This was from July and flew under the radar, but it's totally relevant in the aftermath of the embassy attacks and the "voluntary questioning" of a person who made a film......

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

Leading Sunni Clerics Demand Global Ban on Insults to Islam | CNSNews.com

It has been said that Hillary Clinton signed onto the OIC demand to silence anyone from speaking ill of islam. Whether it is true or not I don't know, but it sure should scare the bejesus out of everyone when you have administration officials trying to silence free speech.

Obama once said that what was wrong with the Constitution was it outlined what the government couldn't do, but not what it could do. That tells me he hates our Constitution and the freedom it affords us.

__________________
Sometimes by losing a battle you find a new way to win the war.

Donald Trump

Do we have anything concrete to back up the claims of the youtube poster?

I tried googling part of the youtuber's comments and got nothing of merit. The first couple of links were to the video itself. The third to somebody's craigslist post,

The chairman was not interested in letting the guy answer the question.
That much was obvious.
The question is so loosely phrased that I don't think it should be answered as "Yes", for the obvious reason that "never" and "any" encompass a LOT of crap.

For example, if a KKK member made comments inciting others to bomb a black church. Or other similar weasely way to try to cover obviously illegal "speech" into a protected status.
While obviously simple criticism should not be made illegal, I can't help but notice that the chairman avoided saying something obvious and specific ("simple criticism") into a more generic form ("speech") ...

IMO, the chairman didn't want this guy to answer the question. Period.
He wanted to grand-stand.



At this stage, the right doesn't even care to TRY to give their made-up b.s. an air of credibility.
No "senior diplomats reportedly said" comment.
It's just "It has been said that ..."

__________________
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln

It's a video of the guy being asked a direct question in a hearing. How the f*ck do you think you can spin this?

"never entertain or advance a proposal that criminalizes speech against any religion?" Answer? Not so sure we would commit to that. How would you answer that question?

I got a crazy idea. How about we push freedom of religion more than freedom to hate religion?

__________________
...

Was the guy allowed to actually answer?

What I saw was the a-hole chairman interrupting before Perez could get even a sentence out.


And as for my answer, I would want to qualify it considering how many people out there are already going to try to misrepresent my answer.
Because even though we DO NOT have any such laws, I have REPEATEDLY seen people on this board pretend we do.
Additionally, I have seen people try to EXEMPT themselves from EXISTING laws which should apply to EITHER "religion" or "non-religious" cases, pretending that just because it's "religion" that automatically gives it special status.

What the question SHOULD have involved is this:
"never entertain or advance a proposal that criminalizes criticism against any religion?"
And my answer would be "yes. I would never entertain or advance such a proposal".

As to the question Perez actually got, I already explained a scenario where that SHOULD BE "no", but of course you don't want to address it.
"never" and "any" are too broad to just reference "speech".


Let's try a different tactic.
Wouldn't "criticism" be a better word to use here?
Do you disagree that the word "speech" is too broad? There are a variety of forms of currently illegal speech.

__________________
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln

You shouldn't need a long answer to a yes or no question. That's pretty much how the Constitution works. Nice to see you want to work in some exceptions though. How obamaish of you.

Most of us can understand complex thoughts.
Most of us can understand that it may be "yes" for some situations, and "no" for other situations.

WHY do you think the chairman was such a pansy about letting Perez finishing???
What was he afraid of?


ROFLMAO!
You think so?
You are doing a poor job of avoiding everything I'm saying, but I'll keep trying.
Do you understand that there are forms of speech that are illegal?
Just because that form of speech could be aimed at a religion DOES NOT suddenly mean it should stop being illegal.


How boring to see you lack the moral fortitude to discuss what the actual exceptions are...

But hey. Maybe you can cower from some other tough questions...
As I pointed out, I would never entertain or advance a proposal that criminalizes criticism against any religion.

Can you elaborate on what you think the significant exception I am setting up with that?

__________________
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln

The fact is religion does have special status per the First amendment. While the judiciary has sought to pervert the plain text into freedom from religion where the sensitivities of the atheists are paramount, the fact is that's not the Constitution.

It does grant "special status".
But NOT to violate the law.

And actually, your comment is a thorough non-sequitur to the actual "question" on the table.


Freedom of religion obviously includes being free from religion.
One cannot claim to have freedom of religion if the government enforces people to follow religious mandates. It's as simple as that.

__________________
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln