"The Innocence of Muslims" vs. Free Speech and the West

So, the discovery of a film mocking the Prophet Mohammed results in riots, protests, and needless, innocent corpses yet again.  We are told that the film-maker has been arrested for potential bail violations and not free speech issues, but the veritable Niagara of condemnation for the film flowing from the mouths of President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton do leave one wondering somewhat.

Contrary to popular belief, the 1st Amendment right to Americans' free speech isn't all encompassing - various case law has restricted it over the years, perhaps the most famous of which is Schenck vs. United States, in which it was established that the 1st Amendment "would not protect a man in falsely shouting 'fire!' in a theater and causing a panic."

This was further tightened in, amongst others, the 1969 case of Brandenburg vs. Ohio, which found that speech which has the intent and the likelihood of inciting imminent violence or lawbreaking can also be limited.

So what was the intent of the person making this film, and should they be allowed to do it?  Well, having sat through all grueling fourteen minutes of the dressing-up-box stupidity (honestly, my Wee Willie Winkie outfit for my primary school play was better), the intent does seem to be to offend, but offence is fair enough, surely? Many of the views espoused in our own "Mother of Parliaments" must offend members on the opposite benches and sections of the public.  Offence itself is not justification for violence or lawbreaking, and that is precisely why the green benches of the House of Commons are historically placed two swords' length apart.

Another major concept of American, Anglospheric, and indeed Commonwealth law is that of the "reasonable man". What should reasonably be expected of a hypothetical person in society who exercises average care, skill and judgement in their conduct?

Well, I like to think I'm a reasonable man. I happen to be a Christian (one of the woolly, C of E ones), and I daily see and hear mocking of my religion, from Radio 4 comedy programmes to tweets from Richard Dawkins.  Very occasionally it irks me; more often than not, it doesn't raise so much as an eyebrow. Dr Dawkins is free to call me “brainwashed”, and I’m free to call him a self-aggrandising, publicity-hungry bitch, who isn’t actually a professor but never bothers to correct anyone on this point.  His followers don’t much like that, though.  But I’m pretty sure they’d stop short of firebombing me.

We were constantly re-assured by left-wing news outlets during the so-called "Arab Spring" that to hold the view that these largely fundamentalist Islamic countries could not handle the concept of Western-style democracy and rule of law was wrong. Most probably racist, and we should jolly well spank ourselves with copies of the New Statesman for this foul thought-crime.

But what have they actually done to prove they can?

Personally, I find it offensive for an American President to apologise for an insulting video to a society which destroyed an embassy, leaving four Americans, including the Ambassador dead.  Which is the greater evil?

Where are the voices of peaceful Muslims?  Where’s the statement from the Muslim Council of Britain urging calm and tolerance of others’ views?  Why is there no-one in power who will spell out the simplicity of the situation: “Yes, you may be offended, but so what?  Be offended.  Nothing happens.  Whatever you believe isn’t harmed by a 15 minute video that a Film Studies student at London Metropolitan University would be embarrassed to hand in.  And if it is, then more fool you for believing it.”

As the French publication “Charlie Hebdo” prints more Mohammed cartoons, and the French pre-emptively run away from their Embassies, it will be interesting to see the reaction.  My guess is that the West will get pretty fed up of having to bite their collective tongues pretty damn soon.

Simon