, who also served a stint as acting director of Langley, is testifying before House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence today. The hearing focuses on the Obama administration’s response to the September 11, 2012, terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya.

Cutting through all of the back and forth, the most important point is this: The U.S. intelligence community knew right away that al Qaeda was involved in the attack.

“The analysts said from the get-go that al Qaeda was involved in this attack,” Morell said.

The former CIA man was asked why, then, was “al Qaeda” edited out of the administration’s now infamous talking points.

“The only way we knew that anybody who was involved in that attack that night was associated with al Qaeda was from classified sources,” Morell claimed.

Minutes later he reiterated the point: “The only way we knew that some of the people who were involved in the attack that night were associated with al Qaeda was from classified sources.”

According to Morell, if the CIA had included a reference to al Qaeda in the administration’s talking points, then it would have had to declassify that sensitive intelligence.

This is doubtful. The Obama administration could have made a general reference to “al Qaeda” in its earliest explanations of the Benghazi attack without exposing any specific intelligence. It was not a stretch to link al Qaeda to a terrorist attack on the anniversary of September 11, 2001.

The bottom line is that the U.S. intelligence community knew from the “get-go” that al Qaeda was involved in the attack. And the Obama administration’s narrative, at first, excluded al Qaeda entirely. //

They said that if I voted for Mitt Romney, the government would dismantle our right of free speech...

...and they were right!

The Rioter’s Veto - Can violence in the Middle East justify censorship in the United States?

 

On September 6, the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI) signed a contract to buy space for this message from the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA), which had concluded that the First Amendment required it to accept the controversial ad. Less than two weeks later, WMATA declared that AFDI’s advocacy was not constitutionally protected after all, pointing to violent Middle Eastern protests blamed on Innocence of Muslims, an online video mocking the prophet Muhammad.

The idea that riots in other countries justify censorship in the U.S. represents a new form of heckler’s veto, making freedom of speech contingent on the predicted responses of the touchiest listeners anywhere in the world. Such a policy is dangerous to freedom of expression, providing a license to suppress speech deemed provocative, and to public safety, encouraging violence aimed at eliminating offensive messages.
 

WMATA's decision was sensibly overturned by a District Judge, but it shouldn't have been necessary.

It was necessary, however, because the Obama administration and Obama himself had gone to the extra-ordinary length of lying to the American and world public in order to blame free speech in America for violence in Libya. 

Even if it had been true - which it obviously wasn't - that tactic would still have been inexcusable as an effort to trade American freedoms for foreign sensibilities. It has to represent a major blot on Obama's record as steward of the Constitution.