The filmmaker of the anti-Islam film lives in the United States. If this is true, then why is our government tracking down any filmmaker for any reason? Let’s rehearse the First Amendment for our government officials:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
In addition to protecting “the free exercise of religion,” even if it’s one religion criticizing another religion, the First Amendment also prohibits our national government from interfering with speech and the press.
Every day in America people attack worldviews they don’t agree with. Some do it with factual statements and reasoned argumentation, and others try to make their case with satire and ridicule. The First Amendment was put into place to protect people from tyrants who would use their power to prohibit speech that was critical of the way the governed.
King James I of England detested the Geneva Bible, first published in 1560, because he believed it questioned the divine right of kings. He did a novel thing. He commissioned a group of scholars to produce a new translation. We know it today as the Authorized Version or more popularly known as the King James Version of the Bible.
Sometimes the best way to deal with a critic is to ignore him. If this anti-Muslim film is so bad, the Muslims should have ignored it or produced an answer to it. Like fascists and tyrants of the past, they use terror to force compliance.
Just because you’re able to shut someone up doesn’t mean that you’ve convinced that person that your position is correct.
There is nothing criminal in producing a film critical of Islam. The real criminals are the ones who killed four United States citizens on United States soil. Our embassies are an extension of the United States. If people attack an embassy, they attack the United States.
Not only has our government attacked the filmmaker but the media, who are protected by the First Amendment have also gotten into the act. For example,
“ABC journalist Christiane Amanpour on Wednesday compared the rioting and murder that followed Middle Eastern anger over an anti-Islamic movie to yelling ‘fire in a crowded theater.’ Regarding filmmaker Sam Bacile and the killing of U.S. ambassador Christopher Stevens in Libya, Amanpour derided, ‘So, now, one has to, really, try to figure out the extremists in this country and the extremists out there who are using this and whipping up hatred.’”
Crying “fire” in a crowded theater is not about inciting people to violence and rioting. No one’s going to shoot up the place if someone shouts “fire.” It’s the trampling that might take place as people race for the exits. The analogy is false.
Neal Boortz writes, “Perhaps Christiane Amanpour should spend more time worrying about a religion that condones this type of violence, then one American exercising his right to free speech.”
It's possible that there's more to this story than meets the eye.
I’ve posted the article “Was the Anti-Muslim Film Actually Produced by Muslims and Blamed on Christians?” on the Political Outcast site.