01-18-2018 11:02:22 AM -0800
01-09-2018 01:54:15 PM -0800
12-22-2017 09:40:32 AM -0800
06-07-2017 12:17:49 PM -0700
05-09-2017 03:25:43 PM -0700
It looks like you've previously blocked notifications. If you'd like to receive them, please update your browser permissions.
Desktop Notifications are  | 
Get instant alerts on your desktop.
Turn on desktop notifications?
Remind me later.


Free Speech for Pussy Riot, but not for Innocence of Muslims

Michael Filozof writing at the American Thinker this morning:

I noticed an interesting contradiction between the way the U.S. government reacted to the jail sentences handed down to Russian punk activists "Pussy Riot" and the way it responded to the YouTube video "Innocence of Muslims" that has supposedly led to mass riots throughout the Middle East and the murder of the U.S. Ambassador to Libya.

On August 17, Victoria Nuland, spokeswoman for Hillary Clinton's State Department, issued the following press release in response to the two-year prison sentences handed down to Nadezhda Tolokonnikova and Yekaterina Samutsevich for desecrating the altar of a Russian Orthodox Cathedral:

"The United States is concerned about both the verdict and the disproportionate sentences handed down by a Moscow court in the case against the members of the band Pussy Riot and the negative impact on freedom of expression in Russia.

We urge Russian authorities to review this case and ensure that the right to freedom of expression is upheld."

[...]

By contrast, on September 14, Clinton, speaking about the YouTube video "Innocence of Muslims" that allegedly sparked the protests and attacks on U.S. diplomatic posts, sang a very different tune:

"The United States government... absolutely reject[s the] content and message [of the video]... to us, to me personally, this video is disgusting and reprehensible. It appears to have a deeply cynical purpose: to denigrate a great religion and to provoke rage."

Filozof makes note of the hypocrisy:

So. The U.S. government lectures the Russians about "freedom of expression" in defense of freaks who engage in public sex, public vandalism, and the denigration of a "great religion," the Russian Orthodox Church.

But when Americans exercise First Amendment freedoms that Muslims dislike, the Secretary of State reproaches them, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs calls them to encourage them to cease and desist, and federal law enforcement officers haul them in for questioning.

Who's living in the police state now?

Glenn Reynolds is asking the same question.

Also read:

When Is a Religion not a Religion?