General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: "I support Free Speech, but I do not consider _______ Free Speech." [View all]Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Is the belief that the right is infinite in scope (it isn't) and that it comes with no burden of responsible use (it does.) This is a selfish, and frankly childish perception of the notion - I want to do whatever I want and you can't say I shouldn't.
The thing is that this man's freedom of speech is not, and never was in any danger. So when DU - which, I've been told, has absolutely never ever had even the very slightest iota of a miniscule hint of Islamophobia in it, ever, ever, ever, and I'M the bigot for daring to think such a thing, how dare I! - decides that they need to rally around a dehumanizing sack of shit film, in order to "defend" rights that are in no danger... I'm sorry, but that's nothing more than using the first amendment as a smokescreen for what's actually going on.
And yes, this film, this... shining beacon on the hill, this enduring masterpiece and testament to the wonder of the right to free speech... Involved defrauding the actors by misleading them as to what they were putting their names to. That does take it out of the realm of protected speech, just the same as plagiarism and identity theft and other varieties of fraud are not covered - in fact it could be seen as a violation of said rights against the participant in the film, by forcing "speech" into their mouths that was never produced by them at all.
Many DU'ers seem to choose to ignore this though. Why? Like I said, smoke screens. It's not about the first amendment. it's about Du'ers who support the dehumanization of Muslims. They decide to hide behind the bill of rights, to use it as a feel-good cover. Point out what they're doing, and it becomes "GASP! Why do you hate the first amendment?! Why do you hate America?!"
No fucking different than when the right does it, honestly.