In a follow-up to yesterday’s post, I offer you this from the Canadian who now inhabits the Live Free or Die state:
On the latter point, after a week and a half of peddling an utterly false narrative of what happened in Libya, the United States government is apparently beginning to discern that there are limits to what even Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Susan Rice can say with a straight face. The official line — that the slaughter of American officials was some sort of improvised movie review that got a little out of hand — is now in the process of modification to something bearing a less patently absurd relationship to what actually happened. That should not make any more forgivable the grotesque damage that the administration has done to the bedrock principle of civilized society: freedom of speech.
Even if this were about a movie, it would not justify the denigration of the First Amendment. That insane, irrational people may react with violence does not mean that one lacks either the moral or the legal right to speak. The Brandenburg/Hess test for incitement to violence, i.e. directed towards or likely to incite imminent lawless action, cannot logically be applied to the actions of crazy people; otherwise, we would have a “whoever gets irrational first, wins” legal system, wherein you can shut down speech with which you disagree by threatening violence. Likewise, it can’t even apply to this situation, wherein people used a movie released months ago to justify a “spontaneous” “‘protest”. That you are morally obligated to kowtow to the frenzy of a mob, rather than tell the mob to grow up, is madness. That our government thinks otherwise is ridiculous and dangerous.
Since this is a health care law and policy blog, I’ll wrap it up with this thought: do you really to put these clowns in charge of your health care?